On 31 January 2023, I am due to attend a tax tribunal with a view to considering whether one of my clients should, or should not, have applied for grant funding from the Government for businesses affected by the Covid pandemic. One of the questions that I hope we will settle will be regarding the clarity, or otherwise, of Government communications. What the Government has in its head when it writes letters or e-mails is very different from what is in the head of the business owners who will read the letters or e-mails concerned.
Here’s an illustration. I’m Jewish, and someone once asked me in synagogue a question which sounded like “Are you going to be kosher?” I was utterly taken aback to be asked such a question. I opened my mouth with a view to responding somewhat as follows: “What are you asking that for? I am kosher. I’m no less kosher than anyone else here. I find it extremely rude of you to suggest otherwise, and I want an apology.”
Then, fortunately for all concerned, it dawned on me what I was being asked, and I shut my mouth quickly. It was not, “Are you going to be kosher?” but “Are you going to B. Kosher?” B. Kosher is the name of a shop nearby.
In my view, something nearly as misleading has been going on with Government communications. They are written, for the most part, in internal Government jargon that can be understood by other Government workers, but not by lay people unschooled in “Governmentspeak”. Moreover, if you work for the Government, you know very well that unless you do something utterly outrageous, your salary will be paid by the Government, come hell or high water. What may be understood as the meaning of a document by someone living a secure and comfortable life will most likely not be the same as how that document may be understood by someone whose life is most uncomfortable.
I am holding back some details due to client confidentiality. It was the height of the Covid lockdown, and my client was earning no money because no TV or advertising productions were taking place. It was most unclear when, if at all, they might resume. In addition, my client was being sued to pieces by one of his neighbours over some work he had done at his house, which was alleged to be damaging the neighbour’s property. Unlike my client, the neighbour seemed to have an inexhaustible bucket of money wherewith to fund legal actions. So, when my client received an e-mail from the Government suggesting he was entitled to claim some money, he jumped at it. He had to answer a question online before getting the money. He answered it wrongly.
However, when I asked the selfsame question to a roomful of business owners at a networking meeting they, also, all answered it wrongly. The question was worded in “Governmentspeak” and unless you speak it fluently, you will answer it wrongly too. Civil servants from other government departments, who speak a different dialect of “Governmentspeak”, also get the answer to that question wrong.
I hope the outcome to the case will be, firstly a review of Government communications so that they are designed to be understood by people who live under adversities which are very rarely, if ever, encountered by Government employees. Secondly, and this is a longer-term project, that we should see a radical simplification of the law. It is too complicated for lay people to understand, and rarely delivers an outcome that satisfies basic principles of justice.