Hiding MP staffer names is a bizarre decision post-Mandelson scandal
Plans to remove the names of 2,000 parliamentary staffers from the official register is a bizarre move that will only make Westminster more opaque and vulnerable to lobbying, writes Alastair McCapra
On a Wednesday morning in March, police arrested three men on suspicion of assisting a foreign intelligence service linked to China. Notable in its own right, the story took on added political significance when it emerged that the men had links to Welsh Labour circles and that one is a former Labour adviser who is married to a sitting Labour MP.
This is not the first time such a story has broken. Only last year, for instance, a former parliamentary researcher and another man were due to stand trial over allegations that they had gathered information for individuals linked to the Chinese state. Both denied wrongdoing and the case was dropped before trial.
In November of last year, meanwhile, MI5 warned that Chinese agents were seeking to gather information and exert influence at Westminster. It is easy to see why MI5 was concerned: Westminster is peopled by huge numbers of staffers and advisers who could become targets for foreign agents.
Crucially, these are not back-office roles or modern sinecures carrying little responsibility, but positions central to the functioning of the political system that are often exposed to sensitive information. They are, as the Speaker of the House of Commons put it earlier this month, a “critical part of our defence against foreign state activity”.
But parliamentary staffers are not simply a focal point for those seeking to influence lawmakers from without, but for those seeking to influence from within the country too. Indeed, they represent a key linkage in the lobbying network that envelops Westminster.
Staffers are a first port of call for those seeking to engage with lawmakers: they often determine which emails and invitations make it before MPs. As Spotlight on Corruption has noted, “a tried and tested way for big corporate interests, lobbying firms and think tanks to influence Westminster from the inside is to delegate staff to work in the offices of politicians”.
It is curious, then, that in a recent report the Committee on Standards has proposed removing the names of around 2,000 parliamentary staff from the official register and replacing them with job titles.
Curious timing post-Mandelson scandal
If realised, Westminster would become notably more opaque. It would become harder to identify the individuals working for MPs and those undertaking work for corporate interests. The public would no longer be able to see which staffers were accepting hospitality, be it free tickets or – perhaps more concerning in light of recent news – trips abroad. In other words, without named individuals, it becomes far harder to trace patterns of employment, repeated hospitality or broader networks of influence that have historically been used to shape political decision-making.
The Committee argues that the change is necessary to protect the safety of staffers. This is a valid concern, but the answer to this pressing question cannot – and must not – come at the expense of greater transparency and accountability. Redacting names would rend open another hole in the UK’s already threadbare lobbying regime, which has been described by campaigners as the least transparent in the West. As the Committee’s own report acknowledges, the change would “reduce transparency and accountability”.
But the timing grows more curious still. After more than a decade of scandals, and in the wake of the controversy that swirls around Peter Mandelson, the Prime Minister has written to the Ethics and Integrity Committee to help “further strengthen standards in public life”. The Committee has therefore been tasked with reviewing “whether the current arrangements for transparency around lobbying are sufficient”.
That serious reforms could be made to the fundamentally broken Lobbying Act, with its register that campaigners say is blind to around 96 per cent of activity, is of course welcome. But what is concerning is that just as Westminster seems to be dragging itself to the cusp of lobbying reform, the Standards Committee may be hauling it in the opposite direction.
Foreign agents evidently recognise the influence of parliamentary staff, but unless we recognise the critical role they play in ensuring accountability, we will struggle to discover the long-promised light of transparency.
Alastair McCapra is CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations