CONFIDENTIAL
011034
MDHOAN
255
(A) WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE (IN TERMS THAT MINISTERS CAN READILY UNDERSTAND):
(B) WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE IN LAW:
(C) WHY YOU CONSIDER THAT EACH AMENDMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ICCPR (WE NOTE FROM PARA 2 OF YOUR TELNO 748 THAT YOU HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE AMENDMENT BILL DOES NOT (NOT) CONTRAVENE THE ICCPR):
(D) WHETHER THEY WOULD MAKE IT EASIER OR MORE DIFFICULT TO DEFEND PUBLICLY YOUR VIETNAMESE MIGRANT POLICY AND LEGISLATION.
.
LEGAL ADVISERS WOULD ALSO BE GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD CONFIRM THAT PARA 6 OF YOUR TELNO 806 MEANS THAT SHALL WILL BE REPLACED BY MAY IN BOTH PLACES WHERE IT APPEARS IN THAT PROVISION IE IMMEDIATELY AFTER (C), WHERE IT RELATES TO PERSONS, AND IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE SAME SENTENCE WHERE IT RELATES TO CHILDREN. IF THIS UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT, IT WOULD HELP TO ALLEVIATE LEGAL ADVISERS' DIFFICULTIES TO SOME EXTENT.
LEGAL ADVISERS' PRINCIPAL DIFFICULTY WITH THE DRAFTING AS IT NOW STANDS IS THAT IN SECTION 13D(1), SUBSECTIONS (1A) AND (1B) DO NOT SEEM TO RELATE. INDEED THEY APPEAR MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT. THEIR VIEW IS THAT IF ''SHALL'' IN SUBSECTION (1A) WERE REPLACED
THE TWO WITH
SUBSECTIONS. IT WOULD BE EASTER TOE RECONCS WELL AS REPLACING
IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE IF, AS WELL AS REPLACING 'SHALL'' WITH ''MAY'', THESE TWO SUBSECTIONS WERE TO BE REWRITTEN AS ONE OR AT LEAST THE LINK BETWEEN THE TWO MADE EXPLICIT.
51
AS FURTHER BACKGROUND, WE ARE FAXING TO YOU A RECENT MINUTE FROM OUR LEGAL ADVISERS ON THIS SUBJECT, TOGETHER WITH THEIR DRAFT SUMMARY OF YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
6. A REPLY DESKBY 220930Z WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
HURD
YYYY
Ms Berrett to
Ms Mariner
18/3
Sy
2
PAGE CONFIDENTIAL
THIS IS A COPY
THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN
CLOSED UNDER
FOI EXEMPTION NO. 27.(...).