Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 17 FEBRUARY 1998
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP and MR DENIS
EVANS
20. The main thing I wanted to talk about was
the confidentiality of internal police investigations. Obviously
you have had the report we have just finished looking at the whole
police complaints system and one of our recommendations was that
investigation officers' reports should be disclosable which they
are not currently. Do you have a view on the additional disclosure
of information from police investigations with particular reference
to investigating officers' reports?
(Mr Straw) I understand the point being
made. I was pulled up sharp against the present restrictions on
exposure in respect of a Police Complaints Authority report on
the Steven Lawrence murder and in this case a way was found to
secure its publication, I think by means of a direction by me.
It was in the context of my using Police Act powers to establish
the inquiry. May I say, Mr Chairman, I am very grateful indeed
for all the work you and your colleagues did on the report on
complaints and disciplinary procedures in the police. I am currently
examining those recommendations very carefully and I hope to make
a formal statement about my response before Easter. I am looking
carefully at it.
21. Can I take you to a specific case which
is the one in North Yorkshire of which we gave you notice. Investigations
took place into very very serious harassment cases in North Yorkshire.
We understand that settlements were made that would have amounted
to something in the region of £1 million total cost to the
police authority. The police authority then carried out their
own internal investigation into officers all the way up to chief
constable rank and when the report that they commissioned came
before them the public were told that the report was subject to
public interest immunity on the grounds that withholding it was
necessary for the proper functioning of the police complaints
system. Do you understand the frustration felt by taxpayers in
North Yorkshire at not being informed about what actually happened
in relation to those huge sums of money that were spent?
(Mr Straw) Of course I do and if I was
a taxpayer in North Yorkshire I would certainly understand those
frustrations. At the moment the police investigation reports as
a class are entitled to public interest immunity. They are in
a different situation from reports within Government which since
December 1996 have not been subject to class claims. Instead those
claims are made on their merits, as I can testify because I have
had to make a number of these claims and it involves much more
work if you are the person seeking the claim because you have
got to work through all the evidence. So that is the situation
and I understand the concerns and, as I say, I hope in my response
to your report I deal with at least some of those concerns.
22. Is there anything you can do immediately
in terms of accountability? We have the Police Service and the
police authority saying they are desperate to divulge information,
they are prevented and presumably there is yourself sitting over
them?
(Mr Straw) Yes, but my powers in respect
of police authorities and chief constables are ones laid down
in law. If a police authority wishes to write to me, and I am
willing to consider any representations they make, they need to
draw to my attention powers they think I have got which I can
use to help them make this information public. The powers of the
police authority, the chief constable and the Home Secretary were
last re-visited in 1994 in the Police and Magistrates' Courts
Act. That is where the framework was laid down. I obviously understand
the concerns of the police authority and of residents in North
Yorkshire, given the way in which this saga has unfolded.
23. If I can take you to a wider issue we have
been looking at which is these large compensation claims in general,
there is a number of cases, the most obvious example being the
Kevin Taylor case which came out of the Stalker affair, where
settlements were made out of court and we have been informed as
a Committee that we cannot be given information as to the sums
involved. Do you share our concern that the public interest is
not served by agreements, whether they are contractual or not,
that prevent the sums being disclosed?
(Mr Straw) Yes I do. I think in principle
the public ought to know because one way or another this is their
money and it is either their money directly which has come off
the top of the available resources for the Police Service or it
has come by way of an insurance payment in which case over the
years they have paid a high premium to pay this kind of risk.
I also think there is wider public interest. I think the public
needs to know if there has been compensation granted in such circumstances
because they need to know the gravity of the alleged wrong for
which the compensation is made. I do not only understand these
concerns, I share them, but I also say we are constrained by the
law and in some cases by previous contractual obligations.
24. You would look favourably at suggestions
that may come from this Committee that move us towards more disclosure?
(Mr Straw) Yes.
Chairman
25. Thank you. Freemasonry. After a lengthy
period of gestation you have this morning replied to the Select
Committee's report on freemasonry in the police and judiciary.
Would you like briefly to say what you are proposing, Home Secretary?
(Mr Straw) I will and, if I may, I will
refer back to the investigation—
26. Feel free.
(Mr Straw)—by the Committee in
the previous Parliament. I am just trying to remember who apart
from yourself was a member of that?
27. I am the only survivor.
(Mr Straw) In that case only you will
recall that I wrote on 10th February of last year—
28. I remember it well.
(Mr Straw)—to that Committee when
I was the Shadow Home Secretary, this is quoted at page 139 of
volume II of the third report of last year, to say: "In order
to sustain public confidence in the criminal justice system, we"—that
is the Opposition—"believe that membership of the freemasons
(and any other similar organisation) should be a declarable, and
registerable interest. We went on to say that we also believe
that any such requirement should apply equally to all those who
play a key role within the system and we would not support arrangements
that would apply to only one group, eg the police and not others.
We added that: "We accept there are important and sensitive
questions about how any register should be maintained, and the
criteria for access to this. We look forward to considering the
detailed recommendations of your Committee on these questions
in due course." As you know. Mr Chairman, you made your report
and the report said: "We recommend that police officers,
magistrates, judges and crown prosecutors should be required to
register membership of any secret society and that the record
should be available publicly." It went on: "However,
it is our firm belief that a better solution lies in the hands
of freemasonry itself. By openness and disclosure, all suspicion
would be removed and we would welcome the taking of such steps
by the United Grand Lodge." What I have submitted to the
Committee this morning is the Government's response in the light
both of your evidence to the Committee last year and of that recommendation,
I ought to make it clear the arrangements I am setting out apply
to England and Wales and it is for the Secretaries of State for
Scotland and Northern Ireland to consider whether similar—
29. On that point have you discussed the issue
with your colleagues?
(Mr Straw) I have consulted with them,
but my responsibility is for England and Wales.
30. I understand that, yes, thank you.
(Mr Straw) What we have said is this:
we accept the recommendation that was made by the Committee and
we propose to implement it in this way: first of all, we have
decided to widen the categories of criminal justice employees
so that it covers not only police officers, judges, magistrates
or crown prosecutors but also probation officers and staff of
the Prison Service. If it is going to cover the system it might
as well cover the system as a whole. As far as magistrates are
concerned the Council of the Magistrates' Association has commendably
been ahead of other groups here. They have decided that magistrates'
benches should be required to declare they are freemasons on the
application form and your Committee recommended that the Lord
Chancellor's Department should alter the wording of the application
form accordingly and that is going to happen. As for paid appointments,
we are proposing that all new appointments to the judiciary, the
magistracy, the police, legally qualified staff of the CPS, Probation
Service and Prison Service shall have as a condition of appointment
a requirement to declare membership of the freemasons and obviously
any later admission to the freemasons if that takes place after
appointment. There is an issue about what is a new appointment.
This not only applies to somebody coming into these professions
de novo but someone moving from one employer to another.
Plainly, if a police officer moves from one police force no another
that is a new appointment. Other services are organised differently.
For example, there is only one Prison Service and if someone is
promoted in the Prison Service is that a new appointment? If the
judge moves from being on the High Court bench to the Court of
Appeal is that a new appointment? We have got to consult the body
concerned although it is partly a matter of employment law. For
those who are already serving in those categories, we accept the
view of the Home Affairs Committee that the better solution, in
the words of the Committee, lies in the hands of freemasonry itself.
Accordingly, I propose to make a formal request to the United
Grand Lodge that they provide on a regional basis consistent with
the regional structure of the lodges, the names and identifying
occupations and other necessary details of those who are or who
become freemasons in the specified professions and occupations.
I do this, and I read the evidence very carefully, because the
freemasons said on a number of occasions they were not a secret
society, they were simply a society with secrets. I think it is
widely accepted that the secret they should not be keeping is
membership. There are other aspects of their work that no one
is going to seek to scrutinise. If what they say is correct they
are not a secret society but simply a society with secrets, we
believe it is consistent with the approach of your Committee,
that they should be the people who provide the names and occupations
and other identifying details of the people involved in the criminal
justice system. I hope that request produces a positive response
from the United Grand Lodge. If it does not, either because they
are unwilling to comply or because they are unable in terms of
the data they have to comply then we will make arrangements for
registers to be open for all specified professions and occupations.
All existing employees and office holders would be invited to
register. Although at this stage a failure to return information
would not of itself be a breach of condition of employment nil
returns would be shown as such on the register. We are going to
consult on where the register should be available but plainly
they should be publicly available and there is no point if they
are not. The question is whether they should be available just
in public libraries or in other areas. The last point is that
if these arrangements do not work satisfactorily then we will
look at the need for legislation having regard to the extent of
compliance with the voluntary registers once established, although
plainly we hope that they will work.
31. Can I thank you for that, Home Secretary,
and can I say what you have announced today is a big step forward
and I am sure will be widely welcomed. As I am sure you will appreciate,
we are up against some mighty vested £interests here and
they may not recognise words like "voluntary" and therefore
we have to prepare for the possibility that legislation and other
measures and enforcement will be required. You are prepared for
that, are you not?
(Mr Straw) Yes, it says so in paragraph
10 of this statement. I hope very much that freemasons will recognise
that the work that you have done. This, as I recall, was an All-Party
report, a unanimous report.
32. It was not quite unanimous. It certainly
attracted support from Members on all sides.
(Mr Straw) I am sorry, it is not a partisan
report. It is important for the same reasons as Members of this
House declare their interests that those who are in positions
within the criminal justice system and who have important professional
discretions that they exercise, should not only act fairly but
should also be seen to act fairly and declaration is a way of
achieving that.
33. Do you have in mind a timetable? You have
said there have got to be consultations with those professions
that are affected.
(Mr Straw) I want to get on with this
as quickly as possible. I recognise that you particularly have
shown great patience in awaiting this statement. I am grateful
to you for that. I cannot give a precise timetable but we do want
to move ahead pretty quickly. We do not believe that these initial
changes require legislation. The letter to the United Grand Lodge
will be going off in the next two weeks.
