Secret Societies (Declaration) (Hansard, 1 July 1992)

§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that an occupant of, or candidate for appointment or election to, a public office or a post in a public service shall make a public declaration as to his membership or otherwise of any secret society; and for connected purposes. My Bill seeks to ensure that candidates either for appointment or election to public office should declare their membership or otherwise of any secret society. It will require also that the record of any such declarations is made available to the public.

The Bill should appeal to democrats of all political persuasions. It does not seek to ban anything or to discriminate against anyone. It is based on the simple principle that membership by public servants of secret societies is incompatible with democracy and undermines public confidence in public institutions.

For those who fear that a declaration of membership of a particular organisation could result in discrimination, I shall include a clause that outlaws discrimination against anyone on the basis of any declaration that they have been obliged to make under the Bill.

Although no particular organisation is mentioned and the scope of my Bill is not limited to any particular organisations, you. Madam Speaker, may not be surprised to learn that freemasons will be among those who fall within its scope. A number of speeches made recently by senior masons were designed to persuade the public that masons have entered an era of glasnost. I may add that this does not extend to masons being willing to appear with me on "The World at One" to discuss the issue. This afternoon, a request was made to the Grand Lodge to provide a spokesman, but the answer was no. I regret to say that the BBC, with characteristic gutlessness, therefore cancelled the interview.

Leading masons have been at pains to emphasise that freemasonry is a bit of harmless fun and that its objectives are mainly sociable and charitable. It would be easier to convince non-masons of that were it not for the secrecy— reinforced by blood-curdling oaths—to which all masons are sworn.

I want to stress that the Bill makes no objection to the practice of freemasonry. If grown men want to wear aprons, bare their breasts, and indulge in strange rituals, that is entirely a matter for them. I object to the secrecy, and to the corrosive effect that it has on public confidence in many of our most respected institutions.

It is said that there are about 320,000 masons in England and Wales, 100,000 in Scotland and 55,000 in Northern Ireland. The nearest that we have to a definitive account of their activities is Martin Short's excellent book "Inside the Brotherhood". Its author suggests that freemasons are particularly well represented at all levels of the legal profession, in the police up to the highest level, in local government, places of higher education, and among hospital consultants. There is even a lodge in the House of Commons, membership of which, I understand, includes the hon. Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and a number of Officials of the House. There is also a lodge for the Press Gallery—about which considerably less is known than of the New Welcome lodge to which Members of Parliament and Officials of the House belong.

854 According to the 1991 masonic handbook for County Durham—which for masonic purposes includes Sunderland—Sunderland has 29 lodges with a total membership of 1,597. There are also various other masonic bodies, including eight royal arch chapters with a membership of 390, Master Masons with 24 members. Royal Ark Marines with 31, the Rose Croix with 59 and Proceptories—do not ask me what all this means, Madam Speaker—with 32. Several other masonic bodies do not list the total number of members. They include the Knights Templar Tabernacle, the Royal and Select Masters, the Order of the Secret Monitor, the Harte Conclave and Allied Masonic Degrees.

Lodge 5841 is the civic centre lodge. It has 62 members, and meets at a masonic temple conveniently situated less than 100 yards from the headquarters of the borough council. A number of other officials belong to lodges elsewhere. Some idea of the scale of masonic influence in County Durham may be gained from the handbook, a publication which, while not exactly secret, is not readily available to non-masons. It lists every lodge, in each case giving the number of members and the names of current officers and past masters. The names listed amount to about 10 per cent. of the total membership of each lodge. Altogether, they cover about 250 closely typed pages.

As I look through the names of officers listed for the Sunderland lodges, my eye alights on a number of familiar names—names of people who are or were prominent in local public life. I see the name of a former chief executive of the borough council, and of the late Tyne and Wear county council. I see the name of a former leader of the council—a Tory, I should add. I see the names of former directors of housing and architecture. I see the names of policemen, magistrates and consultants—including that of a consultant whose wife is a magistrate.

In an earlier handbook, I see the name of Mr. Ray Delaney, a former deputy director of engineering in the borough of Sunderland, who was obliged to resign two years ago after allegations of conflict between his professional duties and outside business interests. Mr. Delaney's name is preceded by the letters "IG": I understand from those who know about such matters that they stand for "inner guard". I have no idea what the duties of an inner guard entail, hut, if masons are worried about the sinister connotations that non-masons sometimes place on their activities, I put it to them that they have only themselves to blame.

As you know, Madam Speaker, for some years I have taken a particular interest in miscarriages of justice. That interest has brought me into contact with people at all levels of public life in the police and the legal profession, particularly in the west midlands. I make no allegations of impropriety, but one would have to be blind not to notice that many of those with whom I have dealt are freemasons.

In particular, those people include police officers up to and including the rank of chief constable. With the possible exception of the legal profession, there can he few professions in which freemasons are as well represented as they are in the police. That has been widely remarked on, and it is hard to think of anything more damaging to public confidence in the police. I know that it is deeply resented by police officers who are not freemasons.

In April 1985, Sir Kenneth Newman, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who did more than anyone else to clean up the Met, issued the following guidance to police officers who were freemasons. It appeared in an 855 official document entitled "The Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour", and was drafted by Assistant Commissioner Albert Laugharne. He wrote: The discerning officer will probably consider it wise to forgo the prospect of pleasure and social advantage in freemasonry so as to enjoy the unreserved regard of all those around him. Those words might well apply to anyone in public life who is a freemason. My Bill, however, does not go as far as Sir Kenneth. It does not ask public servants to renounce freemasonry; it merely asks them to renounce secrecy.

I believe that this simple measure will enjoy the widespread support of democrats of every political persuasion, and I am confidant that it will find support on both sides of the House. It is entirely consistent with the Government's stated ambition to create a classless society, and is essential to the stated intention of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice to restore public confidence in the police and the legal system.

My proposal has a good deal of support in high places. In 1986, the author Martin Short sent a questionnaire on freemasonry to every Member of Parliament. Questions 6 and 7 asked whether Members of Parliament and other public servants—including councillors, judges, policemen, civil servants and local government officers—ought to be obliged to declare their membership of masonic bodies. Among those who completed the questionnaire and agreed that public servants should declare was the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who is now the Prime Minister. I have a copy of the questionnaire that he signed, with his signature at the bottom, and it is available for inspection. I look forward in due course to the Prime Minister's support and help in ensuring that my Bill becomes law.

A great deal of paranoia surrounds freemasonry, much of it no doubt unjustified, and I have no wish to add to it. As I said at the outset, my Bill is based on the simple principle that membership of a secret society is incompatible with office in a modern democracy. Take away the secrecy, and the problem is resolved. I believe that my Bill will have the support of all those who believe. as I do, in greater openness in public life. I hope that it will also enjoy the support of honest freemasons—I am sure that they are the overwhelming majority—who arc concerned at the poor public image that their organisation currently enjoys.