Tulip of Hampstead damned

IT IS HARD to know who has come out of the Tulip Siddiq saga the worse: her, the MP for Hampstead & Highgate and former Economic Secretary to the Treasury; or him, Leader of the Labour Party and UK Prime Minister.

The Aunt
There is nothing wrong about having an aunt, and no MP should be condemned for the actions of a close relative. However, Tulip Siddiq MP’s aunt is former Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina – forced to flee the country after it became impossible for her to control internal opposition. As a result, the reality of her tyrannical rule came to light: the use of the police and army to silence dissent; the torture and intimidation. Ms Hasina is now being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Commission in Bangladesh.

Ms Siddiq has remained silent as the horrible truth about her aunt’s regime, led by the Awami League, has unfolded. While the Home Office has been acknowledging the political repression in Bangladesh by granting asylum to those who have been able to escape, Ms Siddiq has been next door in the Treasury – silent about her close relative. Starmer has been silent too. The nearest he has come to taking an interest in Banglaesh has been to suggest, during the General Election campaign, that Bangladeshi asylum seekers in the UK should be sent back to Bangladesh qiuckly – implying that they would not be in danger there. Now he knows better – but he remains silent.

The homes
Ms Siddiq has an interest in three homes in the UK which are linked to Sheikh Hasina and her friends in the Awami League. Sky News has listed the properties, as follows.

A house in Finchley worth £2.1 million and which Ms Siddiq rents from its owner, Abdul Karim Nazim, who is on the executive of the Awami League’s UK branch.

A flat in King’s Cross. Ms Siddiq has said that the flat was given to her by her parents. The Financial Times has reported that it was given to her by its former owner Abdul Motalif, an associate of members of the Awami League. Ms Siddiq says that she rents this flat out. (Why? Can’t she live on the generous salary MPs receive?)

A property in Hampstead, which used to be Ms Siddiq’s registered home but which was transferred to her sister in 2009 – by Moin Ghani, a lawyer who has worked for Sheikh Hasin’s Government.

The media has criticised Ms Siddiq for benefiting financially from these properties which have links to the Awami League and Ms Hasina’s Government. MPs have to declare honestly any financial benefits they gain so that their affairs are transparent and there is no possible conflict of interests. When Ms Siddiq said that her parents gave her the King’s Cross flat, it looked as if she was lying or covering up its links with the Awami League. Ms Siddique said she had been confused. Some MPs will tell you who gave them a mince pie at their constituency’s winter social. There is an expectation that MPs should not be confused over who gave them a whole flat.

Tulip Siddiq MP joined Rushanara Ali MP to campaign for John Biggs to be Mayor of Tower Hamlets. Controversy arose over whether Labour had paid a hire charge for the park and declared it an an election expense.

The Russian dictator
In 2013 Sheikh Hasina did a deal with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin which funded most of the Roopur nuclear power plant. Ms Siddiq, who was then a Labour Councillor in Camden and had not yet been elected to Parliament, was pictured with Putin, her aunt Hasina and her mother (Hasina’s sister) at a gathering to mark the deal. The photograph looks like some sort of endorsement of Putin: while not illegal, it is certainly seen by many as unsavoury, at best. Ms Siddiq has always denied that the photo implied any endorsement of Putin on her part and has suggested that she had thought she was just at a low key social (in the Kremlin) while on a visit to see her mother.

The second allegation concerning Ms Hasina’s deal with Putin is more serious. Documents lodged with the High Court in Bangladesh suggest that the building costs of the power plant, which Russia paid, were inflated – with a substantial amount of these funds being paid to Ms Hasina personally, and to members of her family, incuding Ms Siddiq. This allegation has been around for a while and Ms Siddiq has always denied it. The documents were submitted to the Court by a political rival of Sheikh Hasina and the allegations have yet to be heard or proven. However, Starmer is seen as naieve or complacent by letting a minister stay in government before allegations on such a scale have been dealt with definitively.

The investigation (Bangladesh)
As well as the allegations about her personal properties and that she received funds from the deal with Putin, there has also been an allegation that Ms Siddiq tried to put pressure on planing officials, through her aunt, and possibly even bribe them, to obtain land. Again, Ms Sidique denies these allegations – and, again, you would have thought that a UK Prime Minister would have asked a minister facing such allegations to stand down while they were investigated.

The Ministerial Code
As the media put pressure on Ms Siddique, she referred herself to the Prime Minister’s independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus – before anyone else could do so. He did find any “evidence of improprities”, but he did point out that the age of some of the allegations and a lack of evidence meant that he was not “able to obtain comprehensive comfort”.

Sir Laurie stated that he had, “found no evidence to suggest that Ms Siddiq’s and/or her husband’s financial assets, as disclosed to me, derive from anything other than legitimate means.” However, he tempered this assertion by adding that it was “regrettable” that Ms Siddiq “was not more alert to the potential reputational risks” of her family’s position in Bangladesh. It is surprising that Starmer was not aware of these reputation risks, but Sir Laurie was not investigating Sir Keir so we have to let that one go.

The departure
The fact that there are so many allegations about Tulip Siddiq MP made her position untenable. Referring herself to the Ethnics Adviser (quickly, before anyone else did) allowed him to say that she had not broken the Ministerial Code of Conduct. But that did not amount to giving her a clean bill of health. Things she did before she became a Minister would not have broken a Code of Conduct which has only applied to her since she did become a Minister. The issue is that there is a public perception that things she did or has failed to do in the short time she was a Minister make it look like she was not a suitable person to be a Minister – at least not until there were proper answers to the allegations against her.

Sheikh Hasina fled Bangladesh at the start of August 2024, about a month after the UK General Election. Many believe that Starmer should have asked Siddiq to step down then, so that her assocation with the ousted regime could be investigated and so that if she was cleared she could return to government and resume her parliamentary career. Instead, Ms Siddiq has spun the Ethics Adviser’s verdict that she did not break the Ministerial Code while she was a Minister to imply that it means that she has done nothing wrong ever. She resigned because the media furore meant that she was becoming the story,and this was distracting from the government (a flimsy excuse many MPs have used before). Starmer had little choice to accept her resignation. Although they are friends, her resignation was no great loss to a Prime Minister whose majority means that he could easily replace her (and has done so). But from the outside it does look like Ms Siddiq is on very shaky ground and jumped before even the tolerant Starmer had to push her.

Speaking at a hustings session in 2019, Ms Siddiq referred to Boris Johnson as “a man who has consistently escape scrutiny and, because of the family he comes from and the privilege that he has, he is a man who has deep rooted racism in his body.” Ms Siddiq would do well to remember her comment and admit that MPs cannot escape scrutiny of their family connections and the privilege that arises from them.

The debate will continue and we shall see what political future Ms Siddiq and Sir Keir have in due course. We can only hope that the debate from now on is conducted on the basis of facts and does not include any elements of Islamophobia or misogyny.

●Read more stories about Tulip Siddiq MP:
British Bangladeshi MPs split over Trident
Labour: this was no walk in the park