Committee publication · Report · 11 December 2025
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst - Oral evidence
From: Committee on Standards
Government response deadline: 11 February 2026
Summary
Oral evidence from Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP before the Committee on Standards regarding alleged breaches of All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) rules. Dr Shastri-Hurst, chair of the APPG for Defence Technology, apologises for delegating due diligence responsibilities to the secretariat and failing to read a December 2024 advice note, but argues the delegation was reasonable under his interpretation of the rules and that he established a system of due diligence that failed only in identifying one partner's foreign government funding.
Key findings
- Dr Shastri-Hurst delegated due diligence responsibilities to APPG Secretariat Services Ltd, headed by James Clark, rather than performing them personally, arguing this was permissible under APPG rules as precedent exists for delegating other regulatory tasks.
- He failed to read an advice note sent in December 2024 that would have clarified due diligence requirements, admitting this was a human error and profusely apologising for it.
- The secretariat's due diligence process successfully identified most partners' credentials but failed to uncover that one partner (RUK) was funded by a foreign government, which was the breach at issue.
- Dr Shastri-Hurst argues the core question is whether due diligence could be delegated and whether it was reasonable to do so, rather than whether he engaged with the rules at all, and points to confusion in rule interpretation as evidenced by the Deputy Registrar's advice.
- He has resigned as chair, wound up the APPG (de-registered 9 September 2025), and tendered his notice for all other APPG officer roles, stating he will not chair or serve as registered contact for any APPG in future.
Tone
ProceduralTopics
Key actors
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP, Alberto Costa (Chair, Committee on Standards), James Clark (APPG Secretariat Services Ltd director), Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Deputy Registrar
Notable line
“The principal reason I wish to give oral evidence is to apologise once more, but this time in person, to the Committee as a whole.”
Key Quotes
“I have repeatedly apologised for my inadvertent breach. I have attempted, with what I hope have been both timely and full responses, to be as collaborative and as co- operative as possible.”
“Due diligence was performed. In fact, a system of due diligence was put in place, and with the exception of RUK, that proved to be successful.”
“… what I have said in my written submissions, save to draw the Committee's attention specifically to the following points, on which I will be brief.”
“Do you accept that if a member of your staff fails to register an interest, the responsibility for that sits with you rather than with that member of staff?”
“Absolutely, and I think I said that a moment ago— ultimately the buck stops with me. You can delegate, but if there is a failure of that process, whatever you are delegating, as the head of the organisation, you are ultimately responsible. I take full responsibility.”
“I am mortified that my actions or inactions have resulted in this process. I would never intentionally act in a way to undermine the working or reputation of the House.”
“Were I to do it again, I would of course change my practice. Because I didn't consider these to be APPG funds—they were support for the secretariat in order to provide their benefit in kind to the APPG—ultimately …”
“While I fully accept that you may well consider there has been a breach of the rules in terms of the delegation of due diligence, it was never my intention to breach that rule.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