HL Deb 20 November 1991 vol 532 cc972-91

7.50 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Perhaps I may emphasise at the outset that the Bill is not hostile to religion in prisons. On the contrary, it seeks to promote the spiritual welfare of prisoners and their spiritual growth and development and to maximise their opportunities to obtain the widest possible spiritual guidance during the time that they spend in custody.

The origins of the Bill lie in my correspondence over some considerable period with the Home Office Minister who deals with prisons on the administration of religion in prisons and particularly on the right of prisoners to have access to a minister of religion of their choice. In September 1990 I wrote to the Minister who deals with prisons, Mrs. Angela Rumbold, asking that a prisoner should be able to obtain spiritual guidance from any source. She replied that Section 10(5) of the Prison Act 1952 clearly prohibits a minister from seeing an inmate who is not himself registered as belonging to that minister's religion.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, perhaps I may seek a point of clarification. Will the noble Lord confirm that, if a prisoner wished to see a minister, the minister would not be excluded from coming in on an ordinary visiting order?

Lord Avebury

My Lords, yes, he would. If the noble Earl refers to Section 10(5), he will see that there is no ambiguity about the matter. It states in terms that a minister may only visit inmates who have registered themselves as belonging to his faith or denomination.

I pointed out to the Minister that Section 10(5) had not always been strictly observed. I asked whether that provision might be amended at a suitable opportunity so that, if an inmate asked to see a particular minister and the minister in question was willing to see him, that should be allowed, as apparently it is sometimes now. Mrs. Rumbold replied that there were no plans to amend that provision.

Meanwhile, I also asked about the arrangements for recording the faith of prisoners, which yielded results that were difficult to reconcile with what we know about religion in the population as a whole. That is important in the context of the Bill because the justification for the pre-eminence of the Church of England in the religious affairs of prisoners is that a majority of the prisoners belong to that particular denomination.

Perhaps I may tell your Lordships what the Home Office survey of religion in prisons shows. The figures were collected in February 1990. At that time there were 24,994 Anglicans out of a total of 46,498, including 36,885 Christians. At that point, therefore, more than half the prisoners in England and Wales belonged to the Church of England compared with 2.8 per cent. who belonged to the Church of England in an active sense in the world outside prisons. That figure is taken from the survey in Social Trends for 1990. Mrs. Rumbold's explanation—

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, that is a fantastic misrepresentation. If asked, the majority of the population would say that they were members of the Church of England, although I am not a member of the Church of England. The noble Lord is talking about church attendance, but, as that is not compulsory in the Church of England, his figures are bogus.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, if the noble Earl will wait a few moments, I shall come to an explanation of the difference between those two figures and will concede that they are prepared on a different basis. If he listens carefully to the figures, he will see that the differences in the way that the figures are collected cannot account for that enormous discrepancy.

As I said, Mrs. Rumbold's explanation of the reasons for the difference in the figures was that people gave different responses to a question about their religion when they were inmates in custody than they would do in response to a survey outside. The noble Earl anticipated an additional point; namely, that the figures in prison are collected by self-attribution—in other words, prisoners are asked, "What religion do you belong to?" —whereas the figures that I mentioned from the Social Trends survey are those of active membership in the church which is defined by the presence of the person on the electoral register of the church. That means that he is an active member of that church. There could therefore be a good reason for some discrepancy between the active members in the world outside and those who simply attribute membership to themselves in answer to the question in prison.

The second point about the figures is that the Church of England accounts for a large proportion of the Christians in prison; that is to say, according to the Home Office figures, 68 per cent. of the total compared with 22 per cent. in the Social Trends figures. One would have expected the differences between active and dormant membership to be roughly the same for all denominations and not to show that enormous difference for the Church of England in particular.

The figures that I gave relate to 1987 and the chart in Social Trends shows that active membership in the Church of England is declining by about 1.6 per cent. per annum. If we look at another test—that of marriages—we find that the proportion of civil marriages rises from 41 per cent. in 1971 to 48 per cent. in 1988, while over the same interval Church of England marriages went down from 35.8 per cent. to 30.7 per cent. As we all know, many people get married in the Church of England and never set foot in it again until the first baby is born and they want to have it christened. That is a fact. I deplore that kind of lip service paid to the church. The church should take greater care as regards whom it admits to those ceremonies.

On the other hand, we find that the non-Trinitarian churches are growing, as are the number of Moslems. It is wrong in principle that the Church of England should continue to control the religious life of prisons, although I concede that most chaplains are sensitive to the needs of inmates belonging to other religions. The administration of religion should be seen to be non-sectarian. Such matters as the provision of accommodation for different faiths, the storage and use of religious books and artefacts, the question of special diets for members of other faiths, the appointment of visiting ministers and the observance of special days for particular faiths should all be dealt with by the Secretary of State in a scrupulously impartial way as between one religion and another.

The Bill therefore abolishes the chaplaincy while continuing the Secretary of State's power to appoint a full-time minister of any denomination, including the Church of England, to a prison where, in his opinion, the number of prisoners belonging to that denomination justifies it. There is no difference in that power from what is found in the present Act under which the Secretary of State may appoint a full-time minister to any prison.

