(Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require police officers
and certain employees of police forces to declare a membership of
or affiliation to certain types of society and organisation; to
require such declarations to be accompanied by a statement
relating to that membership; and for connected purposes.
Secret, closed or private societies have often been the subject
of ridicule. From “Monty Python” to “The Simpsons”, these
organisations have been seen as silly, strange and perhaps old
fashioned, and even today we hear reference to the funny
handshake club. However, look beyond the parodies and we find
networks of those with power and authority: clubs of like-minded
individuals that look out for their own. We know that these
networks exist in areas of public life.
Here in the UK, our policing model relies on public trust and
consent. At the heart of the Peelian principles of policing is
the idea that public consent is maintained by applying the law
fairly and impartially. The College of Policing’s code of ethics
states that to demonstrate that they are applying the law fairly,
police forces should operate with transparency. The Casey report
into culture at the Metropolitan police states:
“The checks and balances provided by robust scrutiny, governance
and accountability are vital for public bodies, perhaps
especially the police with their duties towards and powers over
the public.”
The Independent Office for Police Conduct’s 2023 report into
public perceptions of the police identified “increased
transparency” as a key measure the police could take to improve
confidence in policing.
With those words in mind, I am seeking to bring forward a Bill
that, at its heart, provides more transparency to the public. The
outcome of the Bill would be to have a public register of
associations for all officers and civilians working for the
police. That is not a particularly new idea in this House. In
1997, the Home Affairs Committee published its report,
“Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary”, which
concluded:
“We recommend that police officers, magistrates, judges and crown
prosecutors should be required to register membership of any
secret society and that the record should be publicly
available.”
In February 1998, the Home Office accepted that recommendation,
stating that all new appointments shall have as a condition of
appointment a requirement to declare membership of the
Freemasons. The influence of freemasonry on the police has often
been discussed over the decades. Suggestions of influence in high
profile cases of police corruption and mismanagement have been
shot down due to a lack of evidence. I am not here to throw
accusations, but the continuous mention of freemasonry raises
many eyebrows, even in this House.
I have used freemasonry as an example, but the Bill does not only
apply to that particular society. After all, old boys’ clubs have
always existed within the police, and they can take many shapes.
The Casey report into the culture at the Metropolitan police
highlighted the use of WhatsApp groups; closed groups of
like-minded individuals looking out for their own—sound familiar?
Policing culture has, rightly, been under heavy scrutiny in
recent years. Allegations of misogyny, racism and homophobia have
stuck in the public conscience, alongside claims of corruption
and collusion.
The Government, along with policing bodies, have committed to
reform, and a number of inquiries and reviews have taken place.
If we are serious about reforming police culture, and I think we
should be, then we must leave no stone unturned. The Bill serves
to act as one of those many stones in need of turning. I must
stress that the Bill is not seeking to prevent membership to
societies—not at all—and I am acutely aware of the right to
association, and previous precedent that has been set for that in
the European convention on human rights.
We in this House work cross-party. The issue is a policing one,
not a party political one. I thank my colleagues who have
sponsored the Bill, who come from three different parties. I have
spoken to so many people about this issue. It is a conversation I
enjoy having, because they believe, as I do, that something needs
to be done, but many do not dare to speak out. So, I am here,
speaking out once again about reforming culture within an
organisation. I know the change that can be made when people
speak up, having previously set my attention on the Welsh Rugby
Union, which has been well documented. I believe we in this House
can make that important change happen within the police, too. The
Police Regulations 2003 state:
“No restrictions other than those designed to secure the proper
exercise of the functions of a constable shall be imposed by the
police authority or the chief officer on the private life of
members of a police force”.
Schedule 1, paragraph 1 states:
“A member of a police force shall at all times abstain from any
activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial
discharge of his duties or which is likely to give rise to the
impression amongst members of the public that it may so
interfere”.
I believe that a balance needs to be struck between those two
statements, in a way that is still in line with both of them. In
2016, the police and crime commissioner for South Wales told “Y
Byd ar Bedwar”, a Welsh TV news programme, for those who do not
know:
“If members of a club or society have to disclose, it takes away
any hidden agendas…it would be best to have one common system for
local authorities, police force and health boards. Only then can
we ensure everybody is being treated equally.”
For 20 years, I was a teacher, subject to a Disclosure and
Barring Service check but not a register of interests, as I am
now as an MP. I feel very strongly about the significance and
role of culture within organisations, particularly in public
services. All organisations have a responsibility to change their
culture for the better, by being honest and transparent about
matters relating to governance and day-to-day operations.
Of course, some might argue that if such declarations should be
made in police forces, they should also be made by Members of
Parliament given that we are lawmakers, and to them I say, “Why
not?” At its inception, Members of the Welsh Assembly, as it was
then, were required to declare if they were Freemasons, and faced
criminal charges if they were found to be members and had not
declared their membership. When advised that that might conflict
with human rights laws, the Assembly looked at its policy again.
Now Members of the Senedd are required to make declarations of
membership of any society or organisation, which seems an
extremely sensible approach.
Being part of a society can be inherently positive in enhancing
friendship, fostering new connections and promoting fundraising,
but if there is a potential for membership of a group or society
to be used in protecting individuals from consequences and in
hiding the truth, that must be addressed. Restoring trust in the
police is a monumental task, and I am under no illusion that the
Bill is a magic wand, but transparency is essential to that task.
It is in our power as lawmakers to make changes happen—changes
that allow for trust in the police to grow. In its 1998 report
“Freemasonry in Public Life’, the Home Affairs Committee
concluded:
“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.”
Now is the time to move beyond secrecy.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That , , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time Friday 1 March
and to be printed (Bill 156).
