The MP’s honoraria issue seems to be dominating the news at this point in time, though, surely, not taking first place in the charts from BWSC in the long run. It is shrouded in mystery, with us citizens wondering just what went on. Is it a Christmas present, being announced when it was?
It has emerged the Cabinet approved the increase way back in 2008. This increase has not been given yet. We commoners only became aware of this following a reply to a parliamentary question given by the Minister of Finance.
The Leader of the Opposition also claims this is when the Cabinet’s decision became known to him. Something very difficult to believe in this small island of others.
A range of MPs across the House divide are giving different versions of events. We have a number of Labour members who say they were aware and there were “informal” discussions. Some Nationalist MPs claim they were not in the know, certainly not officially. Whatever the truth, there seems once again to be a lack of communication, something which has become perennial with this government.
The Cabinet’s decision for an increase in honoraria should have been made known to Parliament or the appropriate Committee of the House at the time it was taken or, at least, it should have been officially communicated to the Leader of the Opposition. The government should not have waited for a PQ to reveal it.
But let’s now move on to the merits and the nitty-gritty of the issue. Many have criticised the Cabinet for giving themselves a double pay; that is their ministerial salary and their parliamentary honorarium.
This argument should be dismissed immediately. Ministers are MPs and there is no reason why they should not be paid as much as any other MP. Their salary is another matter.
They are not allowed to retain employment or practise a profession, an activity which very often would render much more than a ministerial salary.
Accordingly, it is only fair they receive both their salary and their honorarium.
As for the increase in honoraria, we have learnt there are MPs, particularly from the opposition side, who are unable to continue with their normal occupation due to commitments in their public life. A sole income of €27,000 is no big deal in today’s world and these MPs need it. Their office in itself requires certain expenses, such as many presents, wedding and otherwise, which ordinary citizens would not have to incur. Whether or not the increase is accepted or not is up to each individual but the opposition should not use this increase to score cheap political points.
Should an increase have been given to parliamentarians in the first place? We are told there has been no increase for the last 10 years.
The government found it necessary to give such an increase immediately after the last general election, which is an appropriate time, after all.
It came at a time, however, when the world was moving into a financial crisis, as a result of which ministerial salaries in a number of countries were frozen and those of public officials even reduced. An increase in MPs’ salaries might have jarred then. Perhaps that is why this was announced some two-and-a-half years later, even if flushed out by a PQ, when Malta’s economy is recovering, albeit slowly, and, in any case, due to the wise policies of our banks and the prudent measure taken by the government, we were spared the brunt throughout.
Given normal circumstances, I believe the increase was due. But is it deserved all round? It must be tied to the responsible and dedicated service MPs are expected to give. There has been a discussion on attendance in Parliament, both in regularity and punctuality, such as Question Time. This point is certainly valid. Members might also be taken up by a House Committee session rather than attending the plenary one, which is all well and good.
An increase in honoraria should, however, be accompanied by more respect for MPs from the state in the form of providing adequate space, staff and other facilities to do their job properly and efficiently. I have written on more than one occasion about this. Perhaps the new Parliament at City Gate will provide such. We’ll have to wait and see.
Another consideration is whether members should be full time. This is a mute point given the size of our country and the fact that the House normally (and I stress “normally”) only meets three evenings a week. Perhaps this is going too far. Let us reform and arrange things on the present basis of part-timers, at least for the time being.
A very Happy Christmas to all! I hope we will all enjoy it in peace and serenity, away from acrimonious and sometimes tedious politics.