Opposition urges government to withdraw Rent Reform Bill

Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat yesterday called on the government to withdraw the Rent Reform Bill because it caused confusion and offered the wrong solution to the problem. But, he told Parliament, the opposition would not be voting against the Bill in second reading but would move extensive amendments in the committee stage, which would take place in plenary session.

While the Bill aimed to eliminate a number of injustices, it created new ones with a total absence of the role of the state. It was right to relieve owners of their unjust burdens, but this should not be shifted to the tenants.

On the positive side, the Bill would alleviate pressure for new construction. It also sought to eliminate injustices to the owner's children who had to buy other property to live in while their family's property was tied up.

Dr Muscat said he was disappointed that such an inter-generational Bill lacked a social impact audit. Adequate data were not provided when the EU was promoting better regulation.

The Bill did not take into consideration the international crisis and the revision of utility tariffs which could negatively affect, in the near and long terms, families who would have less disposable income. The government lacked social conscience, with needy families having received the utility bills but not the promised relief vouchers. It also lacked tangible social commitment.

International events had shown that full liberalisation could lead to a disaster with the government, through taxpayers' money, having to rectify the situation. The opposition agreed with liberalisation, but this had to be responsible because it carried a price tag which should be shouldered neither by the financially weak nor by the owners.

The state had to intervene with responsibility with regard to the social aspect in housing. This was totally lacking.

The government should assist those who could not meet the new rent obligations and should declare how the benefit schemes would be operated and to what extent. How many new building units would be built for social housing purposes? Timeframes should be drawn up and budgets for such purposes approved. Dr Muscat declared that this could have formed part of a social audit, and insisted on a fair deal for both owners and tenants.

The government should withdraw the Bill because it created confusion. Experts were already giving various interpretations to the clauses of the Bill. But, he said, that the government would do nothing of the sort and therefore the Opposition would not be voting against the Bill in second reading. It would, however, be proposing a number of amendments in committee stage.

Dr Muscat said that the government had accepted the opposition's request to hold the committee stage in plenary session of the House because it felt that the Bill was not clear.

The opposition wanted an unequivocal Bill that was transparent and open to scrutiny. The liberalised market in 1995 had not brought the desired results because it lacked certainty. There were no fixed timeframes for the Rent Regulation Board to decide on issues submitted to it. The present board should be reformed and given adequate resources to deal with an increased caseload.

The Bill increased powers but failed to increase scrutiny and checks and balances. New mechanisms would have to include representatives of all stakeholders. An adequate period of adjustment had to be given in order to avoid new social problems. This period of time also had to serve for the state to prepare itself for a changed situation, planning on building new housing units to rent out as social housing and protecting the weak through different types of assistance.

Dr Muscat declared that it was unacceptable that patients who were institutionalised for more than a year should lose the right to their leases at a time when they were most vulnerable. The opposition was not convinced on how the Bill was to cater for the tenants' children and siblings living in the same household.

Turning to requisitioned property occupied by political parties, Dr Muscat said these should be treated as other clubs. It was high time for the government to legislate on political party financing. Requisition orders were a thing of the past, he said.

In committee stage the opposition would insist on the protection of minority groups, including cohabiting couples. This promise had been made by the PN way back in 1998. Such a Bill could not exclude this type of families.

The state needed to show social commitment, he said, adding that he had been informed that the government had recently stopped a scheme whereby people living on social assistance could buy the government property they were living in.

Concluding, Dr Muscat said the state should not abdicate its social responsibilities and should not create any new injustices.