It may well be that when the Bill is enacted there would be no immediate change in the number of full-time ministers of any denomination. Certainly, one would not expect there to be large-scale redundancies among the chaplains when the Bill came into effect. It would be a gradual change because the Secretary of State would review the number of prisoners belonging to each faith in every prison and make his decisions on which faiths should have ministers in that particular prison.

Ministers of the Church of England would be on the same footing as other ministers appointed under Section 10(1). The arrangements for visiting ministers who deal with the spiritual and welfare needs of the small number of prisoners belonging to those religions are unaltered except that there is no chaplain involved in the appointment. At the moment the chaplain is directly concerned in the process of appointing ministers of other religions. Your Lordships may agree it is wrong for members of one particular religion to have any authority in the appointment of ministers of all other religions.

The other substantial change made by the Bill is that it allows a prisoner to attend the religious services or meetings of any faith in accordance with the arrangements in force and to be visited at his own request by an appointed or visiting minister of any faith. A minister can visit only those prisoners who have declared themselves to belong to his denomination, except for the Church of England chaplain, who under Section 10(4) may visit any inmate he chooses. Every prisoner may attend the Church of England services but the rights of prisoners to attend other religious services and meetings are not spelt out in the Act. Standing Order 7A provides that a prisoner may attend the main service of the week and other obligatory services of his declared religion. Therefore, the prison authorities are under no obligation to allow, for example, Anglicans to attend a Catholic service, although they frequently do. This is a matter of discretion which appears to vary between one prison. and another.

The Principal Catholic Chaplain, the right reverend Mgr. P. Wilkinson, says that in prison the practice does riot always conform to the strict interpretation of the law. He adds: that an inmate can "usually" attend the services of a religion other than his own. It is not an in variable practice but something done at the discretion, presumably, of the governor. He personally does not know of any case where an inmate has applied to see a minister of a religion other than his own and has been denied.

On the other hand, the Secretary of State has told me that a procedure exists, which is not to be found in the Act, standing orders, rules or circular instructions, whereby if a prisoner wants to change his religion he may for that purpose apply to see another minister. I make two points about that procedure. First, it should obviously he made public, as I have requested so far without success. I wrote to the Secretary of State on November 7th asking whether I could have a copy of the instruction concerned which would have been very useful at the time of discussion on this Bill. So far I have not seen it and have not come across anybody among my wide contacts in the prison service who knows of its existence or has seen it himself. It is fundamentally wrong that there should be a provision contained in a secret instruction of this kind touching the religious life of prisoners.

Secondly, if ministers are allowed to see prisoners contrary to the provisions of Section 10(5) it sets a very dangerous precedent. Surely Parliament cannot tolerate secret instructions to civil servants to break even bad laws. It is wrong to permit access to another minister only when a prisoner wishes to change his religion. Any person should be free to explore other faiths without a commitment in advance to embrace those faiths. For a prisoner in particular the examination of new ethical and religious doctrines which may lead him towards a better way of life is surely to be encouraged.

The European Prison Rules, published by the Council of Europe, recognise that principle. Rule 47(3) provides that: Access to a qualified representative of any religion shall not be refused to any prisoner". The explanatory memorandum comments that the rule is explicit and does not require any further explanation now that it has been made clear that a prisoner has freedom of choice in regard to visits by religious representatives. The Committee of Ministers recommended that governments of member states be guided in their internal legislation by those rules. We have no direct treaty or contractual obligation to observe them, but in a Written Answer on June 12th 1989, Mr. Douglas Hogg, then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, said that we complied fully with all but 15 of the rules. He enumerated the rules with which we did not yet comply and they did not include Rule 47(3). I respectfully suggest to the Minister who is to reply to this debate that an inaccurate statement was made to another place and that should be corrected appropriately in the usual manner.

The denial of access to ministers of any religion and restrictions on attendance at services or meetings other than are necessary to preserve good order and discipline contravenes a number of international instruments to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. It contravenes Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 18 and 19 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and also the Helsinki Final Act. Those instruments set out the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by authority. Surely, freedom of religion must include freedom to explore religious ideas and faiths other than one's own, subject to any restrictions in the prison environment necessary for the purposes of good order and discipline.

That argument has not been deployed by the Secretary of State. What he has said is that the restrictions in the present Act are necessary to prevent unsolicited proselytising and to guard against misuse of the system; for example, by a prisoner demanding to see a succession of ministers of different religions. It is not clear why there is a danger that other ministers would proselytise while Church of England ministers are supposed to be immune from the temptation, but if ministers of all kinds visit only those prisoners who ask to see them there is no risk at all. That is what my Bill provides. No minister may go to see a prisoner unless that inmate asks to see him specifically. He does not have to go to see him; whether he does so is at the minister's discretion.

There may well be cases where, as the Secretary of State maintains, a prisoner will seek to abuse the system by serially asking to see every visiting minister who comes to that establishment, but I think we can safely leave it to the ministers concerned to judge whether a prisoner's interest is genuine. In any case, the permissible restrictions on the freedom to receive and impart information in the UN covenant and also the European convention are only such as are provided by law and are necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. The reasons given by the Secretary of State do not fall into any of those categories.

