At a legislative drafting conference in Dublin two years ago, Peter Rodney²³ sought to illustrate just how easy it is to translate some "pompous" old legislation into plain English. The example he used was a convoluted legislative provision dealing with gratuities to the driver of a taxi. Mr Rodney suggested that it would have been much better to just speak in terms of tipping a taxi driver. In a question and answer session, a Judge from our High Court²⁴ pointed out that the plain English translation did not have the same meaning, but rather was very very different. He pointed out that the word "tip" could have several different meanings - it could mean: 1. A place where rubbish is dumped 2. Top/apex of an object 3. To tilt/incline 4. To empty/pour 5. To touch gently 6. A Hint 7. A warning 8. A gratuity/reward - this example clearly illustrates just how difficult it would be if we were to use plain language in our legislation. Ambiguity and uncertainty would rein, the Courts would be overwhelmed by cases because each party to a case could legitimately put forward their own interpretation - and in the meantime, the law would be devoid of credibility and totally ineffective.

Words - Vehicles of Many Meanings
The task of parliamentary counsel is to encapsulate policy within the legal framework and this requires them to facilitate communication of the intent of the legislature. This must be done through the use of precise language. The challenge to the drafter is that he or she must use words and words alone. The drafter cannot lend atmosphere to the legislation. He or she cannot use colourful language, or repetition to illustrate a point. Rather, his or her written words stand alone as monuments to clarity of thinking - or carelessness. Written communication needs to be effected with greater care than oral communication. The drafter of any document needs to anticipate and take cognisance of the range of perspectives from which the readers of the legislation will emerge. For example, the drafter must ensure that the reader who is not prepared to take a reasonable view, or who is hostile towards the legislation, reaches the same conclusion as to the meaning of the legislation as the drafter had intended.