On 5 June 2026, the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, wrote to Alex Burghart MP and declined his request for an investigation into whether the Ministerial Code had been breached over record keeping in the Office of the Prime Minister. The letter was published on GOV.UK the same day. (gov.uk) Sir Laurie said he did not see grounds for the investigation sought in relation to the Prime Minister and, given the public interest, decided to publish his response. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
In the published correspondence, Sir Laurie records that Mr Burghart had raised the use of non-corporate communication channels, including the possibility of WhatsApp being used for government business, alongside wider questions about whether record-keeping guidance had been followed. He also noted the concerns Mr Burghart had drawn from recent commentary about communications involving Lord Mandelson. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) The adviser’s central finding was evidential. He said an inquiry into the Prime Minister could not be opened on supposition alone and that an allegation of possible misconduct needed some factual basis before his powers were engaged. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
The refusal was also about jurisdiction. Sir Laurie said his remit is concerned with the personal conduct of individual ministers in relation to specific matters in which they were directly involved, not the operation of government more broadly or the internal processes of private offices. On that basis, he said he was unable to address comments about record keeping within No 10 or the government’s general approach to WhatsApp. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) That reading is consistent with the published terms of reference. Those terms allow the Independent Adviser to investigate alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code where the Prime Minister refers a matter or where the adviser considers an allegation warrants further investigation, but they still place the final decision on a minister’s position with the Prime Minister. (gov.uk)
The underlying rules themselves are unchanged. The Ministerial Code states that ministers and civil servants are generally expected to use government systems for government business, and that using non-corporate communication channels for that business engages ministers’ duty to keep accurate public records. (gov.uk) Cabinet Office guidance issued in March 2023 goes further on process. It says significant government information sent or received through channels such as WhatsApp, Signal, private email or SMS should be captured into government systems, either by transferring the material itself or by recording its substance there, and that disappearing-message functions must not undermine recordkeeping or transparency duties. The same guidance says information classified SECRET or TOP SECRET must not be shared through those channels. (gov.uk)
The parliamentary backdrop is relevant because the letter did not arise in isolation. In the House of Commons on 19 May 2026, Darren Jones said he shared concerns about extensive use of non-corporate communication channels and about information that should have carried a higher classification, and told MPs that a review of those channels would begin imminently. (hansard.parliament.uk) Sir Laurie’s letter also notes that Mr Burghart had pointed to concerns attributed to the Intelligence and Security Committee about government business appearing to take place on unofficial systems and about the absence of proper records on discussions and decisions. The adviser nevertheless drew a line between those wider concerns and the narrower test for opening a Ministerial Code inquiry into an individual minister. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
For policy and governance audiences, the practical effect is narrow but important. The published letter does not relax the rules on record keeping, and it does not amount to a general finding that No 10 procedures are beyond question; it states instead that, on the material before him, Sir Laurie did not have a sufficiently evidenced allegation about the Prime Minister’s personal conduct and did not regard wider administrative practice in Downing Street as falling within his remit. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) On the published material, that points any next phase of scrutiny towards Parliament, the Cabinet Office review already announced by Darren Jones, and the ordinary machinery of records management rather than an immediate Ministerial Code investigation by the Independent Adviser. That is an inference from the letter, the adviser’s terms of reference and the Commons statement, but it is the clearest reading of how the standards process is being applied in this case. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)