Freemasons in Local Government: How Secret Membership and £5bn Procurement Fraud Risk Are Undermining Trust in UK Councils

The government’s own anti-corruption documents and fraud figures leave little doubt: local government is now a frontline battleground against fraud and corruption – and we are losing. Yet one of the most obvious transparency gaps, undisclosed membership of organisations such as the Freemasons, remains untouched in town halls, even as the Metropolitan police moves to close that very loophole in policing.

When hundreds of millions of pounds in council contracts are being spent off-contract or without proper authority, the public is entitled to ask not just what went wrong, but who knows who behind the scenes – and why those connections do not have to be declared.

What the government’s own strategy says about councils

In the UK’s latest anti-corruption strategy (Dec 2025), it makes one thing crystal clear: local government is not a side issue. For most people, councils are the face of the state – responsible for more than 800 services and employing over a million people. Any abuse of power or public money at that level does not just waste cash; it corrodes trust.

The strategy acknowledges that local government is vulnerable where:

• Conflicts of interest, gifts and outside roles are poorly managed.

• Procurement is complex and poorly supervised.

• Local audits are delayed or hollowed out, weakening scrutiny.

Ministers promise reforms aimed squarely at councils: a mandatory code of conduct for elected members, tougher standards, better corruption training for officials (especially on procurement), and a stronger, more independent local audit regime. On paper, Whitehall now accepts that local government is a major corruption risk and that weaknesses in governance and oversight have to be fixed.

The true price of local government fraud – and why procurement matters

The Annual Fraud Indicator 2023 puts numbers to that risk. For local government alone, it estimates total fraud (excluding benefits) at around £8.8 billion a year. Within that, procurement fraud dwarfs everything else, with councils losing an estimated £5.041 billion annually through corrupt or dishonest purchasing – equivalent to around 4.6% of procurement spend.

By comparison, other local government fraud types are estimated at:

• Housing tenancy fraud: around £2 billion

• Payroll fraud: just over £1.1 billion

• Pension fraud: a few hundred million

• Blue Badge, grant and other frauds: smaller, but still serious

Procurement stands out because it touches almost everything: construction contracts, IT systems, care placements, waste, highways, leisure facilities, and the army of consultants, intermediaries and “delivery partners” that now orbit most councils. With large sums, complex rules, and multiple officers and suppliers involved, there are countless opportunities for:

• Suppliers to overcharge or bill for work not done.

• Under-delivery of services.

• Collusion between staff and external contractors.

• Contracts being steered towards favoured companies.

In other words, procurement is the single biggest fraud risk in local government – and the place where weak controls, cosy relationships or undisclosed interests do the most damage.

Folkestone & Hythe: £3.108 million under formal investigation

Against this national backdrop, any concrete example of contract and authorisation failure at a single council is not a minor embarrassment; it is a case study in exactly what ministers claim to be tackling.

In Folkestone & Hythe, a formal objection under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 has led the external auditor to open a full and formal investigation into part of the council’s 2024/25 spending. In correspondence with the objector, the auditor confirms that the objection was accepted as eligible and that one key element will be taken forward to formal investigation.

The issue to be examined is whether at least £3,108,000 of 2024/25 expenditure was incurred outside the council’s own contract rules and/or without adequate recorded authority. 

At this stage, there is no published conclusion about how that £3.108 million was spent, who authorised it, or whether the failures involved incompetence, negligence or deliberate wrongdoing. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome.

But in a country where local government fraud is estimated at £8.8 billion a year, a district council spending millions off-contract is not an administrative technicality. It is precisely the kind of weakness the government’s own strategy describes when it highlights poor management of conflicts of interest, weak procurement controls and the erosion of effective local audit.

The Met’s Freemasonry rule: “affects public perception of impartiality”

While central government now concedes that corruption risk in local government needs tighter rules and scrutiny, a separate development in policing may prove just as important for councils.

The Metropolitan police has announced that its officers and staff must declare whether they are Freemasons or members of similar “hierarchical organisations that require members to support and protect each other”. The change follows an internal review which accepted that undisclosed membership of such bodies “affects public perception of police impartiality”.

Two key points from that decision are highly relevant to local government:

1. The concern is not that every Freemason is corrupt; it is that secret obligations and loyalties, if undisclosed, can undermine confidence in the fairness of decisions.

2. The Met explicitly states that public and staff confidence must take precedence over the secrecy of any membership organisation.

If that logic applies to officers exercising coercive powers on the streets, it applies just as forcefully to councillors and senior officers wielding enormous financial and regulatory powers in town halls. Councils sign off multi-million-pound planning consents, regeneration schemes and service contracts. Those decisions can make or break fortunes. The incentives and opportunities for abuse, or for the perception of abuse, are obvious.

