Business, property and people

Frank Salt tells us in his Business And Government piece (July 7) that the government has a lot to learn from business. Why is Portomaso, he asks, such a neat place to see and walk around, while areas outside are so shabby? It is because the former is cared for by a private business, we are told, while the latter is a government responsibility.

The lesson is clear then. The government must become more of a business. To get its act together it must, first of all, improve the management of whatever it does. Laxity and indiscipline should go, giving way to well-run and efficiently managed work. Business advice is what should rule the day and get tal-gvern out of the doldrums, stop them wasting time and money and our taxes.

How true! Business and government often look as if they inhabit two different planets. Business has to keep on its toes to survive. But the government seems to walk on such an easy planet that it acts as if it has not seen its toes, let alone exercised them, for some time - as if a Maghtab-like mountain of flesh has long arisen and hidden them from view.

But the fact is that they do not live on different planets! The government also needs to be lean and energetic, efficient and well-managed. So it must improve its management. It must listen to and learn from business.

But then, since they walk on the same planet and face the same realities, might there not be something that business should learn from the government? The government does not have just lazy toes and Maghtab mountains to show. Quite a few things it does very well and, above all, it is expected to work for the common good, which is no mean aim!

If the government should be led by the common good, so should business, in the end. Of course, the government must learn from good business, not from bad business (we all know bad business exists, of course). Similarly, business must learn from good government, that is, from things the government does that are for the common good.

Mr Salt is an estate agent. Estate agents are a very influential group of people these days. It is good for them to have a face, to have somebody people can converse with, the way we are used to converse with our politicians, whom we so often meet, on the box and off.

How many years is it since estate agents formed an association? This was not an association for business, because that would have been an anti-competitive practice. Its purpose was rather to draw up a code of ethics for estate agents to follow.

Is it not now time for this influential group to tell us how successful it has been in reaching its aim? Is the code of ethics committed to transparent transactions that enable all concerned - which includes the members of the public who read the recorded agreement - know clearly what sums have changed hands? Are estate agents prohibited by the code of ethics from becoming buyers or speculators themselves (in UK prohibited by law)?

Does the code prohibit the association or its members from pressuring estate agents (against EU competition expectations!) not to go below the five per cent commission rate (the UK rate normally being one to 1.5 per cent)? Does the code expect the association to exert its formidable force against any practices that promote price hikes, high profit margins and speculation that go against the common good?

One estate agent recently said that it was the estate agents' duty not to move matters towards a destabilisation of the country's economy.

Malta is a tiny island where one of our most priceless possessions, that is, land, is being degraded into becoming an object of speculation. If things go too far, most Maltese will not afford a decent house; most families will have to work hard and for a lifetime in order to afford a house of their own; families will defer and are deterred from having children; people of other countries will buy our best houses, even in the places where older houses have till now been among the most affordable.

If things go too far... This may sound like an image of doom of a tomorrow that might never come. It might even sound, in some aspects, more like a description of a today that has already overtaken us. Houses are already so expensive that they must be one of the reasons why Maltese younger couples are wanting fewer children than is good for our future economy.

But do we know where to draw the line? Do we know the signs that tell us that we are getting where we should not, or, worse, that we are heading there and it is too late for us to pull back? Are we clear about the sustainability limits that we must never, never approach or reach? And do we know what measures we will take if we get caught up in such a storm, so that we can get back on even keel again and are not pulled down?

Should not the code of ethics of the estate agents commit them to observing a number of signs and limits that should be avoided by any good means possible, for the sake of the common good? Are estate agents ready to enter a dialogue with the people to know how we can make an alliance with all concerned for the sake of the common good?

Politicians too should take up the subject, underlining its importance, on the box and off it. Of course, there are other bodies too, that influence the price of houses for Maltese common people. Will they too possess a voice, and show a face, so that we, the people, can talk to them?