Fox-Werritty: the questions O’Donnell failed to address

SIR GUS O'Donnell, known by his initials GOD around Whitehall, has fired a missile at Liam Fox but missed the target with his report into the former Defence Secretary's links with his friend and 'adviser' Adam Werritty.

The Cabinet Secretary's report was carefully briefed out by Government spinners yesterday to prepare the world for the main findings: namely, that Fox did breach the ministerial codes of conduct by failing to declare his links with Werritty, but did not make personal gains from Werritty's dealings with big business contacts.

But that much was known already. Fox himself admitted as early as last Monday that he had "blurred" the line between his personal and professional life when it came to his chum Werritty.

The report will also give some justification for the coalition's promise of legislation to bring the lobbying industry under statutory regulation although the signs are from Downing Street that it won't be rushing forward with new rules until 2013 at the earliest.

But this again will miss the target. If we believe GOD (above) - and we have to - Werritty was acting on a freelance basis as a friend of Fox. Had a statutory code been in place now, Werritty would not have been caught by LobReg or whatever the regulator will be called because he would not have been on the statutory list of lobby companies. He was a friend, not a client, of Fox, and therefore would still have got under the radar at the Ministry of Defence.

GOD has failed to identify whether any other ministers had links to Werritty. Nor has he answered the pressing questions over how much Werritty made out of his access to Fox and why. Fox said Werritty was not dependent on any "transactional behaviour" to maintain his income - so how did Werritty make his living?

Werritty pretended to be a ministerial adviser to Fox when he was not on the civil service payroll. Is the reason he was not hired as a civil servant because Werritty preferred to avoid the restrictions of the codes of practice for advisers?

GOD has also found no evidence that Fox and Werritty were running a separate, parallel foreign policy. That allegation was denied on Sunday by William Hague, the Foreign Secretary. But if we are to believe GOD's finding that Fox did not benefit financially from Werritty's contacts, what was the motive behind their close working relationship?

None of this adds up, and that is why GOD will not be the last word on Werrittygate.

Sir Gus is about to retire to the House of Lords. He has an honourable record in Whitehall under successive prime ministers from John Major to David Cameron. It would be a shame to see it finish with accusations of a Whitehall cover-up, because his terms of reference for this inquiry were too narrow. But that is how it looks today. ·