Folkestone & Hythe, Freemasonry and public perception

In Folkestone & Hythe, we, The Shepway Vox Team, have, over several years, explored the links between local politics and Freemasonry. We’ve reported, with documentary and photographic evidence, that former Leader of the Council Cllr David Monk was a Freemason as was Former Cllr Philip Martin. That fact is not in dispute.

There is, at present, no public evidence that anyone’s Masonic membership is connected to the £3.108 million of irregular spending now under formal investigation by the auditor. Membership of the Freemasons is lawful, and it would be both inaccurate and unfair to suggest that being a Freemason automatically makes a councillor or officer corrupt.

But that is not the core issue. The point, as the Met has explicitly accepted, is public perception of impartiality. When:

• local government fraud is estimated in the billions;

• procurement is recognised as the single largest fraud risk;

• a council’s own external auditor is investigating multi-million-pound spending outside contract rules or without proper recorded authority; and

• senior local politicians have held office while also being members of a secretive, hierarchical organisation whose members are expected to support one another,

then undisclosed or opaque membership inevitably raises questions in the minds of residents. Are planning permissions, land deals, contract awards, enforcement decisions or senior appointments made wholly on merit? Or could there be a risk – or even just a suspicion – that lodge loyalties, or other hidden networks, are influencing outcomes?

Even if every decision were absolutely above board, the public cannot be expected simply to take that on trust when the existence and extent of such memberships are not openly declared.

That is why the reasoning used by the Met matters so much for local government. If Freemasonry and similar organisations “affect public perception of impartiality” in policing, there is no coherent argument for pretending they do not affect public perception of impartiality in council chambers and civic offices.

Why declarations of Freemasonry in councils are now unavoidable

The government’s anti-corruption agenda promises a new mandatory Code of Conduct for elected local government officials, with robust sanctions, and a stronger audit system. If those reforms are to mean anything in practice, they must be matched by clear, enforceable rules on the declaration of memberships that could reasonably be seen as a conflict of interest or a threat to perceived impartiality.

That should include:

• Freemasonry; and

• other secretive or hierarchical fraternities or societies whose rules or culture require members to support and protect each other.

For local government, the minimum standard should be:

• Mandatory declaration: All councillors and senior officers must declare any such memberships in their Register of Interests, alongside gifts, hospitality, outside employment and shareholdings.

• Full transparency: Those registers must be published online in an accessible, searchable format that can be scrutinised by the public, press and auditors.

• Real sanctions: Failure to declare relevant memberships should be treated as a serious standards breach under the new Code of Conduct, capable of attracting meaningful sanctions.

• Integrated training: Anti-fraud and anti-corruption training for officers and members, especially those involved in procurement and commissioning, must explicitly address conflicts of interest, membership organisations and the importance of full disclosure.

This is not about banning Freemasonry or stigmatising those who join. It is about bringing such memberships into the light, so that residents can see the full picture when councils exercise their powers. Transparency protects honest councillors and officers as much as it reassures the public.

Procurement, power and the need for daylight

The case of Folkestone & Hythe underlines why this matters. We know that:

• Procurement is the largest single fraud risk in local government by value.

• The government’s own strategy accepts that weak conflict-of-interest controls and eroded audit capacity increase the risk of corruption.

• FHDC now faces formal investigation into whether over £3 million of spending in a single year breached its own contract rules or lacked proper recorded authority.

In that context, the argument that council officers and councillors should not have to declare membership of Freemasonry or similar organisations simply does not hold water.

Irregular procurement spending “could” stem from all sorts of causes – carelessness, overwork, poor systems, or in the worst cases, collusion and favouritism. Without full transparency over the networks and loyalties of those making and signing off decisions, the public is left guessing. That is unhealthy for democracy and dangerous for trust.

Requiring declarations does not mean assuming guilt. It simply ensures that, when a council awards a contract, signs a land deal or appoints a senior officer, residents can see who belongs to what – and draw their own conclusions about whether any connection needs to be questioned or managed.

Restoring trust – before the money and patience run out

Polls already show that the British public are highly concerned about possible corruption among local government employees. That concern is not calmed by headlines about multi-million-pound contract irregularities, hollowed-out audits and opaque networks inside town halls.

In Folkestone & Hythe, the story of the £3.108 million being examined by the auditor is still unfolding. The investigation must be allowed to run its course, and any findings must be published in full. But whatever the outcome, the case has already exposed how thin our protections can be when procurement rules are bent or ignored, when audit arrives late, and when conflicts of interest and private memberships are treated as nobody’s business.

The Metropolitan police has finally accepted that the secrecy of Freemasonry cannot come before the public’s right to trust the neutrality of the police. The same principle now needs to reach the council chamber and the chief executive’s office.

Our councils are stewards of billions of pounds and guardians of our local democracy. If we are serious about fighting fraud, corruption and cronyism in local government, then mandatory, public declarations of Freemasonry – and similar memberships – by officers and councillors are no longer optional. They are the bare minimum needed to start rebuilding trust.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime