The House of Representatives yesterday approved through all stages a Bill amending the electoral law so that eligible voters who declare that they will be abroad on polling day at general, local or European Parliament elections may vote on the Saturday before.

Winding up the debate in second reading, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said that he had not expected such a reaction from the opposition. Nowhere was the electoral process as transparent as it was in the hands of the political parties.

Half of the members of the Electoral Commission were chosen by the government and the other half by the opposition, even if the Constitution stipulated that this commission should be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister after consultations with the Leader of the Opposition.

The parties had a say in the printing and the distribution of the voting documents and the printing of the ballot papers. They also had their representatives in each polling booth. If this procedure had been applicable in 1976 and 1981 it would have avoided unauthorised people entering polling stations and using violence on people whom they wanted to stop from voting.

Turning to the St Vincent de Paul Residence, Dr Borg said the voting process was transparent to the point that nurses on duty on polling day were chosen equally from those enjoying the confidence of both parties.

Furthermore, the election at SVPR was supervised by one of the electoral commissioners appointed on the advice of the opposition.

He said that in 1981 it had indeed been surprising that, while the PN had garnered more than 51 per cent of the popular vote, at SVPR it had only managed 20 votes out of 1,000.

Dr Borg said the PL had always tried to find external reasons for having lost elections, when instead it should look inside. Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat had shown such fear of the amendment that it had led him to bring forward all imaginable excuses for voting against. Then he had presented a "shopping list", saying that if this was accepted, the party would consider voting in favour of the amendment.

The Deputy Prime Minister described Dr Muscat's objections as ridiculous.

Dr Muscat had said the electoral law provided for a day of reflection before polling day, but now people would be able to vote at the height of the electoral campaign. And they would vote before being able to consider developments or information which might come up shortly before the election. In Spain, for example, there had been a terrorist attack just days before the elections which had led to José Maria Aznar's party losing to José Luis Zapatero's.

Dr Borg said that the day of reflection was not a Constitutional requirement but formed part of the electoral law and could be changed by simple majority. This was not a serious objection. Italians living in Australia posted their vote to their embassy, even if their electoral law also provided for a day of reflection. Why the fuss?

He said the advance voting process did not impinge on European election legislation, which said that voting should be held between June 4 and 7. This was an exception - and not the rule - and early voting would be held on one day only, this year on May 30.

Dr Borg emphasised that Labour had a fixation that the amendment was being moved in a partisan spirit and would lead to government tampering by giving the opportunity to Maltese eligible voters living abroad to exercise their voting right by coming over a week earlier.

He said this was not the case. The amendment was more intended for eligible voters living in Malta who would be absent from the islands on polling day. Labour had argued that early voting should be limited only to those who were abroad on state business and not to those who would be away on duty, medical grounds or holiday.

Dr Muscat wanted to widen the rights of eligible voters, but at the same time he brought over objections that limited such rights.

The PL should be honest with itself and take a look at the eight reasons listed in its own report to see why the party had lost the election. These included candidates who acted on behalf of cliques rather than in the interest of the party, lack of ethics and even sabotage.

Dr Borg said the opposition's conditions to vote in favour of the Bill did not make sense.

It was not fair, for example, for one's vote to be linked to one's tax registration. There were people who did not pay tax but who were eligible to vote. There were others who lived abroad but had the right to vote because they would have been away from the islands for less than a year.

Another condition for was ID cards to be renewed by June 6. Dr Borg said the Maltese did not need their ID cards to vote. The voting document was the only mandatory identification.

Dr Borg recalled seeing patients on stretchers being carried into polling booths because these could not vote in hospitals or old peoples' homes. The only exception was St Vincent de Paul Residence inmates.

Although he admired these patients for their sense of civic duty, he said he would not like to continue to witness such scenes. He hoped a system would eventually be found enabling such people to vote in hospitals and old peoples' homes without having to go to polling booths.

Concluding, Dr Borg pointed out that proposals were made in the Select Committee and the process amending the electoral law would continue.

The second reading was approved after a division.

The House then debated the Bill in committee.

Presenting the opposition's amendments, Dr Muscat said a voter wanting to vote a week before election day should produce, in corroboration, a valid air or sea ticket, even if an electronic copy, and a sworn declaration. Only such persons would be allowed to vote a week early, with no opportunity to vote on polling day. Within a month that person should prove his having been away with a boarding pass.

