The Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s financial opacity needs investigating

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) is one of the UK’s most prominent advocacy groups, claiming overwhelming support from ordinary members and donors.

Yet its financial practices and public disclosure raise questions that merit urgent, independent scrutiny, regardless of one’s political views.

The PSC’s latest accounts in the UK show income of around £3.8 million in the year to August 2025, with a substantial annual surplus and large reserves retained from previous years. These figures are especially notable since PSC is not a registered charity but a private company limited by guarantee, a structure common to many advocacy groups but subject to less rigorous financial disclosure requirements than charities. Companies House in the UK lists its filings under “Total exemption full accounts,” allowing the organisation to avoid a statutory audit under rules for small companies.

So, is it therefore unreasonable to ask the PSC if they have something to hide, or to indeed suspect if there is something to hide?

While PSC’s accounts broadly outline spending on campaigning and administration, they lack detailed breakdowns. The public cannot determine how much is allocated to staffing, media, demonstrations, legal costs, or other specific activities. Crucially, the accounts do not identify major donors. PSC claims its funding is almost entirely from members and supporters, but without donor transparency, this cannot be independently verified.

The public, therefore can take only the organisation’s word for it. Would the public take such a relaxed interest in the financial affairs of a publicly listed company they had bought shares in?

There is nothing improper about an organisation holding reserves or planning for future activities. However, when a group exerts significant political influence, mobilises mass protests, claims grassroots funding yet has so much money, transparency is vital. The lack of detailed financial disclosure and donor identification leaves legitimate questions unanswered, especially when PSC’s income and reserves run into the millions.

The issue is now seriously underscored by PSC’s growing involvement in educational activities targeting schoolchildren. Impressionable schoolchildren. While teaching children about international affairs is not inherently problematic, parents and the public deserve clarity on who is delivering the material, what political assumptions shape it, and whether it presents a balanced view. Recent analyses and images from PSC-linked events have raised concerns about highly partisan messaging, with little or no effort to contextualise recent events, such as the October 7 Hamas attacks, in a balanced or honest way.

Research into the post-October 7 protest movement in the UK has revealed links between certain groups and individuals within the broader Palestine-solidarity network and extremist organisations or foreign regimes, including Iran. There is no direct evidence that PSC itself is controlled or funded by such actors, but this only highlights the need for transparency. However, clear, detailed financial disclosures would help dispel speculation and build public trust.

For an organisation handling millions and influencing public debate, the following questions are both reasonable and urgent:

1. Why does PSC hold such substantial reserves?
2. What are the precise details of its campaigning expenditure?
3. Who are its major donors?
4. How much is spent on educational activities, and how are these presented to children?
5. Is any money directed to humanitarian relief, or is it focused solely on advocacy?

PSC, like any organisation, is entitled to campaign and advocate for its cause. But with its scale, income, and influence, it should welcome greater scrutiny, not avoid it. If its funding is as grassroots as claimed, full disclosure would only strengthen its case.

The public deserves clear, independently audited accounts, detailed explanations for reserves, and full transparency over funding sources and expenditure. Anything less falls short of the standards expected from a major political advocacy organisation in the UK today.

Transparency must start with the money.