Finally, the Secretary of State acknowledged that Section 10(5), and presumably all other administrative or statutory provisions affecting religion in prisons, could be looked at as part of the review of the statutory framework of the prison service to which the Government are committed by the White Paper Custody, Care and Justice. In passing, I should like to mention that, rather surprisingly, religion is not referred to at all in that White Paper. One would perhaps have have expected to find some reference to it in the chapter on programmes for prisoners, which refers to the need to give prisoners opportunities for self-advancement and self-fulfilment and to challenge sentenced prisoners about their criminal behaviour a process to which ministers of religion obviously contribute. But I should have liked to see in the White Paper a statement on the lines of the first paragraph of the very helpful memorandum on this Bill by the Prison Officers' Association: Religious practice forms an important part of the fabric of everyday prison life and should be valued as such". I warmly endorse that sentiment and I hope that all your Lordships will echo what the POA said. At least the Statement by the Secretary of State is some advance on Mrs. Rumbold's point blank refusal to contemplate any change. I suggest that it does not go quite far enough because if we are in breach of our international obligations—the Minister will probably be aware that the Washington—based Helsinki Watch has confirmed that it contravenes our signature on the Helsinki accords—it is our duty to amend the law at the earliest opportunity.

This Bill gives Parliament that opportunity. I hope that the Government will support it. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Avebury.)

8.11 p.m.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, the noble Lord has at least two strong qualifications for addressing the House on this subject. In the first place he has defended prisoners in a very effective way for many years. I have been told by prisoners before now that if only I had the guts of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I might be able to help them better. So I salute him in that capacity.

Something he did not mention, although I may have missed it, is the fact that he is an eminent Buddhist and probably the most eminent Buddhist who has ever addressed this House. When I look around me I do not think that anyone can make a counterclaim. So perhaps he is putting over what might be called the Buddhist line. That is rather interesting. I do not think that we have had enough of that. I have been a member of this House for 46 years and not a word has been uttered on the Buddhist side of things. It is high time that we heard something and I am glad that we heard the point of view of a first-rate Buddhist.

I am also very glad that the noble Earl will reply because he has such very good ecumenical credentials. Thirty years ago his father opened the most famous Christian debate that has ever been held in this Chamber in favour of Christian unity. I remember it well. Archbishop Fisher was in the House. He was interrupted repeatedly by Lord Alexander, the Leader of the Labour Peers, who finally said, "Well, Archbishop, which is the Church of England: Protestant or Catholic?", to which the Archbishop replied, "Both". That silenced my dear friend Lord Alexander for the moment, but only for the moment. I am also glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter will speak for the Church of England. I shall leave the main argument to him. However, just a few thoughts on this subject occurred to me.

The noble Lord is a Buddhist. Buddhists are not strongly represented in prison. I suppose it is because they are so law abiding. In fact, we are told that there are only 183 Buddhists in prison compared with 23,000—according to my figures—members of the Church of England. It does not necessarily prove that Buddhists are more law abiding. It does suggest that they are a somewhat insignificant factor in this whole position. So we cannot look at matters entirely from the Buddhist point of view.

I am glad that the noble Lord made it quite plain—indeed he made it just as plain in some notes that he gave me—that this Bill abolishes the chaplaincy. I do not believe that any Christian could possibly be pleased with that news —that the message of Christ carried into the prisons by the chaplains will be stopped. It will be left to the Secretary of State. It is very unlike a great Liberal like the noble Lord to leave all that power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I do not think that he would do so in any other connection. The Secretary of State—who may, of course, be an atheist; it is not likely I suppose, that he is a Buddhist but at any rate he might be any sort of free thinker—will have the power to decide all these matters. Are we to assume that all wisdom has been conferred on him? To me that is nonsense, mere drivel. Is the idea that you can leave the Secretary of State to decide in regard to particular prisoners whether to have this number or that number? This Bill is to abolish the chaplaincy. Let us focus on that. Chaplains will cease to exist—not only the Anglican, but the Catholic and the chaplains from the Free Churches.

So that is what we shall be doing. The Bill proposes to abolish the chaplaincy. What are we to put in its place? Nothing. Personally, I think it would have been far better —if I may say so respectfully to the noble Lord, while I have his attention—to have brought up this matter as a Motion to discuss the working of the chaplaincy, its rules and procedure. I do not say that it is perfect. I know of a case, for example, of a pastor who had access to a certain prison when a prisoner was there. Then the prisoner was moved and he no longer had access. It is a rather complicated story. The prison authorities claim that he did not behave well. I do not know whether he did or did not behave well. At any rate, one can imagine cases where certain pastors feel that they have suffered an injustice. We could have had a very good discussion. The idea of abolishing the chaplaincy is like saying that as there have been some miscarriages of justice in which the police were involved let us abolish them and, for that matter, the Court of Appeal—all the lot.

I think that this is a deplorable Bill and if the noble Lord will forget about it and come forward with a Motion we could have a nice, friendly, intellectual discussion that would make some sense.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, the Bill introduced by my noble friend falls into two parts. Whether or not he intended it, one of those parts forms a pack—admittedly a self-contained pack—to disestablish the Church of England in one area of national life. The second part consists of some reforms, of which I am quite sure a number are absolutely necessary, in the rules and laws governing this matter.

I wish to speak on both these matters, I hope shortly: the first one—the disestablishment—because as one of the few inferior clergy in your Lordships' House I have only recently been at the sharp end of the establishment and among the areas where 80 per cent. of my parishioners would have said that they belong to the Church of England, although a very much smaller proportion come to church on Sunday.

