Updated - Adds comments by Alfred Sant

Finance Minister Tonio Fenech insisted today that the government was right to decide in 2008 to give a raise to ministers because at the time the economy was doing well.

Austerity in the world came about two years later, he said.

Mr Fenech was speaking during the second day of debate on an Opposition motion condemning the government for having given its ministers a raise and not informing the House about it. It also criticises the government for not giving the raise to the Leader of the Opposition, when it had decided to do so.

Mr Fenech said that in the last legislature (before 2008) public sector salaries had been adjusted in a substantial manner. The government kept its own ministers to the end.

It was hypocritical for the opposition to have recommended the creation of a commission to decide on salaries to come into force after the next election - when the PL hoped it would be in government.

The government would have done a disservice to politicians if pay was not adjusted. It would effectively have told people not to stand for elections.

The Opposition had asked where the funds were coming from.

Yes, after the election, the prime minister reduced the size of the Cabinet. Costs were lower because there were five fewer ministers  and their related secretariats and office. That means a saving of €1.5m per year.

Perhaps there was need for new structures to decide on such increases, but to date such increases were always decided by the Cabinet, as was the case of all the Civil Service. And none of the increases were announced in Parliament.

The decision was not hidden and ministers disclosed their income every year. It was decided that ministers' salaries and the honoraria would be issued through the ministries only to have one office responsible.

The argument, Mr Fenech said, whether the country was to pay adequate compensation to attract the best people to Parliament.

The ministers should not be made out to be a gang of thieves. They were not stealing anything, Mr Fenech said. The government was working hard for better conditions for families in what had now become a difficult economic scenario. People only needed to compare the situation here with the situation in, say Greece or Spain.

Earlier in today's debate, Anglu Farrugia, deputy leader of the opposition, said the opposition motion was about making a choice between what is good and what was bad.

The administration of public funds had to be approved in Parliament, but the raise given to the ministers was given secretly and no funds were allocated to it by Parliament. Indeed, the decision was taken even before Parliament was convened after the 2008 general election.

The government was now trying to justify the unjustifiable, Dr Farrugia said.

For the Opposition, however, the country had much higher priorities than raising ministers' pay.

Dr Farrugia insisted that MPs should be allowed to vote according to their conscience.

He also called on the Government to take up the Opposition's suggestion for the setting up a commission to decide on the compensation given to political office holders, as from the next legislature. This proposal was logical, he said, and it was a disgrace that the government had rejected it.

All MPs, Dr Farrugia said, should vote for the opposition motion. They should push the clock back and have the funds refunded and donated to charity.

ZAMMIT DIMECH: OPPOSITION PLAYING TO PEOPLE'S EMOTIONS

Nationalist MP and former minister Francis Zammit Dimech said the Opposition was playing to the people's emotions. The Opposition, he said, needed to be constructive and credible rather than seeking short-term political advantage.

How could the Opposition present a motion criticising the government for giving a raise to its ministers, when the motion was motivated, for the main part, on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had not been given the raise?

The Opposition was now saying it would amend the motion and remove references to the Leader of the Opposition. This meant that the Opposition would remove the reasons which had motivated its motion. This was childish.

It had been repeatedly shown, Dr Zammit Dimech said, that the Opposition knew about the ministerial raise. Joe Mizzi and George Vella were among those who spoke about it in Parliament in the past. So why had the issue had been raised now.

Ministers had two separate roles, as ministers and MPs, and should be given their two pays. What had been done was belated and in line also with the practice abroad, Dr Zammit Dimech said.

For the future, despite the Opposition having known of the government decision in this case, the government should engage better with all MPs especially in matters which involved them all.

The government needed to have more effective and consistent communication, on this and other subjects too. Indeed, there was a wide gulf between the hard and effective work being done by the government, and what the people were shown.

There was also need to ensure that MPs were given the tools to ensure that their work, in the House and their constituencies, was more effective.

ALFRED SANT: BAD FAITH BY THE GOVERNMENT

Alfred Sant (PL) said the way the government had given the raise to its ministers was shameful. Politics was aimed at boosting the common good, not personal interests. The way the government had handled the issue made the people perceive politicians as being fat cats when MPs had not been given any raise at all.

People did not go into politics to make money but to serve the people. Obviously, ministers' pay should not be inadequate and should reflect the importance of the office, but there should always be recognition that public service was different to working in the private sector where people sought to maximise their income.

Ministers should defend their decisions rather than hide them, as was done in this case, Dr Sant said.

Democracy was about contrasts and controversies, but there was also need for good faith by all sides. That hinged on respect to the institutions, not least Parliament. Alas, in Malta, Parliament had become a rubber stamp except in particular circumstances such as in 1998 when in a narrow majority, an MP took a position against the government.

Ordinarily,  the executive should be at the service of parliament, not the other way around. The executive needed to be transparent and accountable to the House, and hence, the taxpayers.

In Malta, ministers were enjoying a considerable pay rise while thousands of families could not make ends meet. This discredited the ministers themselves, but also parliamentary democracy.

Dr Sant said he was personally offended when the Prime Minister tried to justify the raise by making comparisons with the income of other MPs who are not ministers. He had acted like a shop steward and ignored to ideal of public service. What this had shown was greed.

Dr Sant insisted that ministers' honoraria should have been paid from parliamentary funds and such outlay should have been approved by parliament.

The fact that the government first decided to also raise honoraria for all MPs, and then withdrew the decision, was ridiculous in the manner how matters were handled. Ministers were even made to refund the increase in the honoraria which they had been given. 

Even the Speaker had not known what was happening.

How could this government review COLA, as requested by the EU, when it kept its own substantial raise, hidden?

The Cabinet, he said, should no longer be responsible for increases givent o its own members.

JOE MIZZI: MINISTERS SHOULD HAVE RESIGNED

Labour MP Joe Mizzi hit out at the government for using ministerial funds to give ministers their honoraria.

He insisted that he never agreed to any increase given to the ministers. Indeed, it was not the right time to give a raise to ministers when the people were struggling.

That the honoraria was issued through ministries was a way how this issue was hidden. The ministerial declarations of assets were issued months late and the Opposition, therefore, could not know about the double pay being given to ministers.

None of the ministers ever spoke about the raise, Mr Mizzi said. Further to the honoraria which they started being given in 2008, the ministers had also started being given a duty allowance equivalent to 20% of their pay, and an allowance for stationery of €1,600.

In all, ministers took an increase of €658 per week.

Had the ministers wanted to follow House of Commons practice, they would have resigned after this secret increase was revealed.

Was this increase tax free? If it was, then the increase was actually €708, which was more than many people received in a month.

At the end of his speech Mr Mizzi moved an amendment to the Opposition's motion deleting references to the fact that the raise had not been given to the Leader of the Opposition, although it was being given to the ministers.

The Prime Minister's speech is being reported separately.