Disquisitive obfuscation

Today’s Western Mail reports that MPs are unhappy at the level of jargon that pervades Whitehall. Members of the Public Administration Select Committee cite several examples of official language which they say could do could do “tangible harm”.

They conclude: “Long, complex official forms, officious letters and confusing requests for information can all deter individuals from attempting to deal with public authorities. This is particularly worrying when it prevents people from getting the benefits or services to which they are entitled.

“We believe the use of inaccurate, confusing or misleading official language which results in tangible harm, such as preventing individuals from receiving benefits or public services, should be regarded as maladministration".


Of course, the use of ‘Mandarin English’ to conceal or divert public attention is not by any means just restricted to central government. Try understanding this one:

Cabinet will be requested to exclude the public from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of a category of exempt information as set out in Paragraphs 14 and 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007.

The Proper Officer (the Monitoring Officer) has determined in preparing item 8 (A) (1) that paragraph 16 should apply in that it contains information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. This is not subject to the Public Interest Test.

The Proper Officer (the Monitoring Officer) has determined in preparing items 8 (B) (1) and 8 (C) (1) that paragraph 14 should apply (they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person). This paragraph is subject to the public interest test.

His view on the public interest test, for both items, is that whilst he was mindful of the need to ensure the transparency and accountability of a public authority for decisions taken by them in relation to the spending of public money, the right of a third party to the privacy of their financial/business affairs outweighed the need for that information to be made public. This information is not affected by any other statutory provision which requires the information to be publicly registered.

On that basis, he felt that the Public Interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information for both items.

Members are asked to consider these factors when determining the public interest test, which they must decide when considering excluding the public from this part of the meeting.

It is RECOMMENDED that the public be excluded.

(Extract – Swansea Council cabinet agenda)