With regard to the second part, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, very much regrets that he is unable to be here. As noble Lords who are involved in this matter will know, he has played a leading part in this House in debates on prisons. We have shared our views the subject and we find ourselves very much in agreement with each other.

Perhaps I may just touch first on the matter of the establishment. About a week ago, in Westminster Abbey, the Bishop Gore memorial lecture was held. Professor Adrian Hastings, a very distinguished Roman Catholic, gave the address. He started off by recalling that Bishop Gore had said in a speech in your Lordships' House that the Church of England was being disestablished everywhere except in lunatic asylums. Since he himself was speaking as an established Bishop in this House I do not know quite whether he put it in the same category as lunatic asylums.

This is undoubtedly a Bill which, if it were passed as it stands, would disestablish the Church of England as the Church of this land in the whole of one area of the government of the country. That is not a very good idea. Professor Hastings himself as a Roman Catholic made a strong case for the retention of the establishment of the Church of England—and a very notable and interesting lecture he gave.

There are arguments for and against the establishment of the Church of England. During my life, I have veered from one side to the other. I am never entirely certain on which side I stand at any given time. However, if the Church of England is to be disestablished, I believe that it should be disestablished in a more wholehearted way and not by means of a Bill about prison chaplains. Undoubtedly if the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be an act of disestablishment.

With regard to reforms, I have every sympathy with what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. I should have thought that at Committee stage a provision could be put info the Bill for a right to attend services in one's own faith and denomination. That is not in the Bill at present. I believe that it would be right to make it clear that prisoners can attend services and see ministers of religions other than their own. In this area there is much that is useful which could either be put into law or be taken to such a stage that the Government would undertake to review the matter.

The Church of England should not seek to be autocratically and automatically represented by the head chaplain in every prison. Its status should be that which it holds ecumenically in the country: that is, that it gives leadership because it represents a large portion of the practising Christians of this country, and because those who nominally have acknowledged their membership of the Church of England count themselves as Christians as they regard the Church of England as the Christian Church in this country.

In this issue the Church of England should seek to be prams inter pares. There should be a presumption that the chief chaplain should be an Anglican unless there were good reason to the contrary, as there might well be in particular areas of the country.

I do not wish to spend more time on the principles of the Bill. However, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may consider the matter in Committee. Members of your Lordships' House may find that they disagree with more issues than those with which they agree. However, I believe that there will he sufficient agreement to make discussion worthwhile.

The noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested that the matter should have been dealt with by a Motion rather than a Bill. I have always shared the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the only way to get things done is to go to the heart of the matter and to challenge the Government at the point where they have to answer and from where they cannot slide by in the nice Establishment way that the noble Earl suggested.

8.25 p.m.

Lord Ashbourne

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the Bill and for giving us an opportunity to discuss these important matters. I promise to be brief because many of your Lordships will be more experienced and better informed than me on these matters and because the House will be eager to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter speaking on behalf of the established Church.

Surely all the spiritual needs of prisoners are best served by a co-ordinator who is spiritually mature, trained in religious matters to organise and make the necessary arrangements for approved religious visitors, and trained to meet inmates of various faiths and denominations, as occurs at present. It would not be appropriate merely to have an administrator undertaking such duties.

The annual census of religious registration in prisons dated 10th February 1991 indicated that over half the inmates said that they were members of the Church of England, as the noble Lord has already said. Therefore, is it not appropriate that the spiritual co-ordinator—if I may use that phrase—should normally be one of the Christian chaplains, as is often the position under present legislation?

Prisoners are easily manipulated and it is important that control is exercised as to who is allowed to visit inmates to ensure that they are authentic representatives of the various faiths and denominations, and not cranks. That is often undertaken by one of the chaplains. It seems to me to be entirely sensible. Furthermore, the Bill seems to offer little to replace the duties currently undertaken by the chaplains.

Finally, it is difficult to see what the Bill in its present form would achieve. It leaves many questions unanswered. Religious observance in prisons cannot be a free-for-all with access by any prisoner at any time on demand to any minister of religion. It has to be ordered and organised in a way which allocates fairly the resources of manpower, space and time available. It is hard to see any reasonable principle on which that can be done except on the basis of the proportions of the number of adherents in any one religious grouping. In other words, although the Bill on the surface looks very radical in that it seeks to do away with the established Christian chaplaincy, it does not legislate for any system which might replace it and which might or might not give greater freedom to minority religious groups than does the present system.

I have severe reservations about the Bill. It seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. I urge noble Lords to reflect very carefully before giving the Bill a Second Reading.

8.28 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Exeter

My Lords, I had not assumed that I would speak in the debate because I felt it was important that points which need to be made should be made by Members of your Lordships' House, some of whom owe allegiance to the Church of England. I believe that there should not be—I am glad that there has not been—dependency purely on the episcopal Bench. However, I came to the conclusion that I would be expected to speak.

I am glad to do so at this stage because I wished to listen carefully to the arguments put forward. Many of the points that I believe appropriate have been made, in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do not seek to repeat them in detail.

If there is need for precept to be brought into line with practice—as is contended by the mover of this Motion—then let the appropriate action be proposed and taken after debate. It appears that in order to achieve that objective, if it is deemed to be necessary, the proposal of a Bill that starts with the abolition of prison chaplaincy is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, a strange way of going about it. Indeed, it is a way that would appear to jeopardise the other objectives of the Bill by seeking to raise a very large question to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has referred.

