Labour MP Charles Mangion took the government to task for not honouring its electoral promises in the housing sector during its first 18 months in office.

Speaking during the debate on the motion for the House to approve the Housing Authority's financial estimates on Wednesday, Dr Mangion said that the equity sharing scheme had been closed a month after the 2008 election because the government had financial problems. Before the election the party in government had boasted that public finances were sound.

Turning to the authority's financial report, Dr Mangion called for an explanation of the auditors' claims that they were not given detailed accounts and did not have all information to justify the expense of €64 million.

He requested information on whether the undeveloped sites which the authority possessed formed part of development zones, because these were estimated at substantial values.

He also referred to expenditure on current housing projects, estimated at €86 million with €22 million allocated for land value. He asked whether these referred to current construction work on 19 sites. If this was so, these maisonettes and garages were extremely costly when compared to similar property on the market.

(Winding up the debate, Mr Dalli referred to Dr Mangion' criticism and said that the €64 million related to valuation of all the authority's assets. The new auditor engaged by the authority wanted the information to be set in a new format. He also said the development zones belonging to the authority would not be developed in the near future.)

Dr Mangion said the Housing Authority was facing a number of challenges because family patterns were changing, with many more single and separated parents than ever before.

The authority had to analyse where it had to direct its thrust. One of its main aims was still that of helping first-time home buyers. He asked what the authority's proposed schemes were. One had to be cautious not to raise expectations at a time when the country was in deep recession.

When the Housing Authority was set up under a Labour administration in the 1970s, the thrust was on encouraging people to become home owners. This objective had been reached. Indeed, Malta was one of the EU countries with a very high rate of home ownership.

A Labour government had demonstrated its social conscience when it built a number of housing estates. Home ownership and the housing estates were two schemes which were a wise economic investment and upgraded the standard of living.

Dr Mangion asked about the authority's social objectives. Information provided showed who the people with social needs were. It was therefore paramount that the authority embarked on a programme spread over a number of years to address this social problem.

When allocating contracts one had to ensure that tenants who benefited from social housing lived up to their obligations in keeping their apartments and the common areas in good condition. He mentioned the case of a tenant who used his government-owned apartment to breed dogs.

Michael Farrugia (PL) said Malta had made a great leap forward in terms of property ownership. In light of the rent laws, which perhaps did not make renting so enticing, this was understandable. If one considered how wages had increased over the past ten years, compared to rocketing property prices, this became all the more interesting.

The rent reform would ensure that there would be more property available. This was in its final stages, and perhaps the effects would not be felt this year, but the authority had to plan ahead. For some, even the minimum annual rent of €185 would be too much of a burden.

The government had to start planning to ensure it could offer the needy all necessary help. Next year's allocation would have to take this into consideration. More importantly, if one planned ahead there would be no need to come before Parliament half-way through and admit the scheme had to be stopped because funds had dried up.

In the case of rent increases, preparations had to be made due to owners carrying out any maintenance works. A number of people in government housing estates had aged since moving in, giving rise to problems such as mobility. This meant it was time to evaluate these residences, in order to identify the priority areas that needed elevators, for example.

Some who had houses under various government schemes still encountered problems and could not yet call the land their own, as things were stuck at the promise-of-sale stage. This created problems when it came to the owner wanting to sell the house, and even when it came to the banks for loans.

Owen Bonnici (PL) said that parents' duties to their children included not just health and education but also habitation. The government's duties to the people ran parallel to this.

After going through historic developments in social housing, in Malta and overseas, he said the time may have come for the establishment of small suburbs for specific communities in the country.

Every Maltese citizen had the right to decent habitation, and whoever failed in achieving this should find the solidarity of the government. The current situation, however, was that even young couples with two jobs had to bind themselves to a lifetime of debt with the banks. Once allowance was made for the bank loans, the remaining purchasing power became comparable to that of people with much lower income or even social benefits.

Unless this situation was duly acknowledged, with the resultant pressure on relationships and perception of life in general, there would be something badly missing in what Parliament was seeking to do.

Dr Bonnici said such young, hard-working couples trying to raise families should be helped with adequate solidarity, in the form of social housing, that would lift them above social beneficiaries. Failure to do this would result in gross disservice.

Emphyteusis and rent had evolved in such a way as to help those least well off, in ways that served both landlords and tenants. There was the basic level of protection while help was needed, going up to the level of full ownership of one's home. In this direction the Housing Authority should be commended for its schemes of equity sharing and shared ownership. Such schemes helped and remunerated those most in need for the work they did for the country's wealth. It therefore hurt the opposition to see that all €5 million allocated to equity sharing had soon run out.

The Housing Authority report made extensive reference to the help it had accorded a number of voluntary organisations, especially those that sought to help the homeless. Such organisations deserved all the help they could get, but also solidarity. Experience had shown that the number of homeless people in Malta could not begin to be imagined.

The authority had come up with other laudable schemes in its efforts for social housing.

On rent subsidies, Dr Bonnici said it was shocking that private landlords refused to acknowledge their tenants, who needed to be recognised by the authority, simply because the landlords wanted to conceal their income for tax purposes. If this problem was well tackled it could relieve the authority of the perceived need for more social housing, he concluded.

The vote on the estimates will be taken next Wednesday.

The House meets again this evening to discuss the financial estimates of the Transport Authority.