There is an old axiom in Westminster that a politician who has been cleared of wrongdoing but resigns anyway has achieved something genuinely unusual: the appearance of honour without the vindication of innocence. Josh Simons, the former UK digital government minister, now occupies precisely that awkward position.
Simons was the minister responsible for the UK government's efforts to introduce digital identity cards, and was investigated by the Cabinet Office and then the prime minister's independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, over his previous role running the Labour Together think tank. He had commissioned a report from the US public affairs firm APCO Worldwide on journalists who had written critical articles about undeclared donations to the organisation, a report that included material about Sunday Times journalist Gabriel Pogrund's Jewish beliefs and possible links to Russia. He also passed a version of the report to GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre.
Labour Together was accused of paying APCO Worldwide £36,000 to investigate the backgrounds of journalists who had written stories about it. The ethics adviser's letter to the Prime Minister noted that Simons now accepted the terms he had agreed with APCO were "wider than he had understood" and that he had acted "too hastily in confirming their appointment". On 28 February, Magnus concluded that Simons had not breached the ministerial code. Simons resigned regardless.
Although the investigation found Simons had not breached the ministerial code, the MP for Makerfield said he had "become a distraction from this Government's important work". Sir Laurie wrote to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer suggesting he consider whether he still held confidence in Simons, given the "potential reputational damage" involved. The timing of the letters' release, published after 5pm on a Saturday afternoon, attracted its own criticism in Westminster circles, with opposition figures quick to characterise the handling of the affair as deliberately low-profile.
More than 20 Labour MPs had put pressure on the Prime Minister to carry out a "fully independent investigation" into Simons and the report, while the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK all called on Simons to resign from his Cabinet Office post. Those calling for greater accountability framed the episode as a press freedom concern, pointing to the deeply troubling nature of a government-affiliated think tank commissioning intelligence-style reports on journalists and then routing information through a spy agency.
There is a reasonable counter-position to the most severe reading of events. Sir Laurie found that Simons had acted "in good faith", though he acknowledged the "perceived gap between his public statements and what he now accepts appears to be a more extensive scope has been damaging". In previous statements, Simons had said APCO was hired to investigate an illegal hack. The ethics process, whatever its limitations, reached a considered conclusion through a formal institutional channel. Those who argue Simons was fundamentally wronged by the political pressure brought to bear on him are not without a point.
A Policy Programme Left Without Clear Leadership
The more consequential question for British citizens, though, is what becomes of the digital identity programme itself. Frith, MP for Bury North, has been appointed as Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, as well as digital government minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent has also been appointed Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office, sharing Frith's responsibilities at that department.
Frith served as MP for Bury North between 2017 and 2019, when he was defeated by 105 votes by Conservative James Daly, before regaining the seat in the 2024 general election. Since returning to parliament, Frith had been a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. His background is eclectic: the son of a bishop, he was once lead singer of indie rock band Finka, which played at the new bands tent at the Glastonbury festival, before working for Labour education secretary Ruth Kelly and later founding a social enterprise focused on careers advice.
Whether his ministerial temperament extends to the complex, contested terrain of national digital identity infrastructure remains an open question. The government had planned to publish a consultation on its digital identity scheme in February, but did not do so. As reported by The Register, the Cabinet Office had not responded to questions about whether Frith would pick up that work, and there was no mention of digital identity on his official GOV.UK ministerial page at the time of publication.
The electorate demands, and rightly so, some assurance that a programme of this scale will not be quietly allowed to drift because of ministerial instability. The UK's digital identity scheme has already attracted scrutiny over cost transparency, with The Register previously reporting that Whitehall rejected a £1.8 billion price tag for the scheme but declined to say what it would actually cost. A change of minister resolves a political embarrassment; it does not resolve those deeper structural questions about programme governance and public accountability.
What is at stake, and this point bears emphasis, is not merely an administrative reshuffling but the credibility of a significant public-sector technology commitment. The handling of the Simons affair reflects a broader tension in modern democratic governance: the pressure to act decisively for appearances' sake, sometimes at the cost of due process, and the subsequent policy vacuum that a rushed departure leaves behind. Reasonable observers will weigh those competing considerations differently. What they should agree on is that the digital identity programme requires a minister who is publicly, visibly, and demonstrably in charge of it. Whether James Frith will be that person is something the government owes the public a clear answer on, and soon.