The need for new ideas

As a nation, we have to look for new ideas in the way we do things. For many years we have been hearing about reform and changes. Given the current situation, which is anything but ideal, it seems that we have been taken for a very long ride.

One crisis that we are facing is that in public finance. Even though we were told that this sector was on a "sound footing", government projections went haywire and we are definitely facing a crisis. The situation is so dire that the government is consoling itself by saying that last year's deficit has not been as large as predicted in November, even though it is way off the 2003 projections.

This is yet another missed target by the Nationalist government.

Nevertheless, even though the situation needs to be exposed, criticism alone will get us nowhere. The country needs fresh ideas and everybody must give her and his contribution.

I will put forward one particular suggestion today.

We all agree that education is a need in which we have to invest heavily. Education not only makes us better people, but it also translates itself into a competitive advantage to attract new investment and create new opportunities for the country. Each and every government seeks to improve the education system.

Many times, millions of liri are spent to build new schools. These schools are a need but could these millions be invested better in students rather than new premises?

At the same time, is not a better environment necessary for better education?

This is the dilemma I discussed some time ago with my good friend Andrew Miller, a British Labour MP who spent a substantial part of his childhood in Malta. Mr Miller was telling me how the British government was concerned that a substantial part of the education funds was being spent on buildings rather than on students.

Recently, a pilot project was set up, in which he was directly involved. The government experimented with leasing a school instead of building one. The concept is similar to that of car leasing.

The authorities, together with teachers, parents and students came up with the design of a new school. Everybody gave an input and the final design was subject to approval by all the stakeholders.

A tender was issued and different consortia bid to build and equip the school at their own cost on land supplied by the government. The different consortia would specify the amount they would be requesting for leasing on a definite contract.

The winning consortium was obliged to carry out regular maintenance of the place together with an annual upgrade. In other words, the children would be getting an almost-new school each year. Does such an arrangement make financial sense?

The way the Brits worked it out it did. The amount which would have been forked out to build the school was practically the same that the authorities had to pay for leasing the school for a 25-year period. The advantage lies in the cashflow since the authorities can use the money to invest in student and teacher development rather than in bricks.

This is one idea that could be used in a situation like ours.