No, I am not misrepresenting Martin Scicluna (June 8) "on the need for improving marriage counselling and mediation services to save marriages in peril." I have to repeat. In three successive articles in The Times lately, he wrote profusely on the need to introduce divorce legislation in Malta and in spite of fleetingly mentioning these services in his long report on re-marriages he wrote no articles on reconciliation services to marital couples in distress. Not in The Times.

He says he is "delighted" that the Chief Justice and the President of the Chamber of Advocates "generally support my contention that the state mediation, counselling and reconciliation services should be improved". In spite of boasting that he was the first to come out with this idea and in spite of my invitation (March 25) to outline his and other views on reconciliation services in greater detail than he had done so far, again, he wrote another strong article in The Times (May 25) only on the need to introduce divorce legislation.

Writing as director general of the The Today Public Policy Institute surely it is also his responsibility to expand in the press not only on one section of his long report, the introduction of divorce, but also on the other section "In praise of marriage". He should now write six, not three, articles on his six points in his long report on strengthening marriages.

In his six points he praised Caritas, Cana and other organisations for their work to married couples. In this regard it is pertinent to ask: Did he attend any of the national activities on strengthening marriages organised by the said organisations during the last two years? If he attended, in any capacity, what kind of contributions did he make? Proġett Impenn is a very good platform for him to do this.

Notwithstanding the above, there seems to be a silver lining in all this which appeared in his last contribution (June 8) on marriage counselling. At last he is now beginning to expand in the press "...that State mediation, counselling and reconciliation services should be improved. For they (the Chief Justice and the Chamber of Advocates) more than many others, must see first hand the turmoil being caused by marriage breakdown..."

Let Mr Scicluna go to the Chief Justice and the Chamber of Advocates and offer the services of TPPI to revisit the mechanism for mediation and reconciliation services as suggested lately by the Chief Justice. Let him offer same services to the Social Affairs Committee (SAC) of the House of Representatives now while it is studying the position of the Family Court and work hard with the Committee so that, as he said, the state support services to litigating married couples are improved.

May he work for a solid shift away from just mediation, which offers only assistance by a mediator to litigating married couples to separate amicably, to more reconciliation work, as the Chief Justice indicated. Let Mr Scicluna campaign forcefully also for more family therapy, psychotherapy, psychology and other related services to litigating married couples in distress. In the process these services could be of great help also to their afflicted children, something which is worrying the SAC a great deal.

Before doing so it is suggested he reads and digests the website of the UK Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships at www.tccr.org.uk and similar websites.