On Monday 27, Prime Minister Gonzi meet members of the Today Public Policy Think Tank who presented him with two of "their" reports. The first report - For Better. For Worse. Remarriage after Legal Separation - has been in the public domain since last May. The other report, which was still unpublished, is about the affordability of Malta's social security system.

Probably the Prime Minister will soon have a visit from Progett Impenn which will present their own report. Progett Impenn is made up of Caritas Malta, the Diocesan Family Commission and the Cana Movement. This report is called For Worse not for Better.

Not a right

There are some slight differences between these two reports. One is for the introduction of divorce, one is against it, for example. A lead author signs the Think Tank's report while the other members of the Tank sort of sat on the fence. We don't know whether they are in favour or not of the introduction of divorce.

We just know that they think that the report is made of good stuff that is worthy of discussion, or something to that effect. The report of the Progett Impenn has a clearer paternity and maternity since both ladies and gentlemen compose the pool of writers.

The three organisation that make up the Progett adopted it as their own. We were also told that besides a main drafter the compilation of the report was enhanced by the contribution of others, all of whom agree with its contents.

There is a very important similarity between the two documents. None considers divorce as a basic right. There arguments in favour or against its legalisation are based on their respective analysis of the state of the family in Malta. This differentiates these reports from, for example, the position taken by Dr Joseph Muscat, leader of the Partit Laburista.

Dr Muscat had publicly stated that divorce is a right. He is so convinced that he told The Sunday Times (August 3, 2008) that we do not need a discussion on whether or not divorce should be introduced in Malta but rather a discussion about the type of legislation that should be enacted.

He also showed his readiness to present a Private Members Bill in Parliament if the Prime Minister commits himself to give a free vote to his MPs. I think that if someone believes something to be a right he/she should constantly and consistently try to get it legalised and not wait for someone else to do something about it.

The beef? What beef?

Back to the Think Tank and the Progett.

In my column in The Sunday Times (240509) I strongly criticised the Think Tank's report.

"As I always do when I receive reports of this kind, I immediately go to the page giving the bibliography and the references. I was shocked. How could the report of such a prestigious institute include such an amateurish reference list? The list refers, for example, to "Emery: ‘Inter-personal Conflict and the Children of discord and Divorce'." What is this?

Is this an article taken from the News of the World, an academic paper, a book, an opinion piece downloaded from the Internet, an entry in Wikipedia? ... I browsed through the report and I could notice statements of utmost importance peppering different pages; but not one of them was supported by a reference to a source."

The lead author of the Think Tank's report said that my writings show that I was either intellectually bankrupt or intellectually lazy. He said that I should commented on the report's beef (so to speak) not about its methodology.

The report of Progett Impenn does just that. Let me give you a medium rare taste of what Progett Impenn is stating about the other report:

i. The Think Tank Report got its statistics wrong in quite a number of instances. These are some of the mistakes which Progett Impenn say the others committed:

• inflated number of those who had their marriage declared null by the Ecclesiatical Tribunal;
• wrong number of separated couples between 2006 and 2008
• couples are identified as individuals;
• percentage rise in marriage breakdown is mistakenly calculated;
• confusion between separation, declaration of nullity and divorce;
• according to the report many of those who are separated, cohabit and have children when less than one fifth do so.

ii. Another grave mistake is that the Report states that children of a cohabiting couple "have no legitimacy".

iii. Although the author insists that he is impartial, he penned a report having 20 pages are in favour of divorce and two are positive about marriage.

iv. The Report says that divorce legislation does not cause more marriage breakdown without bothering to substantiate this claim. On the other hand a very recent study (referred to in the bibliography list of the Report) carried in 18 European countries concludes that the introduction of divorce legislation caused a 20 per cent increase in marriage breakdown.

It seems that there is not a lot of beep in the Think Tank report!

Way forward

According to the report of the Think Tank or the majority or minority of its members who support it the way forward is the legalisation of divorce.

According to the report of Progett Impenn the way forward is the strengthening of family ties. They proposed:

• The setting up of an Inter-Ministerial Committee to plan and execute a holistic strategy in favour of marriage and family;

• Marriage and family courses included as part of the curriculum at every level of education;

• A strengthened National Family Commission to propose and monitor legislation, administrative decisions, curricula and media productions which promote the family based on marriage and

• Family-friendly housing policy especially for low-income couples wishing to get married.

Although these seems to be a chasm between the two groups I am sure that both have the good of the family at heart and that both believe that the institution of marriage should be strengthened. They differ on the way forward; and this is by no means a minor difference.

What do you think is the way forward?