Tag: Practitioners

Categories
Blog

Unfit for Hansard?

By Charlie Feldman.

“In the circumstances, both sedentary remarks will be removed from the permanent record.” – Mr. Speaker, Commons Chamber, 14 January 2008.

The official record of debates, Hansard, is relied upon as the authoritative record of what was said in Parliament. As Erskine May explains, citing a parliamentary committee’s report, “though not strictly verbatim, [it] is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument’.

While research demonstrates that remarks have been expunged from Hansard in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the UK story appears largely unexplored. This matter was recently raised in the Commons when a Member rose on a point of order suggesting she had been censored given a divergence between her remarks as recorded in Hansard and what is heard on the audiovisual recording,

Those who listen closely to a debate and read it later in Hansard will spot modifications, including the removal of words such as deleting ‘Mr. Speaker’ at the beginning of a contribution. There are numerous conventions around what will be included in the Official Record. In the recent case, the rule strictly applied related to omitting remarks continued after the Speaker calls a member’s speech to a close. Pure Hansard expungements at Westminster are few and far between.

The quote that began this post is from an incident in 2008 in which the sedentary interjection “absolute b******s” (without asterisks) was removed by decision of the Speaker after a point of order. The original Hansard attributed it to an MP who was reportedly incensed as it was another MP who made the remark. In the context of the remark being from a sedentary position and with an unclear (and possibly misattributed) interlocutor, the Speaker removed it. Of note, while considered a swear word, “b******s” in full does appear printed in other debates, including as far back as 1986. (In a contrasting incident, one Speaker is suggested to have edited out his own fleeting use of four-letter profanity from Hansard 1989; ITN bleeped the remark in its airing of proceedings).

If one goes far back, much is missing from Hansard. As explained in The History of Hansard, one of the critiques from the period before official Hansard began (prior to 1909) concerned “some parliamentarians’ speeches being shortened or even suppressed”. While those speeches were missing from the record deliberately, some later interventions in the official era are missing unintentionally. Luckily, technological evolution has helped insofar as one no longer sees Hansard stating that a member “made an observation which was not heard in the Reporters’ Gallery.” In one sitting in 1916, for example, inaudible observations are indicated on four occasions – one of which is attributed to the Prime Minister in responding to a question. Chamber acoustics have long been an issue – an 1849 article in The Spectator begins “If there is any one point settled in history, it is that the House of Lords is the worst place for hearing in the known world.”

Focusing on the official reporting era, press reports of removed Hansard content tell us that times of war saw significant expungement. In an article published in the Sunday Dispatch of 25 August 1946, Britain’s Chief Press Censor – George Pirie Thomson – tells of edits from speeches in the House during World War II for various security reasons. MPs, it seems, often crossed the line accidentally, including then PM Winston Churchill. The censorship went further, however, as Thomson revealed censoring a parliamentary question and even working with the Speaker to change the title of a bill!

Security concerns also prompted edits during World War I. Newspaper reports tell us that in a speech given by Sir William Alfred Gelder in August 1916, he accidentally named a town when speaking to what appears now in Hansard as concerns over anti-aircraft guns being “taken away from a certain city on the East Coast”. The debate in the Hansard that follows does not reflect what press reports suggest – that another MP rose on a point of order that the location information potentially helped the enemy. While Gelder wasn’t so sure, the Speaker suggested he speak to the Editor of Hansard. As no location appears in Gelder’s remarks, it may be safe to assume the expungement occurred; the press reports it outright as being removed.

Members have on occasion asked for something to be removed from Hansard. Sir William Darling rose in debate in 1951, recorded as follows: “[T]he right hon. Gentleman, in the debate the night before last, said that I was asleep, and as this statement by him is likely to cause dissatisfaction to my constituents, who probably look upon me as a watchful and wakeful Member, may I ask what steps I can take to have it expunged from the record?” The Speaker said he would consider the matter. It’s unclear if anything actually changed — the relevant debate portion reads “Members opposite are not enthusiastic about remaining throughout the night. Some of them are already going off to sleep—look at the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). [Interruption.]” 

Controversies have erupted over whether certain changes to the record crossed the line into changing the meaning of a speech or suppressing content. In 1998, for example, the Speaker found that words removed from the Hansard record of a speech from PM Tony Blair did not alter his meaning. No further action was taken. In another case, what was removed from Hansard was reinserted. In 1966, the Speaker reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s edit “was accepted by the reporters, but, after discussion with the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT, both he and I are satisfied that it ought not to have been accepted by the reporters; and the passage, in its original purity, will appear in its original form in the Bound Volume.” The Chancellor, who removed words that might be considered a slur upon farmers, later told the Commons: “I deeply regret that I struck those words out of HANSARD”.