Is it possible that parts of the Bill are based on two misunderstandings? The first is a misunderstanding of the religious situation in this country. The people of England are sensitive about whether they are regarded as Christian. Many of the people of England do not associate being Christian with belonging to a Church other than by infant baptism, as regards the Church of England, and infant baptism is highly prized. I make no value judgment about that but I record the fact. Furthermore, I record the important pastoral principle that the appropriate starting point is where people are.

Secondly, is it not possible that the Bill is also based on the misunderstanding of prison chaplaincy? As has been said, many but not all full-time chaplains are of the Church of England. The role and vocation of the full-time chaplain to a prison is a ministry to the whole person of the prisoner rather than simply to develop in the prisoner an interest in religion alone. It is first and foremost a pastoral ministry to the whole person as a human being from a faith standpoint. Furthermore, the role of the prison chaplain is a ministry to the whole community of the prison, which includes the staff whose work is most stressful. He is full-time precisely because in order to minister to the prison as an entire institution, he needs to be a member of the staff attached wholly to it and not some ancillary person who visits. He needs to be a member of the staff.

A similar model is that of the service chaplain. I suggest that a particularly appropriate model is that of the Royal Navy chaplain at sea. It is laid down in writing that he is to be the friend of all on board. The state pays such chaplains. That must mean that the people of England value this ministry. These chaplains in ministries are historic roles. Surely when one is seeking to raise a matter with deep historical roots, even though it may be a case of making the argument for change, it is wise to go about it broadly and carefully.

I believe that if the Bill goes any further it will undoubtedly be seen as a partial measure of disestablishment. "Establishment or disestablishment?", is an honourable question to raise and to debate. But surely it should be tackled as a whole question because it is one that has huge ramifications for the constitution of this country.

8.36 p.m.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I shall not speak from a party point of view because there is no doubt that this is a matter of conscience. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is in the Chamber and perhaps he would wish to speak before me—

The Earl of Lauderdale

My Lords, my name appears accidentally on the wrong list. I am not interested in this debate but in the next one.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I thank the mover of the Bill because the debate has opened my eyes. Tonight I have learned things that I never dreamed of hearing. I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for telling me that there are 182 Buddhists in our prisons. I have certainly heard things about the Royal Navy about which I was not aware. I believe that the Bill should receive a Second Reading because I am convinced that tonight we have heard things that the ordinary people of this country have not heard. I believe that it is absolutely essential that they should hear such things, especially in respect of a matter as important as disestablishment. I am opposed to the establishment of the Church of England, but then I am opposed to the Church of England—

The Earl of Longford

And to Christianity.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, I am not necessarily opposed to Christianity if it leads people into the right way of life. However, the number of Christians who I am told are in our prisons today does not appear to indicate that they were all very good Christians. As regards the question of Christianity and the different denominations, it is wrong to have a society in which there appears to be an interest in its division into sheep and goats—into Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and the rest. That is absolutely wrong. I make a plea that the Bill be given a Second Reading in order that we can debate the issue of disestablishment in the prisons.

I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, a few questions. When he spoke of spiritual guidance did he mean only within the orthodox religious bodies? Does he give credence to the growing movement of humanism in this country that has no faith to respond to in the spiritual, supernatural sense but believes implicitly in the goodness of human kind? Does spiritual guidance include such an organisation? I detected a slight nod of the head but I was not sure.

I de not know why, when a prisoner is being locked up, we must ask him for his religion. Religion essentially is a personal matter. One should not subscribe to the point of view that someone is asked a question so that he can immediately say he is a Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant or what have you. Religion is a matter between him and whoever he believes is his creator. I could go on for a long time but I will not, except to say this. Several years ago a certain person wrote a book about belief, his faith and creation. His name was Thomas Paine. He has been disestablished, but not by law. He has been disestablished, because all our favourite establishments within our broad establishment refuse to name him. Ask any child today coming out of school, "Have you heard of Thomas Paine?" The answer will be "No". Ask the BBC if they are prepared to celebrate his birth: "No" Ask the BBC if they will in fact repeat the film they made of Thomas Paine in which he was described by a very important person in the BBC as one of the finest Englishmen who ever lived.

We celebrated with our American friends freedom in America, so called. Thomas Paine played a very important part in that. We celebrated with the French the glorious revolution in France. Thomas Paine played a very important part in that; but because his spiritual beliefs were foreign to the establishment in England he had to run away. He was hounded, and now is being written out of the history books. Your Lordships may say that this has nothing to do with whether we should have a chaplaincy in the prisons—

The Earl of Longford

Hear, hear!

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, if I were to accuse the noble Earl, Lord Longford, of being biased in favour of a certain faith, that might be considered to be unfair. He says "Hear, hear!" This has a lot to do with the question. If you go into prisons today you will get the same attitude as you get in the Armed Forces. If most soldiers are faced with the choice of going on a 15-mile route march on a Sunday or going to church, they will opt for Christianity and go to church. We know that. It is a myth to suggest that large numbers of people in this country are still Christians; they are not, and the sooner that is said, and as loudly as possible, the better. The debate on Sunday opening reveals that. The number of people using shops on a Sunday reveals that.

