The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) has written to the Committee on Standards with concerns regarding proposals to remove the individual names of parliamentary staff on the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff.
The committee’s ‘Register of Interests of Members’ Staff: transitional provisions’ publication proposes that the move would provide greater protection for MPs staff although identified that the proposals “reduces transparency and accountability”. In its letter – published in full below – the CIPR has raised concerns that this would result in a significant and exploitable gap when it comes to details about who is seeking to influence policymakers, would place Westminster’s rules in conflict with the standards maintained by other legislatures, and contribute further to the erosion of public trust.
The Institute has long campaigned for greater transparency in Westminster’s lobbying laws and an overhaul of the Lobbying Act that only captures a small percentage of lobbyists. Instead, it is calling for a wider lobbying register that captures all lobbying activity.
At a time when public trust in our political institutions is worryingly low, removing names from the parliamentary staff register would be a significant step in the wrong direction. We recognise the safety concerns that staff face, but the solution cannot be to make Westminster less accountable to the public it serves. If Parliament wants to increase levels of public confidence, it must do so by demonstrating the highest ethical standards, not by drawing the curtain on those they are seeking to seeking to build trust with.
Alastair McCapra, CIPR Chief Executive
Letter to standards committee
Dear Chair,
The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is writing to you today to register our concerns regarding the Committee’s recent proposals as outlined in your ‘Register of Interests of Members’ Staff: transitional provisions’ publication.
The CIPR represents over 11,000 members and since 2022 has been campaigning for greater transparency when it comes to those lobbying to influence our politics. Our research has demonstrated how Westminster’s lobbying laws are not fit for purpose and have consistently failed to provide the necessary safeguards to prevent scandals. Westminster’s lobbying regime is an outlier and provides significantly less information when compared to our international counterparts. As a result, public trust in policymakers and those that legitimately seek to lobby them remains damagingly low.
It is against this backdrop that we read with some concern your proposals that, in your own words, “reduces transparency and accountability” with regard to replacing the individual names of parliamentary staff with job titles on the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. We recognise that the Committee has given careful consideration to the safety and privacy of those working for Members of Parliament and we do not seek to minimise those concerns. However, we believe the proposals are disproportionate, create significant new risks for lobbying transparency, and place the House of Commons at odds with the standards upheld by comparable democratic legislatures.
The Register of Interests of Members’ Staff serves as an important tool for public accountability. The identification of named individuals alongside the Members they serve and the interests they hold allows civil society, journalists, and the public to scrutinise potential conflicts of interest.
Without named individuals on the register, it will no longer be possible to identify arrangements or trace broader networks of affiliation. These include staff employed through a secondment as well as details of hospitality offered to staff. The result is a significant and exploitable gap in the UK’s already limited lobbying transparency framework.
The proposed change would place the House of Commons in conflict with the standards maintained by other legislatures. The UK already scores poorly in international rankings of lobbying transparency, and we are concerned that this proposal would further entrench that position at a time when public trust in political institutions is significantly low.
We do not dispute that parliamentary staff have legitimate safety and privacy concerns. We would, however, urge the Committee to consider a more targeted approach that addresses those concerns without taking a significant step backwards to allow for less transparency at a time when it is so desperately needed.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further and are happy to provide additional evidence or analysis in support of our position.
