Public sector jargon 'causing people tangible harm'

Some public sector jargon is so confusing that its victims should have the right to have those responsible investigated for maladministration, MPs said today.

An influential Commons committee said Government gobbledegook was so bad that people were suffering "tangible harm" such as missing out on benefits.

Anyone affected should make formal complaints to watchdogs if their concerns were not taken seriously, the public administration select committee said.

The call for impenetrable language to be taken seriously as well as mocked followed an investigation of the lack of plain English used by politicians and civil servants.

The committee also warned that the use of euphemisms such as "extraordinary rendition" and "collateral damage" to hide unpleasant realities was fuelling public cynicism with politics.

"Long, complex official forms, officious letters and confusing requests for information can all deter individuals from attempting to deal with public authorities," the committee concluded.

"This is particularly worrying when it prevents people from getting the benefits or services to which they are entitled.

"We believe that 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.

"People should be encouraged to complain about cases of bad official language directly to the body concerned and government needs to take such complaints of maladministration seriously.

"Failure to do so would provide grounds for people to complain to the relevant Ombudsman about poor official language."

The committee, which took evidence from anti-jargon campaigners, linguists and MPs, found that "distorting or evasive language is routinely practised by both politicians and civil servants".

"The unlovely language of this unreal world floats along on a linguistic sea of roll-outs, step changes, public domains, fit for purposes, stakeholder engagements, across the pieces, win-wins, level playing fields and going forwards," it said.

Former home secretary David Blunkett mocked some of the language used by his civil servants.

"They have wonderful phrases like 'stand ready' which actually means 'we're doing nothing about this unless we're absolutely forced to do so'," he told the committee in evidence.

Sterile jargon was "the enemy of clear thought", the committee said, pointing the finger at the influence of the business world, especially management consultancy.

Labour MP Tony Wright, who chairs the committee, said: "Good government requires good language, while bad language is a sign of poor government.

"Far too often, government uses language that obscures, confuses or evades.

"We propose that cases of bad official language should be treated as 'maladministration', as for any other type of poor administration.

"Complaints made on this basis must be dealt with properly. This would help ensure that government takes seriously its responsibility to use good, clear and understandable language."

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said: "We recognise the power of language and we endeavour to communicate clearly at all times.

"Ensuring the public understand Government policies and can get access to easily understood information is essential.

"We accept that we have not always achieved this goal, but we refute any suggestion that language has been used to mislead or obscure.

"We welcome today's report and will respond to it once we have considered the recommendations."