Lobbying
The Big Tobacco Linked Conservative MPs Opposing the Smoking Ban
Dozens of Conservative MPs on Tuesday voted against the Government’s plans to impose a smoking ban across the country.
Under the plans, anyone born after 2008 will be barred from ever buying cigarettes, with new restrictions also placed on the packaging and flavours of vapes.
Those currently opposing the planned bill include the Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch and the former Prime Minister Liz Truss, who described the plans as "unconservative".
However, many of the opponents of the bill on the Conservative benches, including some of those who spoke up in the debate on Tuesday, have links to the tobacco and vaping industries.
Here are the tobacco industry-linked Conservative MPs now opposing the ban.
Adam Afriyie
Afriyie was among those speaking against the bill in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Addressing his colleagues in the chamber, Afriyie called for the bill to be scrapped, or delayed and described the plans as “ridiculous”, while suggesting that smoking bans “do not work”.
At the start of his speech, Afriyie did refer MPs to his register of interests. However, what he did not make clear in the Chamber is that this register reveals that in the past two years he has twice accepted flights, accommodation and hospitality from the tobacco industry amounting to a total value of nearly £19,000.
In 2022, Afriyie accepted transport, visa, food and accommodation with an estimated value of £10,338 from the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum to speak at a conference in Georgetown, USA.
The following year he again accepted flights, transfers, accommodation and meals from the forum, which is funded by the tobacco and vaping industries, with an estimated value £8,384 to speak at their event in Seoul, South Korea.
Afriyie told Byline Times: "I am proud of the UK’s progress in harm reduction and as a Vice Chair of the APPG on vaping I was always pleased to accept speaking invitations and to share our success story."
A spokesperson added that: "Mr Afriyie rightly referred to his interests in the register of members interests at the beginning of his contribution. This sum – which is properly recorded in the Register of Members’ Interests – represents the cost of flights, accommodation, and the visas required to attend conferences at which Mr Afriyie spoke on the UK Government’s position on tobacco harm reduction and the harms of smoking. Mr Afriyie did not receive a fee for speaking at these events.”
Liz Truss
Former Prime Minister Liz Truss was among the Conservative MPs speaking up against the new bill on Tuesday, describing it as a “virtue-signalling piece of legislation” which was “emblematic of a technocratic establishment in this country that wants to limit people’s freedom”.
Truss has had previous links to individuals and organisations with ties to the tobacco industry. In 2022 the then Prime Minister’s chief of staff Mark Fullbrook had to recuse himself from discussions about shelving the Government’s plans to tackle smoking due to his past work as a tobacco industry lobbyist.
Mark Fullbrook had previously worked on behalf of British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes.
Truss also appointed a number of senior advisers with ties to her favourite think tank, the Institute for Economic Affairs, which has reportedly received extensive funding from British American Tobacco.
‘Responsible Vapers’
On Tuesday a number of MPs broadly supportive of the Government’s plans, questioned why the Bill will allow the sale of vapes to continue, given the lack of evidence about the long-term impact of the habit.
However, a series of Conservative MPs stood up to defend vaping, which they described as a safer alternative to smoking.
Among them was the MP for Dartford, Gareth Johnson, who described the plans to phase out smoking as “absurd”.
What Johnson did not declare in the Chamber however, is that he is currently Chairman of the ‘All Party Parliamentary Group on Responsible Vaping’.
Earlier this week it was revealed that this cross-party group has been solely funded by the vaping industry.
According to the I newspaper the APPG received £37,500 worth of funding from the Independent British Vape Trade Association, with one former head of the standards watchdog describing as a “backdoor way of influencing Government”.
There is no suggestion of impropriety by members of the group. However, it has recently criticised plans in the bill to restrict vaping flavours, using claims which mirror those made by the vaping industry, the I reported.
Johnson was contacted for comment but had not responded by the time of publication.
A total of six Conservative members of the Vaping APPG, including Johnson and Adam Afriyie, went onto vote against the bill on Tuesday.
Among them was the Conservative MP Christopher Chope, who has previously registered thousands of pounds worth of hospitality from the tobacco industry.
Another member of the APPG, Graham Brady, who also chairs the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers, recently led a roundtable at the Centre for Policy Studies to discuss the smoking ban proposals, which was sponsored by British American Tobacco.
Nearly 300 Parliamentary Lobby Groups Disappear After New Rules on Foreign Funding and Membership Come into Force
Hundreds of parliamentary lobbying groups have been disbanded after new rules came in banning foreign state funding and tightening up transparency rules.
All Party Parliamentary Groups have come under close scrutiny in recent years, following a raft of scandals. The internal lobbying groups are composed of MPs and peers but are often run by outside organisations known as secretariats.
Amid fears that vested interests and even hostile states could use them to unduly influence parliamentarians – while adding a layer of parliamentary prestige to their work – all APPGs are now required to produce an annual income and expenditure statement, with the secretariats banned from receiving funding from foreign states, whether directly or indirectly.
It may have posed a problem for the dozens of cross-party groups that provide free ‘educational’ trips to MPs to the countries in question.
Following the new rules, the count of APPGs, groups in Parliament that span a wide range of interests has plummeted from 722 to 444, marking a 39% decrease within just a month, according to analysis by the non-profit democracy group mySociety.
Last year, Politico uncovered instances of British parliamentarians having engaged in ‘sex tourism’ and heavy drinking through trips hosted by some country-focused APPGs.
The outlet also found a small cohort of MPs, approximately 10 "super members” held roles in 20 or more country-focused APPGs. Collectively, the backbenchers undertook overseas visits amounting worth over £450,000 since joining parliament.
National-focused APPGs that have now been scrapped include Bahrain, which was chaired by the now-suspended Tory MP Bob Stewart. Stewart recently had his conviction overturned over a verbal tirade against a Bahrain democracy protester.
Reporting by OpenDemocracy in 2022 estimated that APPGs had received around £25 million in benefits from outside bodies in four years, with more than half of that coming from private sector firms.
APPGs are sometimes seen as a bridge between Parliament and the public, allowing MPs and Lords with shared interests to engage with policy areas and outside groups. But they’ve faced growing scrutiny for potential vulnerabilities to corruption, with Transparency International highlighting concerns over MPs and peers accepting expenses-paid trips from governments with dubious records on human rights and corruption.
The tougher rules introduced at the start of this month are aimed at enhancing financial transparency and reducing foreign influence within the parliamentary groups.
The number of country-specific groups has subsequently fallen by 43%, while subject-focused groups on issues – ranging from jazz to the wine industry and electoral reform – have fallen by 38%. Some groups may have been unable to meet the new 20-member minimum threshold.
However, the Substack Democracy for Sale has noted that groups that have chosen not to register officially can continue to operate similarly to APPGs but without the obligation to follow the new transparency and funding rules.
Tom Brake, director of Unlock Democracy, told Byline Times: “We will need to keep close watch on whether less scrupulous operators, who are keen to bypass the rules, set up new groups with misleadingly official names. If this happens, MPs should give them a wide berth.”
Julia Cushion, Policy and Advocacy Manager at mySociety, said that while the new rules clamp down on inappropriate funding from foreign governments and corporate lobbying, “there is now a risk of new “informal” policy forums popping up in their place.”
Regardless of how the money came to them, MPs are obliged to declare gifts (such as trips paid for by foreign governments) through their own declarations of interests, for any over the value of £300.
Steve Goodrich, Head of Research and Investigations at Transparency International UK added: “APPGs had long been a backdoor for lobbyists, including those representing big oil and kleptocrats. That corrupt and repressive regimes like Azerbaijan could secure privileged access to the parliamentary estate through these groups shows how bad things had gotten.
“Parliament was right to require greater transparency and accountability over APPGs, which has seen a dramatic drop in the number of groups registered.”
But he also urged the Government to bring forward legislation to ‘lift the lid’ on other forms of lobbying in politics.
The Losers
Country-based APPGs that have now been scrapped: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Bermuda, British Overseas Territories, British Virgin Islands, Central America, Channel Islands, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia and Djibouti, Falkland Islands, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Kashmir, Kurdistan Region in Iraq, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Maldives, Moldova, Montserrat, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pacific Islands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, Polar Regions, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Slovakia, Southern Yemen, Sri Lanka, St Helena, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Western Sahara, and Zambia.
