Gongs for cronies scandal engulfs Cameron
THE outcry over David Cameron’s resignation honours intensified last night with a series of damning revelations.
Astonishingly, it emerged his 48-strong list was simply being rubber-stamped by the committee meant to scrutinise it.
Sources said it had the power to block nominations only if they were on the usual New Year or Queen’s birthday honours lists.
It also became clear that Mr Cameron’s former tennis partner Lord Feldman had helped him draw up the nominations, which included his wife’s stylist.
And it emerged that the former prime minister was set to defy the furore by rewarding up to a dozen more of his political cronies with peerages.
But in a blow to Mr Cameron, it was suggested that reservations have already been raised about several of those he plans to nominate.
A source said leading City broker Michael Spencer, the former Tory treasurer, had failed the ‘sniff test’ over his links to a firm involved in the Libor fixing scandal. Meanwhile, Theresa May refused to block Mr Cameron’s list, saying it was a matter for him. The latest developments came as:
Former Cameron aide Sir
Desmond Swayne claimed the honours system was ‘a bargain’ for the taxpayer.
Even Tory MPs criticised the list, with one saying it made her ‘sad for politics’.
There was confusion over whether four Remain-supporting Cabinet ministers reportedly nominated for a knighthoods would end up actually receiving them.
The honours scandal was ignited on Sunday when the list of 48 names was leaked, including Mrs Cameron’s former diary planner and stylist Isabel Spearman and George Osborne’s aide Thea Rogers.
Critics said it showed Mr Cameron was hijacking the system to reward aides, political donors and senior figures in the losing Remain campaign.
But last night extraordinary details emerged about lax vetting of the names by the Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee, which is chaired by former Tory backbench chief Lord Spicer.
Despite being set up in 2012 to review honours candidates, its blocking powers only apply to the New Year’s and Birthday Honours lists. Prime Ministers’ Resignation and Dissolution Honours lists are not subject to the same scrutiny. It means the committee can do no more than raise an issue of propriety about a potential candidate put forward by Mr Cameron.
Members are merely sent the list and offered the opportunity to comment but can only raise serious matters which might otherwise disqualify a candidate. It means there is no oversight of the choices, which will now all be waved through unless a candidate is found to be improper.
‘The Resignation Honours lists are completely within the purview of the Prime Minister,’ a source close to the process said. ‘The list of names is sent to the Committee and members have the opportunity to send comments if there is an issue of probity or propriety.
‘The crucial issue is that the Committee do not have the power to approve any of the nominations as they do in the New Year’s or Birthday Honours. It is very unsatisfactory.’
Committee members range from dames to lords – and include Dame Rosie Winterton who sat on the committee that recommended her for an honour. Yesterday Mrs May refused to bow to pressure to block the controversial resignation honours list – saying it would set a ‘bad precedent’. Her spokesman said she would not ‘interfere’ in the process of approving her predecessor’s honours.
But Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, accused Mr Cameron of throwing round gongs ‘like confetti’.
He called on Mrs May to ‘practice what she preaches’ on cleaning up politics and use her powers to block the honours. He also criticised the award for Mrs Cameron’s stylist.
Despite the furore, around a dozen peerages for Mr Cameron’s former aides and possible donors are also expected to be announced. Among them are Gabby Bertin, a loyal aide to Mr Cameron from his time as leader of the opposition to the dying days of his administration.
Reservations are believed to have been raised about a significant number on his list. It is expected that Mr Cameron’s choice of former Treasurer Mr Spencer will not be approved, after concerns were raised by the Cabinet office’s head of ethics. His ICAP City brokerage firm has been fined £55million by regulators over the Libor interest-rate rigging scandal, although he was not personally implicated.
Downing Street would not be drawn on reports that four Cabinet members – Philip Hammond, Michael Fallon, David Lidington and Patrick McLoughlin – had been directed by Mrs May to turn down their honours They were on the original resignation list but the BBC said they were not being put forward after all.
It is understood Mr Cameron may have nominated them, thinking they would be sacked under a new prime minister.
tHIs country’s tainted honours system is in desperate need of radical reform.
In theory, it rewards genuine and faithful public service, but with sunday’s leak of David Cameron’s Chumocracy Honours, its reputation hit a depressing new low.
Mr Cameron has not deigned to explain his decision – apparently made with his faithful ally and tennis partner Lord Feldman at his side – to reward a staggering 48 allies, aides and donors, nearly all of whom backed the Remain campaign.
But yesterday, in attempting to defend the list, his close ally, the tory MP and former minister sir Desmond swayne, inadvertently revealed the rampant cynicism behind it.
sir Desmond, who was himself – surprise surprise! – knighted at Mr Cameron’s behest only weeks ago, said the gongs were a repayment for a ‘debt of honour’ owed for political favours and a ‘relatively light way of paying it off’.
His disgraceful implication is that the honours system is a system of payback for grubby political deals, and that the recipients might have cause to expect much more. He added, gallingly, that the public get ‘far too excited’ about gongs.
Meanwhile, we learn Mr Cameron is to further tarnish his post-Downing street reputation by sending another raft of aides and allies to the House of Lords. Is it any wonder the public are cynical about the political system?