This paper’s editorial (Implementing proposals, TMID, 27 September), presented a very serious argument, stating (in my words) that serious politicians cannot simply criticise, they most propose alternatives and state how they will be implemented and financed. I fully subscribe to this argument. It is a view that I, and the political party I work within, stick to religiously.

It is for this reason that I was quite taken aback when this same editorial criticised AD for making proposals for the budget without stating where the government should get the money from. Quite the reverse – not only did we publish and cost each and every proposal, but we also stated how these proposals are affordable.

The proposals this editorial was referring to are two out of a total of 14. The first proposal referred to is the introduction of an additional children’s allowance of Lm160 per annum for each and every child up to age 16. The second is a proposal to double maternity leave from 13 weeks to 26 weeks, and have government finance the increase by paying a flat allowance of Lm70 per week.

I will not discuss the merit of the proposals – the editor was kind enough to agree to them. All I will say is that both these proposals will make a significant difference in the lives of the sector of society that (at least in our opinion) is most deserving of assistance i.e. families raising children. We have been proposing such measures for three years and the government has now finally decided to listen. In this case, “late” is far better than “never”.

The challenge AD faces drawing up its budget proposals is to cost each and every proposal and state how these are to be financed. To establish this one needs to know how much funds are available for new programmes and incentives. Last year, during the pre-budget document, the government stated that the “extra” money available was Lm8 million. This amount “miraculously” became Lm18 million bang on budget day. It was evident, at least to me, that the pre-budget exercise had been, to some extent, deceptive.

This year, to my surprise, the pre-budget document did not even indicate what additional funds will be available. I was even more surprised that the media did not notice or question this. As far as I am concerned, a pre-budget document that does not indicate what additional funds are available should be called a “wish list”. Last Tuesday on NET TV, I challenged Tonio Fenech to state what the additional funds were. He grinned and told me to wait till budget day. It seems we have not fully abolished the use of budget surprises. How can constituted bodies, civil society and the public participate meaningfully in the pre-budget exercise if the additional funds available are kept secret?

Despite this limitation, AD was still intent on drawing up its proposals. Nobody will ever be able to accuse us of criticising without proposing. Unlike Labour, who prefer to sit on the sidelines and to criticise only after budget day, we always propose. However to make serious and fully-costed proposals, we had to make our own assumptions on the amount of additional funds that would be available in this budget.

We first assumed that since economic growth this year (according to the Prime Minister’s own declarations) will be higher that last year, then at least the amount of Lm18 million available last year will also be available this year. In addition we knew that rather than incurring the yearly Lm40 million in capital expenditure on the new hospital (now presumably complete), government will be incurring, again in the Prime Minister’s own words, additional operating costs of Lm15 million per annum on Mater Dei.

This “saving” of Lm25 million should be available for social or economic programmes in this budget. Together with the expected Lm18 million from economic growth, we established that government should have an additional Lm43 million this year – money that can be used for additional social programmes, tax cuts or deficit reduction. I have quoted the figure of Lm43 million to the Prime Minister face-to-face; he neither agreed, nor denied.

After determining that Lm43 million should be available, the question that remains is, “How should they be invested?” Alternattiva Demokratika made 14 specific proposals that include, among other things, a reduction in income tax on small business to 30 per cent, a reduction of VAT on restaurants and tourist services to 12 per cent, and compensation to owners of controlled rent properties. If all 14 proposals were to be implemented, they would absorb Lm30 million from the Lm43 million that should be available in this budget.

Personally I believe that the remaining Lm13 million should go towards further deficit reduction. Like this we can achieve economic growth, social solidarity and fiscal consolidation simultaneously. The two proposals referred to by this paper’s editorial, namely additional children’s allowance and the doubling of maternity leave, will cost Lm 11 million. Not a small sum, but certainly affordable.

Finally it all boils down to priorities. The Greens have, for three years, been proposing that the government should focus on assisting helping families with children. For us it is a clear priority, and one we are happy government is finally taking on.

One can disagree with our proposals; however their affordability is not an issue. If it results that our proposals are unaffordable, then the Prime Minster would have to be lying about the forecast rate of economic growth or about the running costs of Mater Dei. I don’t believe he is lying; I would tend to think that he is just planning to surprise us with the mother of all electoral budgets on 15 October.

Edward P. Fenech is spokesperson

– Finance, the Economy and Tourism

of Alternattiva Demokratika

– The Green Party