Statutory instruments and officialese
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE LATEST representations which are being made for some effort to introduce simplicity in our Acts and statutory instruments will doubtless lead to the traditional answer that simplicity and definitions precise enough to avoid too much reference to the high courts are incompatible.
Like many who have to make regular use of the Ministry of Transport regulations I disagree. Readers may be interested in the following example.
Regulation 11 (2)(a) of the Construction and Use Regulations
which specifies the requirements regarding the parking brakes reads as follows:— "(2) Save as provided in paragraph (3) of this Regulation, every motor vehicle registered on or after the 1st January 1968 shall be equipped with a braking system so designed and constructed that—
(a) its means of operation, whether being a multi-pull means of operation or not, is independent of the means of operation of any braking system required by Regulation 43(5) or, as the case may be, Regulation 48(5) to have a total braking efficiency of not less than 50 per cent."
The braking system which has to have a braking efficiency of 50 per cent is what has been generally called the service brake. Paragraph (a) above, therefore, appears to mean simply .this:— "The parking brake must be operated quite independently of the service brake."
I am sure that I can be criticized for over-simplification, but does it really need a five-line paragraph, atrociously constructed, to say this?
R. E. G. BROWN, Divisional Secretary, TRTA London and Home Counties Division.