Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts
Monday 23rd February 2026

(1 day, 12 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

To repeat myself, just for the record, I did not receive a pound from Labour Together. I would appreciate it if Members did not keep repeating that falsehood.

The answer to my hon. Friend’s question about the independent adviser is in the title: the independent adviser is independent of Government and is looking at this matter in the proper way, as my hon. Friend would expect. We will wait for that advice to come to the Prime Minister, which I expect to happen very shortly.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Liberal Democrats are appalled by reports of smear tactics being used by the party that came into government with a promise to clean up politics following a decade of sleaze under the Conservatives. Investigative journalists have a vital role to play in holding Governments and commercial entities to account. A free and fair press is the cornerstone of a thriving democracy, and this revelation is an outrageous attack on our free press. Can the Government clarify what steps they are taking to uphold the independence of journalism in this country?

Successive Governments have eroded the public’s trust in politics, so will this Government now implement the Liberal Democrats’ suggestion of putting the ministerial code on a statutory footing? I have heard what the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has said about keeping the Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office in his job while the investigation takes place, but does he not agree that this is one more example of the Government insisting that process has to take precedence over political judgment? Can a way not be found for the Minister to step aside while a full investigation is undertaken?

--- Later in debate ---
John McDonnell Portrait John McDonnell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

It is a whitewash—it is another whitewash!

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

Order.

Alec Shelbrooke Portrait Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

To paraphrase Churchill, the cornerstone of a free society is a free press. Whatever the investigation may be looking into, I am afraid that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office has admitted that he set the investigation going because he did not like the report that had been issued about donations. That should not need an independent inquiry; the Prime Minister should sack this Minister now. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is here in effect to represent the Prime Minister, so I ask: will the Prime Minister U-turn before or after Prime Minister’s questions this week?

--- Later in debate ---
Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

When the Prime Minister came to power, promising to clean up politics, he declared:

“Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy.”

We all know that Labour Together helped to mastermind the Prime Minister’s rise to the highest office in the land, and that it stands accused of running an orchestrated campaign to smear and discredit journalists. I think the Prime Minister should be here in this House answering questions, but my prediction is that that day will come. In the meantime, does the Minister agree with me and an ex-founder of Labour Together that this is some “dark shit”?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Order. Mr Leishman, you will withdraw that, won’t you?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

Stand up. I think I want a bit better—a bit more respect, please.

Brian Leishman Portrait Brian Leishman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Please accept my apology, Mr Speaker. I withdraw the bad language.

--- Later in debate ---
Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Maybe the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister wants to answer that rather than me.

Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to answer that point. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) pointed out, I have not received one pound in cash from Labour Together, which was the suggestion from some Members in the House. Instead, I received while in opposition some hours of seconded time from staff, who were provided policy research to my role when I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was normal at that time, whether in relation to Labour Together, trade unions or other organisations. I am happy to confirm that those were declared in the proper way. There has been no breach of the rules and I am happy to make those declarations to the House today.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- View Speech - Hansard - -

If the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) believes there is something wrong, my advice would be to go to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That would be the way forward, rather than to debate this matter on the Floor of the House.

John McDonnell Portrait John McDonnell
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to delay matters, but it is now being reported in the media that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has accidentally messaged details of his case to a mass WhatsApp group of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs, in which he said:

“Jonny rang, PM will ask Laurie to look in to it. Aim is to move fast. But PET did find I had not broken the code.”

I take it that Jonny is the Chief Whip and Laurie is the independent adviser. PET is the propriety and ethics team. However, the PET cannot determine whether or not a Minister has broken the code. A Government spokesperson has said:

“This was an accidental post and clearly meant for a more private conversation. It’s right that the independent adviser takes this away now.”

Could I have your assurance, Mr Speaker, that whatever has been provided to this Member from the propriety and ethics team will be published immediately, and that there will be openness and transparency on this matter?

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- Hansard - -

I call the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to respond.

Darren Jones Portrait Darren Jones
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Chief Whip spoke to the Minister in question this morning to inform him that the Prime Minister had decided to refer the matter to the independent adviser, but I can confirm that the propriety and ethics team will not have made a judgment one way or another about whether the Minister has been cleared or not in relation to the ministerial code. The propriety and ethics team advised the Prime Minister to refer it to the independent adviser, and it is for the independent adviser to come to a judgment on that and then to report to the Prime Minister.

Lindsay Hoyle Portrait Mr Speaker
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I am going to leave it at that. I will just say that the PET will not be making the decision.