Volume 15: Government and Public Administration
2. Central government organisation
Departmental hierarchies and roles

2.13 Officials had three roles. The first was to alert and advise: ie, to identify and consider issues on the basis of appropriate information; to identify options for addressing them; and to present the information and recommendations to Ministers. This was mainly done by a relatively small number of policy staff in each Department. The second was to assist in carrying out Ministers' decisions, a role that involved policy planning and problem-solving. The third - by far the largest in terms of the number of staff employed - was to manage and deliver services for which the Government was responsible. ¹ Policy staff, especially at senior levels, were also expected to be efficient managers in terms of keeping the administrative machine running smoothly and directing resources to where they were needed, and of ensuring that the executive outcomes of policy decisions (eg, abattoir inspection programmes, systems for licensing animal and human medicines) were implemented by:

1. the Department itself;
2. an agency of the Department (see Chapter 6); or
3. external organisations such as non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), local authorities and health authorities.

2.14 As with all large organisations, senior officials were responsible for advising on a wide range of issues, often simultaneously, and for facilitating the effective performance of large numbers of junior staff. Most Departments were organised in well-defined hierarchies with levels of authority and responsibility indicated by grades. Permanent Secretaries, the most senior officials, were ranked Grade 1; under them were Deputy Secretaries (Grade 2), Under Secretaries (Grade 3), Assistant Secretaries (Grade 5) and Principals (Grade 7). Some posts were graded Senior Principal (Grade 6); one relevant to BSE was held by Mr Alan Lawrence in MAFF's Animal Health Division. Specialised responsibilities, for example on the medical side in DH and the vetarinary side in MAFF, were often at other grades. A number of important figures in the BSE story held such posts: at Grade 1A (the Chief Medical Officers, Sir Donald Acheson and Sir Kenneth Calman), and Grade 4 (Dr Hilary Pickles, a Principal Medical Officer in DH, and Mr Kevin Taylor, an Assistant Chief Veterinary Officer in MAFF). For reasons described in Chapter 4, the Chief Veterinary Officer was, unusually, a 'Grade 3+'.

2.15 Departmental staff at these various levels were deployed in groups, directorates, divisions and branches (the nomenclature varied between Departments), forming a hierarchical structure of units with varying spans of responsibility. The complexity or significance of an issue generally determined the level from which advice went to the Minister and the degree of involvement of the most senior officials. Annex 1 to this volume sets out the organisation of MAFF and DH, showing the hierarchical structure and responsibilities and the names of those occupying each post. Vol. 9: Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland contains organisational charts for their relevant Departments.

2.16 During the period 1986-96, many posts acquired new titles to mirror private sector nomenclature. For example, the new Executive Agencies (described in Chapter 6) were headed by Chief Executives or Directors. There was also a move towards shorter reporting lines. But recognisable hierarchies persisted, to define responsibilities and pay and to clarify reporting lines and channels for consultation.

2.17 Generally, officials were expected to discuss issues or raise concerns with colleagues (including professionals) at their own level. Where matters could not be resolved in this way, junior staff did not make independent approaches to senior members of other divisions or to Ministers. Instead, they would 'put things up' through their line managers to raise with colleagues 'at their level'. All those with an interest - even if not actually in the policy lead - who needed to be kept informed of progress would receive copies of the relevant submissions, minutes or letters, ² either inviting observations or simply 'for information'.

2.18 Officials also aimed to 'keep off other people's patch' - ie, to let their colleagues exercise their responsibilities while becoming involved themselves only if invited to do so or if the actions of others impinged on their own responsibilities. Dr Jeremy Metters (DH) saw this principle encapsulated in:

Rogan's rule . . . is it for this Department? Is it for this Division? Is it for me? I found it very helpful to abide by those rules in deciding whether or not I should intervene. ³