There is no suggestion that the MPs involved in those APPGs were funded by foreign states, unless their registers of interest say otherwise.
Other all-party groups to have been abolished this month – some of which may have provided free jollies for MPs and peers, include groups for:
The new rules from this month:
As of after the next election, MPs or peers can only be officers for a maximum of 6 APPGs.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Sunak’s Private Meetings With Murdochs and Right-Wing Editors Were Purely ‘Social’ Says Government
The public will never be told what Rishi Sunak discussed in private meetings with members of the Murdoch family and leading right-wing newspaper editors, due to them being held without civil servants present, or minutes being taken, Byline Times can reveal.
The Prime Minister met media representatives more than any other sector of the UK economy between July and September last year, analysis by Byline Times found in December.
Now Freedom of Information requests by this newspaper have revealed that not one of the PM's meetings with journalists or media barons last summer was minuted, with officials describing them as "social or informal" gatherings.
No independent civil servants were present. Instead, the Cabinet Office pointed to the presence of a special adviser, who is political but paid for by the taxpayer.
Every single one of the PM’s eight media meetings in that time was with right-leaning media outlets.
An official for the Cabinet Office told Byline Times: "Since 2011 the Government has pro-actively published details of all meetings (including social and political) between Ministers and senior media executives. This includes informal meetings or engagements (with such senior media figures), where there is no requirement to take minutes as they are not structured or formal Government meetings.
"As set out in the relevant transparency release entries, the engagements in which you have
expressed an interest were informal, social or political engagements...Outside the terms of the Act, we would note that the Prime Minister was accompanied to such informal media engagements by a special adviser."
But Rose Whiffen, Senior Research Officer at the campaign group Transparency International UK said that if any Government business was discussed, the contents need to be made public: “Transparency over who ministers are meeting and why is vital in allowing the public to see who has access and potential sway with those in power.
“Regardless of who they're talking to, if official government business is discussed, engagements should always be recorded in an appropriate manner.
“When these interactions talking about government policy occur in social settings, the rules still apply and the content must be made public.”
Lib Dem Chief Whip Wendy Chamberlain MP told this outlet it looked like the Prime Minister was "using a loophole to get out of following the usual transparency requirements for these meetings."
"Rishi Sunak promised integrity, accountability and professionalism when he came into Number Ten, but all we've had since is yet more sleaze and scandal from the Conservative Party," she added.
The Prime Minister met senior executives from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire alone four times in the space of three months, compared to just once for NHS representatives.
Sunak met Daily Mail editors twice in that time, while meeting housing sector figures once. Several of the meetings were listed as “social”, meaning they are unlikely to have been minuted. That includes meetings with the departing News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch, and separately, his son Lachlan who would shortly take over at the helm.
Lexie Kirkconnell-Kawana, Chief Executive of independent press watchdog Impress, said: “At a time when journalists across the country are being frustrated by low government compliance with Freedom of Information requests, serious steps should be taken to ensure the public are informed of what is going on in Westminster.
“The lack of clarity regarding what goes on in key meetings between the Prime Minister and senior members of the media industry certainly does not help. We have an election on the horizon where voters will expect journalists to act independently and hold politicians to account.
“Poor transparency only opens up the floor to speculation, ultimately damaging the already-fragile trust in both journalists and politicians.”
Read the full meeting declarations for the three months over the Summer here.
