Parli-gook

The Public Administration Select Committee is looking at bad language - especially jargon. I have submitted the following  emaples of parliamentary jargon.

The use of jargon - bad language - in business and politics is nothing new.  John Betjeman nailed it in his poem EXECUTIVE:

You ask me what it is I do. Well, actually, you know,

I'm partly a liaison man, and partly P.R.O.

Essentially, I integrate the current export drive

And basically I'm viable from ten o'clock till five.

But with the advent of new Labour, the tendency towards using jargon has proliferated exponentially to the point that official communications are now largely incomprehensible.  If we take Best Practice, as an example, this phrase now appears as a matter of course in policy documents, regulation, legislation and guidelines for almost every conceivable situation. A blog recently commentated:

 

According to the Wikipedia, Best Practice is a  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_fad" \o "Management fad" management idea which asserts that there is a  HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technique" \o "Technique" technique, method, process, activity, incentive or reward that is more effective at delivering a particular outcome than any other technique, method, process, etc. The idea is that with proper processes, checks, and testing, a project can be rolled out and completed with fewer problems and unforeseen complications.  

Yes, just as you and I suspected, it's yet another form of modernspeak designed to state the obvious, and give those stating the obvious an air of undeserved authority. It has found its way into both political and management jargon, and it is completely meaningless.

Would anyone knowingly pursue the route of worst practice?

More Parli-gook below

Car crash

My friend Gordon Prentice forecast that Gordon Brown is heading this week for a car crash.

So far, so disastrous. Today rebellion on the Ghurkas was a predictable calamity. This Government has done far more for this group than all other Governments in the past. 

Each concession has been greeted with demands for more. No political advantage has been gained by concessions that were more generous than those given to other troops from overseas territories.

 Many labour MPs are demob happy. The chance of gaining a little electoral popularity may benefit them next year. The combination of possible result on MPs expenses are incalculable. Gordon Brown may get away with some votes that are face saving because of the cynical abstentions of the Tories. But in the present mood of sullen resentment among Labour backbenchers anything is possible.

Parli-gook

In 2001 the Government introduced legislation designed  “to enable provision to be made for the purpose of reforming legislation which has the effect of imposing burdens affecting persons in the carrying on of any activity and to enable codes of practice to be made with respect to the enforcement of restrictions, requirements or conditions.”

The problem with the legislation that it was so infested with the jargon of regulation that it was virtualy incomprehensible to anyone but the parliamentary draughtsmen who wrote it, (perhaps not even to them) and in 2006 the Act was repealed by the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act.

Not content with fouling up the English language the practitioners then decided to rename the DTI the BERR – The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The BERR Website announces: 

IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE

OF REGULATORS

• A Code of Practice for national and local

regulators was passed by Parliament on

26 November 2007 and will come in to force

in April 2008. This makes it legally binding that

regulators ensure inspection and enforcement

is efficient, both for the regulators themselves

and those they regulate.

• To assess how regulators are performing in

delivering proportionate enforcement to

ensure compliance, the Better Regulation

Executive has worked with the National Audit

Office and regulators to develop a review

framework published in May 2007. Five major

regulators have been reviewed – the Health

and Safety Executive, Food Standards Agency,

Financial Services Authority, the Environment

Agency and the Office of Fair Trading. Reports

on each of the regulators will be published in

February 2008….

• The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill

was introduced to Parliament in November

2007, and if passed, will modernise the penalty

regimes which regulators use by giving them

access to flexible, efficient and proportionate

administrative sanctions.

*****************

The following extracts from the House of Commons Business Plan 2008-09 show how the use of  meaningless official language has infiltrated the Commons itself.  

House of Commons Business Plan 2008-09 produced by the Office of the Chief Executive (OCE)

Chief Executive and Clerk of the House  is Dr Malcolm Jack 

Extract 1 This extract from the Business Plan concerns planning for “business resilience” and “risk management” within the House (that is to say  how well the House is protected from a terrorist or other attack and how it could continue after such an attack)

Objective 5

To ensure that good practice in risk management and business resilience planning is embedded across the House Service.

