Editorial

It's a shame that the Prime Minister decided to knock the stipends' debate on the head by announcing "once and for all" that the system would remain unchanged. Lawrence Gonzi's explanation for the stand was that stipends are an effective way of encouraging students to further their studies, which is necessary to bring the percentage of Maltese in tertiary education up to the EU-imposed target of 85 per cent. He made a political statement too; saying he had always refused suggestions to reduce stipends in order to decrease the deficit because he felt they were an essential investment in education.

It is questionable whether either of these statements stands up to scrutiny. On the first; a student should take the decision to further his or her studies not because there is financial comfort in doing so, but because of a desire and passion to pursue excellence in a particular subject. Yes, there should be the opportunity for everyone to do this, but that is not the same thing as saying the system should remain unchanged. And an element of sacrifice may actually be a worthy motivator.

On the second; who is asking for a review of the stipend system to improve the deficit?

Certainly not the University rector, who was the first to raise the subject earlier this year. Juanito Camilleri, whose invaluable experience in private industry should not be allowed to go to waste, said students should be given a choice to either pay back their stipend after graduation or benefit from tax cuts instead of receiving the €84 per month grant.

He argued that those who did not want it would benefit once they entered the working world and those who did need it, perhaps because their families are not well off enough to support them, would pay it back when - this is the crucial point - they were earning enough to do so.

Nor did the former University rector mention the deficit. Fr Peter Serracino Inglott said the system could be restructured in a more transparent manner which would also result in more income for the University: by charging full fees for courses and giving full grants and stipends to Maltese residents. This would mean students from abroad would pump more money into the institution, he maintained; on the assumption, of course, that they are not put off by the new cost.

Even the Central Bank governor - the most likely person to talk about the country's finances after the Finance Minister - failed to mention the deficit. Michael Bonello backed Prof. Camilleri's suggestion because, he said, it was based on the principle of solidarity since it would ensure that students for years to come would be able to obtain assistance to go to University.

The fact that these learned people, along with others no doubt, have a number of worthy suggestions is sufficient reason to hold a debate. But it is not the only one.

When the main student bodies met for a discussion earlier this month, the only items that seemed to concern them were parking facilities - a topic many students abroad would not be able to comprehend, since few have the luxury of a car - and condom machines on campus.

If this is not enough, then the realisation that stipends cost the taxpayer over €20 million a year should be, especially since without redemption they are being paid to people who generally live with their parents, again unlike the majority of foreign students who go to great expense to fund food, drink and a roof over their head.

And since Dr Gonzi mentioned it, yes, reforming the system could well reduce the deficit. There is certainly nothing wrong with doing that.