Down the Foxhole

"Our new government has a particular and historic responsibility: to rebuild confidence in our political system. After the scandals of recent years, people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust."

David Cameron's foreword in the 2010 Ministerial Code document is put into an ironic light by the recent events at the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The recent report from the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell's inquiry into Liam Fox's relationship with Scottish lobbyist Adam Werritty showed that the latter was present at a staggering 40 of Dr Fox's official MoD meetings, more than half of the total 70 during his time in office.

Importantly, the damning report from Sir Gus' inquiry found that Fox's disclosure of his diary details to Werritty caused a “risk” to his own security and that of his MoD colleagues. It's an embarrassing situation for Fox but also the coalition government, after its republishing of a new ministerial code last year. The scandal over former treasury minister David Laws was shrugged off as a mere blip in a new age of trustworthy government. The Fox-Werritty scandal has proved otherwise.

It's key to analyse the specific reasons for the anger over what happened at the MoD. As a mere friend of the former minister, Werritty had not been officially vetted. It was inappropriate therefore for Fox to disclose details about his engagements, as there was no telling of Werritty's allegiances to the Crown or otherwise. In a hypothetically damning example, Werritty could have had links with terrorist networks.

The report also showed that Fox ignored concerns from Ursula Brennan, his permanent secretary at the MoD. "The risks of Dr Fox's association with Mr Werritty were raised with Dr Fox by both his private office and the permanent secretary. Dr Fox took action in respect of business cards but clearly made a judgment that his contact with Mr Werritty should continue." Such a blatant disregard for the opinion of even his permanent secretary is concerning, and suggests that Fox's resignation was only spurred on by public knowledge.

Furthermore, we see that Fox wrongly let Werritty attend a meeting in September 2010 with Matthew Gould, then the British ambassador designate to Israel. "As a private citizen, it was not appropriate for Mr Werritty to have attended this meeting. Dr Fox has since acknowledged this. This highlights the blurring of lines between Dr Fox's private and official responsibilities."

An ongoing concern at the centre of the scandal was whether ministers intended to profit from Mr Werritty's extensive business links. Stephen Crouch, a defence industry lobbyist, said he paid Werritty to set up high-powered meetings for him. Crouch, who secretly donated £20,000 to support Werritty, runs an organisation that has been identified as one of six organisations that paid money into Pargav Ltd, a company set up as a 'slush fund' to pay for Werritty's first-class flights to meet up with Fox at exotic locations across the globe.

Dr Fox's breaches of the lax ministerial code suggest that tighter restrictions are needed, with heavier vetting on personnel. Sir Gus' report recommends that “departments should clarify who is, and who is not, a member of a ministerial visit overseas.” Well crikey, wouldn't that be a good start.