The best way to make a difficult problem worse is not to acknowledge it and look the other way. That is what is happening with our university, albeit in the context of relative progress in the general state of the education sector. We still have unacceptably high absolute and relative numbers when it comes to students passing their 16th year without acquiring at a least a basic level of literacy and numeracy. There has to be something fundamentally missing in this regard.

I remember the Labour government years of the 1980s when Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, a very well-prepared shadow minister of education, used to observe this situation very forcefully. Nearly three decades later we have had five other ministers of education, including Dr Mifsud Bonnici himself, Michael Falzon, Louis Galea, Evarist Barolo and now Dolores Cristina.

All of them have been among the best members in their respective Cabinets. Still, the problem of illiteracy and inadequate numeracy has barely diminished. Another problem is present in the number of students who leave school once they have reached the compulsory age (16). Of those who sit for secondary qualifications, not nearly enough pass, particularly from among the government schools and colleges, notwithstanding the impressive investment that has taken place in that sub-sector.

The number of students going on to read for a degree at the university has grown exponentially since the change of government in May 1987, and vocational education has also expanded massively with the setting up of the MCAST colleges, although dismantling the trade schools has not necessarily been a good thing in so far as a proportion of students are concerned.

It is also uncertain whether the quality of various parts of tertiary education has risen commensurately with the sharp advance in numbers. All of that is debatable. What is not debatable, although the government is looking the other way, is the fact that there remain serious gaps in the university set-up.

A university is not a production line churning out graduates of good, at times not so good standard. A major objective of having a well-founded university is for it to promote creativity and to provide good research facilities, preferably in close collaboration with the forward-looking segments of the economy. This is essential if the university is to make a meaningful contribution to the development of innovation in the economy.

Innovation is key to economic growth, which depends on investment. Sustainable investment has to take place in all the promising sectors of the economy, but particularly in those which are forward looking and can incorporate technology to make them able to compete in tomorrow’s world. The university has been focusing on including post-graduate courses in the spectrum that it offers. That is patently not enough. Its own lecturing staff and post-graduate candidates have to have proper facilities that enable them to carry out research conducive to innovation.

We have it on the best authority that such facilities practically do not exist. Michael Bonello, the Governor of the Central Bank, touched on this and other points related to the university. He suggested that the stipends structure might be looked into to link it to ability to pay, thereby to release financial resources that could be ploughed back into the university. Few, the government least of all, bothered to reflect on the far-sighted wisdom of the Governor, so concerned with sustainability.

Another authoritative source spoke up, in the person of the University Rector, no less. In a thoughtful study provocatively entitled 2020 Vision or Optical Illusion, Prof. Juanito Camilleri addressed the issue of how the university should be financed, concluding that fees for courses should be considered. He argued his point succinctly, pointing out among other things that the university was short of financial resources to finance adequate research and ensure proper provision for the library.

Prof. Camilleri, like Mr Bonello, could not be more distant from partisan politics. He was giving the country the benefit of his academic experience. Yet the government did not acknowledge his good sense in at least externalising a real problem. As in the case of the Governor, his careful remarks were greeted with frowns, rather than smiles.

The problem, of course, did not go away thereby. A third voice was raised to remind us of that. The Times reported as follows on Monday, under the heading “No money for research Academics at the university are unable to pursue research at a higher level because of lack of funding. The newspaper was reporting Matthew Montebello, president of Umasa (University of Malta Academic Staff Association).

The Times also sought the opinion of Roderick Chalmers. In 2004 he had headed the group which had come out with a report on financing higher education. Six years on he was compelled to say “the financial issue remains a burning one”. He too reiterated cogent reasons why a review of university students and other financing has to take place.

There is no sign of the decision makers listening. Meanwhile, research suffers and thereby innovation too suffers. It is left to a handful of existing manufacturers to carry out research. Small wonder that we lag behind most other comparable countries in the technological innovation stakes. The political class should not need its economic advisers to tell them that those that suffer will be tertiary education and economic growth.