Freemasonry (Hansard, 14 February 1994)

§ 29. Mr. Mullin
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with other Departments regarding freemasonry in public life; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis)
My officials have consulted other Departments about the way in which codes of conduct in the wider public sector deal with freemasonry.

§ Mr. Mullin
Is it asking too much from Ministers who say that they believe in open government to require magistrates, police officers, civil servants and local government officers who are freemasons to declare that fact? How is it possible to maintain public confidence in public institutions when members of those public institutions belong to a secret society, one aim of which is mutual self-advancement?

§ Mr. Davis
As the hon. Gentleman knows, when the civil service code was revised in May, it required freemasons and to disclose their membership when there was a conflict of interest. Specifically with regard to the police, police rules make it clear that private interests should not conflict, or be seen to conflict, with the impartial performance of duty. That message is reinforced by specific reminders from some chief constables that officers should consider whether freemasonry and perceived impartiality are compatible. Ultimately it is for individuals to decide, so long as there is no breach of police discipline.

§ Mr. Meacher
Is not the basis of corruption that decisions are taken in public life, not on arm's-length merit, but because of hidden and partisan relationships? If so, why are the Government so feeble about all this—whether it is freemasonry in public life, or banning tobacco advertising, or gongs and honours for secret services rendered, or the award of large foreign contracts to a small clique of favoured companies without tender and subsidised improperly by the aid and trade provision? Is not that because the finances of the Tory party, and so much of the power of this Tory Government, are built on a wholesale corruption machine?

§ Mr. Davis
If I can find my way through that little homily to the question, I assume that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we should have some kind of legal requirement.

§ Mr. Garrett
On what?

§ Mr. Davis
On the disclosure of freemasonry. If that is the case, I cannot agree that a legal requirement for disclosure would help. It would simply create a vast bureaucracy and legislative framework which would be avoided by precisely the people whom we are trying to catch—those who are corrupt or misusing public office or public money.

§ Mr. Burns
Has my hon. Friend had any discussions on this subject with local authorities? For example, has he had any discussions with Derbyshire county council?

§ Mr. Skinner
That should get me in.

§ Mr. Davis
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) tempts me. I suspect that there are fewer freemasons in the Government than there are members of the hon. Gentleman's family on the payroll of Derbyshire county council.
The local councils have guidelines that cover this matter.

§ Mr. Skinner
One of the problems about freemasonry, even more so than in the past, is that, as the Government are running organisations on the basis of quangos, patronage and preference, it is pretty clear that thousands and thousands of jobs that used to be done by councillors accountable to the public will now be done by people nominated, in the main, by the Tory Government and their local apparatchiks. The net result will be even stronger freemasonry. That is why Members of Parliament who are freemasons should have their membership recorded in the Register.

§ Mr. Davis
The hon. Gentleman is wrong—again. Since 1979, the number of quangos has been reduced from about 2,100 to about 1,400. The hon. Gentleman is adding all sorts of bodies, such as the boards of grant-maintained schools, which are now more, rather than less, accountable to the public than they were previously. As for appointments to quangos, we hear much heckling from the Opposition Front Bench, particularly from the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who, if I remember correctly, was appointed to the West Midlands Enterprise Board—a Labour placeman on a quango that has done nothing but lose the public more than £6 million in the past few years.