Foreign secretary David Cameron is under pressure to “come clean” on the sources of his wealth after the latest government data release revealed little about his personal fortune.
Lord Cameron and the Rishi Sunak government were accused of a “cover-up” after transparency documents showed that the cabinet minister holds his financial interests in a so-called blind trust.
The former PM has had to declare his interests after a shock return to frontline politics, seven years after quitting No 10 in the wake of the 2016 Brexit referendum.
The “blind management arrangement” was mentioned in an updated list of ministers’ interests published on Thursday – the same device deployed by Mr Sunak.
It means beneficiaries have no knowledge of their own holdings and investments. The former secretary is also listed as being a “prospective beneficiary of a family trust with no oversight”.
The Liberal Democrats said Lord Cameron should reveal far more details “if he has nothing to hide”, while campaigners critical of his previously postive stance on China said it was “starting to look like a cover-up”.
The list of ministerial interests states that Lord Cameron “resigned from all previous remunerated roles and a number of unremunerated roles” upon his appointment to the Foreign Office on 13 November.
David Cameron handed a peerage by Rishi Sunak to return to cabinet— (PA Wire)
The five paid and unpaid roles judged “relevant” for publication by independent adviser Sir Laurie Magnus include his job as a speaker for the Washington Speakers Bureau.
Other roles listed are the Tory peer’s visiting professorship for New York University in Abu Dhabi, and his role as a board member of the ONE charity, and his co-chairmanship of an ocean conservation trust.
Conservative China “hawks”, pushing for tougher stance against Beijing, have challenged Lord Cameron to explain his reported links to a Chinese-backed enterprise amid ongoing questions about his post-No 10 lobbying work.
They are worried by speeches Mr Cameron gave backing a Chinese-funded Colombo Port City project in Sri Lanka, but the Tory peer’s spokesperson has said he had not “engaged in any way” with the Chinese government or Chinese company behind the project.
Steve Goodrich of Transparency International UK said the latest declaration was supposed to show there were no conflicts of interests. “Yet how are we to know whether this is the case when it’s hidden in a trust arrangement?”
Luke de Pulford, the executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said Mr Cameron should “come clean”. The campaigner said the latest data release “falls way short of the minimum standards of transparency the people of Britain are entitled to expect”.
Mr de Pulford added: “If Cameron has received money to lobby on behalf of foreign states, he must be open about it. This is starting to look like a cover-up, and I’d be surprised if we didn’t see formal complaints to the authorities.”
Alicia Kearns, Tory chair of the foreign affairs committee, told The Times that MPs would “expect to see greater detail in these declarations”.
Lord Cameron is set to appear in front of Ms Kearns committee on Monday. She said the foreign secretary should expect “parliamentary scrutiny” of his financial interests.
Wendy Chamberlain, chief whip for the Lib Dems, 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.”
She added: “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.”
As Tory prime minister, Mr Cameron hailed a “golden era” of UK-China ties, and even took Chinese premier Xi Jinping for a pint at his local pub during a state visit.
Security minister Tom Tugendhat appeared to mock his changed stance this week by re-posting a Foreign Office tweet showing Lord Cameron with Sebastien Laim, father of the leading Hong Kong dissent Jimmy Lai.
Mr Tugendhat said on X, formerly known as Twitter: “I guess the golden era is over.”
