Is this what England means to you?

Previously we introduced our planned series on Gobbledygook Champions. Our first example of gobbledygook is the definition of “England” in the Interpretation Act 1978.

What’s wrong with that? Well, to understand one word “England” you are required to follow a complicated trail and to understand the technical meaning of: the “counties”, “Greater London” and “the Isles of Scilly” and that is easier said than done. The Local Government Act tells us that:

Does this matter? Most people know well enough what England means for their immediate purposes without needing to look at statutory definitions.

But yes, it does matter.

The Act provides definitions and rules of interpretation that apply to all UK statutes unless otherwise provided, for example, explaining when an Act of Parliament comes into force. This is a promising idea as it reduces the need for the same terms to be defined repeatedly in different statutes and could lead to greater consistency across the regime.

But the promise is not fulfilled. For instance, it is unclear on what basis terms are chosen for inclusion, for example whether based on the number of statutes that use the term, or because of their importance to the public. “England” would qualify in both counts, but we are not sure about “sewerage undertaker” which has equal billing in the Act.

The Act is a consolidating act, replacing the Interpretation Act 1889 and various other statutory provisions (dating back to 1746) and has been updated periodically since. It is an example of a piecemeal approach adopted to regulation rather than one that results from a coherent vision for our regulatory regime.

No doubt there would be many challenges in creating an ideal Interpretation Act and applying it across the statutory regime, not least the risk that the volume of definitions might become unwieldy. The FCA’s Handbook offers some salutary lessons in that respect as its glossary alone runs to over 600 pages, a feature made somewhat more palatable by technology that allows the definitions to be viewed in electronic versions simply by hovering the cursor over the relevant term when it appears.

Of all the definitions in the Act, it is that of England that stands out for us. “England” is a term that is widely used and symbolically important. It should be drafted in a way that the public can easily understand.

Shakespeare presented us with two visions of England in Richard II. The first is of a sceptred isle and demi-paradise. Sadly, the modern statutory definition just does not belong here:

It would be more at home in the other vision of England, that is bound in with “inky blots and rotten parchment bonds”.

The definitions of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are similarly challenging so that when we consider how the UK’s regulatory landscape might be improved, the definition of “England” seems a good starting point.

What would we suggest? We see the difficulty in describing geographic boundaries in words. So how about a map?