The Guardian view on secrecy in parliament: hiding the names of MPs’ staff would undermine democracy | Editorial

Editorial: Security concerns must be treated seriously. But with trust in politics fraying, transparency has never been more necessary

The recommendation that the names of MPs’ staff should be removed from a decades-old register, made by the House of Commons standards committee, is a retrograde step away from transparency. It is also appallingly timed. Public confidence in institutions including the government is fragile. A Labour MP resigned the whip just this week, after her husband was arrested on suspicion of spying. Parliamentarians should be striving to boost trust and engagement, not hiding information.

The plan is all the more ill-judged as it emerged from a proposal to increase scrutiny. Currently, about 2,000 people employed by MPs, who hold passes granting them access to parliament, are named on the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. But employees based in constituency offices with access to the parliamentary intranet, and email accounts, are not on it. Last summer, Lucy Powell, then leader of the Commons and now deputy leader of the Labour party, offered the government’s support for a plan to add these staff to the register. As there are about 2,200 of them, this would have more than doubled its size.

Staffers are meant to declare any other job for which they are paid £470 or more in a year, and gifts or hospitality above the same threshold. This means that journalists and others can see who else the people employed by MPs are working for at the same time. Given the number of organisations with ideological, financial or other vested interests in influencing legislation, it is obviously in the interests of democracy for such information to be in the public domain. If, for example, an MP’s researcher is also being paid by a construction company or a hospitality chain, voters ought to be able to find out.

But following discussions with unions, the committee changed tack. Concerns about staff safety were deemed so serious that it was decided that their names should no longer be revealed. Instead, the job title of anyone declaring an interest would appear on the register – while people with “nil returns” (no interests to declare) would disappear from the record. What makes this all the more dismaying is the report’s admission that the parliamentary commissioner for standards – the independent watchdog whose work the committee oversees – believes that this would have the effect of reducing transparency and accountability.

The government has yet to take a position on the report, which was revealed by the Guardian on Thursday. Nor have MPs had a chance to debate it. But the committee must either be overruled or persuaded to reconsider. This is not to dismiss staff concerns, which must be taken seriously. Judging from past experience, including the horrifying murders of two MPs, and given the level of security around parliament, those in constituencies would seem to be at higher risk.

But transparency is not a luxury. If the threat level is so high that their names need concealing, a wider debate is called for. MPs and ministers also need to reflect on how a change in the rules governing parliament itself could lead to a change in behaviour. Removing the names of Westminster staff from the register would put the Commons out of step with the House of Lords and many other parliaments. At a time when politics is so brittle, voters must retain their right to know who is roaming the corridors of power.

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.