Tuesday, 18 October 2011

Fox's response

This is Liam Fox's response to the report. Is it just me or can Fox not even bring himself to say Werritty's name in that second paragraph. Referring instead to "anyone other than Minsters and Officials".

“I am pleased that the report makes clear that the two most serious allegations, namely of any financial gain sought, expected or received by myself and any breach of national security, have no basis. As I said in the House of Commons last week, I accept that it was a mistake to allow the distinctions between government and private roles to become blurred, and I must take my share of the responsibility for this.

“More care should have been taken to avoid the impression that anyone other than Minsters and Officials were speaking on behalf of the Government, as this was not the case. Although there were no actual conflicts of interest I acknowledge that in order to avoid any possible perception of this, all private interests should have been fully declared to the Permanent Secretary.

“I welcome the recommendations in this report which will provide greater clarity for Ministers, officials and private individuals in the future.”

4 comments:

tris said...

Ah, poor soul. It's all the fault of the regulations. They weren't clear enough for him to understand that it is not good practise to install your "close young friend" in a situation where he is privy to secret information in the Ministry of Defence, without having him vetted to see if he is an agent of some other power. It obviously was hidden somewhere in the gobbledegook that when you were advised by your private office and you permanent secretary that you were out of line, you should pay attention to that.

Perhaps, in future, they should PUT IT ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS WITH BIG SPACES BETWEEN.

The maybe thicko ministers will understand

Richard T said...

I though that nothing spoke so eloquently about the standards, intelligence and simple integrity of the wee doctor as his resignation speech. His contrition and recognition of the effects of breaches of standards were a model; they rank with his reaction to his own part in the expenses scandal. Aye right as we say in his parish.

trevorsden said...

I was never a fan of Fox and he has ultimately lived down to my expectations.

But this adviser was paid for by donors and not the tax-payer so we really should be grateful for that. The issue really is one for the tory party as Fox was doing his best to peddle his own agenda. Something I do not agree with.

But really otherwise - so what. He had an adviser. I have no idea if he was a good adviser, I suspect not, but that is not the point. He was entitled to an adviser and entitled to listen to lobbyists - thats what lobbyists are there for. Organisations like the World Wildlife Fund are lobbying organisations. I wonder how often Labour ministers listened to them?

tris said...

I think his advisers were a) supposed to be cleared by the prime minister, and b) given a strict vetting by MI5/6 so that possibly top secret defence information could be shared with them with less risk than was the case with Werritty, and c) paid by, and only by the state, so that there would be no risk of wealthy individuals with agendas using the adviser to access and influence the minister.

Post a Comment