Secrecy has too many negative connotations. Most people regard salary and tax contributions as a private matter. As it has been established that these companies are essentially Blair himself, I think its fair to regard any financial information as a personal and therefore private matter.
I utterly reject this notion. I accept what Tony Blair or anyone else earns is private — if they earn it.
It is however very clear that this structure has been set up to secure limited liability and a tax advantage in the form of reduced tax rates limited companies enjoy. Both are at potential cost to society at large, as I note here. And as I also note in that blog (with slight edits made):
If we are to have limited liability then there is a special duty of care imposed on those who take advantage of it, which no one is obliged to do. That duty of care is to provide considerable information concerning the beneficial ownership, true nature of management and financial performance of each and every limited liability entity that exists — anywhere in the world and for whatever purpose it is used.
The argument is simply that without this information, including country-by-country reporting, those who engage with a limited liability entity are, without exception, the potential victim of moral hazard.
That is why a limited liability entity is very different from the people behind it. The two cannot be confused. One can enjoy privacy. The other seeks privileges from society,. In return for their grant they forego considerable privacy, to save us from the risk they expose us to.
Is there a counter-argument?