As Liam Fox and his best man, Adam Werritty, chatted in the sumptuous surroundings of the exclusive Carlton Club on London's Pall Mall, they could not know the role the club itself would play in the end of the Defence Secretary's career.
Set in a Georgian townhouse, the private members’ club is the oldest and most important Conservative-supporting club – Fox’s long-term champion, Baroness Thatcher, is a member. But it appears that the club and its fees, thought to be more than £1000 a year, ultimately helped to bring about Fox’s downfall.
As details emerged on Friday morning naming Werritty’s wealthy backers, there were also reports of where there money had gone. These appeared to show how he was able to able to travel the globe, at times almost in sync with the Defence Secretary. There, among the flights to Dubai and the hotel rooms in other exotic global destinations, were claims of payments to the Carlton Club, not thought to be fees for Fox.
The records came from a company set up by Werritty, revealing that wealthy donors had given almost £150,000. But some who had donated the money were furious when they discovered where it was actually going.
In a move that could still prove extremely damaging for Fox, one backer, venture capitalist John Moulton, even came out to claim that the Defence Secretary himself had approached him for the money – while a Cabinet minister.
Fox’s woes began almost two weeks ago on the last day of the Conservative Party conference in Manchester. It was revealed that Werritty, a self-styled defence consultant, had met Fox 14 times inside the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
The figure appeared extraordinarily high, and the fact that the men were close friends and former flatmates only added to concerns over potential national security breaches. It also emerged that Werritty had used business cards on which he claimed to be an adviser to Fox, despite not being paid by either the Conservative Party or the Ministry of Defence.
As the days went on, the headlines got worse. On the Friday, Fox condemned the allegations as “wild”. But by that Sunday he had issued a grovelling apology, admitting he had allowed his personal and private lives to become blurred. Downing Street offered its public support but did not go out of its way to make things easier for the then Defence Secretary. David Cameron let it be known that he had fast-tracked an interim report into his colleague’s behaviour and that he wanted it on his desk by Monday. But when it finally landed, the Prime Minister was in another part of London giving a speech.
In the end, Fox was forced to face MPs at a story session in the Commons knowing that at the same time his boss was reading the report’s findings. As the Defence Secretary sat down, it was announced that Cameron had ordered the country’s top civil servant to oversee the final investigation.
From then on, each day appeared to bring another significant revelation. An extraordinary list supplied by the MoD showed that the two men had been abroad together 18 times in less than 17 months. Werritty had even gone to a dinner with a top American general. And Fox admitted that a controversial meeting with a defence company in Dubai had been arranged after his best man “bumped into” its boss in a restaurant.
Aides to Fox continued to insist that Werritty had not benefited financially from the relationship, but they admitted that they did not know the names of his clients. Werritty himself was interviewed by civil servants attempting to get to the bottom of how he was funding his trips.
In a significant development, it also emerged that other ministers and senior officials may have had meetings with Fox’s close friend. At the same time, counter-attacks erupted, although these appeared confused. There were claims that Werritty was a Walter Mitty-style fantasist.
But at almost the same time there were parallel claims insisting the connections between the two men were all above board – sympathetic donors had merely wanted to supply the Defence Secretary with extra support to promote his pro-American foreign policies. This line of defence appeared particularly misguided, as it ignored concerns over strict rules that such backing must be declared.
There were also claims that Fox was the subject of a witch hunt, after it emerged that he had not been alone on a night when his house was burgled, contrary to an earlier briefing to the press. In fact, a younger man had been staying over in the guest bedroom that night. Fox publicly stated for the sake of “clarity” that it had not been Werritty.
All the while, the devastating headlines continued. The killer blow appeared to come on Friday, with a forensic detailing of how Werritty had been funding his activities. One Government minister condemned the set-up as a “parallel operation” to the civil service.
It also emerged that the official report into Fox’s behaviour was likely to be damning. And so he was finally gone.
But, as so often with a paper trail, serious questions remain. There is still uncertainty over whether or not Werritty had other sources of funding, and other rich backers, that we still do not know about.
What all these wealthy donors stood to gain, directly or indirectly, from their association with Werritty and Fox will still be investigated by the official inquiry.
There are also questions about Werritty’s access to the heart of the MoD and potential meetings with other ministers.
But there are other larger issues for the Coalition to address, not least over the access of lobbyists to Government.
And, most significantly, given that Werritty’s role was unknown to even the government just a fortnight ago, are there any other coalition ministers running similar “parallel operations”?
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article