Should we allow foreign billionaires to buy UK property for investment?

It is astonishing that we allow, for example, millionaires in Singapore to buy land and property in Britain, but Singapore bars British and other foreign nationals from buying in their country.

Denmark prohibits non-EU nationals from buying a home unless they have lived in the country for five years – and, like Finland and Malta, is allowed by the EU to restrict EU citizens from buying second homes in the country. Australia has dramatically cracked down on foreign buyers who have pumped the property market in Sydney and Melbourne to absurd levels. Only Britain leaves the doors almost completely open.

The Bow Group proposes that foreign residents should be limited to the purchase of a single property, and only in the new-build sector, with penalties if they sell within five years. No new block should be more than 50% foreign-owned, it says. But the report goes further than just hammering foreign nationals – it wants the Bank of England to set a target where house prices average no more than four times income.

http://gu.com/p/4ec8t

Town council forced to disclose legal opinion

“The First-Tier Tribunal has ruled that a freedom of information case involving a town council and relating to charitable land was one of those “rare and exceptional” cases where the public interest favoured disclosure of legal advice ahead of maintaining legal professional privilege (LPP).

In Hewlett v Information Commisioner the appellant had written to Beccles Town Council to ask for a plan of land being registered as charitable land. She also asked for copies of documents mentioned in an agenda, including a barrister’s opinion, advice, map and statutory declaration from Waveney District Council.

The town council provided a copy of the plan but refused to provide the other documents as it argued that they were covered by LPP. After the appellant asked Beccles to check whether the response was correct, the town council stated that the information from the QC was exempt.

Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, the council said that the barrister’s opinion was exempt under s. 42 FOIA. It also said the appellant could view the document outside of FOIA at the council’s offices provided a waiver was signed.

The appellant said she was still seeking disclosure of the barrister’s opinion, statutory declaration and advice. She acknowledged that unofficial copies (with the exception of the ‘advice’) had been put through her letter box – by an anonymous source – but she wanted to be provided with official copies as she believed that they should be made available to the public.

The Tribunal noted that s. 42 FOIA is a qualified exemption, which means it had to conduct a ‘public interest balancing exercise’, ie consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.” …

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25182:tribunal-orders-town-council-to-disclose-legal-advice-from-barrister&catid=59&Itemid=27