David Cameron at the centre of a cover-up row over why his money interests are STILL staying secret after his shock return to politics
- Questions remain over Chinese interests in Lord Cameron’s private sector work
David Cameron was at the centre of a cover-up row last night after the Government failed to publish details of who he was working for before his shock return to politics.
When he was appointed Foreign Secretary last month, he had to tell the ministerial ethics watchdog about the lucrative work he had been enjoying in the private sector.
It is known he had been promoting a port development in Sri Lanka but questions remain over whether Chinese interests were involved, and also whether he was giving speeches to any other organisations before his paid roles were cut short by his Cabinet role.
But the much-anticipated register published by the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, Sir Laurie Magnus, yesterday did not divulge the names of Lord Cameron’s business clients.
It simply stated that he had been a speaker on the books of the Washington Speakers Bureau alongside several other academic and charitable roles that were already known about.
Questions remain over whether Chinese interests were involved in some of the lucrative work Lord Cameron had been enjoying in the private sector (Pictured: China’s President Xi Jinping and David Cameron)
The list also said his financial interests were in a ‘blind trust/ blind management arrangement’ – meaning he has no knowledge of where his assets are being invested – and that he was the ‘prospective beneficiary of a family trust with no oversight’.
Last night Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said: ‘This is yet another Conservative cover-up. The public deserves to know the full list of Cameron’s clients and any potential conflict of interest.
‘Rishi Sunak’s promise to govern with integrity and accountability has been left in tatters. Once again it’s one rule for Conservative ministers and another for everyone else.
‘The full list of David Cameron’s financial interests when he took the role needs to be published immediately. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear.’
Luke de Pulford, of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, described what was published as ‘truly risible’.
When he was appointed Foreign Secretary last month, Lord Cameron had to tell the ministerial ethics watchdog about his work in the private sector
Last night Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said the row over Lord Cameron’s money interests was ‘yet another Conservative cover-up’
‘Predictably, Lord Cameron’s interests are concealed behind the Washington Speakers Bureau,’ he said.
‘Unacceptable obfuscation and well below the standards of transparency the public deserves. We need to know who was paying, and for what. Parliamentary standards must investigate.’
An introduction to the register by Sir Laurie made clear that the Foreign Secretary had been asked to provide details of his previous appointments.
READ MORE: QUENTIN LETTS: Lord Dave wouldn’t be human if his thoughts had not drifted to a Cameron vs Starmer election as he faced the Lords European affairs committee (Tory majority 25, I reckon!)
It stated: ‘Ministers are also now invited to provide additional information in a number of areas, for example in relation to recent previous employment that may be perceived to have a bearing on their ministerial portfolio.
‘I consider that requesting details concerning recent previous employment (remunerated or unremunerated) is an important additional contribution in the process for assessing the experience and connections of ministers which may have relevance to their roles, or be perceived to do so.
‘This is particularly pertinent in the case of ministers whose appointment to the Government occurs simultaneously with their elevation to the House of Lords and where any of their recent activities in business and other areas will not, as a consequence, have been recorded in the register of members’ interests.’
But Sir Laurie added: ‘I exercise discretion in determining those that should be published in the list, taking account of the views of permanent secretaries and ministers concerning their relevance to particular portfolios and the time since a role ceased.’
A spokesman for Lord Cameron declined to comment.
Source: Read Full Article