O’Donnell kicks Fox, but not too hard

It isn’t over. That’s the abiding impression after reading Gus O’Donnell’s report into the Liam Fox farrago. I mean, the outgoing Cabinet Secretary basically admits as much in the opening paragraph of the document: “more allegations about Dr Fox’s conduct have arisen,” it observes, “many of which will be the responsibility of others to answer, including the Electoral Commission which regulates political parties and their funding.” It goes on to clarify that, “This report looks into allegations relating to potential breaches of the Ministerial Code”. In other words, this investigation was specific, not far-reaching — and it shows.

So what does O’Donnell actually conclude? As expected, he does kick Fox in his post-ministerial shins for breaching the Ministerial Code. But, so far as this report is concerned, the breaches are all more technical than malicious. For instance, there were two overseas between the former Defence Secretary, Werritty and others at which “a member of [Fox’s] private office should have been present because of the likelihood that government business would be discussed.” Fox making his diary known to Werritty was a security risk. The lines between personal and official roles were “blurred,” etc. etc.

The really big accusations and innuendos are summarily swept aside. “Dr Fox has stated to Parliament that Mr Werritty had no access to classified documents and was not briefed on classified matters,” notes the report, “There is nothing in the evidence we have taken to contradict this.” And elsewhere: “There is no evidence from this review that casts doubt on Dr Fox’s statement to Parliament that public funds were not misused.”
 
All of which is good enough for Fox, for now. He is slumping onto the backbenches as a man who — according to the official account — made mistakes, not mischief. But there are still a number of uncertainties about this whole case, not least how Werritty was not found out sooner. O’Donnell has a few recommendations for making sure that the same doesn’t happen in future, but there are few harsh words, little censure for the existing set-up and its occupants. Little wonder why Labour are already calling this report “relatively superficial”.