Dr Muscat said the aim of this amendment was to avoid having two classes of voters. Whoever missed the chance to vote on polling day did not get another chance, and this should also hold for those applying to vote early, who having missed that early chance should not be able to vote on election day instead.

He also proposed that electoral commissioners could cast their votes on the day before polling day, as assistant electoral commissioners could already do. The electoral commissioners should also be given this opportunity, in view of the heavy workload they had on the day.

Dr Muscat said the opposition was not submitting the amendment concerning Air Malta because this had no connection with the electoral law, but he still looked forward to an eventual agreement. He also expected the opposition to be fully informed of flights, timing and wherefrom through the electoral commission, especially because the government could not guarantee that every person on the electoral register was in fact qualified to vote.

Labour deputy leader Anġlu Farrugia proposed an amendment that no voter would be able to exercise his right to vote without a valid ID card, thus substituting the voting document.

After giving an extensive recount of the development of voting documents in Maltese elections, Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt said the government side had no problems with voting for Dr Muscat's first amendment, and saw nothing wrong in principle with the second.

He said Malta's electoral register had one advantage over other European countries', in that the parties helped voters with the right to vote. There was no better system than this. It was acknowledged that Malta's electoral law was not perfect, but it was the fruit of the experiences of both major parties.

On the other hand, the government side would vote against Dr Farrugia's amendment to abolish the voting document because this must be looked at as an opportunity for democracy. The government was also definitely against the suggestion to let only taxpayers vote, because thousands of under-income and young people did not qualify for tax payment.

Dr Muscat said Dr Gatt's inference was a totally dishonest comment.

Dr Gatt said there were about 60,000 voters who did not qualify to pay tax, such as workers in Libya who paid their taxes there. It was true there were loopholes that hundreds could pass through, but no matter how many precautions were taken, there would always be loopholes. If Labour wanted to see new legislation on residence, any system would still need evidence of eligibility.

Dr Muscat said the opposition's amendments made sense and looked forward, not back. The basic principle to be adhered to was that whoever was eligible to vote would be allowed to do so. It was very telling that even Dr Gatt himself said people were passing through loopholes. The PN seemed happy with the existence of such loopholes, whereas the opposition wanted to close them. It was unacceptable that the government side was insinuating that Labour wanted to stop young and old voting.

He said the opposition would wait to handle the St Vincent de Paul situation at a later stage.

Dr Muscat agreed with the Deputy Prime Minister on the desirability of voting rights even for youths coming of age just before elections, but the way to do this was through ID cards. If Dr Borg really wanted to, the two sides could also discuss 16-year-olds voting for local councils.

Keeping known loopholes in the electoral system amounted to doing an injustice to democracy.

Dr Gatt said this was the third time Labour was suggesting tax payment as the basis for voting, and for the third time the government side was saying a definite "no".

Dr Borg said it was wrong to presume that whoever was on the electoral register had no right to vote. There was such close scrutiny by the parties that Malta had one of the best registers, built up over the years. The current perception, almost a certainty, was that whoever was on register had a right to vote.

He also noted that the House was discussing an amendment by Dr Muscat that the opposition had not yet submitted. Was this a sign that it had lost faith in what it was proposing?

Dr Borg said the government side would not oppose the notion of electoral commissioners voting on the day before the elections. If Dr Farrugia's amendment could be reworded, the government side would vote for that too. Dr Farrugia immediately retorted that the wording of his amendment would stay unchanged.

Close to the suspension of the committee stage, Dr Borg said the most positive note in the debate had been that there were certain points on which both sides were in agreement and others that still needed discussion. He was in favour of a vote being taken on individual amendments, but if the opposition insisted on the contrary a vote would be taken on the whole block of amendments.

The chairman then said a vote would be taken on a government amendment, to which the opposition had also moved an amendment.

Dr Farrugia's amendment was defeated, as was Dr Muscat's. In view of this, Dr Farrugia stated that the opposition would be voting against Dr Borg's amendment which had previously been accepted unanimously.

The Bill was passed through the committee stage and given a third reading.

The House will meet again on Monday, May 9 and 9 a.m.