Sunak’s Media Meetings – July-September 2023
- Organisation/Individual: Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of DMG Media
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Organisation/Individual: The Spectator
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Organisation/Individual: Lachlan Murdoch, Co-Chairman of News Corp, Executive Chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Organisation/Individual: Rupert Murdoch, Proprietor of News Corporation
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Organisation/Individual: Victoria Newton, Editor of The Sun, Alex Mahon, CEO of Channel 4
- Purpose of Meeting: The Sun's "Who Cares Wins" Awards
- Organisation/Individual: Ted Verity, Editor, of the Daily Mail
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Organisation/Individual: Paul Goodman, Editor of Conservative Home
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal political media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Organisation/Individual: Tony Gallagher, Editor of The Times, Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor of The Times
- Purpose of Meeting: Dinner and meeting at Conservative Party Conference
- Organisation/Individual: Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of DMG Media
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Organisation/Individual: The Spectator
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Organisation/Individual: Lachlan Murdoch, Co-Chairman of News Corp, Executive Chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Organisation/Individual: Rupert Murdoch, Proprietor of News Corporation
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Organisation/Individual: Victoria Newton, Editor of The Sun, Alex Mahon, CEO of Channel 4
- Purpose of Meeting: The Sun's "Who Cares Wins" Awards
- Organisation/Individual: Ted Verity, Editor, of the Daily Mail
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Organisation/Individual: Paul Goodman, Editor of Conservative Home
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal political media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Organisation/Individual: Tony Gallagher, Editor of The Times, Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor of The Times
- Purpose of Meeting: Dinner and meeting at Conservative Party Conference
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Another New Anti-Immigration Pressure Group is Launched from Tufton Street and Met with Reams of Media Coverage
For all the talk of a narrowing in the polls, senior Conservatives remain concerned about the likelihood of electoral collapse in this year’s General Election.
It is a party that seems out of ideas. Yet on its fringes, a panoply of new right-wing groups offer an indication of what we might expect after a General Election routing for the Conservatives. It is a picture of growing radicalisation on the British Right.
The Popular Conservatives (or PopCons) are the newest manifestation of the "anti-woke", low corporate tax, zero regulation sect of conservative ideologues – whose ideas, at odds with much of the electorate, have been described by critics as “neither conservative nor popular”.
To name just a few, the PopCons, the New Conservatives, Common Sense Group, Conservative Way Forward, and Conservative Democratic Organisation, as well as international right-wing conferences like The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), the National Conservatism Conference (NatCon), have all been established, reborn, or made their way over to the UK since late 2018, with most doing so between 2022-2023.
The groups’ MP base and speakers often overlap considerably, frequently finding friendly platforms on GB News, and in the pages of the Times and Telegraph.
But there have also been changes to the makeup of the opaquely funded lobby groups that provide many of the ideas for these factions. The connected think tanks (historically known as the ‘nine entities’ operating from in and around Tufton St, of which many of the MPs involved in the initiatives above are directors or advisors.
The recent launch of the PopCons, spearheaded by Liz Truss, was hosted at The Emmanuel Centre, connected to Tufton St. PopCon is legally registered as Popular Development Partners Limited, directed by Mark Littlewood – until recently the Director General of dark money ‘think tank’ the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), and the group most closely aligned with the shortest serving Prime Minister in British history.
As previously exposed by Byline Times, a new pressure group, ‘End Mass Migration’ (EMM), was also launched from Tufton St in November 2023, calling for “Net Zero migration” and “action on the streets”, launched at an ‘Immigration Conference’ hosted by the New Culture Forum (Peter Whittle, ex-deputy leader of UKIP and NCF chairman was briefly a director).
The group co-founder, Neil Anderson, is himself a former director of the Migration Watch think tank, as well as being a prospective parliamentary candidate for Reform UK.
But although EMM seems to be languishing with only 250 followers on X/Twitter, another similarly focused outfit has recently emerged and has already been handed reams of favourable coverage in both the Telegraph and Daily Express: The Centre for Migration Control (CMC).
Grains of Support, Mountains of Coverage
The Centre for Migration Control does not seem to officially exist yet as a company but does have an active account on X/Twitter and a website, from which friendly media outlets have been able to cite its political research. Its website has no information about the group's origins, its supporters or funders, but does boast a well-stocked media clippings page.
In fact, its analysis has been featured in the Telegraph four times since December 2023, as well as in The Critic and the Express once each within that time.
According to its website, the group was officially launched in January 2024, without listing the people involved. One of the first two people following it was Steven Edginton, the author of the initial Telegraph piece based on their press release (and also former chief digital strategist for the Brexit Party, now Reform UK).
The Telegraph's digital video editor Steven Edginton is prolific on X in opposing 'mass migration' and asylum seekers. Photo: Screengrab from New Culture Forum interview with him in 2023 dubbed: "Tony Blair Enabled Woke Ideology. Repeal the Equality Act Now"
Edginton was also the first person to follow the right-wing anti-immigrant pressure group on X/Twitter, when it hadn’t been formally launched yet.
