Roamer's column

As summer's end approaches, not fast enough, the finance minister's fancies are turning to Budget 2009 and how he can swing the European Commission behind the government's intention to write off the dockyard's debts prior to privatisation. As to the first, it must come as some relief to him, unless matters go awry once more, that the price of oil hovers around $100 a barrel for no good reason than I can think of.

A month ago the media was full of foreboding. The oil price was going to burst through the $200 barrier by the end of the year and latterly, the Georgia crisis had most observers worrying that the Russian president would, in a fit of irresponsibility, tinker with supplies of oil and gas to Europe. The hurricanes roaming around the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Louisiana shoreline, never mind Texas, had not yet started.

So far, and for reasons that are totally unreasonable, these doom-laden occurrences have failed to rock the market. What may keep Tonio Fenech awake at night is more likely a worrying trend that has seen the deficit grow in the eternal duel between income and expenditure. Some critics concluded that the government's aim to cut down the deficit to €68.8 million by the end of the year, and to go into surplus by 2010, was doomed.

Regardless of the fact that figures for the first seven months of this year showed a hefty increase in expenditure over income of €74.6 million, there is no reason why the objective of Budget 2008 should not be achieved.

The economic indicators are good. The employment situation is healthy, more work, more productivity, more income, more tax, fewer social benefits. The economy is growing. Projects receiving huge funds from the EU are coming on stream and these, in turn, will stimulate further growth. The tourism sector, which everybody feared would be negatively affected by the price of fuel, has prospered and all things being equal should continue to do so.

It was being noised around by Cassandras that the deficit as at the end of July would prevent the finance minister from introducing the bold tax reductions that were bandied around before the election. Fenech should disabuse them off this notion. The tax thresholds the Prime Minister had in mind earlier this year should feature in Budget 2009. Leaving more money in our pockets makes eminent good sense.

If Fenech has problems with a deficit he must cast his eyes elsewhere to find a solution: government spending. There are areas where he may find it impossible to cut back - health, for one, but even this sector should not be regarded as a sacred cow.

For better or for worse the government's pre-election approach to health was that this is hallowed ground. It should not be, still less sacrosanct should be cutbacks, if necessary, in road building, the environment, even education. Perhaps more immediately, a massive assault on waste, and this includes waste in the health sector, has to be undertaken. As the finance minister's vision turns to the sunlit land of surplus, he would do well to mutter every morning as he wakes up, tax less, waste less, tax less, waste less, until this mantra enters into every government ministry's DNA.

And finally, restraining the public spend will, as noted by Fitch Ratings, "enhance competitiveness and attract foreign direct investment, which will remain central to the development of the economy".

'The irreplaceable role of religion...'

As expected, the bishops' references to divorce, abortion and euthanasia in homilies they delivered last Monday met with the usual mind-jerks. Some adopted the unfathomable attitude that the Church had no business 'dictating' on the matter, when in fact the bishops were doing no such thing. The usual incantations of 'arrogance' were duly trundled out.

Yet, if there is one pastoral duty the bishops have, it is to bring to everybody's attention the thinking of the Church on issues that affect society for good or ill. It is their business to do this, to comment on any subject that bears on the future of the social character of our country. To question this right, let alone deny it her, is tantamount to a declaration that there is no place for the Church in the public square, that she ought to retreat, as Dom Mintoff tried so fiercely to make her do, to the sacristy. Only by trying to limit her to that space could the former prime minister embark upon the social adventures he had in mind. He failed but he certainly started the ball rolling.

Yet, society stands to gain by listening carefully to what she has to say on all manner of social problems. Behind her lies, and within her is, the wisdom of centuries. This is allied to a conviction that in today's world, as in the world 2,000 years ago, what she has to say is of great relevance to the future of our threatened civilisation.

And as Pope Benedict remarked in an address to French President Nicolas Sarkozy on the first day of his visit to France, "It is fundamental, on one hand, to insist on the distinction between the political realm and that of religion". But it was equally necessary "to become more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences... the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society".

By reminding our lawmakers that legislation in favour of divorce, abortion, euthanasia will weaken society, our bishops are declaring something that is self-evident. Governments abroad are slowly realising that societies in their countries have indeed been weakened, even broken. Some are desperately casting around to see how they can stem the dislocation that has taken place.

We, too, should take a good look at what is happening abroad and ask ourselves whether we want to go down those particular roads; whether we should not be doing far more to strengthen and encourage the institution of marriage - the Church, primarily, but the State, too, for it has a vested interest in stable marriages. There are not a few mea culpas to be made.

What Jacqueline Lang calls 'the principle of modern liberal autonomy' is finding an echo here and there in Malta. Anybody who questions this principle, say its upholders in nearly so many words, must either be a geek or a gook. And if the Church says anything counter to it, well then, more geek she; not much intellectual validity there.

Significantly, an article by Lang on the intergenerational costs of divorce that appeared in The Independent on Sunday some weeks ago elicited little or no response. In that contribution she listed 'a number of observable social problems' that followed the introduction of liberal divorce laws in the UK, effects that were summarised in a number of documents but most especially in 'Fractured Families, a State of the Nation Report' by the Centre for Social Justice on the state of the family in modern Britain.

That's much better

There is much to be said for not crossing a ravine before you are equipped to deal with problems that could arise once you took the first step. The St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation should have gone through these motions before it launched that insightful museum extension. It would have saved itself a lot of trouble.

Which is a paragraph-long way round of saying that the foundation should have printed the supplement recently published in The Times before it announced the project on an unsuspecting public a few weeks ago.

With intelligent contributions from Mgr Philip Calleja and Paul Attard, a detailed interview with the architect responsible for the museum extension, a historical survey of the co-cathedral's 'architectural fabric by a senior art historian, Keith Sciberras (our Caravaggio man), a contribution from Din l-Art Ħelwa president Martin Galea, the views of the Church Commission on the environment and a question and answer session dealing with objections to the project, the supplement provided a pretty thorough presentation of what the museum extension is all about.

I suppose that to some there remain unanswered questions and genuine fears but I think it is also the case that many fears have been laid to rest and most questions have been satisfactorily dealt with.

This is ever the case. It is vital, now, that those who remain unconvinced keep their powder dry until the terms of reference prepared by the Environment Planning Directorate are drawn up. At the end of the day there will be those who will continue to regard the project balefully. This, fortunately or unfortunately, is part of the human condition.

For my part, I continue to be enthusiastic about what is being proposed.

Two or three fears I held originally I still hold, but to a far lesser degree than before in the case of the safety of the cathedral's structure. Nightmare visions I had of risks to its foundations have faded.

Two other things bothered me, still do. I continue to hope that there will be a forum of international experts at every stage of the project's implementation; and given the European character of the building we should surely not miss out on a European input provided by world renowned architects and engineers.