34. That is very good. We would not wish to
give anyone the impression that there will be a further period
of prevarication which will lead us into the next General Election
and thereafter, who knows what?
(Mr Straw) There is no suggestion whatsoever
of that. You will recall, it is a matter of record in this document,
that as a constituency Member of Parliament in Blackburn I had
profound concerns about the activities of some freemasons which
arose from a case in my constituency some years ago, the Callis
case which is well charted in there.
Mr Howarth
35. Home Secretary, our Chairman of this Committee
certainly has a very keen interest in this issue. Can you tell
us what it is about freemasonry that you find so, if not offensive,
something that ought to be declared? After all, freedom of association
is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights which
we discussed yesterday.
(Mr Straw) There is no suggestion whatever
that if people want to join the freemasons they should be stopped
from doing so. I do not find anything about the freemasons offensive.
They are a society which is very secretive at the moment and that
has given rise to suggestions of improper influence. Not just
to suggestions in some cases. The Callis case which arose in my
constituency was a scandal, let us be clear about this. What happened,
for those who are unfamiliar with this story, was that there was
a father and son—Callis—who were business people from
Leicester who were staying at what was then the Moat House Hotel
in Blackburn. They were going up the stairs and met eight men
coming down the stairs. The eight men were members of the local
police freemasonry lodge. An altercation took place and the result
of this was that the two Callis's, father and son, were charged
with assault and the case went to Lancaster Crown Court. There
the judge was quite explicit, he said that you either believe
the police that two men going up the stairs started a fight with
eight men coming down the stairs, in which case you will convict
on the charges, or you will believe the Callis father and son,
in which case you have to conclude that these police officers
were lying and that they had got together to concoct a story.
The jury acquitted the Callis's and they have since received a
fairly large sum by way of compensation from the Lancashire Constabulary.
It was a most unsatisfactory story. It also raised questions about
the way in which in those days Lancashire Constabulary ran its
disciplinary process. I used to get two line letters from the
Deputy Chief Constable about what was happening. There is a reality
here. The conclusion of the Committee last year in paragraph 49(f)
was "there is a widespread public perception that freemasonry
can have an unhealthy influence on the criminal justice system,
and we certainly believe that one of the main reasons for freemasonry's
poor public image is a perception that it is a secret society."
We, as Members of Parliament, declare membership of all sorts
of bodies and there is not the least suggestion that because we
are members of this body or that body—I am a visiting Fellow
of Nuffield College for example and there is no suggestion as
a result of its association with me that it is somehow an unacceptable
body. What is important, however, is that people should know that
I am a visiting Fellow of Nuffield. I have a connection with them
and have had for some years. If an issue arises about Nuffield
people will say "hang on a second, why is the Member of Parliament
for Blackburn saying this because he seems to be parti pris
to that institution?" That is the point. If you have a situation
where a whole sequence of people involved in the criminal justice
system in one particular case are freemasons then people need
to know that.
36. As a judge said on the radio this morning—he
is a mason—there is no way he as a judge sitting on the
bench and as a member of his masonic lodge could know if somebody
before him was also a mason, but if he did know that somebody
before him was also a mason he would be in no different a position
from a judge who saw an acquaintance before him. If it was an
acquaintance he would obviously have to declare it. The court
would not otherwise know unless he declared it. I do not quite
see why freemasons are so special?
(Mr Straw) I listened to that interview
too. The question in my mind was if there is nothing to worry
about why not have a register? There plainly have been things
to worry about in the past. The previous Committee did not devote
all this time and attention to the issue just to create a confection.
The case in my constituency was something to worry about. It just
was. In the police service many senior police officers, and not
just senior police officers but many police officers, will say
now that there was a most serious problem of freemasonry in the
police in years gone by. I do not believe it is anything like
as serious now by the way. It is very difficult to tell the exact
extent. If you talk to police officers who served in the Metropolitan
Police for 20 or 30 years they will tell you that in their view
the principal way in which you could at the margin gain promotion
was by being a member of the freemasons and this was unacceptable.
It was made less acceptable because the freemasons were a secret
society.
Mr Winnick
37. Do you consider it desirable in itself,
Home Secretary, for judges and police officers to be members of
freemasonry societies?
(Mr Straw) I think it is entirely a matter
for them. I am not a mason, which I imagine may now be reasonably
clear.
Chairman: You surprise me!
Mr Winnick
38. While you have declared—
(Mr Straw) I was about to play Groucho
Marx on the subject as well!
39. Is it also your view that when it comes
to declaring membership as such that it should also apply to Members
of Parliament and all members in the Government?
(Mr Straw) It is my personal view. This
was not within the scope of this inquiry, let me say. What is
a subject for declaration in this House is a matter for Parliament
and not for me. I just want to go back to answer your principal
question and in the same way to pick up Mr Howarth's answer. People
in this country have an absolute right to belong to any lawful
society that they wish to choose and I defend that right. I defend
the right of people to join the freemasons. They have got a right
in terms of our society's norms as well as the European Convention.
That is not the issue. It is whether being a member they should
declare it.
| 
