It was not just the pressure exercised on the Cabinet by Jean Pierre Farrugia that brought about a partial U-turn in Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi’s determined and absolute position on the hike in ministerial emoluments he and his peers arbitrarily decided upon in May, 2008. People’s power came into it as well.

Farrugia, who has made himself a credit to what should be the ethos of government backbenchers, held the Power of One. That is a formidable strength, even in a context where a government does not have a one-seat majority. The strength is moral.

The Nationalist MP deserves admiration not because he was a threat to the stability of the government. He was not. He made it amply clear that he would not destabilise the government to whose part he belongs.

But he externalised his dissatisfaction with a number of issues which the Prime Minister, a man changed almost beyond recognition, had chosen to put on the political agenda.

One of them was the appointment of a number of his backbenchers to the hitherto unheard of role of parliamentary assistant.

There is no provision for such a post in the Constitution. Nor were there funds voted to pay them at the time Gonzi came up with his brainwave, clearly intended to still angry rumblings in the ranks.

Thereby, as pointed out by Farrugia, only five unannointed MPs were left on the government backbench. Actually, some of them were also given tit-bits to keep them happy. Farrugia did not accept any. He retained the right to be a faithful backbencher, acting the role properly by voting with his side but criticising where he felt he should do that.

He certainly criticised the quantum of the increases dished out by the Prime Minister to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and later, when the cat was well and truly out of the bag, to all MPs.

Not to put too fine a point on it Farrugia was disgusted. He said he would not vote for the increases if they came up before the House.

Actually, through political sleight of hand, they did not. But were there to be an occasion when Farrugia had to be true to his word, that would have been on a money bill – a negative vote on that would mean no confidence in the government.

The MP made his mark with the Power of One shored up by integrity. But so did myriad others, including fellow seasoned Nationalists.

There was practically total condemnation of the decision effectively taken by the Prime Minister. He has admitted he is politically responsible, instructing ministers and parliamentary secretaries to refund the additional MP’s honorarium they had given themselves.

Actually that refund, calculated before tax, should amount to some €47,000 – an MP’s pay for two-and-half years – and not €19,000 as bandied about.

Gonzi said he would be making proposals re MPs’ pay, to be discussed by the House Business Committee. Sadly, he just cannot get this issue right. His argument that MPs employed as consultants with the government still get their work salary does not hold water.

That practice, if I recall correctly, also linked to consultants’ lecturing at the University, has been around for years. Nor does the reference to MPs who are employed by the government now (since 2003) being able to retain their job pass muster.

That simply put, MPs on par with workers in the private sector who could hold their job if elected to the House. Gonzi’s reasoning that ministers and parliamentary secretaries have to act as MPs in their constituency and also attend House sitting is, frankly, ludicrous.

Imagine a minister not being obliged to attend House sittings!

As for work in the constituency, backbench MPs plough a solitary furrow, aided by volunteers or, if they are well heeled, by paid private assistants.

In contrast, ministers and parliamentary secretaries are aided on a daily basis by their secretariat, called ‘private’ but paid by the taxpayer.

All that aside, what the Prime Minister refuses to act upon was people’s dissatisfaction with the Cabinet members and, when that is the case, other MPs setting their own pay and conditions.

In his statement on Wednesday he acknowledged that the time should come when these are set by an independent body. Good thinking – but, why not implement that now? Why refer the issue to the House Business Committee?

If it does go there, the outcome is predictable – Nationalist members will accept, without much change, what the Prime Mister puts before them. They should not, and I hope the opposition members will not.

The committee should, as a second best option, set MPs’ pay to include a sensible increase, but recommend that the increase be only implemented when economic conditions improve, to show solidarity with a citizenry wracked by rising prices, which are set to accelerate this year.

That still leaves the first option – to appoint an independent review body – in the Prime Minister’s lap. He should be pressed to exercise it.

Further on, he has made it clear that his decision to give ministers and parliamentary secretaries an MP’s honorarium, once it is agreed upon in the Business Committee, is irrevocable.

That continues to reveal that Gonzi has not really understood the people’s mood and concern. He is using a stratagem on grounds which, as indicated above, do not hold water.

What would hold is the appointment of an independent body to review all parliamentary pay through a more generous link with Scale 1 of the Civil Service, and to recommend when the proposals could be implemented. Which, most certainly, is not now.

If the Prime Minister does not know that, he is truly out of touch with what people are going through. It would be a pity if Farrugia and those who, like him, meet people in their homes, do not continue to describe today’s social reality to him.