Opposition spokesman on Social Policy Michael Farrugia on Tuesday complained of the fact that during talks between the parties on the rent reform, there had been a clear promise by the government that so long as no agreement was reached on the financing of political parties, no party club of either side would be touched.

Citing the example of the PL club at Siġġiewi, Dr Farrugia said the government had broken this agreement and could not be trusted to keep its word.

Speaking during the debate on the estimates of the Housing Authority, Dr Farrugia said one of the cardinal principles of last year's rent law, which the opposition had basically supported even though it disagreed with certain parts, had been to end once and for all the practice of property owners subsidising tenants. Other points of agreement had been to revise or launch schemes to reflect present times and initially help tenants to pay the new rates.

Dr Farrugia said the time had come for areas including social housing to also have well-constructed streets.

People wanting to sell their homes were still finding problems because they stood on land that had once been expropriated but had still not been compensated for.

Earlier, Joseph Falzon (PN) said every PN government had a sound housing policy. Not only did they want tenants to be the owners of their own residence but also provided the best housing possible.

The government was criticised for earmarking prime sites, like Pembroke and Mtarfa, for social housing. This was proof enough that the Housing Authority offered good-quality properties. Admittedly, Malta had paid a heavy price but it was a source of comfort to note that such stocks were not intended for second-class citizens. These units compared well with private-sector developments, even where the external environment was concerned.

Other social housing projects had transformed dilapidated areas and Mr Falzon appealed to the Housing Authority to embark on the next phases of the Msida project because the derelict building was proving to be dangerous.

He referred to criticism that certain government housing units cost as much as private ones. Mr Falzon said that land, construction and services cost money and therefore a balance must be found. The equation must be based on sustainability.

Many units offered during the 1990's ended up in development sites for commercial buildings because owners sold them at commercial prices when they had bought them at a low cost and were even given grants to help in the development. This was not fair and such owners should be made to refund a considerable sum to the Housing Authority. Mr Falzon suggested the authority should be refunded a fair share of the proceeds on the sale of property sold for development or a percentage from the sale of the new apartments.

The government had already seen to this discrepancy but more balanced and fair share should be found.

Concluding, Mr Falzon said the authority should also look at public-private partnerships. It did not make sense to have an oversupply of government and private units.

Stefan Buontempo (PL) said that the government was under an obligation to provide one with a roof over one's head. But the government abandoned social housing and lacked direction in this sector.

The authority was not committed to provide social housing. The only alternative that the authority was providing was directed to those renting from the private sector. The authority had only bought one block at Qawra from the private sector.

Vulnerable people were not being assisted. He accused the government of having dismantled the department of maintenance and construction and such people could no longer be helped in maintaining the property they lived in. He questioned the way the amalgamation of government departments and the authority were integrated.

Former prisoners could not integrate in society because of lack of housing. At the same time, there was a large housing stock which was empty.

He referred to the rent reform and accused the government of having lied to the people when it promised to help those affected by the new legislation. It was not true that the government was helping people whose rent was now €185 because the benchmark used was €186. For just one euro, nobody had benefitted. The minister had said that the authority did not have a budget for such a scheme although she promised every request would be treated on its own merits if it fell within the parameters of the various schemes.

How could vulnerable people pay a further six per cent of their annual rent if the government made structural maintenance like changing a dilapidated roof? He referred to the scheme under which tenants in private residence who wanted to upgrade substandard housing were given €4,000. This was not enough, he said.

Scheme A meant people were given a loan at six per cent, payable back within 10 years. Were these the kind of schemes that the authority was boasting so much about?

Single parents could not afford to pay rents of between €200 and €300 a month with the kind of assistance offered. These people needed social assistance.

There were so many difficult conditions imposed on those applying for the installation of a lift that nobody had applied.

The government must give incentives to the private sector so that the existing housing stock should be put on the market.