Business areas concerned:

3.5.1 Risk facilitation 

3.5.2 Business resilience planning

3.5.3 Internal Audit

3.5.1 Risk facilitation

3.5.1.1 FY 2007/08: current year progress

This year, there has been a re-focus on enhancing risk management activities within the House. The aim has been to match public service standards in risk management by providing support to the Management Board in its management of risk. Progress includes:

Regular updates on corporate risk management provided to the Management Board. 

Risk Management moved to the OCE with effect from January 2008 to strengthen the independence and authority of the risk management process.

Assistant risk management facilitator appointed from January 2008.

Regular review of departmental risk registers have taking place during the year; in most cases departmental risk registers have continued to develop whilst taking on board any Management Board recommendations made during the year.

3.5.1.2 FY 2008/09: objectives

To gain the Management Board’s approval for, and then implement, an improved risk management strategy and process, which fits the House and is in line with best practice adopted elsewhere in the public sector

Measures 

Risk Management policy, principles and guidance to be documented, 

published and communicated to staff by Sept 2008.

Regular liaison with HM Treasury on a quarterly basis to ensure the

risk management policy remains up to date and relevant.

To ensure a risk management system is embedded within business processes, allowing for risks to be escalated up and down the organisation as necessary.

Measures 

Regular quarterly meetings with the corporate risk owners (Director

Generals) to review risks.

Departments have up-to-date risk registers based upon functional

areas, with any departmental cross-cutting risks identified.

Feedback from Departments.

Sufficient assurance is available to meet the requirements of the

statement of internal control (SIC) for the Administration Account. 

Risk management to be included within the various management

training programmes by September 2008.

Satisfactory outcome of next internal audit of risk management in

2009/10.

3.5.1.3 FY 2008/09: work planned

Risk management process: to continue to develop the House risk management system ensuring that processes are in place for risks to be actively managed and escalated as appropriate through the organisation 

Facilitator: to continue to actively support the Management Board and departments in their risk management process.

Risk management policy statement/document: ensure the House has a published risk management policy document 

Communication: to communicate RM policy to key stakeholders via risk “roadshows”, intranet, user friendly guides etc

Corporate risk review: undertake a review of current corporate risks to ensure they remain relevant in light of the recent changes in corporate strategy with particular focus on corporate risk 4 relating to organisational and cultural change.

Linking corporate & departmental risk management process: draw closer linkages between corporate and departmental risk management registers; ensuring local departmental/operational risks are identified as well as corporate related risks. 

Departmental risk registers 08/09: Re-align risk registers to reflect the new unified structure, ensure any management action identified is ‘SMART’, link in with performance measurements. Simplify reporting and monitoring of risks by using risk heat maps to provide a quick visual summary of the critical risks faced by a department.  

Embed risk management: to ensure that risk management is a fully integrated part of business planning and performance management within the new organisational structure.

3.5.2 Business Resilience Planning

3.5.2.1 FY 2007/08 progress

• Business Continuity project officer appointed to facilitate creation of standard Parliament – wide Business Continuity plans adaptable to a range of likely contingencies. The work has concentrated on “sub disaster risks” such as the loss of all or part of any building, denial of normal office facilities or staff. Work by the Serjeant-at-Arms on disaster Recovery planning has continued in parallel.

• The establishment of a Parliamentary Business Continuity Policy Steering Group chaired by the Clerk of the Journals, House of Commons.

• Preparation of twenty eight departmental Business Continuity plans, in standard format, which will be taken forward in 2008/09 for further iterations and rehearsals.

• Appointment of a part time consultant to assist in the BC process and a further appointment of a consultancy firm to validate work to date and assist in the delivery of 2008/09 objectives.

3.5.2.2 FY 2008/09 objectives.

To ensure that departmental business continuity plans are prepared to a recognised standard, reflect best practice and are consistent across Parliament, with a disciplined and effective update process.

3.6.1.2 FY 2008/09: objectives

To deliver systematic review and evaluation of risk management, control and governance through the annual risk based audit programme, in order to give assurance to the Clerk as Accounting Officer, Management Board and Audit Committees on the management of risk and the effectiveness of internal controls and governance processes.

Measure

Delivery of the audit plan (completion of 90% agreed audits in audit

plan, to draft report stage).

Extract 2 This second extract  concerns “internal audit” of “the business”. What the business is is not clear.

To add value to the organisation through the Internal Audit process, ensuring the Audit Plan meets the needs of the business and is based on risk

Measures 

60% of audit hours spent on high risk areas as agreed and

documented in the audit plan.

Agreement of audit committees and Management Board to the audit

plan, before start of Audit plan year.

Greater than 70% positive response in client satisfaction interviews. 

3.6.1.3 FY 2008/09: work planned

The IAU has already agreed a basis for cooperative working on assurance of services shared with the House of Lords. There is also a new desire on the part of the National Audit Office (NAO) to work more closely with internal audit which has been launched by the joint planning of future audit activities. This will mean information will be shared to a greater extent than hitherto and should enable each assurance partner to rely on the work of the other.

Internally we are working with the new Parliamentary Director of Estates to establish links between his directorate and internal audit. The objective is for project governance to include an assurance role covering time, quality and cost. In this way the IAU will, in due course, receive assurance on individual major projects and collective assurance on minor projects.

The concept could also be applied to other areas such as IT, but first there needs to be confidence that the new approach will be thorough, independent and objective. If this can be achieved the IAU will create a library of project assurance evidence that it will use in formulating an overall opinion on project controls. This approach could provide a more efficient way of gathering project assurance evidence, enable a broader coverage of project risks and redirect internal audit review work from the projects themselves to the evidence gathering processes.

The concept of the IAU gathering evidence from other assurance providers forms the foundation of a model for internal audit’s future development as it is presently envisaged. The model assumes that internal audit will collect and take account of a wide range of assurance evidence in formulating opinions on internal controls on an enterprise wide and category basis, for example on governance, projects and financial management.

Looking ahead: The medium and longer term

On the Members’ side there is a clear and growing pressure for more transparency and tighter controls on allowances that could further impact on the scope and governance of internal audit as well as its relationship with Members. 

On the Administration side there is an optimism that the new structure will enable better services to be provided to Members. In parallel the initiatives to improve and professionalise management will demand a more systematic and risk based approach to internal audit combined with an increased need for flexibility to respond to changing priorities and emerging risks. To facilitate this internal audit will need to have closer relations with decision making bodies and better information about projects and initiatives. In return IA will have to provide clear advice and opinion and new ways of communicating these to senior management groups.

Internal audit is also working very closely with the risk facilitators to ensure that the development of new risk management processes and internal audit develop in harmony

Comments

[Kay Tie]

It's hopeless. It's just one reason why I prefer small government: at least when this is done to you by a supplier you can go "huh?" and then go somewhere else to avoid it. When you have to fill in a Tax Credit application form full of this kind of stuff, what do you do?

I was watching Watchdog the other day, with a report about how the DVLA is screwing up driving licence renewals and sometimes losing entitlements. Well, we all make mistakes. But the DVLA doesn't give a tinker's cuss about the human impact: it is driven entirely by targets written in the jargon you just described. The arrogant responses to the real tales of hardship were jaw dropping. We, the people they are supposed to serve, count for nothing in this morass.

[Caebrwyn]

I find the phrase 'sustainable development' to be so ambiguous and open to different interpretations it has become meaningless.

Clearly, if there were more blue sky thinking we'd all be on a level playing field and be able to hit the ground running (my three worst)

[HuwOS]

It is hopeless, government adopting the manner and language of large scale private enterprise was never a sane thing.
The UK is not a PLC, it is home to many of its residents. The business of government is not business, but government.

Corporate language is generally used to disguise issues not highlight them and its principal purpose is to pass the buck from management onto either the workers or in many cases the customers for anything that goes wrong.

I had a little fun today with one representative of a company that provides another company with a telecoms related product sticking stolidly to his guns that even where the results of their tests were in conflict with reality, the tests were still valid and their results accurate.
Obviously I cannot go into any real detail but from our point of view their entire testing process appears designed to prove that faults are not their responsibility rather than to determine where faults are arising.
That to me is the corporate world.

As is the situation in another company, where their technical support staff's calls are scored on purely customer service areas.
This is a situation where a polite but useless tech will achieve top marks without helping their customer at all, while someone who can and does resolve customers issues can fail miserably.
Why?
Because they know how to measure customer service skills and apparently cannot figure out how to measure the ability to resolve problems.

The corporate world, full of jargon about how the customer is king, while they could not give a flying fig about the customer at all.

Of course what connection could there be with the corporate world and government agencies like the DVLA, surely a government agency would be expected to have nothing in common with the corporate world.

While the government and its agencies believe they should behave like private enterprise, nothing can improve.

[Kay Tie]

I've always hated that "UK PLC" phrase, for the reasons you give, Huw. It smacks of corporatism, which is just as bad as other forms of big government.

Any endeavour has its jargon. The IT field has infected our language with it more than others, perhaps (download, bandwidth, narrowcast, crash, dump, log on, undo, server, database, query, search, USB, GPRS, WiFi, TCP/IP, etc.). I fight against it, but rarely win (why is it acceptable to put up error messages with terms like "buffering" when this means nothing to ordinary people - who are then forced to learn a new language to do the simplest of modern tasks; it's an outrage when you think about it).

[Gareth Williams]

Paul, your next blog could be about the LibDem/Tory achievement of the Gurkha victory. :)

[Richard T]

On the Ghurkas, putting Phil Woollas up to defend the Government's position with what appear to be dodgy figures (check Channel 4 fact watch and recall the different numbers cited by Mr Woollas, the PM) might seem stupid with hindsight. He seems to have made what might or might not be an arguable case unarguable.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks for the contributions on Parli-gook. The information on the DVLA is news to me KayTie. I'll have a look at the evidence.

I know Jolly Roger that you have a longstanding problem that even one of the best MPs in Wales has failed to solve. That does not mean that the case I quoted is a result of a real problem. The complexity of the Social Security system creates its own anomalies.

[Kay Tie]

Here is the best media comment I have seen on the Ghurka issue:

"A Downing Street spokesman later added: "We've put the country £1.4 trillion in debt, government ministers are chin-deep in sleaze and the cops are beating merry hell out of everyone. We just felt that the obvious next step was to tell thousands of heroic soldiers to go fuck themselves."

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/rampant-gurkhas-will-chop-your-head-off%2c-warns-brown-200904301735/

Paul: the DVLA story came from Watchdog. I treat Watchdog suspiciously ever since the "my Mondeo pulls to the left" story (where thousands of people complaining of this turned out not to actually have Mondeos). Nonetheless, I am willing to believe pretty much anything of the DVLA based on my experiences and other horror stories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2009/04/dvla_removing_license_entitlem.html

I think this shows the problems of the "Database State": when the "computer says no", that's the end of it: The answer's no.

It's true that the victims of the DVLA could use a Subject Access request under the DPA to get the data back out of the DVLA, but ordinary people can't be expected to have to learn how to navigate the New Kafkha state that's been assembled.

[Kay Tie]

If you need a further example of how we are not being served by the public services, look no further than this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5236085/Woman-who-changed-her-name-to-Pudsey-Bear-refused-passport.html

It appears that on the say-so of a civil servant (the word "servant" not being an adjective, simply a moniker) the IPS can refuse to issue a passport. So rather than the public services actually serving the public, they are serving themselves according to how they believe their "mission statement" should be upheld. Not even, you'll note, with reference to the will of Parliament and the law, but with reference to a "mission statement".

Can anyone point to any public service that actually has an ethos of service: where the primary motivation is to serve the people that use it?