Alas, not everything a MP may have wished to remove from Hansard disappears. In 1978, MP Andrew Faulds told the House “Unfortunately, I cannot expunge the offensive words, but I have already written to the right hon. Member for Knutsford apologising to him, and now I wish to extend my apology to you, Sir, and to the House for my regrettable lapse.” To this day his comments remain on the record, wherein he referred to another member as a “fat-arsed twit”.

These examples, while few in number, show that Hansard is not always the immutable record it is sometimes assumed to be. Whether due to acoustics, editorial discretion, wartime censorship, or parliamentary sensitivities, the official transcript has been shaped by forces beyond the spoken word. In exploring these moments of omission and revision, we are reminded that even the most authoritative records are, at times, curated ones.

About the author

Charlie Feldman is the former President of the Canadian Study of Parliament Group. His forthcoming book “Parliamentary” (University of Toronto Press, 2026) chronicles unexpected moments in Canadian parliamentary history.

Categories
Blog

The Hidden Engine of Stability and Growth: Strong Parliaments

By Franklin De Vrieze.

Democratic legislatures are on the frontline of both domestic and international challenges. From executive overreach to authoritarian influence and deepening public mistrust, parliamentary institutions around the globe are under immense strain. The strengthening of parliaments therefore is both a critical safeguard for democracy and a lever for economic development and national security.

Many countries have an imbalance in the distribution of power between the different branches of government: the executive branch dominates, with legislatures left under-resourced, side-lined, or compromised. This concentration of power undermines democratic accountability and weakens institutional checks and balances. People lose faith when they perceive their parliaments as ineffective or complicit, and public trust falls. As executive dominance expands, legislatures struggle to perform their essential roles: representing the electorate, scrutinising the government, and shaping inclusive legislation. Without timely intervention, this democratic erosion is difficult to halt.

Early and strategic support to parliaments is therefore essential for democratic resilience and institutional recovery.

For donor countries, supporting parliamentary strengthening abroad is not merely altruism. It serves strategic interests. Democratic, transparent, and accountable institutions form the backbone of stable governance. In doing so, they promote investment-friendly environments, reduce risks of conflict and the drivers of irregular migration, climate-driven or otherwise, and create socio-economic opportunities that deter brain drain.

Here’s an example of how targeted parliamentary support can have a tangible impact: Albania’s recent reform of its gambling legislation. Using Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s (WFD) corruption proofing of legislation methodology, Albanian legislators assessed legal loopholes and improved transparency in regulating a high-risk industry. This effort resulted in a tighter legal and regulatory framework which reduces the potential for corruption, and that in turn provides necessary reassurances for foreign investors to embark and invest.

The example shows how donor-supported technical interventions can reduce incentives for corruption and improve the legal and economic framework. Addressing legislative vulnerabilities in this way enhances institutional integrity, promotes economic stability, economic partnerships and investments, and reinforces the rule of law.

Similarly, WFD’s work on the cost of emigration in the Western Balkans has helped to galvanise cross-party action in national parliaments in the Balkans to address the causes of brain drain and address the negative economic impacts of youth emigration.

Strategies for parliamentary strengthening

Parliamentary strengthening programmes can only be effective when they are locally-led, responding to locally-defined problems and based on genuine, trusted partnerships. Building upon this basic fact, parliamentary strengthening is most effective when approached through a range of strategies.

  • Regional and multi-country programming can create synergies, such as those achieved through post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) efforts in Zambia, where laws on food security were assessed for their impact in the context of climate change.
  • Thematic approaches, like the drafting of public debt legislation in Kenya, help parliaments tackle critical policy areas with precision. Upscaling the role of parliaments in climate governance, essential to ensure that it is transparent, inclusive and informed by social justice principles and thus resilient in the face of unprecedented levels of climate disinformation, is currently the focus of WFD’s work with the Parliament in Indonesia, for instance.
  • Promoting inclusion and engagement, like fostering youth participation in North Macedonia, and enhancing citizens engagement in the Maldives further increase legitimacy and democratic depth.
  • Mutual learning also plays a transformative role in parliamentary strengthening. Peer-to-peer exchange between legislatures in the Global North and South allows for reciprocal knowledge transfer and innovation. These exchanges have already catalysed improvements in parliamentary procedures, transparency, and administration.
  • Moreover, many parliaments are embracing digital transformation, using technology to improve legislative tracking, citizen engagement, and policymaking, as seen in countries like Kenya and Morocco.

Strengthening parliaments is one of the most cost-effective and sustainable interventions to bolster democracy, foster inclusive economic development, and safeguard stability and security. It is time for a renewed commitment to a standards-based approach to parliamentary development, one that is principled, context-sensitive, and collaborative.

