An Opposition setting the government agenda

The Opposition has always been proactive and has repeatedly spoken out on the issue of pre-1995 protected rents. It had to be the Opposition that moved a sleeping Government, against the backdrop of human beings ending up on the streets for the last seven years.

Now that the Opposition has set the agenda, the Government had to act. They did not do it with conviction, but because they know that the election is near, and they cannot continue to see the numbers falling.

This Government, with its policy in the economic and social fields, has led to the escalation of this problem of protected rents in a short time which takes on an increasingly dimension of crisis on a national basis.

In my opinion, I feel that there are three main factors that can be attributed to Government and that have led to all this. First, the lack of buildings for social housing purposes since 2013 where we have not seen units or apartments distributed to those individuals or families who are most in need, or who do not have a suitable place to live. The second factor is the increase in poverty in our country, which has continued to rise with the situation of COVID-19, where you have individuals and families who are not coping with life with the consequence that they are not able to find affordable rents. And the third factor is the large increase in rental prices, caused by the strong influx of foreign workers for cheap labour, which has led to higher rents; were many Maltese and Gozitans were left without the possibility to compete with these foreigners as they find it hard to find rent at affordable prices.

The Government states that there were about 10,000 families living in sheltered rents prior to June 1, 1995. It has also been said by the Government that it will allocate €1 million in the first year to make up for the increases in rents, where the amount that can be given to the owners reaches a maximum of 2% of the value of the property in the market, and that may be due to the demands that are expected to be made by the owners. On the other hand, pensioners and recipients of social benefits will have their rent paid by the State, this up to a maximum of 10,000 Euros. In the case of those in full-time employment, the Government will pay up to a maximum of 25% of the rent. For those in rents exceeding 10,000 Euros per year, the State is expected to offer alternative accommodations.

From what the Government has announced, there are aspects that look good. However, as is the case of pensioners and those who pass on social benefits, there are still several doubts about how much what is being promised can be fulfilled in practice. The amount of €1 million allocated for the first year is very low. So much so that, per capita, there will be an allocation of only €100. One also wonders what will happen to those who work only part-time or are self-employed.

Undoubtedly, the biggest joke of the century is when one hears the Government say that it will provide alternative housing. I would like to remind you that to this day, after eight years, the Labor Government has not provided even one apartment for social housing purposes.

I also question:

What will happen if pensioners have children living with them? Will they also be entitled to live in the same house for numbers of years? Will the landlord remain obliged to rent to them forever? Is this justice for those owners who have children and end up themselves renting, while their place is cheaply rented? Is that fair?

With the reform announced a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister will be sending thousands of people to the Courts of our country and increasing the tension between the tenants and the owners of the properties. Everything will be thrown in front of the Rent Board. It remains to be seen how far the Board will be able to cope, in reasonable terms, with the number of cases it will have to hear.

With what is being proposed, there is also a real danger that instead of offering incentives for a voluntary agreement, (for example, a negotiated solution between the landlord and the tenant), one would instead seek litigation and go to the Board to seek a legal solution. We do not agree at all to send people to Court, but believe in an administrative process.

But several questions remain: - For example, what happens if a decision by the Board is not taken for a number of years? I hope this is not intended on purpose, because of an election around the corner. Is there a way to appeal these rules? What happens if there is no agreement with the Board or the architect’s estimate on the market value of the property? Why is legal aid only for tenants?

Above all, was there a wide consultation? It is certain that with us members of the Opposition, no one has ever spoken with us, despite the fact that we have spoken and raised this subject in Parliament several times. While I am shocked by this behavior, however, I do not expect better from an arrogant Government who feels on top of a pyramid while seeing the rest beneath him. If he had been wise, he would have done much better, for the good of all.

We are repeating several times that this lease cannot be turned into a political ball. In this matter, one must protect the tenants and even the landlords. Arrogance cannot give positive results.

The Labour Government continues to shed its responsibility, in the face of a precarious situation in which thousands of Maltese and Gozitan families find themselves, particularly the elderly, who are at risk of becoming homeless. The Labor Government is also continuing to ignore the carbs of thousands of landlords who want to enjoy their property as they are entitled to.

With open arms, the Opposition has repeatedly called on the Government to sit around the table, and think of the Maltese Owners, with whom injustice has been done over the years, to put their minds at rest that they will not end up off the street.

At the very least the Government should help them avoid sleepless nights and coming and going to professionals, in short afraid of a new dawn.