Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando declared in Parliament today that he had intended to vote with the Opposition on its motion condemning the raise in ministerial pay, but would be voting with the government in order to give a chance for matters to move forward as suggested by the Prime Minister.

In a declaration in Parliament, Dr Pullicino Orlando said the Prime minister had admitted that the situation was embarrassing for the House as a whole.

He said he had intended to vote with the Opposition to reflect popular sentiment.

However in view of the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister, suggesting the adoption of the House of Commons model on the pay of ministers and MPs, he had decided to give a chance for the country to move forward in a transparent manner.

Meanwhile, Nationalist MP Jesmond Mugliett said he was voting with the government so as not to bring about instability at a historic time when Parliament was in the process of adopting divorce legislation.

In a written declaration issued before the vote was taken in Parliament, the former minister said that while he disagreed with the manner how the government had handled the way ministers were granted the MPs' honoraria along with their ministerial salary, he would vote against the Opposition motion so as not to bring about instability at a historic time in Parliament when it was in the process of adopting divorce legislation borne out of coalition of different ideas.

"For me this is a big moment in Parliamentary democracy and I feel that a negative vote will remove this tranquillity of a coalition of ideas in Parliament that such a time requires," he said.

Mr Mugliett said he still had unanswered questions about ministerial pay.

The issue, he said, was characterised by lack of transparency and MPs had been ridiculed.

It was sad that the two parties were not capable of agreeing on a mechanism on the pay of ministers and MPs.

Mr Mugliett said that there were two aspects to the ministerial pay issue that had not yet been explained by the government

The first was about how the government decision was not communicated to the people, the leader of the opposition and MPs.

It had been said that the Speaker (of the time) was meant to have done this, but because of the circumstances and the confusion in the leadership of the PL this did not happen.

"I am still not convinced by this part of the story and I think the government has the responsibility to clarify this lack of communication so as not to repeat the same mistake."

The second aspect was what the Prime Minister told the parliamentary group that there was an administrative error in the way the matter was handled.

"As head of cabinet, the Prime Minister should explain and say what steps were taken against the person responsible."

Mr Mugliett said he did not agree with the justifications brought forward in the past and during the debate that money was still being saved in spite of the increases because there was a smaller cabinet.

This was an insult to those who served as ministers or parliamentary secretaries in the past on a relatively low salary.

The Cabinet, he said, should not be judged on the number of members but on its effectiveness.

He described today's vote as superfluous because the motion was not intended to change anything and was just an affirmation of the public criticism that was already well known and which the government had noted.

Dr Gonzi's amendment was then approved by the House with 35 in favour and 34 against. The Opposition motion was defeated by the same margin.

(See separate stories on the debate in the House).