[Closed] Grammar question...

As my career as an English teacher comes to an end, I can now demonstrate my lack of knowledge.

Is there a garammatical mistake in this paragraph from the BBC?

But he was more cautious about whether the government could get passed further legislation on individual budget measures and the privatisation of specific state assets.

Garammatical?

"...could [s]get[/s] pass[s]ed[/s] further legislation..."

garammatical 😉
Shirley it should read "But he was more cautious about whether the government could get further legislation on individual budget measures and the privatisation of specific state assets passed."

"...could [s]get[/s] pass[s]ed[/s] further legislation..."

mmmmm, is this some sort of veiled comment about the coalition? ie conservatives would pass it themselves but they will have to win over at least one other party first...

I think the answer is "get further legislation passed".
One [i]gets[/i] one's trousers [i]mended[/i] by one's tailor. etc.

Possibly that sentence is less gramatically incorrect and more technically incorrect. It depends on whether the speaker/author meant to imply that 'further legislation' is acting as a road block to progress. If that is the intended meaning of the sentence then I think it's fine.

If however he meant, as Nickf suggestes, that further legislation is the thing they are trying to enact, then I think it is incorrect.

As well as NickF's suggestion it could also be:

'the government could get further legislation on......passed.'

But he was more cautious about whether the government could pass further legislation on individual budget measures and the privatisation of specific state assets.

I think the answer is "get further legislation passed".
One gets one's trousers mended by one's tailor. etc.

Except that in this case it's the government themselves who are looking to introduce further legislation.

Perhaps it would be better to restructure the sentence as follows:

"But he was more cautious about whether the government would be able to enact [s]could get passed[/s] further legislation on individual budget measures and the privatisation of specific state assets. "

I suppose 'pass' could have been the intention as laws and legislation are 'passed', or an altenative take could be that the legislation is creating an obstacle to be ovecome or 'got past'.
Now I'm more confused than when I started. 😉

Garammatical?