For example:
14 (pt).Private office attendance was offered for both the visits set out above and declined by Dr Fox. This should not have been allowed to happen.
18. … the very large number of instances where Dr Fox met Mr Werritty overseas, and the damage arose because of the frequency and extent of these contacts and that they were not regulated as well as they should have been.
20. I therefore propose a stronger and clearer system which is better understood by Ministers and officials alike.
23 (pt). The damage arose because the frequency, range and extent of these contacts [with Mr Werrity] were not regulated as well as they should have been and this was exacerbated by the fact that Dr Fox did not make his department aware of all the various contacts.
24 (pt). Mr Werritty should not have been provided with access to Dr Fox’s diary and itinerary.
25. The Cabinet Office was not aware of Mr Werritty ...
All these amount to saying that the civil servants were just not doing their job properly – & that the Cabinet Secretary should have been informed if the minister would not listen to their concerns.
Ministers certainly picked up on this point; for example in the debate on Wednesday Sir George Young said, in reply to Angela Eagle:
If she reads the report, she will see that what went wrong was that the permanent secretary did not raise the issue with the Cabinet SecretaryIf this were an episode of Yes Minister, the Cabinet Secretary would be informed over a drink in the privacy of a gentleman’s club. I wonder how things work in these days of gender equality?
