British Food Journal Volume 70 Issue 4 1968

Abstract

We can think of those with a cynical turn of mind who might consider not a little of the present output of the parliamentary machine as “harem scarem” law, but the indecent haste, the freak urgency of some politically inspired laws apart, it is only too obvious that law is being made under rush conditions, and the reasons are not far to seek. A hectic, over‐active party executive, feverishly pushing ahead with its policies produces impossible working conditions for the parliamentary draftsmen. Law, whether it is statute or regulation, has never been more complex than it is today; time allowed for parliamentary debate is completely inadequate; too many and varied interests have to be taken into account, to say nothing of the vast range of delegated legislation. The urgency of some legislation is doubtful; it is difficult to see the need for all the hurry; a little more time in proper debate would prevent some of the loopholes which subsequently appear and render the law more comprehensible; incomprehensibility and justice are rarely compatible. As Diplock L J., said in the Court of Appeal in Rex. v. Industrial Injuries Commissioner ex parte Cable (1968) 1 A.E.R., 9, a few months ago—“Judges have been at their wits' end to know what some of the provisions mean. It would be a good thing if time could be found to remedy the blemishes.”

Citation

(1968), "British Food Journal Volume 70 Issue 4 1968", British Food Journal, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 97-128. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb011664