Subscriptions
Read Our Monthly Magazine
And support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system
Members of Parliament are being allowed to hide glaring conflicts of interests through a swathe of loopholes that allow potential corruption to slip under the radar, according to a new report.
Analysis by the non-profit group mySociety as part of a new “WhoFundsThem” project has found that the current system for registering financial and corporate conflicts through the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is riddled with gaps that could allow wrongdoing to go undetected.
The current rules are, they argue, primarily designed to defend the integrity of House of Commons proceedings, focusing on requiring MPs to declare financial interests during parliamentary activities.
But an MP could put in questions about a company – and then later receive nearly £1,500 from the firm, plus £300 in gifts – and never have to declare a penny. The threshold is far higher than that which applies to councillors and civil servants.
For example, the Civil Service Code states that Britain’s half a million civil servants must not accept gifts or hospitality from anyone which “might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity.”
And staff in the Government’s Planning Inspectorate are told: “All gifts, other than items such as diaries, calendars or other small items of modest value bearing a company’s name or insignia, must be reported, in writing, to the Risk, Fraud and Business Continuity team.”
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
MPs could also, hypothetically, raise issues boosting a corporation’s share price or blasting its competitors in Parliament, while holding £69,000 in shares in the company – and again not have to declare it, provided they weren’t an office holder or director in the firm.
The authors of the WhoFundsThem report find that the official register has significant gaps, not accounting for conflicts of interest that could allow MPs to trade stocks and shares based on market-sensitive information, or profit from their knowledge of upcoming legislation.
And unlike in the US, lawyers who become MPs can continue serving clients who may stand to benefit from parliamentary intelligence or changes in laws. Lawyer MPs do not even have to declare who their clients are.
The authors note that data quality in the register is extremely poor, with inconsistent formatting, lack of standardisation, and inadequate descriptions making analysis highly challenging for researchers and journalists.
Worryingly, the research identified that MPs are inconsistently declaring interests in parliamentary questions and debates, despite rules requiring them to do so. MPs often say simply “I refer to my entry in the Register of Interests” when speaking about a topic they are conflicted on, despite the code of conduct appearing to be clear that they must be specific about which conflict of interest they are referring to.
Don’t miss a story
And when checking Companies House records against MP declarations, they found 37 entries that should have been declared on the official register but weren’t, though some MPs acknowledged the oversight when notified. The authors have chosen not to name the rule-breaking MPs.
Recommendations include significantly lowering declaration thresholds (to £20-40 for gifts, from the current £300 minimum), requiring more regular updates, and instituting systematic audits of declarations.
The report also recommends a citizens’ assembly on money in politics to help break the gridlock on political funding reform.
The project examined the Register of Members’ Financial Interests (RMFI) for all 650 MPs, looking at data from September 2023 to September 2024.
More than £150,000 in donations were reported in September 2024 by MPs who had reported £0 donations in August 2024 (the first Register after the general election), suggesting problems with timely reporting.
When accounting for the Conservative leadership contest that summer, this figure rose to more than £275,000 in previously unreported donations from candidates.
Councils Exposed to Corruption Due to Collapse of Local Auditing – After Accounting Firms Lobbied for Watchdog’s Abolition
Just one in nine local council audits are now conducted on time – which researchers blame on a privatised system
The project also flagged interests from 40 MPs (6% of all MPs) in industries with low public support, including 19 MPs with gambling-related interests, 10 MPs with oil and gas-related interests, and 19 MPs with trips funded by governments of “not free” countries according to the respected Freedom House index. Three MPs had interests associated with both gambling and oil/gas.
The authors also highlight a problem with All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs), which have often been seen as a means for outside interests to influence parliamentarians.
Fourteen APPGs appeared in the February register of MPs’ interests. But in the January APPG Register, not a single one had published an income or expenditure statement on their funders from their last AGM, despite this being required by the rules according to mySociety.
One case looked at by the authors showed that two MPs (one Conservative, one Labour) declared a trip to China funded by the China APPG worth over £5,000 total, but the APPG did not declare this benefit at its AGM, or who was the original funder.