When the Guardian recently reported that two Freemasons’ lodges were operating secretly, covertly at Westminster, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) complained. In subsequent Guardian coverage, the UGLE’s leaders argued the openness and benefits of Freemasonry and lamented discrimination against members. They had a point, but so did the Guardian’s journalists.

I concluded that the article was misleading in part, and it has been corrected. During the investigation I invited the UGLE leadership to disclose the total number of current MPs and current lobby journalists who are Freemasons.

Routine disclosure of the identities of Freemasons among current MPs and lobby journalists is just a matter of time

Prejudice and discrimination are often based on misconceptions, and if misconceptions are to be addressed – through the correction and clarification of pieces of journalism or otherwise – it seems reasonable to aim to give the public more information rather than less about Freemasonry in public institutions. This applies particularly to Freemasonry in a representative institution such as the parliament, and in parliament’s historically significant accompaniment, the fourth estate.

I sought numbers, lodges and names but acknowledged that the UGLE may not want to – or under its rules may not be able to – disclose names or lodge membership details. If so, numbers would do.

The UGLE responded that it did not have accurate enough information to be able to answer precisely. The organisation had not been concerned about the jobs its members held, and although it now collected this information, the data had historical holes and it was not always possible to know who was still active in their profession. A representative said: “David Staples [the UGLE chief executive] has confirmed to me that he believes that there are fewer than 10 MPs who are UGLE Freemasons, and typically they are members of a lodge local to their constituency.

Q&A Have you had any experience of being a Freemason? Show If you have any experience of being a Freemason we'd like to hear from you.

You can share your stories here via our encrypted form. They will help our journalists have a more complete picture and we will use some of them in our reporting.

“Lobby journalists are more difficult to identify. Nobody is listed on our database with ‘lobby journalist’ as their profession, but for the reasons stated above and because of the specific nature of that job title, I cannot say with certainty that there are no lobby journalists who are UGLE Freemasons.”

Whether Freemasons who undertake public roles should disclose the fact of their membership is a legitimate public interest issue for the Guardian to pursue in its reporting, and for its letters page contributors to debate. That view seems to be reasonably widely shared; the Guardian reporting was followed up by several other media outlets.

In the UK it is an ongoing public discussion. Last January, after the former leader of the Police Federation, Steve White, raised the issue, the Guardian published a letter from the UGLE leadership casting doubt on the accuracy of the Guardian’s reporting of White’s remarks. The Guardian reported in a news article both the UGLE leadership’s criticism and White affirming that he had been accurately reported by the Guardian.

Unchallenged is the reporting that at present there appears to be no requirement for current MPs to disclose membership of Freemasonry, and that they do not disclose.

In 1998, a UK parliamentary committee recommended disclosure. It remains an issue on which MPs express views.

Disclosure of membership would appear to be consistent with advice in the information booklet available on the UGLE website. A section dating from 1999 and headed “Masonic secrets” says: “Every Mason is free to reveal his own Masonic membership, except when it might appear that business, professional or personal advantage is thereby being sought for himself or another. The board believes that brethren should be encouraged to acknowledge their membership with pride.”

On the other hand – and it is difficult to judge without considering concrete examples – some of the publicly available material seems to support those who raise concerns about conflict of loyalty. For example, under “Behaviour in presence of strangers, not Masons”: “You shall be cautious in your words and carriage, that the most penetrating stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not proper to be intimated; and sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity.”

Disclosure of the fact of membership would presumably cure most conflicts. Disclosure is a commonly used method to manage perceived conflicts of interest or loyalty in many fields, for instance in corporate governance.

The UGLE information booklet and its “book of constitutions” (2016 edition) indicate that respect for the law, mutual loyalty, some secrecy and some openness are all features of contemporary Freemasonry.

In a tax-related case decided in 2015, it seemed to be common ground among the United Grand Lodge, HM Revenue and Customs and the presiding judge that Freemasonry had been gradually opening up since at least 2000.

It may be that routine disclosure of the numbers and identities of Freemasons among current MPs and lobby journalists – as well as among those who perform other roles of public significance, such as policing – is just a matter of time.

Until that moment, the cycle of which this article and complaint are illustrations will probably continue: public questioning of aspects of Freemasonry, some of them secret, accompanied by speculation about the impact of undisclosed Freemasonry on public institutions; followed by protests from Freemasonry’s leaders that its members unreasonably face prejudice and discrimination and for that reason can justify an unwillingness to make further disclosures.

Progress might come sooner if no one overstates the degree to which Freemasonry is secretive, and Freemasonry does not overstate the degree to which it is open.

• Paul Chadwick is the Guardian’s readers’ editor