Ms Jude Sherry:

With regard to interest payments, my reading of the Derelict Sites Act is that there is a monthly interest payment of 1.25% on unpaid fines. Perhaps some clarity could be provided afterwards as to whether it is a legal possibility. The reason we have proposed a three-pronged approach to tackling dereliction and vacancy is because no one approach or no one piece of legislation will tackle it on its own. For instance, France has shown that a vacancy tax, which we urgently need, would bring approximately 13% of vacant units back into use. We can see it is effective and it does work but on its own it is not enough.

We see vacancy as the gateway to dereliction. Long-term vacancy in a building will lead to dereliction. Dereliction relates more to impact on the community. A home that has been vacant for five years has an impact on the community as we lose out on neighbours and the area is made less safe from having fewer people in it. Amsterdam takes a proactive approach. As it has already tackled the dereliction problem, there is only a 2% vacancy rate. Amsterdam takes a very proactive approach to tackling vacancy through compulsory rental orders. Instead of trying to change ownership of the building, the authorities want to make sure all homes are used. If a home has been empty for longer than six months, it is the owner's responsibility to report it. If the owners do not report it within six months, they are fined €2,500. If they do not pay this fine, they can be fined up to €15,000. If they do not bring the home back into use within a year, the council can put a tenant into the building to make sure it is used. The owners have no say about this but they do maintain ownership.

Likewise in Barcelona, new laws have been introduced. If a building is empty for longer than a year, the council can put someone into it but the owners receive only half the market rate of the rental. We can see that rental orders-----