Committee publication · Report · 11 December 2025
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst - written evidence
From: Committee on Standards
Summary
The Commissioner's Report investigates Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP's governance of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Defence Technology following his self-referral regarding potential breaches of APPG rules. The inquiry concludes that Dr Shastri-Hurst breached Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct through 43 violations: 42 breaches of the due diligence requirement for external secretariat funding and one breach involving acceptance of funding from a foreign government (Israel, via RUK Advanced Systems). The Commissioner found these breaches neither minor nor inadvertent and recommends referral to the Committee on Standards.
Key findings
- 42 breaches of due diligence requirements: Dr Shastri-Hurst delegated responsibility for checking 42 external companies' funding to the secretariat itself rather than conducting independent officer checks, contrary to explicit APPG rules requiring due diligence by Group officers.
- 1 breach of foreign government funding rule: RUK Advanced Systems, which is entirely owned by the State of Israel, paid £1,500 to fund the APPG secretariat before being identified and refunded.
- Inadequate due diligence checks: The secretariat reviewed only Directors at Companies House but failed to check the 'persons with significant control' register, which would have revealed Israeli state ownership.
- No breach found on APPG funds holding: Insufficient evidence to determine partnership payments were 'APPG funds' versus 'secretariat funds' due to undefined terminology in rules.
- No breach found on registration delays: Four donations over £1,500 were not registered within 28 days, but the Commissioner found this permissible due to lack of timeframe in the rule and reliance on Registrar's advice with a £1,500 threshold.
Recommendations
- Find that Dr Shastri-Hurst has breached Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct in relation to 43 separate violations of APPG rules concerning due diligence of external funding and foreign government financing of secretariats.
Tone
FactualTopics
Key actors
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP, Daniel Greenberg CB (Commissioner), APPG Secretariat Services Ltd, RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, State of Israel, Registrar of Members' Financial Interests, Committee on Standards, All-Party Parliamentary Group for Defence Technology
Notable line
“… this abdication of responsibility, and the failure to make any personal attempt to comply with this rule, could not be 15 classed as an inadvertent breach that was suitable for rectification but should, in my opinion …”
Key Quotes
“… in failing to undertake any of his own checks, and instead delegating the task to the secretariat, Dr Shastri-Hurst had failed to discharge the responsibilities expressly imposed on APPG officers by the House.”
“In our view, there is no substitute for Members undertaking their own due diligence as to the source of a benefit, assessing why they are being 10 offered it, and carefully judging if it is right to accept it.”
“It is my conclusion that this amounts to forty-two breaches of the second limb of the APPG rule”
“RUK Advanced Systems Ltd operates as a British Company and independently from Israeli Government control. Neither the Israeli Government nor the parent company Rafael directed RUK to join the APPG for Defence Technology.”
“… am satisfied 25 that the natural meaning of this requirement is that the burden of undertaking the due diligence falls to a Group's officers only and cannot be delegated.”
“The Rules relating to foreign governments ban APPGs from either accepting the provision of a secretariat by a foreign government, or accepting the services of a secretariat funded by a foreign government.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