In conclusion I am opposed to Sunday opening because I believe, as the Church says, that there should be one day a week to sit down and contemplate what has gone on and to think about the future. So I am opposed to Sunday opening. But the Church has lost its way because it relies on somebody else's revelation. The people do not listen to the Church, but if they were appealed to on humanitarian grounds—that is, that there is a need for contemplation at certain times in life—we may make further progress in the proper establishment of spiritual belief in this country, which need not necessarily come down from the vested interests of the Church.

8.45 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, certainly put up a strong case in support of his Bill and we are grateful to him for bringing this question before us in the shape of the Bill. Perhaps some of us did not realise in the beginning that the arguments would be widened as far as they have been by my noble friend Lord Sefton.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made some points which showed that there are anomalies in our law—and I do not think the fact that the noble Lord is a Buddhist has any significance here. He put his case not from the point of view of someone from another faith. He pointed out clearly the important fact that this Bill has two distinct sides to it. The first concerns the abolition of the offices of prison chaplain and assistant prison chaplain; the second is to promote religious equality in prisons. Both can be achieved: the first through amending Section 7 and the second through amending Section 10 of the Prison Act 1952.

My noble friend Lord Longford concentrated mainly on the first. He felt it was not right to abolish the office of prison chaplain and he put forward several arguments in favour of his contention. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, concentrated more on the second part of the Bill, as I would prefer to do. He made a case for the promotion of religious equality through amending Section 10 of the Prison Act. Whatever the relative merits or demerits of abolishing the offices of prison chaplain and assistant prison chaplain, I think it would represent a serious anomaly.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made the point that, although argument surrounds the question of the disestablishment of the Church of England and although the Labour Party does not take part in this debate, the disestablishment of the Church in prisons is quite another matter and, one would have thought, one that is secondary to the first. If you are going to abolish the chaplains, surely you would have to look in the first place at the position of the Church of England.

The actual role of the chaplain has been very clearly described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. He made the important point that the role of the chaplain in a prison is as a pastoral minister to the prisoner and also to the whole community. That is important. When I have visited prisons I have realised the very great welfare role carried out by the chaplain.

As regards amending Section 10 of the Prison Act, that is rather a different matter. As the Act stands it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, illegal for a minister, of any denomination … to visit prisoners … in a prison to which no minister of that denomination has been appointed under this section". Perhaps the Minister could tell us what the situation is for prisoners wishing to gain access to a minister in whose faith they are not registered; and also how many complaints there have been and how many times someone registered, as, say, a Roman Catholic or as a Jew will not be able to have visits from the relevant minister.

Perhaps the Minister could also say something about another point which has been raised by the Prison Reform Trust—there is a conflict between the rule I have just described and European Prison Rule 47(3). That matter was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The rule states that, the prisoner shall he allowed to satisfy the needs of his religious, spiritual and moral life". That would seem to be in direct contradiction of our law, under which it is technically illegal for a prisoner who has declared himself or herself to be of one religion on reception to be visited by a minister of another religion.

I am sure the Minister will agree that as a general principle domestic policies on such matters should be harmonised with European Prison Rules. Perhaps he will say whether in his opinion they do harmonise. Furthermore, for some prisoners prison is a time for relaxation and religious change and the present situation is a missed opportunity. It is a time when a prisoner may wish to change his ideas, views and beliefs, when he has lots of time to think—yet he cannot discuss a different faith while in prison.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the Prison Officers' Association. He said that his Bill would establish the prisoner's right to religious discussion with ministers of other faiths either for contemplative purposes or religious conversion. That is an important point and one shared by the Prison Officers' Association, which, after all, is in a good position to hold a view on the matter.

There is certainly a case for amending Section 10(5), as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for the reasons I have given and to bring the Prison Act into line with what I understand is often the practice in most of our prisons. Failing that, perhaps when replying the Minister will say whether he will consider issuing new guidelines to governors and chaplains to make it clear that Section 10 should not be used to deny prisoners access to a minister of religion on the grounds that they had not previously declared themselves of that denomination. It would appear to be a good way out of the difficulty.

Another idea that could be brought up at Committee stage, if the noble Lord's Bill receives its Second Reading, is that a request for a report on the current practice should be made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons when he next reports on prison affairs.

The issue is a matter of conscience. I do not believe that the office of prison chaplain should be abolished for the reasons I have given. However, there is virtue in Section 10 of the Prison Act being amended along the lines suggested in the Bill to bring it into line with practice. I therefore have no objection to a Second Reading. It will give us an opportunity to discuss the Bill and the parts with which we agree or disagree. From the point of view of my colleagues, it is for them to decide.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down will she make it quite plain that she is speaking entirely for herself? It is not a party issue.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, my noble friend was so busy rising to interrupt me that he did not hear my concluding comment. I said that as far as my colleagues are concerned it is a matter of their own conscience, but that I agreed that the Bill should receive a Second Reading.

8.53 p.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seeks to amend the provisions of the Prison Act 1952. It would abolish the office of prison chaplain provided for in Section 7 of that Act. It would repeal the provisions relating to the exercise of the office of chaplain. And it would amend Section 10 of the Act which deals with the appointment of prison ministers.

