'Time is not ripe to introduce proposed amendments'

Labour MP Joe Sammut told Parliament on Monday that this was definitely not the time to implement the proposed amendments regulating the rent regime. Considering the global problems, a time when the country was more economically stable would have been a better choice.

Rent was never a pleasant thing to deal with, nether for the tenant nor for the owner. Property was subject to rigid regulation - to a certain extent, denying the owners. One of the negative things of the law today was the way a tenement was automatically inherited.

Dr Sammut said the proposed new minimum rent of €185, which would rise according to the cost of living index, gave room for disparity. Those now paying €25 would now be paying a higher minimum rent. However, there were persons who were paying more, even up to Lm40 or Lm50 a month. The amendments stood to benefit those who paid lower rates.

Since 1995, he said, maintenance had been the responsibility of the owner, and he was only entitled to ask for up to 40 per cent of the costs. Because of this, there were instances where regular maintenance was not carried out and this had resulted even in deaths. This amendment was positive as it ensured that places would be kept in good condition.

Dr Sammut suggested that the same principles as to how the government maintained its rented buildings should be introduced where private rent owners were concerned.

Silvio Parnis (PL) said Malta was now seeing the effects of decades of building sprawl with the result that relatively little land remained available. The Maltese should have thought of building up ages ago. One should seek to foresee what would happen in 20 years' time when the population would have grown further. Indeed, problems existed already. If Malta resorted to land reclamation it could be sure of resistance from the environmentalist lobby.

There were several reasons for current housing problems. Because of Malta's progress over the years it was difficult to expect young people to go and live in two rooms; there was the income-to-cost ratio problems; marriage breakdowns and same-sex couples were becoming more and more numerous. Same-sex bonds in particular were not considered as couples both by the Church and the government and were therefore not even considered for social housing.

Extremely low rent constituted an injustice for the owner, but at the other end of the spectrum, so did unaffordably high rent for the tenant.

Mr Parnis said both Labour and Nationalist administrations had tried hard to resolve housing problems, and succeeded to certain extents. Both sides were committed to quality and agreed that, especially in view of the unfolding situation, the Housing Authority needed to update its policies as the only way to all-round social justice.

The problems of high-cost furnished accommodation were exacerbated if the owner refused to declare the real income he derived, keeping the tenant from applying for rent subsidy.

Mr Parnis strongly disagreed with the notion of long-term patients in hospital or old people's homes losing their homes, and insisted that the debate on this theme be reopened.

Concluding, he said that tackling the Bill would continue to require keeping important social aspects in sight at all times for a better all-round quality of life.

Anthony Agius Decelis (PL) said both sides should work to bridge the social divide.

The opposition believed in fairness and justice with solutions sought to real life problems without creating new injustices. Because change brought uncertainty, the PL carried out wide consultation on rent reform and had requested a social impact assessment because it would have given a clearer picture of the situation.

He said that the government should have considered the vulnerability of various groups including the elderly and widows before suggesting the new minimum rent. The government had to be socially conscious not to create a new type of poverty.

Mr Agius Decelis said the government ought to have consulted local gerontology specialists before proposing that people living in old people's homes lost the right to tenancy if they spent more than 12 months away from home.

He concluded that while everyone expected justice from the new Bill, many were sceptical about its success given the failure of the 1995 amendments to achieve the desired results