Tulip Siddiq’s resignation shows Labour are not yet used to scrutiny of government

It seems inevitable now: following allegations about how she had acquired London properties, and her links to her aunt’s ousted government in Bangladesh, the minister in charge of tackling economic crime and corruption has resigned from the government. Even though she had been found not to have breached the ministerial code, Tulip Siddiq, formerly economic secretary to the Treasury, stepped down after concluding that continuing in her role was “likely to become a distraction”. ¹⁰ Letter from Tulip Siddiq MP to the prime minister, 14 January 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67868732f0528401055d23d5/Letter_from_Tulip_Siddiq_MP_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf  Should the prime minister and his team have seen this coming? 

Labour set itself a very high bar on ethics in government

In the years running up to the 2024 general election, Starmer and his party focused strongly on ethics in government, criticising many Conservative ministers for apparent ethical failings and promising to establish a new ethics and integrity commission. Since taking office, Labour’s track record has been mixed. The prime minister did eventually publish a new ministerial code that made important steps towards strengthening how ministers are held to account for their actions, but the ethics commission has yet to emerge. 

In November the prime minister suffered his first ministerial resignation, when transport secretary Louise Haigh stepped down following revelations about a (spent) criminal conviction, which Starmer knew of when he appointed her to the shadow cabinet. By holding Haigh to a high bar, Starmer set a precedent about his expectations – so the fact that the Siddiq case went on so long has been puzzling to many.

Siddiq said she has done nothing wrong – but there has been a clear failure of judgement 

Sir Laurie Magnus, the prime minister’s adviser on ministerial standards, is clear in his assessment that Siddiq did not break the ministerial code, but he does nod to the fact that she should have been “more alert to the potential reputational risks – both to herself and the government – arising from her close family’s association with Bangladesh”. ¹¹ Letter from the independent adviser on ministerial standards to the prime minister, 14 January 2025. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6786877af0528401055d23d7/Letter_from_Independent_Adviser_on_Minsterial_Standards_to_the_Prime_Minister…  Siddiq insists that she provided all relevant information about her family links and her private interests to officials when she was appointed a minister in July. 

It was right for Starmer to wait for Magnus to conclude his investigation. But, if in the end the problem was not so much what Siddiq did or didn’t do, but rather how it looked, the question has to be why the appearance of a conflict of interest was not picked up earlier? The ministerial code is clear, and has been since it was first published, that ministers “must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”.

Given what Siddiq apparently declared to officials when offered her ministerial role, it seems strange that nobody thought to flag her potential conflict of interest – or, if they did, that these concerns were dismissed. Reports suggest that Siddiq and Starmer are relatively close, ¹² “Why hasn’t Tulip Siddiq been sacked?”, Stephen Bush, Financial Times, 13 January 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/04df4b05-9c9a-4b5f-824f-298f0493b65b  but personal loyalty rarely sits easily with political reality. 

Siddiq’s resignation also seems to be part of a worrying pattern. Following the summer’s 'freebie-gate', it is beginning to look as if this government does not fully understand how ministers’ actions look to its external critics. Having been so quick to loudly criticise the last government for its perceived failings on ethics and integrity, Starmer and his team need to show that they truly understand the importance of meeting the standards that they promised to uphold once in office.