It has been suspected for a long time, but to the knowledge of this writer very little and not too substantial forensic-style investigation into the matter has been done. I refer to the issue of the shareholdings that British MPs hold in major companies.

Shareholder resisters are not readily available to the public, so it is necessary to use legal counsel to establish the right to the data involved in this matter. This is the painstaking and time-consuming process that a journalist with The Guardian newspaper, Henry Dyer, was required to go through recently in order provide an expose of which MPs in the British Parliament have an interest in, or have owned, stakes in big, publicly listed companies. This article acknowledges The Guardian’s publication of Henry Dyer’s work.

The work undertaken by Henry Dyer took months of legal, technical, clerical and digital research, referencing, and writing to find even the most basic information with respect to this issue. After all, it was never going to be a simple matter of asking those MPs who were involved. So too, it was not Dyer working on his own – he involved lawyers, other journalists, and IT specialists in his endeavours.

The result of this investigation was that Henry Dyer discovered that more than 50 MPs have owned, or had an interest in, stakes in big, publicly listed companies. Prior to this investigation, such information has effectively remained secret. It is the present situation that British MPs do not strictly have to declare any shareholding worth less than £70k. Henry Dyer is of the view that this “threshold is high and could conceal conflicts of interest.” Further, in stating that it is generally accepted that we have the right to know if an MP being taken out for a £300 day at the races, or has a second job, Dyer observed that this threshold “is one worth looking into.”

The investigation has identified government ministers who have met lobbyists for companies in which they or their families have shares, whilst failing to declare these shares. MPs have also voted against amendments that would have increased windfall taxes on oil and gas companies in which they have undisclosed shares. Members of both the major political parties have been found to hold shares in companies such as Royal Mail, BP, various supermarket chains, and banks. So too, MPs have been able to hold shares under the £70k. limit in several companies at any one time without having to declare their holdings.

Though MPs shareholdings may be below the £70k. threshold, the question arises as to whether they may still be considered relevant for disclosure “under the rule that suggests that members should register any interest that might be reasonably thought to influence their actions in parliament.” This is especially so since the House of Commons disclosure threshold is higher than it is in other areas of the British political system. So too, and unlike the general rules around income from employment, there is no requirement for MPs to declare any income from dividends nor any income gained from the sale of shares.

There is also the important issue of whether MPs should be involved in making decisions about lowering the threshold without declaring all their shareholdings.  

Dyer and his team of investigators had to systematically go through old parliamentary debates to cite as evidence in support of this right of MPs to hold shares and financial interests in companies. As well, there was the exhausting task of analysing millions of lines of shareholder records, a task that Dyer described as looking for “the needles in a barn of hay”. However, Dyer and his associates were sustained in their effort by the belief that the issue of MPs shareholdings in big, publicly listed companies is “…an important issue to look into because it’s about transparency in public life, and the right of the electorate to have a detailed understanding of the vested interests that could affect their representatives.”

It is an important principle of British parliamentary democracy that an MP is elected to Parliament to serve those persons who have elected her or him. We hear on numerous occasions those same MPs stating how important, even critical, is the work of representing the people in a constituency. Without exaggeration, it could be said that an MP is a servant of the people he or she represents. Therefore, it is surely at odds with the principles and practices of constituency representation that an MP focuses on special treatment or paid work for individual entities in a constituency.

There have been times in the work experience of this writer when he has worked two jobs. However, both jobs were more or less of a part-time nature, even if both together constituted more than a single full-time job. On such occasions, the work involved was to have a remuneration at least the equivalent of a full-time job.

MPs are remunerated at a level that most people would consider to be substantial. In addition, MPs receive allowances for things like office requirements and travel, items that many employed persons would need to finance themselves. To seek further remunerated employment would be judged by most to be financially unnecessary, if not exploitative.

Moreover, where this further employment involves representing or lobbying for big, publicly listed companies, there is an element of using the position of an MP for private gain. There is also the consideration that time and effort spent on such work means that constituency work may well suffer, especially in terms of a conflict of interests. For this writer, such a situation goes against both the spirit and the letter of what it means to be an MP.

Henry Dyer and those who worked with him to research and make public the number of MPs who own, or have interests in, stakes in publicly listed companies, deserve the commendation of both Parliament and the nation in general. Suggestions of financial impropriety or actual practice of corruption in government, for that is what Henry Dyer was investigating, deserves to be rooted out and named for the sake of integrity in government.

The governing of the United Kingdom deserves no less for its people and governing institutions.

RSC