It looks as if there are more episodes yet to come to the saga over the rise in the parliamentary honorarium than the people had expected. And what is one to make of the adjournment of Wednesday’s parliamentary sitting for lack of quorum? Most would have thought that, following the outrage over the way the government mishandled the rise, the people’s representatives would do their best to repair the damage caused to their image. But, on the face of it, it seems quite a number of them do not care all that much about this.

Of course, there are many times when members from both sides are unable to attend parliamentary sittings because they are abroad on government or parliamentary business or because they may have other political or personal commitments they could not possibly miss. Other members may also be taking part in House committee meetings. Even so, despite all this, and irrespective of what happens in other Parliaments abroad, it is simply unacceptable for a parliamentary sitting to be postponed for lack of quorum.

Again, most would have hoped that, following the widespread anger over the mishandling of the pay rise, the two parties would come round to find a way of solving the matter in the shortest time possible. The outcome of their first meeting in the House Business Committee suggests it is most unlikely the matter will be resolved any time soon. The issue was referred to the committee at the peak of the controversy when the government backed down and asked ministers and parliamentary secretaries to refund the rise they had been given in the honorarium, which was paid to them as from 2008, that is, just after the last general election.

The Labour Party is proposing the setting up of a permanent commission to decide on all salaries, including those of the President, the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. The party also feels that, while Cabinet members deserve adequate remuneration (and rightly so), they should not receive a parliamentary honorarium as well. And, in any case, this was not the right time for any increases.

While it was first thought from reports of the first meeting the two sides could make headway, it later transpired the government was not at all in agreement with Labour’s proposals.

It was, in fact, made clear the government members had a “negative” initial reaction to the ideas “as proposed” by the opposition. There was also no agreement on the remit of such a body either. The public was only partially satisfied when the government decided to make the ministers and parliamentary secretaries refund the rise, which was given, it must be added, ahead of the arrangements that had yet to be made for the increase to be given to the rest of the MPs. Partially because the U-turn made by the government does not remove the harm the mishandling of the affair has done to the image of the people’s representatives. The image will have to be repaired by the MPs themselves, not by absenting from parliamentary sittings, but through their commitment to their duties in and out of the House. Having a new Parliament building but retaining old antics will not mean much.

The two parties have now been squabbling over the issue for far too long. It is unseemly to unnecessarily prolong it, more so when there are so many other burning matters that need to be tackled.