Proposals to remove the names of MPs' staff from the parliamentary register of interests have been condemned as a threat to lobbying accountability, amid growing concern that the UK is falling behind international standards on political transparency. Under plans announced by the House of Commons Committee on Standards, future editions of the register will replace staff names with job titles. The committee has argued the overall package represents a transparency gain, noting it will more than double the number of people covered, from around 2,000 to 4,200, to include all staff with access to a parliamentary network account. The change has been driven by safety concerns, particularly for those working in constituency offices away from Westminster. But critics warn that the trade-off is a dangerous one. The Chartered Institute of Public Relations has cautioned that the removal of individual names "presents a risk", with its chief executive Alastair McCapra warning there is "an avenue for nefarious actors.” Amongst those, he said, are Chinese spies who have been known to have operated within Parliament. He also pointed to the register's role in scrutinising family employment, noting that around 90 MPs employ members of their family. "Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with that” he said, “there should be a level of scrutiny on that as well.” The concerns sit within a broader picture of declining transparency in the UK political scene. The UK has "fallen for the last two years in the annual corruption index," McCapra noted, citing Transparency International's findings. He added that lobbying, whilst a small component, is "certainly a part nonetheless." True, the Westminster register only records approximately 4% of all lobbying activity, and covers only consultant lobbyists. It also limits recorded interactions to those with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries excluding Spads, APPG chairs, and opposition leaders, which McCapra argued is an issue. Compared to countries such as Australia, Canada, Scotland, and Ireland, the UK has among the "lowest numbers of recorded lobbyists compared to other democracies." The country is also, McCapra said, "one of two countries where there is no statutory code of conduct for lobbying." Of course, there is the argument of safety. With increases in political violence and polarisation over recent years, it is not ill-thought to argue that MPs' staff members should be presented with anonymity as a form of protection. On the argument that removing names protects staff from threats, McCapra was direct, saying that "they're not different conversations." The root cause of threats against parliamentarians and their staff, he argued, is distrust, and distrust stems from a lack of transparency. "If we increase transparency and improve the public understanding of what parliamentarians do... then actually we go some way to improving trust and help to reduce the threats they face." The move will take some time to have a lasting and significant impact. The cultural implications surrounding transparency will not be felt overnight, but the House of Commons Committee on Standards is insistent that this is a move in the right direction. Only time will tell if this is the case, however....