The prison service attaches great importance to ensuring that prisoners are able to practise their religion, and that they have access to the appropriate minister to provide religious guidance. I therefore listened closely to what the noble Lord had to say. I must, however, make clear to the House that, in the Government's view, the noble Lord's Bill would not make for greater freedom of worship in prisons. Rather, by abolishing the office of prison chaplain, it is likely to do considerable damage.

Prison chaplains play an important role in serving those committed into custody, in seeking to look after them with humanity and in helping them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release. The tasks include a wide range of personal contacts with prisoners, particularly on admission to the prison, when an inmate may well be frightened, confused or depressed. During the course of the sentence the chaplain will help the inmate to come to terms with him or herself, and with others—family and friends, fellow prisoners and prison staff. It is the chaplain to whom the prisoner will so often turn when faced with domestic difficulties, at times of bereavement or when faced with specific problems in custody.

A significant number of men and women in prisons address their Christian faith seriously for the first time. Many are supported or strengthened in their commitment. Chaplains work increasingly in ecumenical teams. They consist of Anglican, Roman Catholic and Methodist ministers, and are being increasingly extended to include lay men and women. Chaplains also have a significant part to play both in the preparation of prisoners for release and in their re-assimilation into the community.

But the role of the chaplaincy does not stop at a ministry to individuals. Within the prison the chaplain is concerned with the social values of justice and peace, of fairness and equitable dealing, and of growth and opportunity. He also plays a particularly important role in relation to the prison staff. A chaplain will thus find himself involved in many areas of staff anxiety—problems of family, postings and the stress which many in the prison service experience.

The duties of Christian chaplains appointed to prison establishments include facilitating the religious observance of prisoners who are members of other faiths, which is particularly important in the context of the noble Lord's Bill. In a multi-racial, multi-faith society, that does not conflict with a chaplain's calling as a minister and missionary of the Christian gospel. I should add that the work of the chaplaincy in that area falls clearly within the remit of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. He is specifically charged to report to the Secretary of State on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons.

There are undoubtedly at times problems for all ministers in finding the time and space they would wish for religious activities with inmates, but that can affect all faiths. What clearly emerges from reports is how impressed the inspectorate are with the efforts made by prison chaplains to meet the pastoral needs of prisoners and how carefully the needs of minority faiths are observed.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, sought to question the requirement of the Act that the chaplain shall be a clergyman of the Church of England. The Church of England is the established Church. But it goes rather further than that. On reception into prison, prisoners are asked to declare their religious denomination. That is recorded in an annual census. In 1991, of those who declared a faith, 92 per cent. were from the main Christian Churches and 63 per cent.—some 23,000 prisoners—were Church of England. Of other religions almost 2,000 were recorded as Muslims, 307 were Sikh, 194 Jewish, 183 Buddhists and 151 Hindus. Almost 7,000 declared that they had no religion. I do not suggest, of course, that all 23,000 prisoners who said that they were Church of England were practising members or regular churchgoers. I suggest that it is the faith which they acknowledged, in which they may have been brought up and to which they may be most likely to return.

In those circumstances I find some difficulty with the argument that the statutory appointment of Church of England clergymen as prison chaplains is in any way inconsistent with the European Prison Rules. Those provide that, if the institution contains a sufficient number of prisoners of the same religion, a qualified representative of that religion shall be appointed and approved.

I now turn to the proposals in the Bill for the amendment of Section 10 of the Prison Act 1952. Section 10 provides for the appointment and payment of prison ministers of denominations other than the Church of England. It provides for visiting ministers and allows them to visit prisoners of their denomination. The section also restricts such ministers from visiting prisoners of other denominations. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, argued that such a restriction is inconsistent with the European Prison Rules, discriminates against ministers of other faiths and prevents prisoners from exploring other religions.

I believe that the wording of the section was intended to address two important and legitimate concerns. It seeks to prevent proselytising; that is, ministers seeking to exploit the volatile and unstable strand in many prisoners' make-up to solicit recruits for their own denomination at the expense of other religious faiths. It also prevents misuse of the system by prisoners; for example, by their demanding to see a succession of different ministers. The noble Lord has suggested the provision is in contravention of Rule 47 of the European Prison Rules which states that access to a qualified representative of any religion shall not be refused to any prisoner. I do not agree.

I do not believe that the rule should be taken to be so prescriptive as to allow access to ministers of religion by a prisoner "on demand". If it were, a prisoner could in effect require to see any minister of any religion at any time. This would be neither practicable nor desirable and could not have been in the minds of those drafting the rules.

The purpose of the rule is to ensure that a prisoner has access to a minister of his or her choice, while protecting equally those prisoners who do not wish to see any religious representative.

I also do not believe that it was the intention of those who drafted Section 10 of the Prison Act 1952 to prevent a prisoner, who genuinely wished to explore the possibility of converting to another faith, seeing the appropriate minister. Certainly that is not how the section is interpreted. In practice, if prisoners indicate that they want to consider changing their religion, the chaplain will arrange for them to see both the new minister and their existing one.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, what if the prisoner does not wish to convert? For example, let us suppose that he is a member of the Methodist Church and he wishes to examine the doctrines of Islam. He does not know that he wishes to convert to Islam and he could not possibly do so until he has had the opportunity of discussing the subject with an Imam. The Minister is saying that the prisoner cannot talk to the Imam unless he first indicates that he wishes to become a Moslem.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, perhaps I may continue. If, after these discussions, a prisoner wishes to change his or her registration formally, the application will then be sent forward to the governor.

