§ 11.16 a.m.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consulted the United States Government before deciding to lift the ban on aliens coming to the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking expensive courses in scientology and whether they will set up a committee to investigate the practices of scientology, "Moonies" and other like organisations.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE (HOME OFFICE) (Lord Belstead)No, my Lords. The Government took into account some recent convictions of scientologists in the United States of America, but did not consider that these were sufficient to justify maintaining the general ban on 1764 people coming from overseas to work for or study scientology. The Government have no plans to set up an official inquiry into scientology and similar organisations.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, does my noble friend note, after reading the scientology article in the Readers' Digest of May 1980, that it described them as a malignant cult? The scientologists and the "Moonies" seek to capture the minds of young people and, in particular, to separate them from their parents. This causes a great deal of pain and grief to such parents. Can he assure the House that the Home Office change in attitude in no way implies approval of this cult? Would he consider that perhaps an inquiry might be held and that perhaps a Select Committee of this House might be an appropriate body to undertake such an inquiry so that they could look into the workings of the scientologists and the "Moonies" and the damage that they do to many young people?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, my noble friend kindly showed me a copy of the Readers' Digest article to which he referred, but as the statement by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 16th July in another place made clear, he believes that there is no sufficiently strong current evidence to justify continuing the ban which was originally placed on scientology in 1968 on medical grounds. That was one of the two grounds upon which the general ban was based.
My noble friend, understandably, asks if this means that the Government therefore approve of the activities of the scientologies. I am glad to have the opportunity to make it clear that there is no question of our endorsing the activities or beliefs of such sects; but we do not at present consider that a public inquiry is appropriate. Whether a Select Committee of your Lordships' House might be interested in this matter, is a matter for the House.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, may I plead with the Government to have an inquiry into this organisation? Is the noble Lord aware that I have had many friends who have gone to scientologists and have had long courses? In the first place, I cannot understand why they call themselves the "Church of Scientology"; 1765 they have nothing to do with the Church. Is the noble Lord further aware that years ago the head of the scientology organisation called on me and my husband? Several of my friends have had courses and have had a terrible time. Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that I can produce a dossier on these people from those who have had experience of scientology—a dossier which is a complete indictment of the whole of the organisation? I hope that the Government will think again.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the Government agree entirely with the views of the noble Baroness so far as the question of the use of the word "church" is concerned. My right honourable friend's Statement on 16th July indicated that scientologists will not be allowed the special concessions for admission outside the work permit scheme for ministers of religion and missionaries. On those grounds we certainly agree with the noble Baroness. Where I must register disagreement with the noble Baroness is that we do not believe at the moment that an inquiry would be appropriate.
§ Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAMMy Lords, while it is clearly desirable that there should be as much free movement of people as possible, does the Minister appreciate that many people will have been disturbed by the lifting of this ban? Will he say whether the Government have considered the evidence adduced in the course of the inquiries in Australia and indeed during the course of the libel action brought by the Church of Scientology against the honourable Member Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, in which my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones led so successfully for the defence? The jury's decision clearly supported the conclusion of the then Minister of Health that scientology was socially harmful and that its methods could be a serious danger to the health of those who submitted to it.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the Government appreciate the concern which exists about the activities of sects such as the scientologists and continue to watch the position carefully. My right honourable friend considered all the available evidence before taking his decision. May I repeat that the decision was mainly based on the fact that there is no current 1766 evidence sufficiently strong to justify continuing the ban on medical grounds? May I add one last point: it is right to draw attention to the fact that those who have been convicted of offences will of course be refused entry as not being conducive to public good. This is a power which remains open.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, not agree that a great many people in this country warmly welcome the lifting of the ban on the temporary entry of foreign scientologists, not because they have any strong feelings about scientology one way or another, but because they believe that the imposition of an indiscriminate blanket ban without any satisfactory explanation ever having been given, whether in Parliament or elsewhere, is contrary to the traditions of a free society?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I do not think that I can add any more to the information which I have given to the House.
The Lord Bishop of LONDONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to appreciate that the anxiety which many people have concerns not so much the right of people to propagate their views, but the means which they employ in order to do so? Is he aware that very undesirable means are used, especially by the "Moonies", to capture the allegiance especially of young people and to retain it once they have initially succeeded? Will the Government therefore keep a very careful watch over what is already and is potentially further a very dangerous organisation?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I take the opportunity to repeat what I have already said; the Government will continue to watch the position carefully.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, may I ask the Minister this? As it appears the Government are satisfied that there is no reason for restricting either the entry or the activities of scientologists, it implies that the Government must be satisfied that there are no harmful or socially harmful effects resulting from their activities. Is the noble Lord the Minister saying that the Government, in 1767 view of all the evidence available, feel that there are no socially harmful effects resulting from their activities?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not think me discourteous when I simply say that the expression of opinion which the noble Lord has attributed to me is not what I said in the past few minutes. If the noble Lord cares to study the record, he will see that what he has been suggesting I have been saying is not the case.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I did not imply anything else. I said: Are we right in assuming that as the Government are not prepared to restrict the activities of the entry of scientologists when there is abundant evidence that they are socially harmful, and their beliefs are socially harmful, and are we not right in assuming that the Government do not feel that they are socially harmful?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, all I can say is that I cannot agree with what the noble Lord is saying. If the noble Lord reads the Official Report, he will see the reasons why I am denying that.
§ Viscount ECCLESMy Lords, my noble friend must see that this decision is very disturbing to a lot of us. The Government cannot have come to it without having some idea of what are the basic beliefs of scientologists. Could the Minister tell us what they are?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the ban on entry extended in 1968 to people from overseas coming to work for or study scientology and to those who were engaged in promoting or extending the interests of and activities of scientology or otherwise engaging in its business. For the third time, I repeat that the main basis of my right honourable friend's Statement on 16th July in lifting the ban was because there is no sufficiently strong reason on current evidence to justify continuing the ban on medical grounds.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, would my noble friend perhaps notice that in all parts of the House and in many parts of the country there is anxiety about these issues? Does this not make it more 1768 desirable to consider very seriously whether a Select Committee of this House would be a very appropriate body to look into the scientologists and the "Moonies"? Perhaps if it was the wish of the House that there should be set up through the normal channels such a committee it could include a Member from the Bishops' Benches because both organisations claim to be religious, which they are not. Perhaps we could also have some of the strong medical representation that we have in this House serving on a Select Committee. We have an abundant talent in that area. Many people believe that these organisations are doing great mental harm to the young people whom they capture in this way.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, this is a matter for your Lordships' House.
§ Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURNMy Lords, may I ask the Minister, in view of the statement that he has made, and in view of what has been said in the other place, whether this organisation is registered as a charity?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am afraid that I am not briefed to answer that particular question. I will try and find out and let the noble Lord know.
§ Lord GAINFORDMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether his investigations into these organisations show that there is any truth in the story that the young people who are encouraged to join are put through a form of brainwashing? First of all, there is what is known as "love bombing" and then they are treated to deprivation of sleep and inadequate diet.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, this would be entirely a matter for the police to follow up if there were any evidence to this effect.