Volume 15: Government and Public Administration
3. Policy-making and legislation
Communicating policy

3.20 Policies did not evolve in a vacuum. They reflected the pressure of events (problems arising for which solutions were demanded), earlier ways of addressing the same or similar issues, statements made by Ministers both in opposition and in office, and public expectations of government generally and of the Government of the day in particular. Administrators and advisers, especially at senior levels, had to bear in mind this context, and advise on the most effective way of presenting what had been decided. Sir Donald Acheson told the Inquiry that:

When one becomes a civil servant one very quickly has to take into account Ministers' relationships with the public and public relations and how things will look. ¹

3.21 While Mr Richard Packer (MAFF Permanent Secretary from 1993) said that: 'In advice going forward to Ministers not for the public, I would say matters should be presented objectively - as objectively as possible.' He added:

. . . all Governments have policies, as you say, and it is not surprising that their public pronouncements tend to emphasise the benefits of those policies. And officials who do not draft things in a way that emphasises the benefits of the Government's policies tend to be less popular than others. ²

Presentation was therefore an important part of policy implementation.

3.22 While administrators were responsible for considering the overall approach to communicating or presenting a policy, with advice from the Chief Information Officers, preparing press releases and handling the media required specialist skills. Each Department therefore had an Information Division or Directorate, which included a Press Office. Apart from liaising with the media (the task of the Press Office), they produced and distributed publicity material, and organised publicity campaigns. Their responsibility was to present the Department's policies to the public through the media, and to try to ensure that these policies were understood. They handled the task of presentation and fine-tuned the words used, and also sought positive media coverage of Ministers' speeches and official activities. Information Officers were also expected to draw Ministers' attention to any concerns that emerged from their regular monitoring of media reporting of the Department's policies, and to suggest how these might be addressed. But Information Officers (like civil servants generally) were required to stand apart from the 'party political' battle and to ensure that their Departments were not open to the criticism that public resources were being used for party political ends.

3.23 When Ministers had taken a decision, it had to be made public. The means of doing so varied according to the importance and sensitivity of the matter. Often, there would be a range of presentational measures intended for different audiences, with Ministers involved in some and officials handling others.

3.24 The Minister might make a speech at an appropriate high profile occasion (such as, for agricultural issues, the annual conference of the National Farmers' Union), or a public statement. Both would be supported by a press release and media interviews. If Parliament needed to be informed (for example, because of the significance of the issue or because of known interest or concern among MPs), this might be done by arranging for a back-bench MP of the Government's party to table a specially drafted Parliamentary Question (PQ), which the Minister would then answer formally. This was known as an 'arranged' or 'inspired' PQ. A number of BSE-related announcements were made in this way: for example, the Government's response to the Report of the Southwood Working Party in February 1989, ³ and the announcement in January 1990 of additional funding for research into BSE. ⁴

3.25 A particularly urgent and important announcement (for example, the one on 20 March 1996 of a possible link between the incidence of vCJD in humans and exposure to BSE before the introduction of the Specified Bovine Offal ban in 1989) ⁵ might be made in the form of an oral Statement in the House of Commons by the Minister, with a parallel Statement in the House of Lords. Usually, the text of important statements would be given in advance to the appropriate shadow spokesperson, who would respond to the announcement for the Opposition. ⁶

3.26 A Parliamentary Answer or Statement of this kind would form the basis of a press release. This would quote what had been said and set it in context, and its text would be supported by background information in the form of 'Notes for Editors'. Press releases dealing with policy issues would normally be approved by a Minister. ⁷ In the case of major or very sensitive announcements, the press release would be sent in advance to the Prime Minister's office at No. 10 Downing Street. Again, media interviews would follow.

3.27 The purpose of a press release was both to inform the media and the public, and to maintain coherence in the presentation of the Department's policies. Administrators might show draft press releases to Information Division, or the latter might prepare these itself. Either way, the job of Information Division was to use professional skills to sharpen and simplify presentation, and to convey a single powerful message.

3.28 Public interest in the intentions of Ministers from the moment they took office meant that close attention was paid to everything they said in public. It was essential that they should be well briefed on a wide range of issues, but the pressure on their time (Ministers' diaries were always full of official and political meetings, visits and parliamentary duties) made it difficult for them to assimilate long and detailed advisory material. Officials therefore provided 'Q&A' ('question and answer') briefs on major policy topics, especially when important announcements had been made, for use by Ministers and Information Divisions. These comprised a background note and succinct answers to a number of likely questions, and provided Ministers with a 'line to take' when facing informal questions or making a few comments at a public engagement. When discussing a particular Q&A brief with the Inquiry, Lord Freeman commented on its value to Ministers:

. . . I certainly would have read this, because that was preparation for being put at short notice in a position where one had to answer in Parliament. ⁸

3.29 Once a Minister had taken a certain line in public, officials would be expected to follow this line when they were replying to letters, giving presentations, or talking to those outside government, such as local authorities, farmers or consumers.

3.30 Because they had to be succinct, such Q&A briefs were simple and robust. However, by their very nature 'lines to take' might omit important doubts and questions. The danger was that officials or Ministers, in relying solely on such a brief, might be unaware of such doubts or might overlook them. Also, the desire for brevity could over-simplify carefully crafted wordings and caveats, posing another potential danger. Mr Dorrell told the Inquiry that he recognised this:

The policy that I sought to pursue myself was always to use the words of the scientists. There is not much point in having scientists debating precisely which words to use if the politicians then paraphrase them. ⁹

3.31 Ministers and Press Offices handled media interviews and dealt with media or public enquiries. Other officials were under standing instructions to redirect to the Press Office any journalists who contacted them. Sometimes, however, it was agreed that the officials dealing with a matter could provide factual and technical briefing. The Chief Medical Officers and Chief Veterinary Officers frequently acted as expert and authoritative spokespersons in their respective fields. Their roles are considered in more detail in Chapter 4 below and in vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3.32 Effective presentation of policy was not simply a matter of issuing a well-written press notice, facilitating a fluent interview, or arranging television coverage of a ministerial announcement or visit. Few policies were universally popular, so Information Divisions also had to advise Ministers and administrator colleagues on how particular measures might be received, propose appropriate ways of handling them, and subsequently gauge public reaction.

3.33 The tone of media coverage was a useful barometer, but it was not always easy to assess whether it was wholly representative of the public mood. Some Ministers and officials believed that the way in which the media had covered concerns during the late 1980s about a range of food safety issues had aroused unnecessary public alarm. This was one reason why MAFF Ministers set up a Consumer Panel in 1990. The aim was to establish a direct line of communication between government and the public on consumer matters, 'to keep under review from the consumers' viewpoint the implementation of policies on food safety and consumer protection'. ¹⁰ Consumer representatives met Ministers and officials face-to-face, information about food safety was communicated directly to them, and the Panel debated 'ways in which the Government could get information across to the public effectively and without causing unwarranted alarm'. ¹¹