Nicky Bianchi, clearly a property owner with a vested interest who has a rental income, joins the ranks of those who, willingly, continue to seek protection for their interests while continuing to miss, misunderstand or ignore the main thrust of my taxing property proposals.

Let me, for the umpteenth time, repeat that the property I strongly maintain should be taxed is that which is left long vacant and unoccupied, closed and unutilised. These are national (not only private) assets that would be wasting away and becoming a liability to the country. Nobody has a right to argue for continuation of such a situation, as Bianchi clearly seems to imply.

It is simply pointless (not to say deviationist) for property owners who, terrified as the government clearly shows early signs of tackling the issue, lament the “chorus proclaiming the horrors of high rents”, argue for “a reasonable rate of return on capital”, the need for a “property market value index” and other such red herrings, which, however, have absolutely nothing to do with the main issue, that is, taxing long vacant and unutilised property.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the correctness or otherwise of existing rental legislation, including the present 15 per cent taxing of declared rental incomes. This has to do with:

(a) Eliminating the plethora of dilapidating eyesore premises in places like Sliema, Ħamrun, Birkirkara, Valletta, Gozo, and elsewhere.

(b) Getting such properties back into the mainstream of property in use.

(c) In some way, empowering the government to, at some stage, confiscate property, upgrade it itself and, if need be, use it as social housing if and when levied taxes on such property are not duly paid.

As I wrote recently, MPs from both sides of the House are now speaking of a necessary culture change on this front. As Shakespeare would have it: “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.”

Other countries have such laws, so we would not be reinventing the wheel.