Dr Buontempo accused certain NGOs of inflating the issue of the homeless and asked the minister to monitor such shelters. He said he knew cases of children who were under a care order and who were referred to minor shelter homes. However, because there were no vacancies, these were taken to other shelter homes which housed adults. This was not compatible.

Recently, the housing authority had put 117 units and 104 garages for sale. But there were no applicants because some units cost €90,000 and garages cost €24,400. Certain conditions were also difficult to follow, like ground rent that must be redeemed within 10 years.

Dr Buontempo said that in the next six months, the government would make €10.6 million when they should not have cost more than €4 million The authority would thus be making a profit of €6.6 million.

Ċensu Galea (PN) said that many times the problems facing the housing sector should be viewed in conjunction with the reasons why families found themselves in difficult housing circumstances. The years between 1992 and 1996 were years that had given a new outlook to social housing in Malta.

Thousands of properties in Malta were finished and ready for occupation but had been vacant for years. This was partly due to over-construction, but also because any property developer wanted to sell or leave it vacant, but not lease it out.

Owners were still terrified of leasing to Maltese because of the possibility of effectively losing their property when dwellers did not want to leave at the end of the term. Also as a result of a change of law in 1975, the owners could not get their property back at the end of a temporary emphyteusis.

There had also been the problem of tenants paying rent punctually but not caring to maintain their dwellings, which were allowed to deteriorate to untenability. All these complications had eventually led to what was called social housing being overstocked because very few people preferred to rent. Most wanted to buy from the private sector.

Fifteen years ago the Labour opposition had been against the end of the government's power to requisition housing, as well as other reforms.

All those mistakes, said Mr Galea, had led to an untenable situation in housing. A major object of the greatest-ever change in rent laws, enacted last year, was to set up a serious rental market for those in difficulties or setting out in life.

Malta of 2010 was very different from Malta of 2000 or even 2005. In 2010 many more families were facing unprecedented difficulties. In 2009, 25 per cent of women giving birth had been single mothers. Such situations were exacerbated by families refusing to accept their daughters' predicament and throwing them out. Desperate for a roof over their head, the young mothers were having to accept leasing small dwellings once meant as summer residences at exorbitant prices.

Too many times these mothers could not even apply for social assistance because the lessors refused to give them receipts, thus adding to their burdens.

Mr Galea said it was time to incentivise such property owners to give out due receipts by making such income tax-free, or by other means.

With social realities changing so rapidly, one must realise that not all past practices still held water today. New tactics were needed to mirror the circumstances of today as life in Malta continued to develop. Although the Housing Authority could not build as many units as before, it was still trying to help as many cases as possible, so long as they were real ones.

What Dr Buontempo had called profits on social housing were not real because he was not taking the cost of land and other aspects into consideration.

Concluding, Mr Galea said the reality of social problems would continue to have a direct bearing on the reality of housing needs.

Philip Mifsud (PN) said today's needs were very different from yesteryear and the future, and must continue to evolve. The Housing Authority had become a victim of its own success through its many schemes and the great response thereto.

He agreed with the way minister Cristina differentiated between social accommodation and affordable housing. Home ownership would continue to be the aim of many, even those in the less favourable financial framework. Over the years the property market had seen important changes, not least in prices and quality, giving buyers a greater choice.

Operating in such an ambience, the authority had to be different from the past, adapting and offering housing of quality.

Mr Mifsud said the opposition must decide on a tenable position: either it criticised the authority for not keeping up with demand or criticising it for offering better-quality housing, even though at subsidised prices.

Good progress had been registered even in design, not only as regards façades but also interiors and environs which made for quality living. The authority should lead in developing a new standard for private housing, such as energy-saving characteristics.

Another very important aspect in which it should lead by example was good accessibility.

Concluding, Mr Mifsud agreed that anybody giving up property that had once been subsidised must refund the amount the amount of subsidy received in order to help the authority to help others in need.

The Housing Authority's estimates for 2010 were approved after a division.