See also: Home Affairs Committee Third Report
I refer to the hearing before the Home Affairs Committee on 19 February and the separate matter highlighted by the Home Secretary's announcement that he will introduce legislation to compel those concerned with the administration of criminal justice to disclose that they are Freemasons unless a voluntary code is agreed.
Brethren, we must never lose sight of the fact that English Freemasons are at liberty to disclose their membership. The only restriction is that they must not do so for the purpose of personal advantage. Indeed every Mason is actively encouraged to be open about his membership of the Craft. The names of all Grand Officers are published in the Year Book and that book is readily available to the public. In many Masonic Provinces there are similar publications and the names of the vast majority of those who hold Provincial Rank are therefore also available.
It is an established principle that it is up to each individual to decide the extent to which he is prepared to make disclosure and accordingly Masonic authorities do not disclose members' names without the agreement of those concerned. There are exceptions to this if disclosure is required by a court or, for example, the police or an ombudsman in the course of official enquiries, but steps are taken to try to ensure that each individual is informed in advance. In the absence of such a requirement it has been considered that an individual is entitled to his privacy unless it is appropriate for him to declare an interest.
The enquiry by the Home Affairs Committee falls into a different category to an enquiry by, say, an ombudsman. It was for this reason that the information was not given at an early stage and that the giving was delayed until we were fully satisfied about the basis on which it was demanded. The Committee undoubtedly has the power to compel the giving of such information and a refusal is without question contempt of Parliament, which contempt could lead to serious penalties. The Data Protection Act offers no defence and there is no right of appeal to the courts. Indeed the powers of a Select Committee appear to be so wide that it can over-ride all normal safeguards that are designed to protect individuals. The enquiry of the Home Affairs Committee is not, however, one that is expected to lead to any form of court proceedings or disciplinary action. Formal court and disciplinary actions have already been taken; as far as I am aware there is no prospect of these being re-opened. The Committee laid its report into "Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary" before Parliament in April 1997.
The current Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Mullin, has told me that he has received a number of allegations that the police corruption which has been uncovered involved many Freemasons and amounted to a Masonic conspiracy. Indeed, when interviewing Sir Frederick Crawford on 20th October 1997, Mr. Mullin is on record as having said that "...it became clear to me during the course of my enquiries...that part of the problem was that there were rather a lot of Freemasons in public life in Birmingham and in a variety of professions, not just the police, who were obstructing the truth..."
In the light of these allegations the Committee decided to enquire into the nature of contacts between individuals in the West Midlands Crime Squad those concerned with the investigation into the Birmingham Pub Bombing and those concerned with the Stalker Affair. The Grand Secretary was asked to identify those who were Freemasons and also provide the names of their Lodges and the dates of their membership. The Committee provided three lists: that for the Stalker Affair had 7 names, the one for the Crime Squad 96 and the last for the Pub Bombing 66. It turned out that 2 of those on the Stalker list, 7 on the Crime Squad list and 8 on the Pub Bombing list were or had been Masons. Mr. Mullin has expressed surprise that three of those on the lists provided were not apparently Masons and a further check is to be made. It is not clear why the Committee did not ask the individuals if they were or had been Masons and instead used us as their inquiry agent.
I do not know when we will hear what conclusion the Committee reaches. The Committee announced that it wished to establish the nature of contacts between individuals but as far as I am aware, the Committee has shown no inclination to explore whether the individuals involved in the three matters had other common interests or were members of common non-Masonic associations. It appears that it is only involvement in Masonry that interests them.
In the light of independent advice received, the Board of General Purposes decided last week that the information must be given. That does not detract from the fact that the Grand Secretary and John Hamill were given a torrid time but, in seeking to protect the privacy of our members, stood up manfully to tough questioning: they deserve our thanks.
The Committee has warned that it may well put further questions and raise different matters, so this affair is not yet over.
The Government is committed to enacting the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. When that process is completed, it will certainly having a bearing on the rights and liberties of the individual that have so concerned us in our discussions with the Committee.
Of more general importance is the stated intention of the Home Secretary to establish a register of the names of those in certain walks of life who are Masons. It appears that it is only Masonry that is being singled out and that the Government is minded to act in an oppressive and arbitrary manner without any valid reason. This is a major threat and we need to oppose it with great determination. We will seek to talk to Home Office Ministers and officials to try and understand what the Government has in mind and its reasoning and we must plan a public relations campaign to alert the public to the serious threat to personal liberty constituted by the proposals. The campaign may well last a number of years and cost a significant amount of money. To succeed, we must satisfy the general public that we are open, not a secret, society. There is a general perception that we are more reticent about declaring our membership and our activities than seems necessary and that some sinister purpose lies behind this reticence. It is essential that we change this perception so that it accords with the reality that we are an honourable association with nothing sinister to hide. We should all be proud to be Masons and let family, friends and work colleagues know this. There will be a few who believe, and may have genuine reason to fear, that their career prospects may be damaged because of prejudice against Masons and they may have a difficult decision to make: they may have to choose to resign from Masonry.
We received a reasonable press over the last few weeks with a number of thoughtful and supportive leaders and articles. We need to find ways to build on this favourable opinion and I am certain that there are many who are not Masons who realise the harmful effect on the rights of the individual which will follow if our opponents get their way.
In the fight against the Home Secretary's proposals, Masonic leadership will have a major part to play, but members of the Craft must not underestimate what can be done by individuals. It is a challenge we will face together.
See also: Home Affairs Committee Third Report