PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Points of Order - 17 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
Contributions from Mr Adnan Hussain, are highlighted with a yellow border.
John McDonnell
Hayes and Harlington
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have raised concerns in the House about the activities of the organisation called Labour Together. Labour Together was exposed by a group of journalists for wrongdoings, including the non-declaration of political donations to the Electoral Commission. Members were concerned that Labour Together had commissioned a US agency, APCO, to collect information and investigate the journalists. APCO produced a report, which was then used in attempts to smear those two journalists, affecting their careers.
After that matter was raised in the House, I was contacted by a journalist, and it was indicated that Labour Together might have been collecting information on not just journalists but possibly Members of Parliament. I submitted a subject access request to Labour Together, which replied that because this is a complex case, the deadline for responding will be three months, not one month. I also submitted a subject access request to the US agency APCO, and I received a reply last night that confirmed that, yes, it has been collecting information on me. It does not say why, or who commissioned the work that it is undertaking. APCO then gave me 11 redacted pages that are nonsensical. Literally whole pages are redacted, except for three or four words on each page, usually just names.
I am concerned that an organisation or agency could be collecting information on Members of Parliament. It does not know who for, or for what purpose, but if we look at what happened to those two journalists, the purpose was to smear them and affect their careers. I have called on a number of occasions for an independent inquiry on the activities of Labour Together and APCO. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record again my request for the Government to consider the establishment of an independent inquiry into the activities of both these organisations.
After that matter was raised in the House, I was contacted by a journalist, and it was indicated that Labour Together might have been collecting information on not just journalists but possibly Members of Parliament. I submitted a subject access request to Labour Together, which replied that because this is a complex case, the deadline for responding will be three months, not one month. I also submitted a subject access request to the US agency APCO, and I received a reply last night that confirmed that, yes, it has been collecting information on me. It does not say why, or who commissioned the work that it is undertaking. APCO then gave me 11 redacted pages that are nonsensical. Literally whole pages are redacted, except for three or four words on each page, usually just names.
I am concerned that an organisation or agency could be collecting information on Members of Parliament. It does not know who for, or for what purpose, but if we look at what happened to those two journalists, the purpose was to smear them and affect their careers. I have called on a number of occasions for an independent inquiry on the activities of Labour Together and APCO. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place on the record again my request for the Government to consider the establishment of an independent inquiry into the activities of both these organisations.
16:11:54
Judith Cummins
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for notice of his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. If he has concerns about compliance with the law, he may wish to consult the Information Commissioner.
Mr Adnan Hussain
Blackburn
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek guidance on a matter that goes to the heart of the standards of this House, and the safety and cohesion of the country that we serve. Earlier today, the shadow Justice Secretary made remarks about a peaceful and entirely lawful iftar gathering in Trafalgar Square, organised with the prior approval of the Greater London Authority. He described that gathering as an “act of domination”, and implied that such expressions of Muslim faith are unwelcome in our shared public spaces.
Public spaces in this country, including Trafalgar Square, have long been places where people of all faiths and none come together—where Muslims break their fast, yes, but it is also a place where Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and many others have marked their traditions openly and proudly. That is not extremism. That is not domination. It is the expression of the plural democratic society that we claim to defend. To single out one minority community in this way is not only inconsistent with that tradition, but deeply dangerous and inflammatory.
Words from Members of this House, who are public officials, do not exist in a vacuum. They can legitimise prejudice and embolden those who seek to divide our country and society. This House has a duty to uphold respect, equality and the dignity of all communities. Madam Deputy Speaker, what recourse is available when such rhetoric threatens not only the reputation of this House, but the safety and cohesion of our communities in our country?
Public spaces in this country, including Trafalgar Square, have long been places where people of all faiths and none come together—where Muslims break their fast, yes, but it is also a place where Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and many others have marked their traditions openly and proudly. That is not extremism. That is not domination. It is the expression of the plural democratic society that we claim to defend. To single out one minority community in this way is not only inconsistent with that tradition, but deeply dangerous and inflammatory.
Words from Members of this House, who are public officials, do not exist in a vacuum. They can legitimise prejudice and embolden those who seek to divide our country and society. This House has a duty to uphold respect, equality and the dignity of all communities. Madam Deputy Speaker, what recourse is available when such rhetoric threatens not only the reputation of this House, but the safety and cohesion of our communities in our country?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has put his point on the record.
15:18:20
Richard Burgon
Leeds East
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to make this point of order and apologies for not making you aware of it in advance. I have just seen an email response from the private investigation organisation APCO in response to my subject access request, which says that
“this has produced a large volume of data”
and that they
“therefore require additional time in which to supply our response to you”.
It adds:
“This has made the response to your DSAR complex in accordance with the statutory framework.”
Labour Together responded:
“we will need some further time to complete this work”,
saying that they may need up to 18 May.
Madam Deputy Speaker, will you provide guidance on how the democratic and political rights of elected Members can be protected when a private investigation firm states that it has gathered a large volume of data in relation to us? By arguing that it is some way complex, it clearly holds a large volume of data. What guidance can you give as to how our democratic duties and political freedoms can be protected when a private investigation firm is operating in this way?
“this has produced a large volume of data”
and that they
“therefore require additional time in which to supply our response to you”.
It adds:
“This has made the response to your DSAR complex in accordance with the statutory framework.”
Labour Together responded:
“we will need some further time to complete this work”,
saying that they may need up to 18 May.
Madam Deputy Speaker, will you provide guidance on how the democratic and political rights of elected Members can be protected when a private investigation firm states that it has gathered a large volume of data in relation to us? By arguing that it is some way complex, it clearly holds a large volume of data. What guidance can you give as to how our democratic duties and political freedoms can be protected when a private investigation firm is operating in this way?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. You may not be aware of a previous point of order from your right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but you have put your point on the record. If you have any concerns about compliance with the law, you may wish to consult the Information Commissioner.
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.