A ex Cabinet Office official has admitted he was “naive” over his involvement in ordering an inquiry into journalists at a Labour think tank, in his first detailed remarks to the media since resigning from government. Josh Simons quit his post on 28 February after it came to light that Labour Together, the think tank he formerly headed, had engaged consultancy firm APCO Worldwide at least £30,000 to examine the background and financial backing of journalists at the Sunday Times. The investigation, which looked into journalist Gabriel Pogrund’s personal beliefs and previous work, triggered considerable public outcry and prompted Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to launch an ethics investigation. Speaking to the BBC’s Newscast programme, Simons expressed regret over the incident, noting there was “a lot I’ve learned from” and recognising things he would handle in a different way.
The Resignation and Ethics Investigation
Simons’s determination to leave office came after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer ordered an ethics investigation into the matter. Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s ethics consultant, later concluded that Simons had not breached the ministerial standards of conduct. Despite this formal vindication, Simons decided that staying in position would be damaging to the government’s operations. He stated that whilst Magnus found he had acted with truthfulness and integrity, the controversy had created an unfortunate impression that undermined his position and distracted from government business.
In his BBC conversation, Simons recognised the difficult position he found himself in, saying he was “so sorry” the incident had taken place. He stressed that accepting accountability was the right thing to do, irrespective of the ethics advisor’s findings. Simons noted that he created the perception his intentions were improper, even though they were not, and deemed it important to accept accountability for the damage caused. His resignation reflected a acknowledgement that ministerial office requires not only compliance with official guidelines but also maintaining public confidence and avoiding distractions from governmental objectives.
- Ethics adviser concluded Simons had not breached the ministerial code
- Simons resigned despite being cleared of any formal misconduct
- Minister cited distraction to government as resignation reason
- Simons took responsibility despite ethics investigation findings
What Failed at Labour Together
The controversy centred on Labour Together’s failure to properly declare its donations ahead of the 2024 general election, a subject covered by the Sunday Times in early 2024. When the article surfaced, Simons grew worried that confidential information from the Electoral Commission might have been secured through a hack, leading him to order an investigation into the origins of the piece. He was also worried that the reporting might be used to rehash Labour’s antisemitism crisis, which had previously affected the party’s reputation. These worries, he argued, drove his decision to seek answers about how the journalists had acquired their information.
However, the investigation that ensued went significantly further than Simons had foreseen or intended. Rather than merely determining whether private data had been exposed, the inquiry transformed into a thorough review of journalists’ personal lives and convictions. Simons subsequently admitted that the research organisation had “exceeded” what he had instructed them to undertake, highlighting a fundamental breakdown in supervision. This escalation converted what could have been a legitimate inquiry into possible information breaches into something considerably more troubling, ultimately resulting in claims of trying to discredit journalists through individual investigation rather than tackling significant editorial issues.
The APCO Inquiry
Labour Together retained APCO Worldwide, a global communications agency, paying the company at least £30,000 to examine the origins and financial backing of the Sunday Times story. The brief was purportedly to determine whether confidential Electoral Commission information was breached and to determine how journalists obtained access to sensitive material. APCO, described to Simons as a “credible, serious, international” firm, was tasked with ascertaining whether the information could be found on the dark web and how it was being utilised. Simons felt the investigation would deliver clear answers about potential security breaches rather than criticisms of specific reporters.
The research conducted by APCO, however, featured seriously flawed material that far exceeded any legitimate investigative remit. The report contained details about reporter Gabriel Pogrund’s religious faith and made claims about his ideological positioning. Most troublingly, it asserted that Pogrund’s earlier reporting—including articles about the Royal Family—could be portrayed as undermining the United Kingdom and aligned with Russian strategic interests. These allegations appeared designed to undermine the journalist’s credibility rather than tackle valid concerns about sourcing, transforming what should have been a focused inquiry into an seeming attack against the press.
Taking Responsibility and Moving Forward
In his first comprehensive interview following his resignation, Simons expressed genuine remorse for the controversy, informing the BBC’s Newscast that he was “naive” and “so sorry” about how events unfolded. Despite Sir Laurie Magnus, the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser, finding that Simons had not technically breached ministerial conduct rules, the former minister acknowledged that he had nonetheless given the appearance of impropriety. He acknowledged that his honesty and truthfulness in dealings had not stopped the appearance of wrongdoing, and he considered it right to accept responsibility for the distraction the scandal had created the government.
Simons reflected deeply on what he has gained from the situation, indicating that a distinct strategy would have been adopted had he fully understood the implications. The 32-year-old public servant underscored that whilst the ethics investigation exonerated him of violating regulations, the damage to his reputation to both his own position and the administration warranted his stepping down. His decision to step down reflects a acknowledgement that ministerial accountability goes further than strict adherence with conduct codes to encompass wider concerns of trust in public institutions and the credibility of government during a period when the government’s focus should continue to be effective governance.
- Simons stepped down despite ethics clearance to reduce government disruption
- He recognised forming an perception of misconduct unintentionally
- The ex-minister indicated he would approach matters otherwise in coming years
Technology Ethics and the Wider Discussion
The Labour Together inquiry scandal has reignited broader discussions about the intersection of political organisations, investigative practices, and journalistic freedom in the digital age. Simons’s experience functions as a warning example about the risks of outsourcing sensitive inquiries to private contractors without proper oversight or explicit guidelines. The incident demonstrates how even good-faith attempts to investigate potential breaches can descend into difficult terrain when commercial research companies work under insufficient constraints, ultimately damaging the very political institutions they were meant to protect.
Questions now arise regarding how political organisations should manage disagreements with news organisations and whether ordering private inquiries into the backgrounds of journalists represents an appropriate reaction to critical coverage. The episode demonstrates the need for more explicit ethical standards overseeing relationships between political organisations and research organisations, especially when those inquiries concern subjects of public concern. As political messaging becomes increasingly sophisticated, putting in place effective safeguards against unwarranted interference has become vital to sustaining confidence in democratic systems and safeguarding media freedom.
Cautions from Meta
The incident underscores longstanding concerns about how technological and investigative tools can be weaponised against journalists and public figures. Industry insiders have repeatedly warned that sophisticated data analysis tools, originally developed for legitimate business purposes, can be adapted to identify people according to their professional activities or personal characteristics. The APCO inquiry’s incorporation of information about Gabriel Pogrund’s religious beliefs and ideological positioning illustrates how modern research techniques can cross ethical boundaries, converting objective research into personal attack through cherry-picked data collection and biased analysis.
Technology companies and research organisations operating in the political sphere face mounting pressure to create clearer ethical frameworks governing their work. The Labour Together case demonstrates that commercial incentives and political pressure can interact harmfully when organisations lack robust internal oversight mechanisms. Looking ahead, firms delivering research to political clients must introduce enhanced protections ensuring that investigations stay measured, targeted, and grounded in legitimate business objectives rather than becoming vehicles for discrediting critics or undermining journalistic independence.
- Investigation companies must set explicit ethical standards for political inquiries
- Technology capabilities require increased scrutiny to stop abuse targeting journalists
- Political organisations need explicit protocols for handling media criticism
- Democratic structures depend on safeguarding press freedom from coordinated attacks
