that
the
ら
secom in end
Howeve
Mr. Crawley
ieffer
جيا
sed
the background paper suggested
Do you agree
12. February 1980.
6.
a
40
Is
Exeo
Нет
being copie
randum
ed elsewhere?
sy
lo: asa
matter of
Rhona J.Mr. Ritchie policy,
HKED.
a pity that the Rush ford cannot respond
сламу.
It is more quickly to our
also
I have [discussed
this with hum, ponticularly the request for advice Jassistance
the Dispensers suit, He says hat the Crown Comseli advice (belums A) is excellent and he coment comprove init.
on
agree
Əvileremon
13.2
that it is sensible to seek the Treasury Solicitor's Department's advice on the position in the UK before we go any frother. I have made some purely cosmetic changes in No Rushford's draft. I have also discussed with him the statement in his para 3 that the Orders - Connal establishing the D.S. and the Home Civil Service do not have legislative force - i.e. that Estacode and DSR/DSP are not legally binding. He confirmed that this was indeed his understanding of the case: and DSR/DSP are
praffice administrative regulations which can in o be enforced by internal disciplinary mensves, but are not legally enforceable. The final paragrape of the Murray's letter of 21 November (which 9 believe I was responsible for drafting, on the anthwrits of paral of the Annex to the CSD Cirander of 13 September 1974-copyat folio 48 on 1979 file HAK 430/1) is therefore inaccurate in saying that Estacade bastle force of law.
W.E.Quam will
1312
Excopupes should not be copied outside Ita GD- and in any case, I do not believe it is
necessarz i this case
D'32
CONFIDENTIAL