“What we’re proposing is a solution for the landlord, who will eventually get his property back, and a socially acceptable solution for tenants... The plan is to get all the property rented on pre-1995 regulations on the same level as the post-1995 laws.”
So said Social Policy minister John Dalli when launching the much-anticipated White Paper on rent reform last Saturday. Theoretically, his plan sounds simple enough. But in practice, all those involved in this messy affair – not least, the property-owners who have been disenfranchised for almost exactly 70 years – know that overhauling the antiquated 1939 rent law regime represents a daunting challenge, over which the present administration has dragged its feet for years.
It is an unfortunate trait of the Maltese character to condone injustices when there is an advantage to be gained for oneself. In the case of the rent laws issue, the injustice has been staring us in the face for decades: landlords who receive a pittance in annual rent, are also held responsible for major repair works, sometimes running into tens of thousands of euros. There are even cases where such landlords have been driven to destitution on account of unscrupulous tenants – often inhabiting commercial properties in prime locations, which would otherwise fetch healthy annual rents – who insist on their legal right to free maintenance at the owners’ expense... among other abuses of the law.
To be fair to all sides, it must also be said that there are individual cases – often as not involving pensioners and/or persons with disability – where the tenants would simply not be able to afford a roof over their heads under any other circumstance.
Admittedly these are not the majority, and certainly this argument cannot apply to the commercial properties which fall into this category.
Nonetheless, from this perspective, the 1939 rent laws also double up as an emergency solution to mass poverty and homelessness... two phenomena which Malta appears to have been spared, precisely on account of such anachronistic legislation.
The question we should be asking, therefore, is whether it is fair to expect a small section of the population to continue bearing the cost of this artificial social safety net, when the responsibility for such cases should by rights fall to the government.
In presenting the white paper, Dalli made it clear that this “delicate balance” is uppermost on government’s agenda. And at a glance, the proposals it contains appear to have been thought out specifically to redress the injustice without causing too much of a shock to the country’s social fabric.
Given the complexity of the issue, as well as the emotions that invariably accompany any discussion on the subject, it is understandable that not all will agree with the finer details. For one thing, there is clearly some fine-tuning to be done in the wording of the law, which appears to discriminate against non-traditional forms of family such as cohabiting couples.
Besides, some are bound to object to certain exemptions written into the proposed law: including political party clubhouses, which have been omitted in what appears to be yet another case where political parties perceive themselves to be a breed apart.
But to be fair, newly appointed PN secretary general Paul Borg Olivier has to his credit already declared that he would be ready to renounce his party’s rights over these properties that benefit from the restrictive rent laws.
As things stand, one would be hard pressed to find fault with the proposed law, other than to point out that, by insisting on “national consensus” on this issue, the social policy minister has also given the impression that he is trying to place newly elected MLP leader Joseph Muscat in a tight corner.
This is already the case with the Dockyard privatisation: another issue which the government appears to be using to test the mettle of the 34-year-old Opposition leader. Perhaps our politicians should occasionally remind themselves that their responsibility is really towards the country as a whole, and that not every initiative has to perforce be presented as some form challenge to their rivals.
Having said this, it is highly unlikely that the victims of this ongoing injustice will ultimately care which of the two parties comes out looking better from the exchange.
For despite these minor hiccups, the White Paper itself certainly presents a step in the right direction, and long-suffering property owners will no doubt be content to simply welcome an initiative which has finally enabled them to see some light at the end of the tunnel.