Labour MP suggests all rent agreements should be registered

Opposition spokesman on infrastructure Charles Buhagiar has suggested that all written contracts of letting and hiring should be registered and not only those relating to new ones entered into after January 1. The government would thus increase its revenue.

A minimum rent of €185 per annum might not be much for some, but would create hardship to pensioners and those living on social assistance. It was important for the government to adopt a number of subsidy schemes and these should form part of the Bill. More financial resources should be voted so that such schemes would meet the demand, while means tests for eligibility to these schemes should be the same for everyone.

Mr Buhagiar called on the government to increase resources to the Rent Regulation Board because of an expected increased workload as a result of the rent reform Bill. The board would have the exclusive competence to decide on all matters relating to the contracts of lease of urban property, including commercial tenements and residences. He agreed that commercial rents be revised upwards.

The Bill would also leave an impact on the environment. There were old properties which needed structural repairs, but owners would refrain from repairing them because they would not recuperate these expenses through increased rents. He called on the government to provide resources for a Housing Authority scheme on property structural repairs.

Turning to the property market, Mr Buhagiar said developers needed to sell properties to repay bank loans and to embark on new developments. If developers were to rent their property, they would need to impose very high rents to recuperate their investments. Such high rents could not be met by average income earners.

Concluding, Mr Buhagiar said government intervention, particularly during the transition period, was needed. During the committee stage the opposition would present amendments to correct inadequacies, address problems wisely, make the Bill clearer for everyone to understand and avoid new injustices.

Stefan Buontempo (PL) said the Bill was long overdue. Even at the beginning of the 2003 legislature, the President had spoken of the Nationalist Party's commitment to reforming the rent laws, but nothing had been done.

He said that in piloting the Bill, Social Policy Minister John Dalli had not even referred to what had happened since 1998.

This Bill was indeed very important, but not as it had been presented.

Had the tenants and owners been asked how they felt about the proposed legislation? Or was it a case of eliminating injustices while creating others? Dr Buontempo said the burden lifted from the owners should not be placed on the tenants. The question was whether tenants could afford to pay the market prices. If not, which were the schemes that could help them out?

This was a 60-year-old problem which had simply got further complicated by time, even by measures taken by Labour Administrations intended to improve the situation.

Requisitions introduced after World War II were meant to be temporary, but had lasted well into the '90s. At the time of their introduction, such measures made sense because there were vacant houses and people needed accommodation.

Between 1962 and 1971 nothing had been done, but between 1971 and 1987 successive Labour governments had administered a policy that all should have a roof over their heads. While people previously lived in slums, this translated into people becoming owners of their houses.

Dr Buontempo said the Bill was a step forward, but it was time for both sides to put their heads together to make it work for everyone.

Gino Cauchi (PL) said the opposition had from the onset shown that it would be approaching the Bill apolitically and was ready for a serious discussion, just as it had carefully studied the White Paper, listened to people and then made its comments last August. On the other hand, the government side had shown a negative attitude, although this did not apply to Minister Dalli.

One of the most negative speakers in the House had been Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg. But even at a political meeting in Mellieħa last Sunday, the Prime Minister had said that Labour had not even deigned to make its recommendations on the White Paper. Rightly enough, Minister Dalli had intervened and put him right.

Mr Cauchi asked if the Bill was the solution to the country's housing problems. The answer was no because it did not present the right solutions. What Malta needed was clear, understandable legislation and not one that would aggravate matters.

One example of the vagueness of the Bill was the fact that different lawyers on the opposition side had given different interpretations to the same clause. This was why Labour had offered to redraft the Bill with the government side.

There were issues that had been left out of the Bill, and the overall impression, also cautiously admitted by Nationalist quarters, was that it had been hastily and amateurishly drafted as if to show things were finally moving.

Mr Cauchi said a well-worded law would help not only the legal profession but also people in general. Back in 1995 the law had not solved all the problems it had set out to address.

The present Bill presented a gaping hole where the government's supposedly central role was concerned. A responsible government must solve problems, and take on itself an even greater role in such a socially-important aspect.

The Bill was rightly relieving the private sector of a heavy burden, but that burden was not being shouldered by the government. Neither government nor Joint Office properties were covered by the Bill. The sooner such questions were answered, the better for all.

There had been no impact assessment of the Bill's effects on society in general. The state must take all necessary steps to cover the new poor who would emerge once the Bill becomes law. If the government was not prepared to care for the victims of this Bill, the opposition would not allow this to happen.

Mr Cauchi said there were too many pensioners who could barely make ends meet, even without a minimum rent of €185 per annum. Also a big headache was the clause that anybody leaving their residence for more than a year, even if receiving treatment in hospital, would lose the lease.

On the rights of minorities, he said the Bill presented no solution for new kinds of families in their wide variety, which included cohabitants and gay couples. They could not be forgotten.

Mention of the Rent Regulations Board gave lawyers the shivers, because of the cumbersome way it operated and its backlog of work. How could it now be saddled with new problems emanating from the law? On political and social clubs, Mr Cauchi said the Bill seemed to be aimed at knocking Labour clubs hard, even in spite of their social aims.

Politics should be kept out of the equation. There were also band clubs operating out of leased premises.

Inappropriate haste in passing the Bill would harm social justice. It was also very important that the new law should be accessible and well understood by one and all for the sake of doing justice to thousands for long years to come, concluded Mr Cauchi.

Roderick Galdes (PL) said there was convergence between the government and the opposition on a number of issues dealing with rent reform.

On the minimum rent threshold of €185, he quoted the White Paper as saying that 46 per cent of tenants, most of them pensioners, would have to pay higher rents while 61 per cent of these pensioners at present paid less than €116 in annual rent. He said these vulnerable people needed protection but the government had not yet announced any scheme. The government had not yet published any plans and budgets which aimed to give assistance to those who were to be adversely hit by this bill.

Both sides agreed on the obligation of the state to provide social housing accommodation. The need was felt to strike a balance between home ownership schemes, the rental market and social accommodation. Successive Labour governments contributed heavily to enable families to buy their own residences.

Mr Galdes said today's rental market was limited to single parents and to other vulnerable people who could not afford to buy their own residences. It was the state's duty to support these families. Nationalist governments were less socially committed than Labour, so that today there were more than 3,000 families seeking social accommodation. Social housing schemes were taking too long to process because of bureaucracy.

The property market was as speculative as ever and demanding higher prices. The government's greatest investment had to be in social housing. The opposition was being constructive in attitude but would insist that the Bill did not create anomalies.