The MLP in a reaction to the White Paper on rent reform today called for clarity in proposed transition periods on the revision of rents for residential properties in order to avoid uncertainty. It also argued that social and political clubs should not be excluded from the reform and it should be the state, not landlords, which should carry the financial burden which recognition of the work of such centres entailed.

The MLP said that any rent reform should keep in mind the needs of small income earners while also doing justice for landlords who for years had not been adequately compensated for the use of their properties.

It said that in terms of the White Paper proposal to establish a minimum rent for ordinary residences, 46% of tenants whose lease went back before 1995 would see an increase in their rents. Many of these were elderly people on a pension. Such people should not be faced with a situation which caused a deterioration of their living standard, especially when inflation was at its highest in 10 years. The White Paper’s biggest failure in this regard was that it did not clearly establish a transition period. But solutions to this issue should no longer be borne by the landlords. Indeed, the rent minimum could be lower if financial incentives were offered to the owners, the MLP said.

Furthermore, the rent assistance schemes mentioned in the White Paper needed to be more comprehensive.

The MLP said rents should not be adjusted according to inflation, but a specific rent index, as happened abroad. And any mechanism which established the guidelines on rent values needed to consider not just inflation and location, but also the size of the property. The three-year period for the revision of rents also appeared to be short.

The party observed that the government proposals limited the extension of inheritance of a rented property to married spouses and ignored new realities including cohabiting couples and same-sex relationships and siblings living together.

There could also be flexibility on the yardstick set by the government for the inheritance of a property by persons living in the same residence. In terms of the White Paper, such people need to have lived in the residence for five years

Furthermore, in terms of the White Paper, a rented property could not be inherited by a person with an income in excess of £25,000. This was too low, the MLP said.

The party said the proposal that people in institutions would lose their rented property after six months needed to be flexible as it would otherwise cause injustices.

On commercial rents, the MLP said that here too, landlords deserved justice, but businesses, particularly, SMEs, could not suddenly be faced by circumstances which radically changes the environment within which they operated. The White Paper did not make distinctions say, between outlets and warehouses. This area needed further discussion, a transition period for change, and, if necessary, government support..

The MLP said it disagreed that social centres and political party clubs should be excluded from the reforms.

Here too, landlords should not shoulder the recognition which society should grant such centres and clubs.

The party felt that such centres should be considered as a sector on its own which should enjoy state-run schemes which acknowledged the social, cultural and political work that was carried out for the benefit of society.

The MLP said this was an initial reaction and it would be discussing the reform proposals further.