The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition yesterday revealed that the two had held talks on electoral reform and both said there was potential for a solution to long-standing issues.

The two leaders discussed reform when the House debated a motion by the Prime Minister asking the Electoral Commission to reconsider changes to the electoral boundaries it proposed in a report on May 5.

Lawrence Gonzi said he was proposing the reactivation of the 1994 "Gonzi Commission" on electoral reform to iron out the problems that existed in the electoral system.

He recalled that the Commission (which he had presided when he was Speaker of the House) had made significant headway in electoral reform but there had been two outstanding issues that prevented agreement on the electoral system.

These were the establishment of a threshold and what would happen to the first preference votes of the parties which did not reach that threshold.

Talks between the political parties over the past few weeks showed, however, that positions appeared to have shifted since 1994. There appeared to be common ground on the general principles and the situation could indeed be unravelled.

Dr Gonzi said that what the Nationalist Party would fundamentally disagree with was any system which, in a situation where more than two parties were elected to Parliament but none obtained an absolute majority of votes, the party that won the largest number of votes was given additional seats to provide it with a parliamentary majority so as to guarantee governability.

This would be unacceptable since it would distort what the people would have wanted. If the people wanted Parliament to be composed in that way, the people's wishes could not be changed.

Nonetheless, he felt the Gonzi Commission report of 1994 provided a good basis from which the two parties could launch fresh, formal talks on electoral reform, after revisiting the Commission's terms of reference and agreeing on a new chairman. They could also agree to give the Commission a time limit within which to conclude its work.

Replying, Dr Sant moved an amendment to Dr Gonzi's motion so that the House would accept the Electoral Commission's report. He added in his amendment, however, that the political parties should hold talks aimed at drafting constitutional amendments on the electoral process within three months.

He said the Opposition was proposing that the parties agree on a system whereby parliamentary seats would be allocated to qualifying parties in strict proportion to the first preference votes they would have won, thus making electoral districts irrelevant to the parliamentary strength of the parties.

Dr Sant said he felt that a solution to the long-running problems of the electoral system was achievable and the people expected the politicians to reach an agreement.

He revealed that he had discussed the issue with the Prime Minister at Castille last month and there were grounds for a solution. Indeed, he felt this could be achieved within a week, if there was good will.

This solution, he said, should also ensure that Gozo remained one whole district.

Replying, Dr Gonzi said the two parties were basically agreeing on the holding of talks but the government would have to vote against Dr Sant's amendment because it provided for the House to accept the new districts as proposed by the commission.

Earlier, during the opening of the debate, Dr Gonzi said this issue demanded a "mature, calm, objective and constructive approach," because it involved the way the people could exercise their right to elect a government.

The government wanted to see in place an electoral system which produced the result which the people wanted at a general election. He believed that this was actually what all sides wanted.

To date, the electoral system still depended to a great extent on how the electoral boundaries were drawn up. This had led to bitter experiences in the past, returning a perverse result and triggering a constitutional crisis.

Several attempts had since been made to avoid a repetition. Although significant progress had been made, not all scenarios were covered and there was still no guarantee that the system would always produce a fair result.

Grey areas existed, in particular, over the allocation of parliamentary seats according to the votes won by each party, and the situation when candidates from more than two parties were elected to the House and no party achieved an absolute majority of votes.

The situation had become even more complicated by the fact that the number of registered voters in Gozo now exceeded the limit imposed by the Constitution and Ghajnsielem, therefore, had to be removed from the Gozo district and added the district including Mellieha, St Paul's Bay and Naxxar, a situation which was unacceptable.

All this added further pressure for a reform of the system. The solution to all these problems, Dr Gonzi said, depended on the political courage and maturity of all sides to agree on reform.

Turning to the report of the Electoral Commission, Dr Gonzi said acceptance of this report would be "dangerous".

Even if the boundaries had been drawn up in a perfect manner, it was totally unacceptable and a dangerous precedent that the Commission had said it had proposed the changes on the basis of the outcome of the local council elections. This was not a criterion laid down in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Commission itself had said in the same breath that what took place in the past was not a mirror of the future.

The Commission's statement that local council results were carried forward to general elections was absolutely not true. For example, the MLP won local council elections in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 but the 2003 general election was won by the Nationalist Party.

Furthermore, local elections were only held in a third of localities in any one year, turnout was far lower than at general elections and the issues were different. Therefore it made no sense to equate the local elections with general election, as the Commission had done.

Local council elections did not reflect the national strength of the parties. It was extremely dangerous to say that the district boundaries were being drawn up to reflect the strength of the parties. That was precisely what gerrymandering meant and that was what the Commission was effectively saying was being done.

If the districts as proposed by the Commission were to be applied to the 2003 general election, the PN would have obtained 32 parliamentary seats despite a 52 per cent majority of votes, while the MLP would have got 33 seats with 49 per cent of the vote.

This further showed that the commission had applied the wrong criteria and the result would have been counter to the democratic expression of the people.

