01-405 7641 Ext.
Communications on this subject should
be at
THE
ed to
SECRETARY
ATTORNEY General's Chambers
SECRET
-3-
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS,
LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT,
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE,
LONDON, W.C.2.
(v) Your paragraph 2(i)
I do not recollect expressing any "discomfort" with the suggestion - indeed I do not recollect any substantial discussion of the suggestion that our legislation (if there is to be legislation) should be expressed as "for the avoidance of doubt". fact, as a drafting device, that gives me no problems.
(vi) Your paragraph 2(i)
In
There is, I think, a discrepancy between your description of my position on this point and the formulation used in Griffiths's comment on it. I think that your description comes closer to my actual position which was explained more fully in my minute to the Attorney- General of 28 July, of which I sent you a copy. Briefly, it is that I think that there is a real risk that if the courts were faced with an express reference to termination after 1997, they might either treat it as invalidating the whole grant or (more probably) treat it as having no effect at all and therefore construe the grant as a grant for a term certain expiring in any event immediately before the relevant date in 1997: either interpretation would nullify our purpose in granting these tenancies, i.e. to convey the impression that the tenants were getting rights which would subsist after 1997.
A R Rushford Esq CMG
Deputy Legal Adviser
Foreign and Commonwealth Office Downing Street
London, SW1A 2AL
SECRET
H. STEEL