Other matters
26. What we are trying to establish in this short
inquiry is whether there are instances which suggest that masonic
contacts have been abused or masonic pressure has been brought
to bear on matters where public duties arise. We discuss two possible
cases below. But it should be noted that these are not the only
possible instances which have been drawn to our attention. For
example, in one other case which was referred to us, trustees
of a charitable trust became subject to disciplinary proceedings
within the masonic movement, amid accusations that improper pressure
may thereby have been placed on the trustees in the discharge
of their legal duties; we do not feel able, at least in the context
of this short Report, to adjudicate between the different versions
of what happened, though we are making the papers submitted to
us available with this Report so that others can judge for themselves.[34]
27. Over the years, freemasons have faced allegations
that there has been undue masonic influence in some local councils,
either involving elected members or officers. It was partly in
response to such allegations that Grand Lodge established with
the Local Government Ombudsman the system whereby Grand Lodge
would, following representations from the Ombudsman that particular
individuals were under investigation, identify whether they were
or were not freemasons.[35]
We are aware of two cases where the Local Government Ombudsman
had admonished councillors in respect of failures to declare membership
of freemasonry in connection with planning applications.[36]
(a) Pembrokeshire County Council
28. We agreed to pursue limited inquiries in respect
of one council. This was the Pembrokeshire County Council, which
first met in 'shadow' form, following local government reorganisation
in Wales, in May 1995.[37]
The Council had been drawn to our attention as raising concern
because of the number of councillors, in particular members in
the majority group, who appeared to be masons.
29. Pembrokeshire County Council decided at its first
meeting to establish a public Register of clubs, societies, associations
and similar bodies to which its members belonged. Most but not
all councillors submitted a return. As at June 1998, the position
was that there were 40 independent councillors (from amongst whom
all the Committee Chairmen and Vice-chairmen were drawn), with
11 Labour, 4 Plaid Cymru, 4 Liberal Democrat councillors and one
vacancy. All but four of these had, or have since, submitted a
return, with all the non-returners being independents; the Chairman
of the Committee wrote to the four councillors who had not submitted
a declaration, inviting them to inform the Committee - in confidence
- whether or not they were masons.[38]
The resulting overall information indicated one declared current
mason amongst the non-independents, and 16 (41%) current or former
masons among the 39 independents for whom information was available.
A similar proportion of official positions—such as Committee
chairmanships—were held by masons. No one masonic Lodge
appeared to have more than three council members.
30. Thus around two-fifths of the majority group
on the Council were masons or former masons; the proportion could
be higher than this, since councillors were not asked to state
whether they were former masons (although some have indicated
that they were). This is a substantial proportion, and can
easily give rise to concerns that improper influences can be brought
to bear on council work.
(b) Gorsey Hey Masonic Home
31. In March 1998 the Chairman received a letter
from a Mr B Rourke of the Wirral, suggesting that the Charity
Commissioners ought to be included among those public servants
who should be required to declare membership of freemasonry. The
letter—which is published in full at Appendix 9—went
on to suggest that improper masonic influence had possibly been
a factor in the way in which the Liverpool office of the Charity
Commissioners had dealt with the sale and disposal of Gorsey Hey
Masonic Home at Bebington in Wirral. We make no comment on the
particular allegations made by Mr Rourke.[39]
His letter is, however, of particular interest because he has
been an active mason for over thirty years and an officer of Grand
Lodge. We frequently receive such allegations from people who
are not masons, but it is unusual for such assertions to be made
by a member of Grand Lodge. We conclude that if it is possible
for a freemason of Mr Rourke's experience to believe that masonic
influence can sometimes be used improperly, then it is not unreasonable
for those who are not freemasons to reach the same conclusion.
Overall conclusions
32. We repeat the point made in the previous Report:
there is a great deal of unjustified paranoia about freemasonry,
but freemasons, with their obsessive secrecy, are partly to blame
for this. We particularly regret that it was only possible
for this Committee to obtain the co-operation of Grand Lodge by
compulsion. We did not do so lightly, but only after being faced
with months of prevarication and obfuscation since the original
requests for information by this Committee were made in the summer
of 1997. As already indicated (see paragraph 13 above), a compromise
involving confidentiality for the names supplied was offered and
rejected. Only then did we issue an Order.