Dr Gonzi said the boundaries as proposed by the Electoral Commission stretched some districts like chewing gum.

One district would stretch from Delimara Point to Paola, another from Kalafrana to Dingli Cliffs and yet another from Msida Creek to Madliena.

There were alternatives mentioned in the minority report that were not to be considered a gospel, but which were much better than those of the commission.

Clearly, the Commission's proposals failed the test of what was constitutional, reasonable and fair. The report should, therefore, be sent back to the Commission for its reconsideration.

Turning again to the electoral system, Dr Gonzi said that if all parties were to agree on a system of strict proportionality in the allocation of parliamentary seats, the way the boundaries was drawn up would no longer remain so crucial.

After making his proposal for the reactivation of the Gonzi Commission, Dr Gonzi said the PN continued to hold that Gozo had its own identity. If no agreement was reached with the Opposition on reform of the electoral system, the government would explore all other possibilities to respect the identity of Gozo as a whole.

Dr Sant said the revision of the electoral boundaries was a controversial ritual every five years that the people were seeing only as being a game between politicians. They may be right in thinking on those lines given the cynicism of the way parliamentarians work.

This was not the first time the Electoral Commission was divided and a minority report was produced. Yet, five years ago the government did not even want to discuss it. The fact was that the system was not working well and it was time for both sides to get out of the straight jacket.

In 1971, it was only by a whisker that the party with a majority of votes did not achieve a parliamentary majority. But this had happened in 1981 and in 1987.

By 1987, however, the Constitution had been amanded so that the party winning a majority of votes was given a one seat majority in Parliament. This had been enough for 1987 when the difference between the parties was 4,000 votes.

But in 1996, the MLP won a majority of 8,000 votes, and was still only given a one seat majority in the House.

And in 1998, a PN majority of 12,000 was translated into a parliamentary majority of five, showing how the system did not yield proportionality between votes and parliamentary seats and there was the need for fairness.

The Electoral Commission was now trying to remedy the situation and had come up with districts which, while not perfect, were expected to yield a fairer result than in the past few elections. With a 10,000 vote majority, either party would end up with a three-seat majority.

It was not true that if the proposed boundaries were to be applied for the 2003 elections, the PN would have been disadvantaged. But it would have ended up with a majority of three instead of five.

The minority report proposed two options. Under the first, the 2003 elections would have ended in a stalemate while under the second, the PN would have obtained 36 seats and Labour 29. Was this what was wanted?

Dr Sant said the Electoral Commission had drawn up the districts in a way to ensure that the number of registered voters in each would not exceed the constitutional limits, requiring a fresh revision within a short space of time. The variation of registered voters from the electoral quota under the Commission's proposals was just 0.85 per cent. The other options proposed in the minority report would give a variation of 1.86 per cent under the first option and of 2.42 per cent under the second.

Referring to the geographical vicinity of localities forming the districts, Dr Sant said that Malta was not the United States, where there were vast distances. He did not see much difference between the proposals in the commission report and those in the minority report. What was the distance between Paola and Marsaxlokk, between Ghaxaq and Marsaxlokk and between Mosta and Mgarr?

As for the use of the local council results by the Commission, Dr Sant said local councils were now in their 12th year. The local elections were nothing but a race between the two parties.

The Prime Minister had said that the outcome of the council elections could not be used as a criterion by the Commission, but the Constitution said that the criteria which had to be used were geographical vicinity, differences in density of population "and other relevant factors." The local council results were such a "relevant factor."

Dr Sant here moved his amendment to accept the Commission's new district boundaries while proposing talks on constitutional amendments.

Dr Sant said the MLP would continue to insist that proportionality had to be calculated on the basis of the first count votes. The parties could then discuss issues such as the threshold through which a party should be eligible for parliamentary seats and the issue of governability.

Ultimately, what the people wanted was a system which ensured that the outcome of the general election was fair.

Winding up, Dr Gonzi said there were points on which he did not agree with Dr Sant, but the important thing was that they both saw potential for a solution to the existing problems.

The only difference between what the Opposition leader and himself was suggesting the format of the talks.

The government side, however, had to vote against the Opposition amendment because it accepted the Electoral Commission's proposals.

It was clear that both sides of the House agreed that talks started in the last weeks between the parties, including Alternattiva Demokratika, should continue. One reason he had proposed a commission was to have a chairman.

Interjecting, Dr Sant said the talks were going well without the need for a designated chairman and could continue in this way.

Dr Gonzi said the talks should be given a formal guise so that the Attorney General could be invited to draw up the drafting of legislation. This was a detail which could be discussed later.

The government wanted the report on the electoral boundaries to be referred back to the Electoral Commission while the talks between the parties continued. If agreement was reached, then the district boundaries would be practically useless for the number of parliamentary seats given to the parties, but certain criteria had to be met. For example, Gozo should remain one whole district.

The opposition amendment was then defeated with 27 votes for and 33 against and Dr Gonzi's motion approved by the same margin.