The United Grand Lodge of England has responded in full to the Home Affairs Select Committee report, Freemasonry in Public Life (19 May 1999).
    The report dealt with investigations into three specific cases raised in the previous report (Freemasonry in the Police and Judiciary) relating to the Stalker-Sampson affair; the Birmingham Pub bombings, and the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad. It also raised three new matters (a Charitable Trust, a County Council and a Masonic Home) on which Grand Lodge was not consulted nor given an opportunity of commenting on. The report made several recommendations:

1. Full public access to lists of Freemasons in public life.
2. That if there are legal impediments to publishing such lists the law should be changed.
3. That those declining to answer the question should be publicly listed.
4. That the process of registration, particularly in regard to the police, should be speeded up and a clear timetable set.
5. That disclosure of membership should be extended to other areas of public life such as local authorities and Parliament.

1. Freemasons were delighted, but not surprised, that on the three main cases the committee found no evidence that Freemasonry was a significant factor. They were furious that on the Stalker-Simpson affair and the Birmingham Pub bombings the committee hedged its conclusions by stating that whilst there was no evidence for masonic interference they could not entirely rule out the possibility. Either Freemasonry was an influence or it was not. If there were doubts there should have been further investigation or at least an indication in the report as to why doubt persisted.
2. Freemasons are encouraged to be open about their membership. They must not, however, use it to advance their own or anyone else’s interests or to gain an advantage. If they do they become subject to the masonic discipline system. If they find themselves in a situation where there might be even a slight perception of a masonic interest they must declare an interest.
3. Paragraph 26 and footnote 34 of the report imply that a serving and a retired judge misused their judicial and masonic positions to interfere in a charitable trust (the Duncombe Place Masonic Hall Trust). Significantly, the papers relating to this matter were not reproduced in the appendix to the report and are only available in the House of Lords Record Office. It is difficult not to conclude that the evidence was not published because it destroys the innuendo contained in this paragraph.
4. The present, and previous, report of the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that the solution to the alleged perception of Freemasonry’s influence was publicly available registers of Freemasons in public life. Pembrokeshire County Council adopted that solution yet continues to be criticised. Either the committee believes in the solution it has recommended or it does not. It has a duty to the House and the public to say which.
       Freemasons believe that being singled out for public registration is discrimination and question whether there is any more valid reason for this other than a vague ‘perception’. They believe that being singled out implies that Freemasons are suspect and not to be trusted. A public register for those who have seriously broken the law is understandable. But a public register of the members of an association which emphasises the need to obey the law is indefensible.
5. On the basis of unchecked allegations by a Freemason (Mr B Rourke) the committee concluded ‘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.’. Had the committee checked the allegations with the Charity Commissioners, the Masonic Province of Cheshire and Grand Lodge they would have found out that the allegations were untrue. Publishing Mr Rourke’s letters unchecked and unchallenged is akin to mud slinging.
6. The report, like its predecessor, refers to ‘a great deal of unjustified paranoia about Freemasons.’ Freemasons will state that by its unfounded innuendo and repeated calls for public registers of Freemasons this report can only fuel that paranoia. By its innuendo and by statements unsupported by facts the report can only increase such public perception as exists.
7. Like its predecessor, the report provides no evidence to support its conclusion. Unlike its predecessor it contains innuendo, in place of evidence, to support its conclusion. Freemasons regard it as being unfair, unjustified and deeply flawed. Freemasons continue to maintain that to single out one group for special treatment because of an unmeasured and untested ‘perception’ is wholly alien to the democratic traditions on which this country was built and on which it prides itself.

1. The report (paragraph 32) refers to ‘obsessive secrecy’ on the part of Freemasonry. That is nonsense, evidenced by the amount of information supplied to the present committee and its predecessor and Grand Lodges’ openness policy of the last 15 years.
2. There is a significant difference between secrecy and privacy. Grand Lodge, in common with many other organisations, believes that it has a duty to respect the privacy of its members, except in a qualified manner when specific charges or allegations are being investigated by a competent body.
3. The committee continues (paragraph 35) to refer to Freemasonry as a ‘secret society’ without defining that label. If by ‘secret society’ they mean a private association which does not make the names of its members available to the general public then many organisations in this country must be ‘secret societies’.