Cristina raises questions on definition of social housing

Parliamentary Secretary Dolores Cristina speaking in parliament yesterday asked the opposition and society in general to consider four questions when they discussed their definition of social housing.

In a situation where the country had a housing problem, should people who owned and rented properties at commercial rates continue to live in government property rented at subsidised rates?

Should those people who were given government housing on low rent years ago continue to benefit from such facilities when their financial situation had improved substantially?

Should people, even those as young as 21 with no social problems, "inherit" government housing from current tenants simply by transferring their ID card address to those tenements to show they were living with their grandmother or aunt?

Should people living in state homes for the elderly also continue to enjoy a government housing unit? Ms Cristina, who raised her questions when she opened the debate on the financial estimates of the Housing Authority, said she would admit she was not happy with the current definition of social housing.

She said that the government's housing policy was that government-built housing should be a model of modern development that was accessible, made wise use of land and conserved energy.

It was also government policy to rehabilitate old properties and to sell or rent its properties at subsidised rates to those most in need.

Over the past few days the authority issued 143 housing units for sale or rent all over Malta, raising to over 1,200 the number of units so issued over the past five years. The latest properties were being offered at prices which were 30 per cent below their commercial value.

Ms Cristina said she wanted to particularly praise the authority for its research work, an activity which had enabled it to better focus its activities to those members of society that were most in need.

Indeed, there had been a shift of applicants for housing, as well as changes in eligibility criteria to enable more people to benefit from the Housing Authority's schemes.

She was particularly pleased to see that more single mothers were now able to apply for assistance by the authority. The authority had also taken action to benefit people who used to live in institutions, those with disabilities, people who suffered domestic violence and separated couples.

The authority was not only helping such people by giving them easier access to housing, but it was also giving material assistance to societies which helped such people. The authority was also making more housing units available to the Social Housing Department to help these people.

Ms Cristina observed that the authority, apart from building new housing, such as at Pembroke and Mtarfa, was also involved in large slum clearance and urban renewal projects, notably at Msida and Cottonera.

The authority was also giving financial assistance to enable people to rent premises from the private sector and to rehabilitate their current homes rather than move out.

A scheme under consideration was that of shared ownership, whereby tenants in rented government premises would be able to gradually buy their residence.

In all, there were currently 3,000 applications for housing, mostly from the Grand Harbour area, Birkirkara and Qormi, Ms Cristina said. Just under 27 per cent were unemployed and half had an income of under Lm3,000 per year.

Ms Cristina denied all claims of favouritism by the authority, made by a Labour MP some time ago. Housing units were awarded under a transparent points system which was open to inspection all the time, Ms Cristina said.

Concluding, she said the government was continuing to work on the consolidation of entities involved in the housing sector in a bid to raise efficiency and provide a service that was more streamlined and cost effective.

Nationalist MP Mario de Marco insisted that the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) needed to give greater consideration to development applications submitted by the Housing Authority. Such applications were meant to benefit people who were most in need, people who very often could not afford to wait. Mepa should therefore consider "fast track" consideration of these applications.

Dr de Marco said there was no doubt that successive governments had tried to find solutions to the housing problem. There was a time when a temporary solution was sought through requisition orders supposedly to provide social justice. But that only served to create injustice and abuse of power. It was quickly shown that was not the best way for the state to solve this problem and the current government had stopped requisitions.

An injustice was also created with landlords in terms of the rent laws enacted after the war, with rents having been fixed at pre-war levels for generations. As a result, the housing problem got worse as fewer properties were put on the rental market.

The rent laws were amended in 1995 in a bid by the government to kick start the rental market. New schemes were also set up to assist people to rent properties, but there was no denying that the housing problem remained and it would be wise for both parties to work together for its solution.

He observed that the housing problem was localised, with the vest majority of applications for housing coming from the inner harbour area. Just over 41 per cent of applications were submitted by married couples, 23.6 per cent by separated couples and a significant number by single parents and those living in substandard or dangerous tenements.

The majority of applicants were workers. In fact, 26 per cent of applications came from people who worked, 14 per cent from housewives, 18 per cent from people on social benefits and 6.6 per cent from pensioners.

There were 532 pending applications from elderly people, most of whom were from the Grand Harbour area. Many of these people lived alone in houses which were no longer suitable for them.

Dr de Marco praised the Housing Authority for its scheme to improve accessibility, ensuring that no one ended a prisoner in his own home. A total of 31 lifts had already been installed as part of this scheme and 21 more were in the process of installation.

With each lift serving a block of an average of six flats, 186 households or 558 persons had benefited so far.

This had been a wise step aimed at improving the life of persons living in these apartments. It also removed the need for these people to seek alternative accommodation.

Just as welcome was the installation of stair lifts where lifts could not be installed.