Folkestone and Hythe District Council: Officers Must Declare Freemasonry, Councillors Don’t

When Folkestone & Hythe District Council meets tomorrow, 22 July, councillors will consider a constitutional overhaul containing two codes of conduct. Tucked inside is a difference that’s hard to miss: an officer may have to declare Freemasonry membership, but an elected councillor doesn’t face the same general duty. The papers were considered by the Audit and Governance Committee on 7 July, while Full Council is scheduled for 7pm on 22 July.

The distinction is discriminatory in the everyday meaning of the word. One group working inside the council is treated differently from another. It also fails the pub test: an employee advising on a contract, planning matter or appointment must disclose a potentially conflicting private association, while the councillor making or influencing the final decision isn’t generally required to declare the same membership.

The officers’ code couldn’t be much clearer. It says employees shouldn’t place themselves where private life conflicts with public duties and adds: “If, for example, you are a member of a secret society which may cause a conflict of interest, such as the Freemasons, you must declare your membership to your manager and on the annual declaration form that is held on your HR record.” Failure to follow the wider code may result in disciplinary action.

Now turn to the councillors’ code. There’s no equivalent standing duty to register Freemasonry membership. Councillors must declare Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and narrowly defined Other Significant Interests when particular council business affects their finances, concerns an application involving them or an associated person, and could reasonably be seen as prejudicing their judgement. That may catch a specific conflict, but it doesn’t require a councillor simply to say they’re a Freemason.

Legally, the position isn’t quite as cut and dried. Being an officer rather than a councillor isn’t a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Officers are employees; councillors are elected office-holders whose conduct code is adopted under the Localism Act 2011. So the unequal treatment appears discriminatory, but it isn’t automatically unlawful discrimination merely because the two roles are governed differently.

That doesn’t make the disparity fair, sensible or defensible.

It matters locally because Shepway Vox has previously reported that former FHDC leader David Monk and former councillor Philip Martin were Freemasons. Monk’s council diary recorded four visits to the United Grand Lodge of England while he was leader. Membership is lawful, and there’s no basis for suggesting either man was corrupt simply because he was a Mason. The point is daylight: residents can’t judge whether a connection needs managing when they aren’t required to be told it exists.

A February 2026 High Court ruling sharpened that point. The United Grand Lodge of England and others challenged the Metropolitan Police requirement for officers and staff to disclose membership of Freemasonry and similar hierarchical organisations confidentially. Mr Justice Chamberlain refused permission for judicial review. He said the concern wasn’t membership by itself: “The risks flow not from membership of the Freemasons as such but from undisclosed membership”, particularly when somebody decides a matter affecting, or holds sensitive information about, a fellow Mason.

The claim also alleged discrimination because of belief. The judge assumed, without deciding, that the Freemasons’ principles might qualify as a protected philosophical belief. Even so, he found no direct discrimination because the police rule was framed neutrally and applied to any organisation with the relevant features. He also found that any direct or indirect discrimination would be justified as a proportionate means of protecting impartiality and public confidence.

There’s a catch for FHDC. The Met’s information is held securely, accessible to only five security-vetted staff, with “no routine disclosure to line managers or colleagues”. FHDC’s draft tells an officer to inform their manager and put the declaration on their HR record. Yet it asks nothing comparable of councillors, despite their power over budgets, contracts, land, planning and senior appointments.

That’s the question Full Council shouldn’t dodge on 22 July. Why is undisclosed membership considered a sufficient integrity risk to regulate an employee, but not an elected decision-maker? The council could close the gap with a carefully drafted, confidential declaration to the Monitoring Officer, backed by proper privacy safeguards and disclosure when a real or perceived conflict arises.

It wouldn’t brand Freemasons as bent. It’d simply apply one standard across the Civic centre: where private loyalties could reasonably call impartiality into question, declare them. Anything less looks like one rule for the staff and another for those sitting in the chamber.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime