Parliament is proposing to remove names of MP's staff and advisers from the public facing register

A proposal from the House of Commons Committee on Standards would remove the names of MP's staff and advisers from the public facing Register of Interests of Members Staff. The register, which has existed since the early 1990s, currently lists the names of staff, the interests they declare, and the MP who employs them.

In its Seventh Report of Session 2024–26 on transitional provisions, the Committee confirmed that all staff with a parliamentary network account and or a parliamentary pass will still be required to register any relevant interests, but that their names would no longer be published. Instead, public entries would show job titles alongside declared interests.

The report notes that more than 2,000 staff are currently listed in the register and that extending registration to staff with network accounts would more than double the number of people required to declare outside interests, from around 2,000 passholders to about 4,200 staff in total. However, the names of those individuals would no longer be visible to the public.

Transparency depends on knowing who holds influence

Parliamentary staff including researchers, caseworkers, assistants, and political advisers often play a central role in shaping MP's work. They help draft speeches, prepare briefings, manage constituency casework, and maintain relationships with external organisations. The existing register makes it possible to see which named individuals hold outside interests while working in MP's offices.

Under the proposed change, the public would still see interests declared by staff, but without knowing which individual has made the declaration. This would make it harder to assess who is influencing MP's work, how they are connected, and whether they hold relevant expertise or potential conflicts of interest.

In practice, removing names would limit the ability to identify situations such as:

• whether a staffer with a parliamentary pass also works for a lobbying firm or corporate interest
• whether the same individual repeatedly accepts hospitality, foreign trips or event tickets
• whether staff move between industry roles and parliamentary roles in ways that raise conflict of interest concerns
• whether staff roles across multiple MP's offices are linked to a single organisation or campaign

Without name level transparency, patterns involving specific individuals become much harder to trace, even though the interests themselves continue to be declared.

Scrutiny of lobbying and parliamentary access would be weaker

The UK already has relatively limited formal transparency mechanisms around lobbying. The staff register is one of the few places where the public can see who holds a parliamentary pass, which outside interests they have, and which MP they work for.

Reporting on the proposals has highlighted concerns that redacting names would significantly reduce the visibility of how lobbying operates through MP's offices. Analysis cited examples where seconded staff from major banks obtained parliamentary passes via MP's offices, arrangements that were only identifiable because staff names and employers were visible in the register.

Experts quoted in that reporting warned that removing names could:

• make it harder to see when staff are seconded from lobbying firms, companies or thinktanks into MP's offices
• obscure whether staff with parliamentary access are also working for corporate or sectoral interests
• prevent the public from identifying staff who repeatedly accept hospitality or overseas visits
• make scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest more difficult, even where interests are technically declared

Advocacy groups have argued that this would weaken an already limited lobbying transparency regime and could increase the risk of covert influence, including by foreign interests.

Accountability for hiring decisions becomes less visible

The Committee’s report confirms that names will remain available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in case of complaints, but they will no longer be published as part of the register. This preserves the ability to investigate specific cases, but reduces the amount of information available to the public, journalists and watchdog groups.

External analysis has raised concerns that, once names are removed from the public register, it will be harder to see:

• how many staff each MP employs and in what roles
• whether MPs are employing family members of other MPs, or staff with close political connections
• whether staff structures within offices are unusually large or closely tied to particular interests

Former parliamentarians quoted in coverage of the proposals warned that reduced visibility could make it more difficult to detect potential breaches, such as undisclosed conflicts of interest, and might also remove an informal safeguard for MPs themselves, who would have less external scrutiny of staff they employ.

Balancing safety concerns and public transparency

The Committee’s report explains that the name redaction proposal emerged after staff unions raised concerns about privacy, anonymity and safety, particularly for staff based in constituency offices. Written submissions were received, and unions including Unite and GMB, as well as the Members and Peers Staff Association, were consulted.

The Committee states that it sought to strike a balance between staff safety and public transparency. It acknowledges the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards view that the proposal “reduces transparency and accountability in the sense that the public will no longer be able to see the individual names of Members staff”, but considers this a proportionate change in light of the safety concerns raised.

External watchdogs quoted in media coverage recognise that staff have legitimate security concerns but question whether redacting all names is necessary to address them, noting that no formal evidence has yet been published to show how effective the measure will be.

Advisory panels show why composition matters

Being able to see who holds advisory roles is also important when government draws on panels and expert groups.

A recent example is the governments Independent Disability Advisory Panel, announced by the Department for Work and Pensions in January 2026. The panel includes ten named members with lived experience of disability or long term health conditions, many of whom also hold senior roles in charities, local authorities, or policy organisations. While these professional backgrounds bring valuable expertise, they also represent a particular segment of the disabled community: individuals who have been able to build successful careers in leadership, advocacy, or public service.

Because the membership list is published in full, it is possible to see both the lived experience the panel is intended to draw on and the professional perspectives that shape how that experience is represented. This transparency allows observers to ask whether other groups such as people with fluctuating conditions, those navigating the benefits system, or individuals with limited access to professional networks might be under represented.

Name level transparency therefore serves two important functions: it shows that people with relevant experience are involved, and it enables external scrutiny of whether advisory panels reflect a broad range of circumstances. Without names, it becomes far more difficult to assess whose voices are included and whose may be missing

International context and comparative standards

Coverage of the proposals notes that the change would put the House of Commons out of step with other legislatures. According to reporting originally published by the Guardian and carried by MSN, the plan to redact names would move the Commons away from practice in:

• the House of Lords, where staff names continue to be listed
• legislatures in the EU and US, which publish the names of most staff in the interests of transparency

This comparison has fed concerns that, while the overall number of staff required to register interests is set to increase, the UK’s public facing transparency about who works in MP's offices and holds parliamentary access would be reduced relative to some other democratic legislatures.

Conclusion

The Commons Committee on Standards reforms would substantially expand the number of MP's staff required to register outside interests, from around 2,000 passholders to about 4,200 staff with parliamentary network accounts. At the same time, the decision to replace staff names with job titles in the public register represents a clear reduction in the information available about who holds influence in and around MP's offices.

The Committee argues that this trade off is justified on safety grounds and that necessary information will still be available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. However, watchdog groups and transparency advocates warn that the change would make it harder for the public and independent organisations to scrutinise lobbying, secondments, hospitality and potential conflicts of interest involving parliamentary staff, and could leave the UK out of step with transparency practices in other legislatures.

How this balance is ultimately judged will depend on whether the new arrangements, once implemented and reviewed, are seen to protect staff safety without unduly weakening public oversight of who works in Parliament and how outside interests interact with MP's offices.