33. We are aware that many masons regret the tenacity
with which their organisation clings to secrecy. More openness
on the part of freemasons would not only serve the public interest,
but also help to undermine the paranoia and possibly draw more
attention to the non-controversial and charitable activities undertaken
by freemasons.
34. We are also aware that there is a widespread
belief that improper masonic influence does play a part in public
life. Most of these allegations are impossible to prove. Where
they can be carefully examined, they usually prove unfounded.
It is clear, however, from some of the examples cited in this
Report, and the previous Report, that there are cases where allegations
of improper masonic influence may well be justified.
35. The solution is a simple one. It requires
no bans or proscriptions, which generally have no place in a democratic
society. It merely requires public servants who are members of
a secret society—or "a society with secrets" as
freemasons used to say—to disclose their membership.
We reject the suggestion that this is an unwarranted intrusion
on privacy. It is not enough for public servants to behave with
integrity. They must been seen to be doing so. There is no new
principle being enunciated here. Members of Parliament and of
local authorities are already required to declare interests which
might compromise their duties as servants of the public. All we
are suggesting is a modest extension of this process.
36. We welcome the steps which the Home Office
and the Lord Chancellor's Department have so far taken to require
the police, members of the judiciary and others within their remit
to disclose membership of freemasonry. However, progress has been
slow, particularly in respect of the police, and we call for the
process to be significantly speeded up, with a clear timetable
set.
37. Finally we look forward to the extension of
such disclosure into other areas of public life such as local
authorities and Parliament.
1 Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee (1996-97)
HC 192. Back
2 First
Special Report from the Home Affairs Committee (1997-98) HC 577. Back
3 ibid.,
para 6. Back
4 ibid.,
para 8. Back
5 ibid.,
para 9. Back
6 An
example of the request sent to lay magistrates is at Appendix
5. Back
7 Official
Report 22 March 1999 col.
122w and Official Report 10 May 1999 col. 57w (see Appendix
6); the figures apply in essence to judges and magistrates in
post in July 1998 (excluding magistrates appointed by the Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster) and those in post at the end of 1998
(for magistrates appointed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster). Back
8 All
Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee areas and the Duchy of Lancaster. Back
9 There
are lodges of women freemasons (and mixed lodges) but far fewer
than for men. These do not fall within the principles for recognition
by the United Grand Lodge of England, which require lodges and
Grand Lodges to be composed exclusively of men. The Magistrates'
Association, in evidence to our predecessor Committee's inquiry,
indicated that it had been suggested that there might be as many
as 14,000 women masons, though the United Grand Lodge of England
thought this might be an overestimate. By comparison, UGLE estimated
that there were just under 350,000 freemasons within lodges recognised
by them within England and Wales (or around 2% of the male population
over 21) (see evidence to previous Committee Report, Freemasonry
in the Police and the Judiciary HC, Session 1996-97, 192-II,
QQ 506, 779, 748). The Lord Chancellor's Department have indicated
that it is not at present possible to provide a male/female breakdown
for all the figures in the table, but they are in the process
of entering the figures on to a new computer system which should
make this possible; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is
also seeking a male/female breakdown of the figures supplied. Back
10 Official
Report 22 March 1999 col.
2w (see Appendix 6). Back
11 A
further 2 indicated they were former masons. Back
12 Official
Report 23 April 1999 col
699w (see Appendix 6). Back
13 Official
Report 11 May 1999 col. 82w
(see Appendix 6). Back
14 Official
Report 30 July 1998 col.
