Introduction: how language works in politics

This book examines how language works in democratic politics and how it impacts the effectiveness of policy. Using evidence from the first computer-assisted analysis of all 41.5 million words of legislation enacted from 1900 to 2015, it tracks the major changes in form and function that Parliament's use of language has undergone over time and the reasons for such changes. More importantly, it explores the policy and social implications of changes in legislative language as well as the issue of legislative indeterminacy. This introductory chapter discusses the questions, arguments and aims of the book and reviews the literature on the operation of language in British politics, along with the impact of legislative language on policy effectiveness. It also explains what specifically the book contributes to the existing literature, describes the research design, and provides an overview of the chapters that follow.

Homelessness: how Parliament’s language affects local government duties

This chapter examines how legislative language affects local government duties by looking to homelessness law and policy. To test whether legislative language is a variable for explaining policy effectiveness, and more specifically how indeterminate legislation impacts the accountability of policy delivery, the chapter uses data from local government housing decisions in England and Wales. It first provides a brief history of local government housing provision, placing emphasis on the meaning of ‘homelessness’, as well as the powers and duties of local authorities, before discussing the theory, hypotheses, methodology, data and results of the study. The adjectives ‘vulnerable’ and ‘likely’ were found to exert a strong and statistically significant effect on the delivery of homelessness policy in England after 2002. Both words also affected the recognition rate of individuals fleeing violence or threats of violence in England.

Past: how has Parliament’s use of language changed?

This chapter examines changes in Parliament's use of language by analysing every word enacted between 1900 and 2015. It begins with a discussion of four components of legislative language that correspond to the primary parts of speech: adjectives and adverbs can elasticate the substance of policy; conditional conjunctions affect the substance and the procedure by which law is implemented; the extent and timing of policy implementation is implicated by which modal verbs are used; other verbs used also establish discretion, but are more important for changing policy substance. The chapter goes on to explain the data and the methodology used in the study before summarising the results. The evidence shows that there was a significant change in the degree of legislative indeterminacy, and that legislation has changed not only in degree but also in kind. Adjectives, adverbs and conjunctions were the primary drivers of changes in indeterminate legislation.

Filling gaps: the Human Rights Act 1998

This chapter examines whether the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has been able to correct indeterminacies in other laws. It first provides an overview of the underlying theory of the HRA and traces its development since October 2000 before discussing its impact on the feasibility and desirability of indeterminate legislation. It also considers whether the HRA has provided means for agents of Parliament, particularly judges, to construct a logic of communication — that is, whether the HRA's new rules of construction filled the various gaps identified in contemporary law. The results show that the HRA has not considerably enhanced either the feasibility or the desirability of legislative language. Furthermore, the HRA has made explicit what had been implicit: that the common law was underpinned by the principles of individual rights; these principles clarified the rule of law where statutory language is indeterminate.

Constitutional language: lessons from beyond Westminster

This chapter provides international comparisons of constitutional language and the clarifying potential of higher constitutional law in order to put the UK's struggles with indeterminate legislation into a broader context. Using data generated from an analysis of the parts of speech used in 644,422 words from thirty-three OECD constitutions, it examines how legislative indeterminacy in these constitutional texts affects economic performance and corruption. The chapter first explains the theory, hypotheses and research design before discussing the results. One important finding is that noun-qualifying adjectives and adverbs are increasingly used in constitutional language. Furthermore, the proportion of adjectives and adverbs in a constitution is strongly correlated with its interpretability, and correlates even better with macroeconomic performance and corruption than does word length alone. Substantive restrictions in a constitution, as well as under-substantiated restrictions couched in qualified language, cause rigidity.

Immigration: how Parliament’s language affects central government powers

This chapter examines how Parliament's use of language affects central government powers by looking to judicial interpretation of immigration law. Using an adapted legal model of judicialisation, it considers how immigration and asylum laws delegate power from Parliament to the government in order to show how well different state institutions can jointly comprehend legislative language and coordinate in its delivery. The chapter draws on discourse analysis to test the descriptive claim that immigration legislation has become more indeterminate, and logit regression analyses to test the implications of this change for judicial behaviour. The results reveal rapid increases in government losses on appeal after 1995, which coincide with similarly rapid increases in the enactment of indeterminate legislation. The chapter suggests that the effectiveness of immigration law is undermined by its indeterminacy.

Present: why has Parliament’s use of language changed?

This chapter examines the reasons for the changes in Parliament's use of language. It begins by elaborating on the meaning of legislative indeterminacy, focusing on four parts of speech that are significant to the determinacy of a text and their policy benefits: noun/verb qualifers, conjunctions, modal auxiliary verbs and enabling verbs. It then traces the historic patterns in the use of legislative language since 1900 and presents three case studies that illustrate how and why choices were made to change the language of the law: the cases of Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) and Franklin and Others v The Minister of Town and Country Planning (1947), and the Immigration Act 1971. The chapter shows that enactment of indeterminate legislation increased substantially since 1900, in part due to choices taken by post-war governments to ‘roll back the state’ and allow policy to adapt to changeable market conditions.

Conclusions

This concluding chapter discusses the theoretical, empirical and normative implications of the book's findings. It first restates the book's central argument with respect to changes in Parliament's use of language, why Parliament's use of language has changed, how such changes have affected policy, and what can and has been done to address indeterminate legislation in the UK and other regions of the world. It then explores the causes and implications of legislative indeterminacy before drawing some broader historical lessons. In particular, it considers the implications of legislative language for the Westminster model of government and the importance of a logic of communication to British constitutionalism. Finally, it looks at the moral implications of indeterminacy and some possible solutions to a failing logic of communication.

How Parliament’s language affects individual rights

This chapter examines how Parliament's use of language affects individual rights. Focusing on cases pertaining to the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, it investigates how the provision of rights is affected by indeterminate legislation and how indeterminacies in anti-discrimination and equality laws have undermined the effectiveness of policy. The chapter first explains the theory and research design, the distinction between anti-discrimination law and equality law, and changes in the language of both laws. It then discusses the results of discourse analyses, conducted for all 870 sections of primary legislation pertaining to anti-discrimination and equality enacted since 1900. Legislative language was found to have a significant effect on both the desirability and feasibility of indeterminate legislation.