Following that article, the organisation saw senior conservative politicos begin following the CMC, among them ex-Downing St special advisors, editors and writers for the Mail, Telegraph, and ConservativeHome, as well as accounts linked to the 57 varieties of right-wing pressure groups.
The CMC’s research director is Robert Bates, understood to be the former research executive of the Eurosceptic campaign group Get Britain Out, as well as being a researcher at the ‘Campaign for Democratic Trade’, a group which has a largely unfollowed Twitter/X account, and for which very little other available information exists.
The ‘Rob Bates’ of the now-defunct Get Britain Out has authored two articles bearing a striking resemblance to the material later put out by the CMC, one focused on international student VISAs (Bates article and CMC research cited side-by-side for comparison), and another in the Express, titled ‘We've just accepted 20 years worth of migrants in ONE year’.
The CMC also has a Facebook group, which has been active since 2019. Research into the history of the group reveals that it is in fact a rebrand of Future for Leave, the “younger sibling” of Leave Means Leave, the former pro-Brexit pressure group, once again based at 55 Tufton St. It was co-chaired by Reform UK’s Richard Tice and Brexit Party MEP John Longworth. Nigel Farage was its vice-chair.
The first Edginton piece in the Telegraph quoting the CMC’s research was published the day it rebranded from Future for Leave (FfL).
Edginton was previously chief digital strategist for FfL-linked Leave Means Leave. Robert Bates, presumed to be the same individual involved with the CMC, Get Britain Out, and the Campaign for Democratic Trade, was also Head of Outreach at Leave Means Leave, working alongside Edginton.
Coverage of the opaque group’s analysis has often boosted the Government's narrative on refugees. Another recent Telegraph article by the reporter and ex-Brexit Party staffer condemned those behind a joint letter of 260+ human rights organisations, which urged the Lords to reject the Rwanda Bill.
A Riddle Inside an Enigma
A source from the NGO sector told Byline Times that, following the joint letter, “a reporter from the Telegraph got in touch with a bunch of migrants rights organisations to say he was writing a piece about them”. The article was written by Steven Edginton, again relying on analysis conducted by the Centre for Migration Control.
The source told Byline Times that “The letter was published in the Independent but wasn’t cited by any Lords, so it was “fairly easy to ignore”
They added that “the fact a Telegraph reporter was asking about it made us think that perhaps it was somebody in the Government who didn’t like it and tried to get their mates to discredit some groups involved. They were flagging up old tweets and stunts that the groups had done, which presumably annoyed the Home Office...Someone from [Nigel] Farage’s [GB News] show also asked a few days earlier”.
“The article [was] all based on analysis by this very newly set up think tank, without a proper digital footprint, and who are already getting three articles in the Telegraph within a month of existing…Who is funding this group?”
As one think tank watcher put it to us: "An ex-55 Tufton Street group journalist announced the launch of a rebranded 55 Tufton Street group the journalist used to work for. The new/rebranded group is in turn run by a 55 Tufton Street researcher."
It is a cosy world, the right-wing lobby group and media-cheerleader alliance.
The Centre for Migration Control / Robert Bates and Steven Edginton were contacted for comment. No wrongdoing is alleged on any of their parts. This piece will be updated with their response if we receive one.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Rishi Sunak Meets Murdochs More than NHS Figures in Latest Lobbying Revelations
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Rishi Sunak met media representatives more than any other sector of the UK economy between July and September, analysis by Byline Times shows.
The Prime Minister met senior executives from Rupert Murdoch’s media empire alone four times in the space of three months, compared to just once for NHS representatives.
Sunak met Daily Mail editors twice in that time, while meeting housing sector figures once. Several of the meetings were listed as “social”, meaning they are unlikely to have been minuted. That includes meetings with the departing News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch, and separately, his son Lachlan who is taking over at the helm.
Every single one of the PM’s eight media meetings in that time is with right-leaning media outlets.
Don't miss a story
Sign up to the Behind the Headlines newsletter (and get a free copy of Byline Times in the post)
Journalism professor and Byline Times contributor Brian Cathcart said: "These depressing figures reveal just how close the connection is between the right-wing billionaire press and our multi-millionaire prime minister.
