CONFIDENTIAL
074771.
MDHOAN 1506
YOUR TELNO 1330 1989, WE WOULD CONCLUDE THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE NT ASPECTS ARE NO REASON NOT TO PROCEED WITH
EXTENSION.
11.
WE STILL OF COURSE NEED TO ADDRESS HOW WE WOULD RESPOND TO
A SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO ANY OF THE THREE POLICIES AND INDEED WHETHER YOU SHOULD BE CHANGING THEM IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REVIEW. WE UNDERSTAND YOU WILL BE DOING FURTHER WORK ON THAT (PARA 5 OF TUR). IN THE MEANTIME OUR LEGAL ADVICE IS AS FOLLOWS.
12. ON RENT CONCESSIONS, WE AGREE THAT JD 205/BL122 PRECLUDE ITS ABOLITION. THE ONLY OTHER WAY OF REMOVING THE DISCRIMINATION WOULD BE TO EXTEND THE CONCESSION TO DESCENDANTS THROUGH THE FEMALE LINE (THOUGH FOR REASONS OF PRACTICALITY THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE PROSPECTIVE ONLY). UNLESS THE LAW ON LAND SUCCESSION IS ALSO CHANGED, THERE ARE UNLIKELY TO BE MANY SUCH DESCENDANTS IN POSSESSION OF THE RELEVANT LAND. EVEN IF THE LAND SUCCESSION LAW IS REFORMED NOW, IT WOULD TAKE MANY YEARS FOR THE EFFECTS TO WORK THROUGH. THIS MEANS THAT IN PRACTICE THE LOSS OF REVENUE WOULD BE SLIGHT FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THERE WOULD BE NO INCONSISTENCY WITH JD 205/BL122 (OR BL 40 IF APPLICABLE) SINCE THE RIGHTS OF THOSE ENTITLED UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED. HOWEVER, JD 204/BL 121 IMPLIES THAT ALL THOSE TO WHOM JD 205/BL 122 DOES NOT APPLY ARE
SUBJECT TO INCREASING RENTS. THE PROBLEM IS TO RECONCILE JD 204/BL 121 AND JD 156/BL 39. WE SUGGEST THAT THIS CAN BE DONE
BY ARGUING THAT SINCE THE EFFECT OF JD 156/BL 39 IS CLEAR, JD 204/BL 121 MUST BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF IT, BY SAYING THAT THE
PURPOSE OF THE REFERENCE TO RENT AT 3 PER CENT OF RATEABLE VALUE
IS TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM LIABILITY. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST REFRAIN FROM COLLECTING THE WHOLE AMOUNT IN
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE TO DO SO WOULD AMOUNT TO SEX DISCRIMINATION.
13. THE SMALL HOUSES POLICY IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE JD, NOR SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO IN THE BL. IT IS, ARGUABLY, PROTECTED UNDER BL 40 AS A QUOTE TRADITIONAL RIGHT OR INTEREST UNQUOTE. ABOLITION MIGHT BE DEFENDED BY ARGUING: (I) THAT IT IS NOT A QUOTE TRADITIONAL UNQUOTE RIGHT OR INTEREST AND (II) SUCH RIGHTS OR INTERESTS ARE IN ANY EVENT QUALIFIED BY THE WORD QUOTE LAWFUL UNQUOTE. IF A TRADITIONAL RIGHT IS ABOLISHED BY THE BR OR BY ANY OTHER LAW, IT WOULD NO LONGER BE WITHIN THE PROTECTION OF BL40. HOWEVER, IF LEGALLY POSSIBLE, THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE POLITICALLY DIFFICULT. WE WOULD WELCOME YOUR VIEWS.
4
PAGE
CONFIDENTIAL
THE