Delving deeper

If you are interested in delving deeper into parliamentary strengthening, WFD has been involved in producing a number of efforts and initiatives to inform and guide parliamentary strengthening efforts. I invite you to explore them:

The Global Community of Practice on Post-Legislative Scrutiny, the peer-to-peer network of the Inter Pares project, and the Agora parliamentary portal offer collaborative platforms for sharing experiences, best practices, and innovations as well as helping to build and sustain momentum. Through the network of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), Public Accounts Committees in Asia-Pacific aligned strategies and working methods at a regional workshop hosted by the Fiji Parliament. The AFRIPAL conference recently launched the African Association of Legislation. These networks help parliaments navigate complex challenges together, amplifying the impact of support and creating a shared commitment to democratic governance.

The Common Principles for Support to Parliaments, developed by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) in cooperation with WFD and others, emphasise that effective support must be guided by parliaments’ own needs, adapted to local contexts, and focused on long-term sustainability. Inclusive of all political orientations, grounded in international democratic norms, and attentive to gender equality and local expertise, these principles provide a shared roadmap for meaningful and ethical engagement.

The Indicators for Democratic Parliaments, were launched by the IPU with the support of WFD and other partner organizations. These 25 indicators, aligned with Sustainable Development Goals 16.6 and 16.7, enable parliaments to assess their own performance across effectiveness, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, inclusivity, participation, and representation. Each indicator includes detailed dimensions and criteria, offering a comprehensive yet practical self-assessment tool. In Pakistan, the use of these indicators served as a SWOT analysis of the Senate, while in Albania, the assessment culminated in a new Open Parliament Action Plan.

The WFD Guidelines for AI in Parliament have gained global traction in advising on an ethical and step-by-step approach to the use of AI in parliamentary proceedings.

About the authors

Franklin De Vrieze is the Head of Practice Accountability for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy

Categories
Blog

The benefits of bringing academics and practitioners together: Writing the second edition of Exploring Parliament

By Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin and Louise Thompson.

The following blog post is about Exploring Parliament, which was published by Oxford University Press in April 2025 and will be launched at the Institute for Government on 15 May 2025. You can sign up to watch online here.

Over the last three years we have been working with a fantastic team of 38 academics and 35 parliamentary practitioners to create the second edition of the Exploring Parliament textbook. Like its predecessor, the book has collaboration at its very heart. The chapter topics stem from a roundtable discussion between academics and officials at the PSA’s Annual Conference back in April 2022 and wherever possible academics were paired with practitioners in order to write each chapter. Our aim was to create a fresh perspective on a wide range of aspects of the UK Parliament, including its relationship with the devolved parliaments; one which was grounded in key academic concepts and research, but enriched with the real-life details that only those who walk the corridors of Westminster can provide.

In this blog post, we reflect on the process of creating this new edition. We asked a small group of our contributors how they found the experience of working on the book and the benefits for academics of working with practitioners, and vice versa.  

Putting a spotlight on less studied aspects of Parliament

Some of our authors were returning contributors who had previously written in the first edition of the textbook, while others were new to the process.  Although our academics tended to write on topics which they have researched for a long time, our practitioners appreciated the chance to explain how parliament works to a different type of audience and to include examples which students may not have heard about before. In particular, those writing on the devolved parliaments highlighted the utility of a book which appreciates that Westminster works alongside other devolved institutions:

 “it was an opportunity to explain Parliament’s work—particularly the House of Lords—using examples that students and other readers may not have come across before” (Rosanna Barry, House of Lords)

“So often books, reports and studies on parliament in the UK focus on the UK Parliament alone, forgetting that the UK has four legislatures… As someone working in a devolved legislature it can be a frustrating experience to read work that doesn’t reflect your own experience or makes recommendations and conclusions that aren’t relevant or practical in a devolved or sub-nation state context…The opportunity to write a chapter about the work of parliaments in the UK from a devolved perspective, albeit on a UK-wide issue wasn’t something we couldn’t pass up. Any chance to raise awareness of the work of the four different legislatures in the UK is really welcome” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

“At times, textbooks on British politics tend to be quite Westminster centric and I was actually very happy to see how a book and Westminster Parliament itself considers the wider context, which I think is very important” (Prof Diana Stirbu, London Metropolitan University)

Collaborations between academics and practitioners

Academics and practitioners work in roles with very different expectations around the research and writing process. Practitioners for instance tend to write in a more factual style, in a much faster paced environment with shorter deadlines. Academics on the other hand typically have a much longer writing process and are more used to explaining concepts to a student audience.  Bringing the two groups together was an enjoyable experience (for most!), adding a fresh dose of reality to the academics’ writing and allowing practitioners the chance to write for a very different type of audience:

“The combination of academics and Parliament practitioners is a great one, as it combines our political science with a sense of how things really are. My co-author was also a quants whizz with a great head for figures, so could help me on that, where I am (erm) not so expert.” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

