As the Bangladesh government’s investigation into corruption claims against Tulip Siddiq and her family continues to deepen the City minister this week referred herself to the independent adviser on ministerial standards to initiate a “fact-finding exercise to determine if an investigation is needed.” Which is a new kind of processology invented by Labour that seems to stop short of an actual investigation…
Sir Laurie Magnus’ brief is to advise on the ministerial code. The government says: “The Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards is appointed by the Prime Minister to advise him on matters relating to the Ministerial Code. The post holder is independent of government and expected to provide impartial advice to the Prime Minister.” He cannot conduct an investigation into corruption claims in another jurisdiction…
It is unclear from either the Independent Adviser’s terms of reference or the ministerial code itself whether Magnus’ scope of work is also limited to the period after which Siddiq became a minister. The Mail on Sunday claims that Siddiq “lied” to them on-record before she was a minister, for example. The expectation of some in SW1 is that the timescale will be restricted because of the Adviser’s inability to consider anything outside his scope. Perhaps that helped along the self-referral…
The ministerial code does though state that “on appointment to each new office, ministers must provide their permanent secretary with a full declaration in writing of private interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict, actual or perceived. This declaration should also cover interests of the minister’s spouse or partner and close family.” This could be the only subject on which Magnus can definitively comment. Basically, he is being asked to judge whether Siddiq should have declared that she was given a property by an associate of the leader of a controversial foreign political party when she was eventually made a minister – years later. Did she?
Not that any of this was called into question by political hacks – who breathlessly reported the Independent Adviser’s involvement yesterday – apparently spun by a common Whitehall tactic. More broadly, if the probe can’t go back any further on the timeline, what’s the point?
Speaking at his speech on how to achieve “progressive capitalism” Wes Streeting fired a dig and Andy Burnham:
“Bond markets are not bond villains and fiscal rules matter.”