"Forget democracy and forget parliament: this is where the real power in this country resides, and worse still, what we see is just the tip of the iceberg. Contacts of this kind are maintained at every level of Government and are so intensive it's impossible to say where press influence ends and Government begins."
He added that editors and proprietors who have "no democratic mandate" and whose own industry is in a "disgraceful and chaotic state" are listened to more by the prime minister than anyone else in the country.
And Tom Hardy from Extinction Rebellion's 'Tell the Truth' media campaign said the findings were "brazen", adding Sunak's meeting priorities reflected "how out of touch the Government is with a sentient electorate."
Hardy argues that fossil fuel interests and "the billionaire press" appear to be "pulling the strings": "Sunak will tell us that he is still committed to net zero or the health service but we all know what happened to Pinocchio."
Read the full meeting declarations for the three months over the Summer here.
Sunak’s Media Meetings - July-September 2023
- Date: 06/07/2023
- Organisation/Individual: Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of DMG Media
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Date: 06/07/2023
- Organisation/Individual: The Spectator
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Date: 04/08/2023
- Organisation/Individual: Lachlan Murdoch, Co-Chairman of News Corp, Executive Chairman and CEO of Fox Corporation
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Date: 07/09/2023
- Organisation/Individual: Rupert Murdoch, Proprietor of News Corporation
- Purpose of Meeting: "Social Meeting"
- Date: 19/09/2023
- Organisation/Individual: Victoria Newton, Editor of The Sun, Alex Mahon, CEO of Channel 4
- Purpose of Meeting: The Sun's "Who Cares Wins" Awards
- Date: 26/09/2023
- Organisation/Individual: Ted Verity, Editor, of the Daily Mail
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Date: 26/09/2023
- Organisation/Individual: Paul Goodman, Editor of Conservative Home
- Purpose of Meeting: "Informal political media engagement to discuss the work of the Government"
- Date: 30/09/2023
- Organisation/Individual: Tony Gallagher, Editor of The Times, Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor of The Times
- Purpose of Meeting: Dinner and meeting at Conservative Party Conference
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Demand for Investigation into David Cameron’s Appointment as Foreign Secretary Given Lobbying and China Links
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The Liberal Democrats have written to Rishi Sunak’s ethics advisor, calling on him to launch an investigation into David Cameron’s appointment as Foreign Secretary.
It comes as Cameron is set to officially take up his peerage in the House of Lords today as Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton.
Lib Dem Chief Whip Wendy Chamberlain has raised five key questions in a letter to the ethics advisor, Laurie Magnus. These include whether Cameron will be publishing a full list of ministerial interests as soon as he is appointed, and if he will be placing his investments into a blind trust to prevent conflicts of interest.
Cameron isn't expected to publish his register of interests until January.
The former Prime Minister was at the heart of one of the biggest political scandals of recent years, after being accused of lobbying for Greensill Capital to secure Government support after leaving office. The firm collapsed owing millions to creditors including the taxpayer. A 2021 estimate for Parliament put the cost to UK taxpayers at up to £5 billion, though the true final cost to the public purse isn't yet known.
A subsequent BBC Panorama investigation claimed that, through his salary and share sales, Cameron earned around $10 million before tax for just 30 months of part-time work. He has claimed his lobbying on Greensill’s behalf did not break rules.
Now questions are growing over what interests Cameron retains in business and lobbying ventures, after having been involved in several projects linked to the Chinese state.
Failure to prevent any conflicts of interests would risk breaching the Ministerial Code, which requires ministers to be transparent about their private financial interests to avoid any real or perceived conflicts of interest, the Lib Dems argue.
Don't miss a story
The letter also asks whether Cameron will come clean over any of his recent lobbying work, including involving foreign governments such as China.
It calls for clarity over whether Cameron will recuse himself from any Cabinet discussions on decisions related to his recent and current financial interests, including on the Greensill scandal. This could include extradition requests related to the various ongoing international criminal investigations into Greensill including in Switzerland and Germany.
Labour has sharply criticised Cameron's appointment to one of the great offices of state.
