The report is now available from the committee website:

• Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language (HTML)
• Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language (PDF)

The embargoed report, was 28 pages long whereas the final PDF document contains 52 pages.

The difference appears to be that the embargoed document (and at the time of writing the HMTL version of the final document), don’t include the appendices or the full oral and written evidence submitted.

Often on the Parliament website one has to check both PDF and HTML versions of documents to see if one contains more information than the other, this is a crazy state of affairs.

The report itself is pretty vacuous; and in my view there are no substantive conclusions or recommendations. There was nothing there which relates to my suggestions.

The most entertaining element is a section of evidence (pages Ev6 and Ev7) in the PDF which discuss Twitter. A professor giving evidence said:

I think that if Twittering were a part of the routine training of a politician things might improve quite considerably.

Presumably in jest, Tony Wright MP, the committee chairman suggested replacing Prime Minister’s questions with “Twitter Time”.

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett wrote a note to the committee saying he was “looking out some classic letters”; disappointingly he appears to have failed to deliver what he promised and never did make his substantive submission. He did however make some brief comments on the Civil Service:

The Civil Service always use the term “delighted” for just about anything that Ministers are asked to do—which completely takes away any meaning for the word at all! I used to eliminate it from all my letters and reports. They also have wonderful phrases like “stand ready” which actually means we’re doing nothing about this unless we’re absolutely forced to do so!

Thank you again for your contribution to the Public Administration Select Committee’s inquiry into Official Language. The Committee’s report, Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language is due to be published next week.

If you would like an advance copy please send me a postal address.

Thank you once again.

Lori Verwaerde

Committee Assistant
Public Administration Select Committee
House of Commons
Tel: 0207 219 5730

http://www.parliament.uk/pasc

This is astonishing.

Reports like this ought be published electronically. Offering me a paper copy early makes no sense.

A couple of weeks ago the report on publication of the report on Parliamentary expenses which had been leaked was delayed while it was printed.

I don’t see why committee reports need to be printed in glossy formats.

Dear Mr Taylor

Thank you for submitting your example of official language to the Public Administration Select Committee. Your submission will be circulated to Committee Members and will, I am sure, be useful to them during the course of this inquiry.

We are writing to you now to let you know how your submission will be treated by the Committee.

First, you may be interested to know that the Committee is to hold a meeting in public on Official Language on Thursday 9 July, at 10.00am in Portcullis House, House of Commons. You are welcome to attend to watch and listen; the meeting will also be broadcast live on the internet at http://www.parliamentlive.tv . During this public hearing, the Members of the Committee will hold a discussion with four witnesses: the language expert Professor David Crystal, Matthew Parris of The Times, Simon Hoggart of The Guardian and Marie Clair of the Plain English Campaign. Further details are available on the Committee’s website at http://www.parliament.uk/pasc . Unless you tell us otherwise by Tuesday 7 July, the example of official language you sent to the Committee may be referred to at this meeting.

Secondly, we intend to treat your submission as evidence to the Committee. This means that it may be published by the Committee, both on paper and on the internet. Alternatively, the Committee may place it in the House of Commons Library where it can be inspected by Members, and in the Parliamentary Record Office where it can be inspected by the public. We will, of course, remove contact details including email addresses and telephone numbers.

If you have any concerns about personal details included in your submission being published, please let us know and we will remove any details that could identify you. If you would prefer that your submission is not published at all, it is important that you notify us in writing, stating clearly that you wish your evidence to remain confidential.

I hope this makes clear how the Committee intends to use the material that you have submitted to its Official Language inquiry. Thank you once again for making the effort to send in your example, for which the Committee is very grateful.

Yours sincerely

Lori Verwaerde
Committee Assistant