Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: "What we need is a much wider investigation into so many other issues that this report does not begin to scratch the surface of. This is a murky business and it has not yet been resolved."
He said the Cabinet Secretary's remit was far too narrow. "The report didn't look at the web of influence, it didn't look at the money. In all of this it would be important to follow the money and see where it leads," said Murphy.
"Very many people gave money to Mr Werritty and his different organisations. I'm sure they did not give it out of the kindness of their own heart. I'm sure they gave it to exert some influence and power over Mr Werritty and those with whom he rubbed shoulders."
O'Donnell did unearth one new donor to Pargav, the company set up by Werritty which funded his globe-trotting to the tune of £147,000 ($291,000) so that he could be at Fox's side.
He is Michael Davis, the chief executive of Xstrata, an FTSE 100 mining company, who is head of the United Jewish Israeli Appeal, a British charity. The Cabinet Secretary said: "There is no evidence that Pargav sought to win contracts from the Ministry of Defence or to influence procurement decisions. Both Mr Werritty and Mr Fox are clear that Mr Werritty never lobbied Mr Fox on behalf of donors."
But O'Donnell concluded that Fox's actions "clearly constitute a breach of the ministerial code" and "a failure of judgment".
He said the former Defence Secretary should have told his top civil servant that Werritty was a friend who had a company financed by a number of donors, some of whom had funded Fox when he was in Opposition. Such a critical verdict would have cost Fox his Cabinet post if he had not resigned.
O'Donnell also concluded that in giving his friend and best man details of the overseas trips in his diary, Fox had "posed a degree of security risk not only to Mr Fox, but also to the accompanying party" - which would on some occasions have included military chiefs. But he concluded that Werritty had no access to classified documents and was not briefed on classified matters.
The report disclosed that Fox turned down an offer to take an official from his private office to a meeting with Harvey Boulter, a defence supplier, in Dubai last June.
Downing St has backed five recommendations for ensuring the ministerial code works better.
Fox said: "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."
O'DONNELL REPORT: THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Who is Adam Werritty?
The report says he is "not a lobbyist" and that he has a private firm, Todiha Ltd, but does not say what it does.
Was he making money from his relationship with Liam Fox?
The report says that Fox made no money from knowing Werritty, and that Werritty did not lobby the Ministry of Defence on behalf of donors, but does inquire into how he made a living.
What impact did he have?
The report says he "did not impact on foreign or security policy" but that his business cards "risked creating the impression that he spoke on behalf of the UK Government". But what is the point of posing as a government adviser if it is not to gain influence?
What is the point of Pargav?
Some of the donors who paid into this organisation seem to have been surprised that it was paying for Werritty's jet-setting lifestyle. What were they told was its purpose?
Did Fox approach other donors, apart from Jon Moulton, the venture capital veteran, for donations?
The report lists the other donors, but says nothing else about them.
What was the role of Atlantic Bridge?
The report does not mention this former charity, of which Werritty was chief executive and Cabinet ministers, including Fox, were on the letterhead.
Were other ministers also allowing friends to act as unofficial advisers?
Public reaction suggests the issue will not go away until there is an investigation into whether other ministers are being influenced by unaccountable "advisers".
- Independent
