MEMORANDUM
FROM PAUL
FLYNN MP, MEMBER
OF THE
COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
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 management idea which asserts that there is a 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?
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 is that it
was so infested with the jargon of regulation that it was virtually
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wrote it (perhaps not even to them) and in 2006 the Act was repealed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 is produced
by the Office of the Chief Executive (OCE).
The 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).
3.5 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 taken 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.
April 2009
| 