395w (see Appendix 6). Back
15 Evidence
submitted following the Home Secretary's appearance before the
Committee on 20 October 1998 (Q 13) (see Appendix 2). Back
16 Official
Report 23 March 1999 col
177w (see Appendix 6). Back
17 Official
Report 23 April 1999 col
712w (see Appendix 6); see also Times 6 April 1999. Back
18 Official
Report 23 April 1999 col
712w (see Appendix 6). Back
19 Official
Report 23 March 1999 col
177w (see Appendix 6). Back
20 Evidence
given on 20 October 1998, Q 13 and Annex (see Appendix 2). Back
21 Official
Report 23 March 1999 col.
177w (see Appendix 6). Back
22 Minutes
of Proceedings of the Home Affairs Committee (1997-98) HC 1167. Back
23 Evidence
pp 10-11(QQ110-124). Back
24 Evidence
pp. 1 to 11. Back
25 Minutes
of Proceedings of the Home Affairs Committee on 19 February 1998
(1997-98) HC 573 (re-printed in HC (1997-98) 1167). Back
26 The
Committee originally sent a list of 96 names to Grand Lodge.
Further research showed that six of these names were duplicates,
so the effective list was in respect of 90 names. The list did
not represent a complete list of officers who served with the
West Midlands Serious Crime Squad in its period of operations
1974-1989, and the West Midlands Police were able to supply the
Committee with a list of 51 additional names of officers serving
with the Squad; the Committee chose not to ask Grand Lodge to
undertake further research in respect of these 51 names. Back
27 Letter
of 20 February 1997; further letters of 4 March 1997 and 18 March
1997 refined this estimate, indicating 14 'definite' masons and
82 non-masons (see Appendix 7). Back
28 Letter
of 10 September 1997 (see Appendix 7). Back
29 Q
51. Back
30 Following
supply by the Committee of further details on certain of the names
in the original list of officers, Grand Lodge was able to identify
a further officer who became a mason after the Squad was disbanded. Back
31 Although
the fact that the stipendiary magistrate was a freemason-had it
been publicly known-at the time of controversial rulings he gave
in other cases would have given rise to justifiable public concern. Back
32 In
a letter of 3 December 1997 (see Appendix 8), Grand Lodge claimed
that "Freemasonry was not an issue in the Stalker inquiry
until the Manchester Evening News ran an article claiming that
many individuals involved were freemasons"; the article was,
in their view, "riddled with factual errors". In particular,
apart from a misidentification as a mason of a leading Councillor,
the article (according to Grand Lodge) "also stated that
Sir John Hermon, then Chief Constable of the RUC, was a senior
freemason. Sir John denied he was a freemason and took out an
action against the Manchester Evening News, which resulted in
the paper paying him damages and printing a full retraction". Back
33 The
oaths taken by new masons or masons advancing to higher levels
(which include undertakings to provide mutual support and to abide
by the law) are not, we understand, limited in their application
to the period for which a person is an active mason; they would
remain binding even after a person has ceased to be a mason.
(See previous Report Freemasonry in the police and the judiciary
(HC, 1996-97, 192-I) paras 26-29, and evidence (HC, 1996-97, 192-II)
QQ 891-898 and Appendix 19 (III)). Back
34 The
case was brought to our attention by a representative of a trustee
of the Duncombe Place Masonic Hall Trust, York. One of the features
of this case is that those involved in conducting the masonic
disciplinary proceedings included serving (and former) judges.
The list of submissions received in relation to this case, and
details of how to consult them, are at p. xvi. Back
35 See
letter from Grand Lodge 4 December 1997, printed at Appendix 4,
for a fuller description of the process. Back
36 Derby
and Castle Point (see previous Report Freemasonry in the Police
and the Judiciary HC 1996-97 192-II, pp. 119 and 121). Back
37 Because
any government responsibility for concerns about such a council
would rest with the Welsh Office, we sought and obtained the agreement
of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee to our inquiries. Back
38 Replies
were received from 3, to whom the Committee is grateful for their
cooperation. No response was received from Cllr A J B Griffiths. Back
39 We
note that Mr Rourke expresses concern also about events relating
to the sale of the Royal Masonic Hospital in London and to a charity
festival held by the Cheshire Province in 1993. Back
