Committee publication · Report · 11 December 2025 · HC 1569
4th Report - Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst
From: Committee on Standards
Summary
The Committee on Standards investigated Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP for potential breaches of All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) rules after he self-referred when his APPG for Defence Technology accepted funding from RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, which is controlled by the Israeli government. The Committee concluded there was a single breach of the Code of Conduct: inadequate due diligence enabled indirect foreign government funding of the secretariat. It recommended a written apology to the House and criticised the ambiguity in APPG rules while acknowledging mitigating factors including his cooperation and swift remedial action.
Key findings
- Dr Shastri-Hurst breached Rule 10 of the Code of Conduct by failing to conduct adequate due diligence on secretariat funding; inadequate checks enabled temporary part-funding by the Israeli government through RUK Advanced Systems Ltd
- The Committee rejected the Commissioner's finding of 42 separate breaches, instead characterising it as a single breach arising from one decision to delegate due diligence to the secretariat without sufficient oversight
- The Committee disagreed with the Commissioner's conclusion that delegation of due diligence was impermissible; it found precedent in Code of Conduct practice (e.g. MPs delegating interest registration to staff) and concluded the rules lack clarity on this point
- Mitigating factors include Dr Shastri-Hurst's status as a newly elected MP (2024) taking his first APPG chair role, his good faith, absence of intent to breach rules, swift self-referral, full cooperation with investigation, immediate remedial action including returning payment and resigning as Chair, and genuine remorse
- The Committee found significant ambiguities in the APPG rules themselves (grounds two and three showed Commissioner uncertainty) and committed to reviewing rule clarity in 2026, noting the importance of clear, enforceable standards
Recommendations
- Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst should apologise in writing to the House for his single breach of the APPG rules, with the text agreed in advance with the Committee Chair
- House authorities should consider seeking advice from external due diligence experts on how best to advise APPGs on conducting due diligence, establishing clear principles and a checklist for Chairs and Registered Contacts
Tone
FactualTopics
Key actors
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Daniel Greenberg), Committee on Standards, Alberto Costa, RUK Advanced Systems Ltd, State of Israel, APPG Secretariat Services Ltd
Notable line
“Actions can be delegated; responsibility for those actions cannot be delegated. The Chair and Registered Contact has the responsibility to prevent such a serious breach of the Rule”
Key Quotes
“I am mortified that my action or inaction has resulted in this process, and would never intentionally act in any way to undermine the work or reputation of the House.”
“The suggestion that this was a deliberate breach is personally mortifying to me. My integrity is the thing I hold to the highest standard, and to find that questioned is personally devastating.”
“… 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.”
“We consider that the same principle, therefore, applies to the extant APPG rules: the Chair and Registered Contact is personally responsible for ensuring that the APPG rules are complied with in full, but this does not prohibit delegation of matters to the Secretariat.”
“This is precisely the scenario that the due diligence requirements are provided to prevent.”
“This was a one-off act undertaken due to a misunderstanding of the APPG Rule and Guide to the Rules. It was not a sustained course of conduct designed to deliberately breach the APPG Rule.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