As Byline Times has covered, before Greensill collapsed, Cameron "made multiple calls and sent dozens of texts to civil servants from outside Government, in a successful bid to allow Greensill to lend £10 billion in emergency Covid loans".
Cameron also lobbied minister Nadhim Zahawi, who was central in securing Greensill the right to lend hundreds of millions of pounds to eight separate companies under the Government scheme, the BBC reported. A Commons committee found the now Foreign Secretary showed poor judgement.
And the Lib Dems are demanding answers over what conversations took place between Sunak and David Cameron prior to his appointment, and if these touched on Cameron’s financial interests and lobbying work.
Wendy Chamberlain MP, Lib Dem Chief Whip, said: “We need urgent clarity over David Cameron’s financial interests, which could lead to serious conflicts of interest whilst he represents the UK on the world stage. If he was serious about acting with integrity, Rishi Sunak would address these concerns by asking his ethics advisor to launch a full investigation into Cameron’s appointment.
“David Cameron has serious questions to answer over whether he can act impartially in the best interests of the British people. His judgement and integrity have all been questioned in recent years and for good reason. Everybody could hear Rishi Sunak scraping the bottom of the barrel when he made this appointment. He is a desperate Prime Minister appointing an equally desperate politician trying to rehabilitate his image. Frankly, the country deserves better.”
David Cameron’s Appointment to Cabinet ‘Another Reminder Why the House of Lords Must Go’
The disgraced former Prime Minister has been handed a seat in the Lords for life.
Josiah Mortimer
After questions were raised over Cameron's backing of Beijing-funded development in Sri Lanka, a spokesperson for Cameron told the Guardian at the weekend: “David Cameron spoke at two events in the UAE, organised via Washington Speakers Bureau, in support of Port City Colombo, Sri Lanka. The contracting party for the events was KPMG Sri Lanka and Mr Cameron’s engagement followed a meeting he had with Sri Lanka’s president, Ranil Wickremesinghe, earlier in the year. Mr Cameron has not engaged in any way with China or any Chinese company about these speaking events. The Port City project is fully supported by the Sri Lankan Government.”
The Times has reported that now-Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was involved in a China-organised study tour – not the first – offering VIP access, as recently as last year. He has also charged "as much as £12,000 for a photo opportunity and dinner at a ball in Shanghai," the newspaper reported.
Chinese state media has apparently welcomed the appointment of Cameron as UK Foreign Secretary.
The Letter in Full
Dear Sir Laurie, I am writing to request you launch an investigation into the appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary.
As you will be aware, the Ministerial Code states that “ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests.”
There are serious concerns around David Cameron’s failure to be fully transparent over his financial interests and lobbying work in the past, in particular around the Greensill scandal.
The Cabinet Office in its own report into the scandal found that Cameron “on occasion understated the nature of his relationship with Greensill Capital”. Meanwhile the Treasury Select Committee concluded that he had shown a “significant lack of judgement” while lobbying for Greensill, including by sending text messages to former colleagues about the bank.
Given these previous concerns and the speed of Cameron’s appointment to the Lords, it is right that there should be full transparency and public scrutiny of his financial interests to address any potential conflicts of interest that could arise.
In particular, there are five key questions which urgently need to be addressed:
- Will David Cameron be publishing a full list of ministerial interests as soon as he is appointed, including his recent sources of income?
- Will he place his existing investments into a blind trust to avoid any potential conflict of interest, and if so will this trust be located overseas in a low-tax jurisdiction?
- Will David Cameron publicly disclose details of his recent lobbying work, including a list of clients and in which countries they are based?
- Will Mr Cameron recuse himself from any Cabinet discussions and decisions over issues in which he has a current or recent interest? This could include any decisions related to the Greensill scandal including any extradition requests from countries carrying out criminal investigations into it.
- What conversations took place between the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and David Cameron prior to this appointment, and did these touch on Cameron’s current and former financial interests and lobbying work?
It is vital these are answered urgently, particularly given it is expected that David Cameron won't have to publish his register of interests until January.
Rishi Sunak promised when he became Prime Minister to lead a government with integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level. As his Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, I hope you agree that full transparency over this appointment is crucial in order to live up to that promise.
Yours sincerely,
Wendy Chamberlain
Liberal Democrat Chief Whip
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com