There were two decisions taken by the Cabinet at the beginning of the legislature. One was to increase the Parliamentary Honorarium (paid to all MPs) from €19,122 to €26,700, and the other was that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries would start retaining their Parliamentary Honorarium on top of their Ministerial salary. Since then, the Honorarium increase has been retracted, and all MPs are still on the €19,122 annual pay. As the AG's report says, these decisions were neither taken transparently nor are they an example of good practice. And that's a big minus for this Government. But in essence, were these decisions in principle correct or not? Let's take a look at the situation, before and after this legislature.
Before a decision taken in the previous legislature, civil servants who were elected as MPs had to choose between retaining their civil service employment and wage and refuse their chair, or leave their employment and get their honorarium and Parliamentary post. This did not make sense. It disacouraged good quality people, who are usually paid higher, from venturing into politics. In the previous legislature therefore, the Government decided that all MPs could retain their job and wage and still receive their honorarium. Not one of the 55 non-Cabinet MPs, neither from the Opposition, protested. Of course, this decision benefitted even PL MPs, who could now keep serving as MEPA Board members and Health Consultants, which in some cases saw an increase in their income of more than €1,200 per week!
This though created a new unjust situation. MPs who were asked to serve as Ministers, still had to refuse their honorarium, and ended up being paid lower than their colleagues who were left on the back-bench. This anomaly was re-dressed by the decision to let the 14 Cabinet members to keep their Parliamentary Honorarium like the other 55 Members of Parliament. This decision was publicly known by the media (MaltaToday had featured a story), and by all MPs (George Vella and Joe Mizzi mention it three times in Parliamentary debates in 2008/2009). And this is the system employed by other similar Parliaments like the United Kingdom. But in Malta, it seems it was fine and just when applied to the 55 MPs, and it's insensitive when applied to the remaining 14 with the most responsible-carrying positions.
So my conclusion is:
(1) The increase in the Parliamentary Honorarium was indeed a very bad decision given the circumstances and the way it was kept hidden. It was also wrong for Ministers to start receiving this increase from their Ministerial budget immediately before other MPs, and not from the House's budgetary estimates. This decision has now been retracted, though its effects on decision-making transparency will still be felt;
(2) The decision for Cabinet members to retain their Parliamentary Honorarium is the logical continuation of the previous decision which leaves civil service employees to keep both their wage and honorarium. For one to be retracted, the other one must too.
The Leader of the Opposition is promising that his Cabinet will restore to the salary paid before this legislature. Since the salary has in fact not changed, this means that they will not get their Parliamentary Honorarium. This will mean that many of his most promising MPs, will end up on a lower wage if they get chosen for a Cabinet post and accept it, then if they are left on the back-bench. Let's take a medical consultant as an example. He's paid €65,409 as a consultant (according to figures I found in the internet), apart from income from private practice. On top of this, he'll get €19,122 as an MP. Now he's both a very good surgeon, and he's performing his duty as an MP, so he highly deserves both. If Labour gets elected and he's to serve as Minister for Health, he's to get the €42,069 Ministerial salary, and refuse both private practice and his Parliamentary Honorarium. Conclusion: if he stays on the back-bench he gets an income close to €100,000, if he accepts to serve as Minister his income will drop to €42,069. So the message here is: if you're a professional, stay out of politics. Yeah, I know politics is a mission and not a money-making career, but in practice, who is ready to halve his income to serve in the most scrutinized position in the country? If for a moment you do away with the socialist "gospel of envy" (apologies to Churchill), which situation do you think makes more sense?
It's a real pity that we have turned this into a political game which is leading into the most illogical situation, because PN didn't have the decency to make the decision in a transparent manner, and PL decided to feed on that inglorious feeling of jealousy.
Joseph Muscat called this salary scandalous. What does he think then about the €95,387 annual salary, €51,588 general expenses allowance, and €304/day of attendance substinence allowance, pocketed by MEPs? Or was that different because he was on the receiving end? And if he really thinks that by retracting this decision (thus saving €267,708 annually), he'll have the money to lower utility rates, then he'd better do his homework again. It is, up to now, his only announced spending-cut policy.
And by the way, just "on the record", €19,122 a year amounts to €368 per week, not €500.
Comments
Post a Comment