Political parties – whether in government or in opposition and, especially, in the run-up to a general election – continue to chant the same mantra: free healthcare and free education.

That has been a rallying cry and a vote-catcher ever since Malta established its roots as a welfare State. Yet the ‘free’ attributive is anything but. Because while it is true that no Maltese national queues up at a cash point to purchase State-provided healthcare and education, these services are supported by citizens’ direct and indirect tax contributions.

This can be extended further to cover any State-provided service. Anything from the infrastructure to central and local government, security, investments, various projects and the public service itself are all largely paid for through taxpayers’ money. And that is the government’s main responsibility – to manage public funds in a manner that ensures value for money, good governance, equality of treatment in respect to contractors, sound financial management and transparency, as endorsed by public procurement regulations at both national and EU level.

Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela said in Parliament he finds no issue with the Auditor General investigating a direct order worth €880,000 given by his ministry for the replacement of IT wiring and infrastructure at Corradino Correctional Facility.

There are two coincidences here. First, prison was rapped by the National Audit Office in its public accounts report for 2015, published last November, for various shortcomings related to procurement. Secondly, the same company awarded the direct order for IT wiring and infrastructure had also been given a direct order, amounting to €35,600, to provide interrogation recording equipment in eight police stations.

To misquote George Orwell, all direct orders are equal but some can be more evil than others. Public procurement principles and procedures allow the government to purchase goods and services through various competitive tendering tools, all with the main aim of sourcing products and services from the best suppliers at prices that reflect true market conditions.

These tools include departmental contracts, tenders, restricted procedure, requests for proposals, negotiated contracts and direct orders. The latter can only be awarded in ‘exceptional circumstances’ – such as urgency, continuity of service or the nature of the services and goods being procured – and only with the prior written approval of the minister or a delegated authority.

Direct orders – which can amount to millions of euros – have always been used and abused by every administration. To mention just two examples: former Nationalist transport minister Austin Gatt had awarded direct orders to another Nationalist candidate in 2009 and claims surfaced last January that an Education Minister’s canvasser, now being investigated in connection with fraud and corruption allegations at the Foundation for Tomorrow’s Schools, issued direct orders on behalf of the same foundation three months before actually joining the entity.

As a financial tool, direct orders should be used in a responsible manner and only when truly necessary because, like any other government procurement tool, they are a means to the end of effectively managing public funds. It is useless for a minister to give the necessary details in Parliament after the direct order deed has been done or to say s/he is comfortable with an audit. Transparency in the use of direct orders should be at the outset.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.