“It was a great experience: we brought different skills, perspectives and experiences to the process and that meant we worked really well together as we could complement each other’s way of thinking and working. I feel like I learnt a lot!” (UK Parliament official)

“Working on this chapter was a change of speed. Initially we had a long time to produce a first draft, followed by shorter more intensive bursts of effort during the editing process.” (Rosanna Barry, House of Lords)

 “Although I probably write tens of thousands of words a year in my role in the Senedd, none of these words are particularly ‘academic’. I think I used the phrase ‘I’m not an academic’ more times in conversations with the book’s editors, as a means of forewarning them, than they’ve ever heard before. … We work in a fact paced environment where you have moved on to probably the ten ‘next things’ you need to do before what you worked on last week was even published. We’re busy dealing with the next issue on our desk before we have had time to reflect on last week’s problem. Being forced to take a step back and really reflect on the issue, the work that’s been achieved and the challenges that remain was a privilege I don’t often get afforded and it’s what I enjoyed most” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

“I learned such a lot from [my co-author] about the procedures and protocols and about how the conventions work in practice.” (Ruth Dixon, University of Oxford)

“not being too precious about one’s own writing was helpful. We allowed each other to keep and toss content and re-draft, as this is where there seems to be a lot of difference in how academics and practitioners write” (Ekaterina Kolpinskaya, University of Exeter)

Writing in an accessible manner

Textbooks require a very different type of writing to standard academic journal articles or parliamentary briefings. Both groups of authors needed to think about how to condense what were often very broad topics into short, succinct chapters which provided enough description to explain how processes work, but also contained some analysis of why things happen and the impact they have:

“Bearing in mind that this is a textbook, it was a useful discipline to stick to explaining clearly the normal course of events, without quibbles or little-used variations or historical footnotes” (Liam Laurence-Smyth, House of Commons)

“It’s easy to get lost, especially with something like trust in politics, which is hugely complex and nuanced. My co-author was great at picking out the key drivers, nature of the problem and possible solutions. They helped keep me out of what my teacher at A-levels called the ‘waffle bog’, a place where I find myself far too often.” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

What worked well was being able to reflect on our practical and ‘real world’ experience of how interparliamentary relations is working on the ground. It really helped to focus on what the key message/story of the chapter should be. It hopefully helped to ensure that those reading it will get a real sense of what the genuine issues from people working on the issue day in and day out are rather than just a theoretical perspective.” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

The ongoing relevance of the book in the 2024 Parliament

The book was written shortly before the 2024 General Election and as such the case studies used are from previous Parliaments. Nevertheless, it has quickly become apparent how relevant the book’s themes are in the current Parliament:

“In some senses, 2024 was the ultimate trust (or distrust) election, so the chapter speaks to how the government faces in huge challenge, in somehow winning back or convincing hugely distrustful and cynical voters, against some very strong anti-elite, anti-system head winds. Can a government win back trust (relatively quickly) by delivering on promises? And what happens if they don’t?” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

“Private Member’s Bills became a hot topic at the end of 2024 when the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced by backbencher Kim Leadbeater.  We had already completed our chapter by the time the bill was introduced, but I think that our explanation of the stages of a PMB will help anyone trying to understand the complex procedures.” (Ruth Dixon, University of Oxford) 

“Our chapter is relevant for the 2024 parliament as it sets the scene of multilevel presentation and parliamentary activity across the UK. It is important for all MPs and especially to new MPs to be aware of the broader parliamentary context across the UK, to understand the differences and similarities between the different systems” (Prof Diana Stirbu, London Metropolitan University)

“Our chapter also speaks strongly to the principles and core aspirations of the ongoing efforts to make Parliament more accessible – for politicians, other passholders and visitors – both as part of the R&R programme and through the efforts of the Modernisation Committee and the work of the Speaker’s Office” (Ekaterina Kolpinskaya, University of Exeter)

“One of the Modernisation Committee challenges in the 2024 Parliament is to improve accessibility by demystifying parliamentary language. My chapter, and Exploring Parliament as a whole, is committed to bringing clarity to the inevitable complexity of legislative activity.” (Liam Laurence-Smyth, House of Commons)

It has been a real privilege to edit the second edition of Exploring Parliament. We have had the opportunity to work with a fantastic set of authors who have demonstrated the real value in bringing academics and practitioners together. We echo the views of one of our contributors who told us that “it was genuinely one of the most enjoyable things I did last year”.

About the authors

Cristina Leston-Bandeira is Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds. Alexandra Meakin is Lecturer in British Politics, also at the University of Leeds. Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester.  Exploring Parliament was published by Oxford University Press in April 2025 and will be launched at the Institute for Government on 15 May 2025. You can sign up to watch online here.