Beyond the social aspect

It had been the government's practice for the best part of 50 years to try and curtail the social housing problem by issuing requisition orders. It must be pointed out that thousands of accommodations were allocated to the homeless in this fashion. The practice consisted in forcing land owners to lease out their respective properties to third parties at miserly rents against their will. In truth, the end result of all this was that the government found an easy way out in providing a social service by literally taking property from one sector of society and handing it over to another. As I shall explain this practice eventually led to a multitude of abuses and in actual fact outlived its original scope.

The necessity of empowering the government to issue such orders emanated from the general destruction of the Second World War, whereby a large percentage of the Maltese ended up homeless. These powers where therefore conferred in the shadow of an emergency situation and were intended to be temporary. As the years went by, however, the effects of the ravages of war slowly subsided but these emergency powers persisted. Throughout the latter part of the last century, instead of resorting to such powers less frequently, surprisingly the opposite actually occurred. Government ministers felt free to assign other people's property as they thought fit. The so-called landlord, it seems, had no legal means to oppose such government decrees. In retrospect all this almost led to a form of nationalisation of private property. Property owners faced the constant fear that their property could be taken away from them.

It must be stated that in practice not all tenants were deserving and some perhaps even less deserving than others. Frequent were the cases whereby property was assigned on the basis of contacts and friendship rather than economic considerations. In truth today a minority of such tenants are in actual fact quite affluent, while on the other hand a minority of the land owners fall in the opposite social bracket. All this undoubtedly has created a social injustice.

It must be pointed out that sadly, during this period, our courts failed to take an audacious stand, declaring in one case after the other that the courts would not disturb the discretion exercised by the executive in such circumstances.

In 1987, Malta adhered to the European Convention of Human Rights with regard to the individual right of petition to the Strasbourg court. Almost coincidentally, though the legal powers to be retained for a further eight years, this practice stopped. More so, it is now the policy of the housing department to issue de-requisition orders thereby divesting itself from any residual authority on properties previously controlled by the state.

Where do we go from here? The fact that this practice frequently gave rise to severe injustices is undeniable. On the other hand, however, the number of properties occupied by individuals in this fashion is so great that it would not only prove unpractical for the government to terminate the effects of requisition orders but such a measure would in practical terms create a great upheaval and extenuate the housing crisis to unacceptable levels. It is right and fitting to acknowledge past mistakes but it is unwise and unfeasible to try and turn the clock back.

This notwithstanding, however, I feel that today in this day and age the government has a moral if not also a political obligation to take a clear position on this issue. It is not enough for it merely to abstain from executing its inherent powers. There can always come a time when a particular administration, overburdened by an uncontrollable public expenditure, might again feel the urge to repeat the mistakes committed and reintroduce similar legislation. Such a threat is not so far-fetched, especially considering the exorbitant prices of property making it no longer affordable for the lower classes. Such a sense of insecurity could also affect adversely private investment.

The government, therefore, when one considers the whole picture and this from all angles, should consider in the worst hypothesis to clearly define what should be construed as in the public interest, which definition could also be entrenched in our Constitution. For too long a time our courts have proven to be too liberal in their definition in this regard. On the other hand, in the worst scenario, the compensation to be paid should be realistic. Furthermore, I daresay that given the right economic climate the government should also consider compensating, in one way or another, landlords who over the years would have been unduly divested of their property.

No doubt crosses my mind that in a welfare state such as ours the government of the day must treat as top priority problems emanating from the need to provide for social housing.

If this were not the case our streets would be inundated with cardboard boxes housing the impoverished and lower classes as happens elsewhere. Malta would become a nightmare destination characterised by its ghettos. This notwithstanding, it is intrinsically wrong and immoral to expect the private sector to act as a sort of social services department and bear the burden altruistically itself. Social housing is a public and government problem and should be dealt with as such.

The government has a tremendous amount of land and property at its disposal, more so after having acquired in the late 1980s the bulk of the Church's property. In this sense the government should analyse more seriously the best way to exploit its resources with regards to our endemic problem of social housing, even if this means going into partnership with the private sector. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that while thousands apply for government accommodation there are more than 40,000 empty properties abandoned all over the country. Such property is more often than not bogged down by legal intricacies or merely abandoned with no known owner. The government must always remain responsible for social housing. This time round, however, it must be made aware that it must foot the bill itself.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.