Nationalist MPs Jesmond Mugliett and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando have not ruled out voting with the Labour Party on its parliamentary motion to disapprove of “insensitive, arbitrary and non-transparent behaviour” by the Cabinet over pay rises awarded to ministers.
On the other hand, government backbencher Jean-Pierre Farrugia – who had campaigned strongly against the rises in January – explained why he would vote against the motion, tabled in Parliament on Tuesday. When contacted, Mr Mugliett said he would not commit himself on the motion before listening to the government’s explanations.
“I will wait to first discuss this in our parliamentary group,” he said, in a thinly-veiled appeal for the government to bring together its MPs and offer explanations over the mishandled issue of pay rises for ministers.
Meanwhile, Dr Pullicino Orlando, who had been critical about the way the matter was handled, did not take a stand.
When contacted, the pro-divorce campaigner said the referendum was just days away and he was so busy he did not even have the chance to read the motion on pay rises. Dr Farrugia called on Cabinet to resolve the issue.
“The thrust of Labour’s motion is that the Opposition Leader was left out of the equation and not given the raise ministers were given... I thought the emphasis should have been on other matters,” he said.
Dr Farrugia said he understood that a smaller Cabinet deserved a higher salary but the move was still insensitive in light of the recession. “ But if I disagree with the raise, I can’t insist that the Leader of the Opposition should be given the same treatment,” he said.
Although he said it was not his role to suggest amendments to the opposition, he criticised the fact that the motion proposed no remedies on the way forward. “ I have done my bit. So have the other MPs who have not taken a cent. Now, if the Cabinet wants to do likewise it is up to them. But I can’t do more than I’ve done.”
He said the opposition seemed to be saying that a raise was due after all – something he disagreed with.
Asked what the government could do to prevent an embarrassing vote in Parliament over the matter, he said: “ Last January, the Prime Minister went to Cabinet and the parliamentary group to try and reverse as much as could be reversed. He only managed to get his way with the backbench,” he said, hinting the Prime Minister had asked Cabinet to give up more than part of the enhanced honorarium they pocketed.
Asked if the Prime Minister should try again, he said: “ It’s up to him. The ball is in Cabinet’s court, basically. Who am I to tell the Prime Minister what to do? He should see for himself. Obviously, there will be political repercussions. If it is not going to be reversed or made more palatable to the electorate, there will be serious repercussions,” he said, adding this was not simply a matter of winning elections but about how politicians, particularly Cabinet, were perceived.