The Hansard Society is an independent charity registered in England and Wales (charity number 1091364).
We have a diverse funding base that serves to protect our independence – we are not dependent on any single external funder.
Two-thirds of our annual income is generated through the Society’s services, particularly our international education programme and the sale of our quarterly journal and other publications. As a non-profit organisation, this income is then re-invested in our research and education projects and our wide-ranging public events programme. It also helps us to undertake a substantial amount of non-funded work such as providing evidence and advisory support to parliamentary committees and other public inquiries both at home and abroad.
Some of our projects are supported through individual donations and grants from charitable trusts, foundations, research councils, parliaments, government departments, and corporate sponsors. We are extremely grateful for their generous support. However, the credibility and reputation of our work depends on it being independently produced. The Society thus retains full, independent control of all our projects including research scope and methods, editorial decisions in relation to all resource materials and publications, and the choice of speakers at our events. Committed to ethical research and transparency we always publish our findings and recommendations regardless of the views of any funder and wherever possible aim to make our work freely available to other researchers and the wider public.
In 2016 we received funds from the following (by income band):
Economic and Social Research Council / Department for International Development (jointly funded project)
European Commission
House of Commons
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