We concede that there may be scope for improving the wording of the subsection to put the matter beyond doubt. The point has been noted for future legislation. It is not, however, I believe a problem in practice.

Perhaps I may conclude be referring to the Government's proposals for the prison service as set out in the White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice. The White Paper places emphasis on the need for caring prisons. The prison service must be ready to assist prisoners with their problems. It can do so by providing support and counselling and by enabling prisoners to maintain contact with the outside.

I doubt there are many of your Lordships who would disagree with those sentiments. By common consent, the prison service chaplaincy is seen as a force for good in the often bleak world behind the prison gate. Far from inhibiting freedom of worship in prisons, chaplains facilitate and sustain it.

We believe that the abolition of the office of prison chaplain would be a wholly retrograde step. The noble Lord's Bill is not acceptable to the Government and I cannot commend it to the House.

9.2 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate including those who have made some criticisms of it, which reinforces the argument that the Bill should be allowed to go into Committee so that we can explore these matters in further detail. I do not propose to detain your Lordships at this hour by responding in great detail to the arguments put forward.

One would have thought from some of the speeches that we have heard that at the moment this Bill comes into force all the chaplains would disappear from the scene. As I emphasised in my opening remarks, the Secretary of State can re-appoint—as indeed he has the power to do at the moment —full-time ministers of religion to any prison in accordance with the numbers of adherents of a particular faith present in an establishment. I am saying that we should review the appointment of ministers of religion so that it bears some relation to the numbers of adherents and that they are not automatically serviced by a member of the Church of England.

I point out to noble Lords who have predicted dire consequences with the abolition of the chaplaincy that in Northern Ireland there is no such institution. It is not found that that causes great difficulty. There are obviously full-time ministers appointed to the prisons in Northern Ireland. They carry out all the functions which we have heard about this evening, which are clearly of the greatest importance. They carry out the welfare functions and the consolation of prisoners in bereavement. I can add several to those mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. I refer to the reports made by ministers on prisoners wishing to apply for release on licence or parole. There is also access to telephones for prisoners needing urgently to consult relatives. All these are matters for the chaplaincy and they do not have any immediate relationship to the spiritual role which would be carried on by the full-time ministers who would be appointed by the Secretary of State if this Bill were to go through.

I disagree with those who have spoken about disestablishment. That is not the intention and the word does not appear anywhere on the face of the Bill. We are simply talking about the removal of the pre-eminence of the Church of England in one particular area of our national life. We are saying that if the Church of England has to have a statutory role in all areas of our national life, why stop at the prisons? Why not have full-time chaplains in the schools? We have them in certain areas of the old universities, which is a matter that we might consider on another occasion. No one is suggesting that because the Church of England is the Church of the state that we should have chaplains in every secondary school. Neither are we suggesting that because we do not have chaplains in every secondary school that that means that somehow they have been disestablished by their exclusion from the educational system. Therefore, why do we make the argument that the exclusion of full-time Anglican chaplains from the prisons would be in some way a step towards disestablishment?

I conclude by reiterating the point I made at the outset. I am not opposed to religion in prisons. I am seeking to improve the facilities that prisoners have for advancing their spiritual and philosophical welfare. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, in that there is no humanist ministry to the prisons. The religions which are allowed access are defined in standing orders. That may be a defect which the humanists would like to remedy if they could approach the Secretary of State and discuss it with him.

The discussion this evening has shown that there are points to pursue, even if we do not agree entirely on the abolition of the prison chaplaincy. There has been substantial acceptance of the view that the Prison Act as it now stands conflicts with the European prison rules. With respect, I do not think that the Minister dealt with that point satisfactorily. He read out the provisions of Rule 47(3) and then said point blank that in the opinion of the Home Office that was not contravened by Section 10(5). If one reads the two in conjunction, one cannot possibly come to any other conclusion. Those who have considered the point, such as Helsinki Watch in the United States, which is after all completely dispassionate in the matter and has no political or religious axe to grind, have written to the Secretary of State to point out that these provisions conflict with one another.

I leave it to the judgment of those who are well qualified to say whether the European prison rules are contravened. These matters are much better explored in Committee. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, let us discuss these matters in some detail rather than—

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I must have been misunderstood. I did not say that we should discuss these matters in Committee. I want to destroy the Bill at the earliest possible moment. I said that we should on another occasion have a nice intellectual discussion about the chaplaincy. I certainly do not suggest an inquiry in Committee—God forbid!

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I was taking up the noble Earl on his kind remark that we should have a nice intellectual discussion on another occasion. I look forward with great pleasure to crossing swords with him in Committee. I hope that your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.9 p.m.

On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a second time?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 19.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Graham of Edmonton, L
Airedale, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Avebury. L. [Teller.] McNair, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.] Masham of Ilton, B.
Richard, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Tweeddale, M.
Ewart-Biggs, B. White, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Ashbourne, L. [Teller.] Morris, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Brentford, V. Radnor, E.
Cross, V Robertson of Oakridge, L [Teller.]
Exeter, Bp.
Greenway, L. Romney, E.
Henley, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Lauderdale, E. Seccombe, B.
Longford, E. Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

Forward to