SOUTH AFRICAN CRICKET TOUR (Hansard, 14 May 1970)

§ Mr. Speaker
Before the debate begins, may I announce to the House that this debate will last exactly three hours and that I already have the names of 30 hon. and right hon. Members who wish to take part? I would urgently appeal for speeches to be brief.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
It is surely right that the House should discuss the burning topic of the South African cricket tour, which has aroused such grave anxiety throughout this country and throughout the Commonwealth. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for accepting my application under Standing Order No. 9 yesterday and I thank hon. and right hon. Members, including the Government, for their support.
I start by discussing the Cricket Council's action, first, in terms of sport. I have some personal knowledge of the kind of problems which the council faces. I have taken part in international games. I have organised big international matches and international tours. I have always held that sport is above politics. If it is above politics that is because it has ethics of its own. If those ethics are not observed, it may need action from outside the world of sport to put things right.
The essential fact of the situation is that which I mentioned yesterday, the action of the South African Prime Minister 18 months ago. I recall the malicious glee with which he broke off a speech to an audience of businessmen to tell them that Basil d'Oliveira had not been selected in the England team. Later, after d'Oliveira was selected I remember the arrogant fury with which as an official Government act he cancelled the England tour to his country. That was bringing politics into sport, and politics in its most explosive and most uncivilised—I repeat, uncivilised—form.
Many people in all parties have wondered how after that tragic episode the Cricket Council found it possible to send an invitation to a South African team which would be selected on the Vorster principle of apartheid. They find it diffi- 1462 cult to understand because apartheid violates the basic foundation of world co-operation in international sport.

§ Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
No, I think not. Many hon. Members want to speak.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) does not give way, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) must sit down.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
I do not give way simply to make it possible for more hon. Members to speak in the debate.
People of whom I am speaking find it difficult to understand because apartheid violates the basic foundation of world co-operation in international sport. The basic foundation is now accepted in all the continents and in every other form of sport. They find it hard to understand because of other events which have happened in recent years. In 1968, a valiant effort was made by those who share the Cricket Council's views to bring South Africa back to the Olympic Games. That effort was swept away by a world-wide wave of opposition. Because of apartheid, South Africa was overwhelmingly finally ejected from the Games.
In 1969, after long deliberation, South Africa was ejected from the Davis Cup. Going back a little further, there was another important and relevant event. In 1961, when Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister, and most of the party leaders opposite were Ministers in his Administration, South Africa was ejected from the Commonwealth itself. The reason for its ejection was apartheid. These people of all parties find it hard to understand why the Cricket Council issued its invitation to the South Africans to come, but they did so acting on a principle which they think valid. They issued it and now they and we have to face the practical results of what they have done.
I shall ask some questions and suggest some answers for the consideration of the House. In 1961, the late Lord 1463 Attlee gave the Chicéle Lectures in Oxford with the title, "Empire into Commonwealth". The peroration of his last lecture began as follows: One further rather curious link in the Commonwealth must be mentioned. That is the game of cricket. Apart from a team in Holland and a couple in the United States, the game of cricket is confined to the Commonwealth and…it is played with enormous enthusiasm in India, Pakistan, the West Indies, Australia and New Zealand. Everywhere this very distinctive British game evokes enthusiasm. Commonwealth cricket has been a glory to all concerned. I remember an amazing match in Melbourne some years ago, before 100,000 delirious spectators. Australia and the West Indies ended on the fifth day with a fantastic tie. A few days later, when the West Indians left the country, half a million Australians went to Sydney Docks to bid them goodbye. The East-West tradition goes back to the immortal Ranjitsinghi, whom hon. Members of my generation used to see in their youth. But goodbye to all that if the present tour goes on.
The Times reports today that the Indian Government have private fears that the world of sport may divide into two formal white and non-white camps if India is forced to cancel her future arrangements with the MC.C. because the South African tour is not called off. One thing at least is certain. Bishop David Sheppard said, in a letter to The Times the other day: International cricket will disintegrate into a black camp and a white camp and Commonwealth cricket will infallibly be killed. As the Indian Government fear, there may be wider repercussions.
That leads me to my second question: what will this tour do to the Commonwealth Games? I have always, for 60 years, been a defender of the Olympic movement. When almost all the Press and many Governments were hostile, when they said that the games would produce quarrels and lead to international misunderstanding, I maintained that they were wrong. I have seen the Olympic movement grow into the most important factor in the world today for international good understanding. That that is true of all sport is my profound belief.
Sport is now a bond of great strength between the races in different continents, but the Commonwealth Games are something special. In the athletes' village, in 1464 the stadia, there is a warmth and friendship which infuses every waking hour and every competitive event, but the Commonwealth Games will infallibly be killed if the tour goes on. The Indian Government, last week, told their Parliament that no Indian team would come to Edinburgh if the tour goes on. They have been followed by Malaysia, Ceylon, and Singapore. Pakistan has gone even further and cancelled an under-25 cricket tour which was to take place in this country in a few weeks' time. That leaves us, in Asia, with Hong Kong.
It is amply evident that no West Indian team will come. Tobago, Trinidad, Barbados, Guyana, have already spoken. Ten African Governments have declared a boycott. The spokesman of Sierra Leone said yesterday, in Freetown: It is inconceivable that under prevailing circumstances any African country would wish to expose its athletes to the inevitable humiliation that is bound to accompany such participation. Hon. Members may say that is extravagant nonsense. I would reply that it is a basic fact that if we accept apartheid in our cricket people of colour will feel that it is a humiliation if they take part in other sport with us. We must understand the fierce revulsion which a colour bar produces in their hearts. Yesterday, Mr. Walter Winterbottom, who has done so much for British football, for the Sports Council, and for British sport generally, said that if the boycott at Edinburgh should occur one would be bound to wonder about the future of Commonwealth Games. I go further. I predict that if the tour goes on the Commonwealth Games will be dead for good and all.
I come to my next question: what will the tour do to the Commonwealth itself? The Commonwealth has more institutional machinery than some people understand. Very much of what is genuinely important consists of tenuous moral, psychological, intellectual, links which come out of long years of fruitful co-operation in the past. But let the peoples of the coloured members think for a moment that Britain is soft on apartheid and the power of those links will be grievously diminished, perhaps for all time to come. That is precisely what millions of people in the Commonwealth and in the world generally will think if the tour goes on.
1465 Fourth, what will the tour do to Britain? It will cause racial tension of a kind we have never known. No one speaks with greater authority on the subject than Bishop Trevor Huddleston.

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)
Listen to the Tories jeering.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
The bishop has lived with apartheid in Africa. He wrote the other day: I think it would be a totally disastrous thing if this country is not prepared to see that this is something that could escalate racial tension here in a very big way indeed. Just imagine the Test Match at the Oval, where there are enormously large coloured communities. This is totally irresponsible. Whether you like to watch cricket is a secondary issue. Lord Hunt of Everest speaks with authority equal to that of the bishop. He gives the bishop full support and he touches on the very kernel of the argument put by those who support the tour. He said in a recent letter to The Times: I am as concerned as anyone to uphold the right of a private body to engage in a lawful activity and for private individuals to enjoy it. I am totally against the relentless pursuit of that activity irrespective of the greater harm it is likely to do to the community in general. This is what is likely to happen if the Cricket Council maintain their intention; they will bear a heavy responsibility for the internecine strife which will probably ensue. Lastly, what of the police? The police are heavily overstrained by the present mounting wave of crime and by the criminal acts of motorists who cause fatal accidents. It is a nonsense to impose this appalling extra burden on them. What may be the long-term results on law and order in our cities? What opportunities shall we be gratuitously giving to the gangsters who want to foster violence in every way they can?
I am opposed to violence in support of this or any other cause. I want reason to prevail. I hope that there will be an overwhelming consensus of opinion in the House this afternoon that the tour shall be dropped. I hope that Parliament's appeal will be heard by the Cricket Council and that it will yield to warnings of dangers it has not foreseen. If it withdraws its invitation, it will render a signal service to the cause of cricket, to the cause of international sport, and to the 1466 virility and power of the Commonwealth itself. That would be no minor matter.
In spite of all its present troubles, the Commonwealth, with its bonds between peoples of all colours and all continents, may still be the strongest political and moral force in world affairs and the best hope for mankind's lasting peace.

§ Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I know that everybody in the House has a deep respect for the passionate sincerity with which the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) supported this particular proposition, as in the course of his long and very distinguished career he has supported many others. I know that that experience will enable him to recognise the sincerity of those who take a different view on this matter, as many of us do on many other matters, from those which he takes.
Will he, however, allow me, first, to correct him on a straight matter of history? He referred to the departure of South Africa from the Comonwealth at a time when, as he said, many of my right hon. Friends were members of the Government. It is not true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that South Africa was evicted from the Commonwealth. The decision to resign from the Commonwealth, regretted, I think, by many people, was a decision of the South African Government of the day. This is purely a matter of history; as the right hon. Gentleman stated the contrary, I thought that I should put the record straight.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker
I have had the honour to be Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and I know how these things are done. South Africa left the Comonwealth because all the other members desired that she should.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. However, lie was not a Minister at the time, and I was. I tell him that on the point of fact, he is mistaken.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but, just like the right hon. Member for Derby, South, to whom, none the less, I gave way, I am trying to bear in mind your injunction to us to be brief; and, as you have said, giving way frequently undoubtedly prolongs speeches. I intend mine to be a very short speech.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that many of us on this side and in the country greatly regret the situation which has developed; because, in my view, it is clear that, whatever happens now, a good deal of harm will be done. It may be—I hope and believe that this is so—that the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the ill consequences of the tour's going on. I think that he must recognise the damaging consequences which will arise if it is now cancelled.
It will be plain to all concerned inside and outside this country that a perfectly lawful activity has been cancelled because of the threat of force and because it is feared that the Government of the day will be unable or unwilling to enable lawful activities to take place. Hon. Members opposite have often stood, to their credit, for unpopular causes. The right hon. Member for Derby, South has done so and we respect him for it. If causes which are unpopular—and a recent poll does not suggest that this one is; and the Government attach importance to polls, they have been living on "pep polls" for the last few days—have to be stopped because of the threat of force that is a process which goes to the root of any ordered and orderly society.
It may be an unpopular cricket team today, it could be a minority political group or religious group tomorrow. It is surely the duty of us all in considering this issue and all issues to reflect that the abandonment of lawful actions under the threat of unlawful force is a danger to the pillars on which an ordered society rests. It is a pity that this tour has been given, by its opponents, a wholly unnecessary political significance.
South African teams have been coming here for years while apartheid has been the policy of the South African Government. They came here after the horror of Sharpville. This tour has been given this political importance very largely because of the agitation against it. The principle has been that tours from over- 1468 seas countries come here whatever we think of the internal policies of their Governments. The policy has been that to accept that, they are not official representatives.

§ Mrs. Anne Kerr (Rochester and Chatham)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The policy has been that it is a good thing rather than a bad thing for young people in unofficial positions to meet and talk with each other. This has been the prevailing policy.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
This is why we have welcomed here, for example, the Red Army Choir.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
This House, in one of its most impressive moments 18 months ago, denounced the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia, about which we were all deeply moved. During recent months the Red Army Choir has been here, an official part of the Soviet State and of the Soviet armed forces—although its military significance may not be very great—which over-ran Czechoslovakia. If the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr)—and I think that I anticipate her—replies that the difference is that the South African team is all-white—

§ Mrs. Kerr
Why am I not allowed to speak? I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can anticipate my reply if I have not been allowed to ask my question.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
If I am to be subjected to continuous sedentary interruptions by the hon. Lady I shall take longer than I intended, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
We welcomed here the arrival of the Red Army Choir, part of the apparatus of the Soviet State. Hon. Members opposite may say that there is a difference because the South African cricket team is wholly white. But how many practising Christians, how 1469 many aristocrats, how many kulaks, how many Jews, were in the Red Army Choir? If we are to say that we are not to indulge in sporting activities against countries whose political régimes we disapprove, we will limit ourselves very seriously indeed in our activities.
I say to the House, with just as much sincerity as the right hon. Gentleman, that if we are voluntarily to cut ourselves off from personal and individual contacts with young unofficial persons from other countries and régimes of whom we disapprove we will do more damage to international relations than we could do in any other single way. It is no use saying, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the coming of teams selected on this basis must have disastrous consequences. Those who do not wish to see a team are under no obligation to watch it playing. They can stay away. This has been the principle for many years.
I know people inside and outside this House who will not go to functions in connection with particular countries about whom they have deep feelings. They show those deep feelings by absenting themselves and refusing any contact with these people. This, with respect, is the civilised way to indicate a dissent if we feel it. But to plunge into organising disturbances, which however innocent they may be in their conception, are known to every grown man and woman to be certain to lead in the long run to serious disorder, is a very wrong way to indicate disapproval.
Moreover, from a practical point of view, it is self-defeating because it tends to create sympathy for the very people against whom the demonstration is organised. Therefore, on the merits of the matter, having got to this stage, having faced the threats, I hope that this tour will go on.
It is wrong, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to put all the responsibility on the Cricket Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "It delayed too long."] If the Government believe that the arrival of this team will have these serious consequences, they have the power to deal with this. The team consists of people who are in law aliens. I do not think that the Home Secretary will dispute that he has the power to regulate the 1470 entry of aliens. If the Home Secretary—and he does this again and again—is convinced that the arrival of particular aliens will cause trouble and danger in this country, he exercises his power to prohibit their entry.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
He and his predecessors have done so again and again.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
It is quite unfair to put on the Cricket Council, concerned as it is with the organisation of this tour on a cricketing basis—

§ Mr. Faulds
And Conservative victory.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
—responsibility for all these public issues when, if the Government think that disorder and trouble and Commonwealth disturbance would follow, the Government, if they are prepared to take the responsibility, have the power to intervene. I hope that the Government will not intervene and I say that to prevent any misunderstanding because I think again that it would be a surrender to force. But I do protest against putting the responsibility wholly on the Cricket Council.
I come now to the position of the Government.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I accept the sincerity—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.

Mr. Mendedson
On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a remark that I made and it is custom and practice in this House that if an hon. Member refers to a remark made by another hon. Member he should give way to him.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is sometimes not done.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
May I say, on that, that I am not conscious of having heard any remark from the hon. Gentleman and that, good though my telepathic 1471 gifts may be, I could not by that method appreciate what the hon. Gentleman thought he was saying.

§ Mrs. Anne Kerr
On a point of order. How is it that the right hon. Gentleman assumed that he knew what I would ask, assuming that his telepathic qualities are as he says?

§ Mr. Speaker
point of order.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I come to the position of the Government in this matter. While I acknowledge the deep sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends the attitude, of the Government can be looked at in a very different way. Last week, we heard from the Secretary of State for Defence. through a Written Answer, that the Royal Navy had been conducting exercises in company with the South African Navy and Air Force.
The week before, the President of the Board of Trade had been full of pride in the House about British trade figures with South Africa. Apparently, we can trade with South Africa to our own benefit and we can be allies with South Africa—for that is the implication of these exercises, that if war should come we should fight and die together for the same cause; that is the Government's view, that this is all right. But the Government's delicate conscience jibs at the prospect of playing cricket with these people.
I understand, respect and agree with those who hate apartheid. I hate it, too. I think that it is well described by the French quotation that it is worse than a crime; it is a blunder. I understand but disagree with respect with those who say that they will have nothing to do with it and put on a complete boycott. I have less sympathy for those in office who are prepared to support the British balance of trade and defence strategy throughout the world through co-operation with South Africa but suddenly find that their moral scruples are too delicate to enable them to allow 11 young unofficial South Africans to come here and play a game of cricket.
That is an indefensible position and, what is more, it is a sham.

§ Mr. Faulds
The South Africans are representatives of the minority group, not a South African team.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The Government are prepared—

§ Mr. Faulds
It is not a South African team.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Sidney Irving)
Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.

§ Mr. Faulds
I have made the point. It is not a South African team.

§ Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)
On a point of order and clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent part of my war service being trained in the Union of South Africa as aircrew. The black South African was allowed to fight, but—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
It is not a point of order, nor is it, to my mind, a defence of the Government, with whom I am dealing.

§ Mr. Faulds
It is not a representative South African team.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick really is not helping the tone of the debate at all.

§ Mr. Faulds
I am clarifying the facts.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The Government are prepared in the ultimate to fight alongside South Africans, but are not prepared to play cricket with South Africans. I would say of a Government who can adopt an attitude of such calculated insincerity that it is not necessary to make little wax images to hold them up to derision. The naked truth brings it out and entitles them to contempt.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Denis Howell)
It might be convenient to the House if I intervene rather earlier than is sometimes the case so as to express the view of the Government on this matter. I say at once that some of us do not have to be defended from the charge or insincerity which the right 1473 hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) lavished with such gay abandon.
Never in my experience have I had to deal with a question where the issues were as deep, as emotional and as involved as in this one. And because the issues are so deep, emotional and involved, I hope that the House will try, as I shall try, to discuss them as dispassionately and calmly as possible—indeed, in the tone set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker).
All of us agree that, as far as possible, we want on all occasions to divorce politics from sport and culture, but I want to give an example of the complexity of these issues politically. I thought that we should hear about the Red Army Choir's visit to this country. On 26th August, 1968, when we were all caught up in the agonies of the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Russia, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said: I think that there was a large consensus in the House that this would be a mistake, or, at any rate for the Government to take the lead, although I would make one exception immediately, the one made by my right hon. Friend, namely, that it would be totally intolerable if the Red Army Choir were to come to this country at present."-[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th August, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 1404.] On the following Friday evening, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod)—I am sorry that he is not here—went on the David Frost Show and discussed these great matters of the relationship between politics and sport, and in the presence of a well-known sportsman said that not only should the Red Army Choir not come, but that in his view it was quite intolerable that any sporting contacts should continue between the Soviet Union and Britain at that time.
It is true that, since then, the right hon. Gentleman has written in the Sunday Express explaining why he is going to Twickenham to watch the South Africans play rugby. He is entitled to hold different views for different occasions. I merely make the point to show how difficult, deep and involved it is for someone who, like myself, has responsibility in both these activities.

§ Mr. Howell
I do not want to give way now.

§ Lieut-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)
The hon. Gentleman is not clever enough to give way.

§ Mr. Howell
I am quite happy to be told by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) that I am not clever enough to give way. I will leave it to the judgment of the House. Since the opening passage of my speech was not even in my notes, I do not want to give way at this stage.
I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, because he is one of the few hon. Members of the House who is uniquely positioned to raise this matter and to take a view. If it was his last speech in this House—one newspaper today told us that it would be—no doubt he will think that he could not have made it on a greater issue of principle.
I turn now to the contribution of cricket. It is right to remind the House, particularly some hon. Members, that cricket has probably made a greater contribution to multi-racial sport than almost any other. That factor should not be lost sight of. But it is essentially a British Commonwealth game and because the British Commonwealth is multiracial it must follow that international cricket must be multi-racial or die. Whilst it is for the Cricket Council to consider the implications for the future of multi-racial cricket involved in this invitation and these events, I cannot think—indeed, I find it inconceivable—that Commonwealth countries which say that they will not be coming to the Commonwealth Games to run, swim, box, or fence against us can find it possible later on to come and play cricket. I hope that that will not be the case, but, nevertheless, it is a matter of tremendous importance for the game of cricket itself and for the Cricket Council to consider.
I want to say something about the relationship between Government and sport, which I have found during the last six years to be very delicate indeed. Ministers charged with responsibility for sport—and I know that the Shadow Minister of Sport faces the same difficulties sometimes—are concerned at drawing 1475 the line and maintaining the principle that we all wish to maintain, that Government participation ought to he entirely for the encouragement and development of sport. That principle has been the basis on which I have tried to operate.
It is to me a matter of absolute principle that the Government ought not to interfere in matters which should be the responsibility of sport itself, and much of the thinking of the Government and the attitude of the Government derive from that principle of trying to maintain the integrity of the governing bodies of sport in running their own affairs.
This principle of such importance was breached in the case of Basil d'Oliveira, and much of what has flowed since comes from the breaching of this principle on that occasion. I regret to say, both as a Minister and as a sportsman, that it has been subsequently breached by the South African Government in the cases of Ashe, the tennis player, a jockey and a golfer. There has been a consistent breaching of what is to me a hallowed principle.
I do not therefore think that the right hon. Gentleman can say as he did that this tour as a fixture was established some years ago and that Sharpeville makes no difference. This tour might have taken place ten years ago, or even five years ago, without the great commotion that it is likely to cause now when we are living in the wake of the events which I have outlined to the House. Whatever view we take we must face the reality of the situation that this question gives the widest possible offence to most Commonwealth countries.
The proposed tour raises deep feelings, and four questions of great public importance have to be considered by the Government and by the Cricket Council. First, the effect of the proposed tour upon racial harmony; secondly, questions of law and order, which the right hon. Gentleman properly raised; thirdly, the implications for the Commonwealth Games; fourthly, the long-term interests of sport.
I am not qualified to speak on racial harmony. One can only take note of the people with specific responsibility in this matter, who have made their views known to the Cricket Council, and hope that the council will take account of what they say. The Community Relations Commission wrote in February of this year to my 1476 right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in these terms: We recognise that this is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the M.C.C.… The Commission was wrong there. It should be the Cricket Council. …and over which you as Secretary of State have no control. Nevertheless, I should like to put on record our conviction that if this visit takes place the result can only be one which will do untold damage to community relations in this country. One does not have to accept that advice, but before turning it down one has to consider it very carefully. Secondly, the British Council of Churches, in its statement of 21st April, 1970, and in its resolution, took the view that the council should make further representations to the Cricket Council that the tour should be cancelled. Those two bodies who preeminently deal with and have responsibility for community relations have unequivocally placed their views on record.

§ Mr. Amery
The Minister has based much of his argument on the d'Oliveira case, which is the most sensitive case and the one in which we all feel most interest. Is not it significant that Basil d'Oliveira, that great gentleman sportsman, has said that he would like to see the South Africans come here so that we can show them on the pitch and in the pavilion what it is like to play against a mixed team?

§ Mr. Howell
All of us who know Mr. Basil d'Oliveira and of his anguish during this time have nothing but the highest admiration for the way in which he has conducted himself, but I do not place the significance that the right hon. Gentleman places on his statement. Basil d'Oliveira has tried to keep out of the political and moral obligations of the situation, and it is in keeping with his view that he says, "I want to play against anybody at any time", which is exactly the view of the Cricket Council. I am expressing views, on an analysis of the situation, on wider issues which Mr. d'Oliveira could not properly take into account.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is sitting here and we shall hear whether the question of law and order arises. I hope that it will not play an important part in the debate, but in case it does I say clearly that the Government, and particularly my right hon. 1477 Friend, will strenuously seek to protect the right of people to play lawful games if they wish to do so and the right to express peaceful dissent. Those two rights will be protected as strenuously as possible.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend has said on the third issue of the Commonwealth Games. Anyone who has had the privilege of seeing the Commonwealth Games, as I have, realises that this is the one occasion above all others, when the Commonwealth is meaningful and comes to life. The spirit of co-operation and of true sporting friendship and fellowship is far different from that found in the Olympic Games. There is still a competitive spirit, but the co-operation between the member nations of the Commonwealth in assisting each other in coaching, technique, and so on, can only be understood by those who have experienced it.
There is no doubt that the unique contribution made by the Commonwealth Games to the British Commonwealth will be seriously undermined if most of the Asian, African and Caribbean countries withdraw. The Government have done an appreciation, and out of the 18 countries involved in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean we believe that 12 countries have already indicated their intention to withdraw, or will most certainly do so, that three countries will participate and that three are uncertain. If this should happen the Commonwealth Games will completely change its character, and its contribution to the Commonwealth will be undermined. In terms of numbers, 600 athletes or sportsmen, one-third of the total contingent, would not be in Edinburgh.
This being so, small wonder that the two Scottish bodies concerned, the Scottish Commonwealth Games Council and the Scottish Sports Council, have take- a serious view of the situation. The Scottish Commonwealth Games Council has written to the British Commonwealth Games Federation, the overall parent body, and sent copies of the letter to the Cricket Council and the Sports Council. The council bases its approach on consideration of hard facts to which we should all have regard. It says that the facilities to be used in the games represent a capital investment in excess of £A 1478 million, and the organising committee has incurred tremendous liabilities running into more than £½ million. Tickets have been sold and reservations have been made on the basis that the public will be seeing the genuine Commonwealth Games.
The council says that work has proceeded for 31 years and that planning of the games under the chairmanship of Sir Herbert Brechin has been proceeding for 14 years. It concludes by saying that the success of the games in Scotland and the future of multi-racial sport in the Commonwealth should not be at risk on account of a situation over which it has no direct control. It would be thought very difficult to dissent from that sober view, not of politicians but of sportsmen who have given many years to organising the Commonwealth Games in Scotland. The Scottish Sports Council, which represents all the local authorities and sports bodies in Scotland, has taken a similar view, and unanimously endorsed the contents of the letter I have just read out.
The fourth question is the issue for sport, which we must consider as best we can. I have always thought it interesting that where we have a sport with a genuine governing body it is impossible for South Africa to be a participating member. The Olympic movement, the Federation of International Football Associations, and now the Lawn Tennis Association, all find it quite impossible to have a member country which says that half the countries in membership of that body cannot visit it, or can do so only on terms which are quite unacceptable to the rest. In these great issues we are dealing with a peculiarly British sport, in which there is no international governing body in the sense that we know it in the Olympic movement or anywhere else. That is a thought we should all consider.
Whose job is it if there are repercussions for sport as a whole outside an individual sport? There is only one body in the country—and for good or ill I happen to be the chairman—with such a wide responsibility, and that is the Sports Council for Great Britain. It has received copies of the two resolutions from the Scottish Commonwealth Games Council and the Scottish Sports Council and thought it right in the circumstances 1479 to hold an emergency meeting, which was held this morning. First, it tried to face up to the question of the responsibilities of a governing body of sport in wider social matters.
This is not a philosophical question to which most sportsmen would very often address themselves. The council reached the conclusion, which might be of interest to the House and it will certainly be of greater interest to sports bodies, that the responsibilities of a governing body of sport were, first, to its own sport, and, second, to sport in general. Third, it said that a governing body should take account of the influence which its actions might have on the community as a whole.
The council went on to consider the specific question of the South African tour. I think that the best thing I can do is to read out the full text of the resolution on which it reached overwhelming agreement. I could say that it reached unanimous agreement, but I think that it would be wrong to do so since there were one or two members not present who I do not think would have supported the resolution. I am not criticising them for not being there, because the meeting was called at short notice. The resolution said: The Sports Council strongly urges the Cricket Council to withdraw the invitation to the South African Cricket Association for the 1970 tour. It does so because it believes the consequences of the tour taking place will have harmful repercussions on sport, especially multi-racial sport, extending far beyond cricket itself. The Sports Council maintains that governing bodies of sport must have autonomy and authority in the control of their own affairs, and therefore recommends that the Government should not intervene directly in this matter. The Sports Council has reached these conclusions in the exercise of its responsibility for all aspects of sport, after taking fully into account the past development of the South African issue and its likely future implications for sport as a whole. With regard to the partiuclar question of the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh, the Sports Council believes that the longer-term interests of multi-racial sport in the Commonwealth transcend all other aspects of the issue. In support of the British Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland and the Sports Council for Scotland, the Sports Council urges all countries who have already accepted invitations to the Games to send teams to participate. 1480 Copies of that resolution have been received by the Government and have been dispatched to the Cricket Council.
I believe that the Sports Council has the position exactly right. It would be a serious error for the Government to go beyond the possibilities of persuasion and to interfere directly. I certainly agree that the autonomy of sports bodies means, too, an acceptance of full responsibility by those bodies. I recognise the difficulty for any governing body of sport in having regard to the wider interests of other sports for which it is not specifically responsible.
Therefore, because the Sports Council has faced up to that position, I hope that the Cricket Council will find it possible to accept the advice that the Sports Council has felt compelled to offer in respect of all the circumstances of the tour.

§ Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet)
The issue raises problems of the greatest importance, and I think that the debate has recognised that in the sincerity with which deffering points of view have been put forward.
I shall try to put my own point of view on what seem to me to be the big issues confronting us. The first thing to do must be to state quite clearly once again, although it should be unnecessary, that the House has always shown its total opposition to the principle of apartheid. Perhaps I may be personal for a moment. The post which gave me most pleasure and pride in the Government—and I think that the Home Secretary will agree as he held it as well in opposition—was that of Colonial Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman and I both in our time did something to advance the cause of multiracial arrangements and independence in our colonial territories.
Just a few weeks ago I visited South Africa. There were two impressions that I brought back most clearly. In the airport building in Johannesburg the first thing I saw was a post office for whites and a post office for non-whites. That is unbelievable. Then someone very dear to me said, "I have a small daughter who is being looked after by a very nice African woman. How can I explain to her when she grows up that the person 1481 closer to her than anyone except her mother cannot travel on the same bus or go to the same restaurant?"
We all know these things, and I think that we all agree on the matter. I believe that the Afrikaaners are sincere in their views on apartheid. One of the problems is that they are so sincere. But that does not stop us believing completely that they are totally wrong.
May we start from that proposition to consider the particular question of the cricket tour and whether it is right to play now with a South African team? This must surely be argued not on the merits of apartheid, on which we agree, but on the merits of the tour, on which clearly there is some division within the House.
There appear to be several arguments against the tour taking place. The first, I think, is that if it goes ahead we shall appear to be condoning apartheid. The second argument—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman put this case very fairly—is that it is wrong to accept a team in a sporting event picked on a basis other than sheer sporting merit.
I am not sure that these arguments can be reconciled with the facts of the world in which we live. How can it be condoning apartheid to play cricket but not condoning apartheid to work to increase trade between our two countries? It is common ground on both sides of the House that we wish to see more trade with South Africa.
Why is it right to go into business and to make money with a man with whom it is wrong to play cricket? I find this difficult to understand. Trade and industry in South Africa is just as much based on apartheid as is cricket. There is a great inconsistency here. It could almost be regarded as a certain measure of hypocrisy on the part possibly of all of us. We sometimes tend to blame certain things on certain people when it is convenient to us and to ignore them when it is not convenient. Why is it wrong to condone apartheid in the matter of cricket but not in terms of trade? I find this an unanswerable proposition.
Secondly, it is argued that we should not play sport with people who pick their teams on grounds other than merit. On that matter I thought the Minister 1482 was a little faulty in his logic. He said it is right to leave sporting bodies to make their own decisions, and I am sure he is correct. He then went on to say that the South African Government had broken this rule. Again he is right. But that is no argument that we should do the same thing.

An Hon. Member
What about d'Oliveira?

§ Mr. Maudling
I will come to d'Oliveira in a moment. Is it possible to pursue the principle that we should only play games with people when we know that the team has been picked solely on the grounds of merit? We must be realistic. How many non-members of the Communist Party would appear in a team sent here by a Communist country? What happened to the famous Zatopek? In welcoming sportsmen from Russia we in no way condone the Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia. It is surely the same thing.
I know that racialism is regarded, and for many good reasons, as being the most abhorrent of the many forms of tyranny in the world. But all tyranny is tyranny. If we do not play games with people from a country whose choice of team is based on grounds of racial discrimination, why play them with people whose team is chosen on a basis of political discrimination?

§ Mr. John Mendelson
rose—

§ Mr. Maudling
I will not give way. Many Members want to speak and I want to give them time.
I would argue the opposite of this proposition. I would argue that it is a positive gain to encourage people to come here and play games with us so that they are able to see the freedom and tolerance in this country. Let them learn from our system, a system that is based on merit. Let them play with teams here who are always chosen on the basis of merit and not on grounds of race, creed, religion or politics.

§ Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)
rose—

§ Mr. Maudling
No, I will not give way. I am trying to be as brief as I can.

§ Mr. Rose
What about Lancashire Cricket Club?

§ Mr. Maudling
What would we achieve for the non-white people of South Africa if we were to ban this tour? Just as it would be no help at all to the people of Czechoslovakia to ban the entry of Russian athletes to this country, so it will in no way help the non-white people of South Africa if we were to ban this tour.
Let me give two examples. I will call in evidence two people on this point. The first is Mr. Basil d'Oliveira, to whom I referred earlier. I thought the Minister of State slightly under-estimated the importance of Mr. d'Oliveira's view that it is right for this tour to go ahead.
Secondly, I will quote Mrs. Suzman—

§ Mr. John Mendelson
She is wrong, too.

§ Mr. Maudling
Mrs. Suzman is a woman for whom I have a very high regard. It is only three weeks ago that I saw her in South Africa and was able—

An Hon. Member
She is a minority.

§ Mr. Maudling
Yes, she is a minority. She is a woman on her own fighting against the whole political power of South Africa. Surely the views of Mrs. Suzman, who has been a lone, brave voice in Africa against apartheid for several years, are those of somebody who knows far more about the realities of South Africa than hon. Members below the Gangway.

§ Mr. Mendelson
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that against the view he has quoted are the views of many leading churchmen in South Africa. They have spoken to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends. There are many people in public life who have told us when we have been there—

Hon. Members
Has the hon. Gentleman been there?

§ Mr. Mendelson
Yes, I have been there. They have told us that the only real policy to adopt is that of not continuing relations with racially-selected teams. There are many black representatives who also take this view.

§ Mr. Maudling
That may be so. I was quoting the view of one lady whom I believe is unique in her own experience and the situation there. She is better 1484 qualified than anyone else to speak about the position in South Africa.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
How many black voters are there?

§ Mr. Maudling
I am trying to develop a serious and sincere argument. There is a threat by Commonwealth countries to boycott the Commonwealth Games. Secondly, there is the claim that the burden on the police will be excessive and that there is a threat of domestic conflict. These are the two basic arguments.
We must beware of what is being argued on these points. I believe our basic principle must be that any man is entitled to do what is lawful and to expect that the state will protect him from unlawful interference. This must be the first duty of government. This was very well said in the leading article in The Times today.
Once a man is denied the right to do what is lawful because other people at home or overseas may disagree with his views, it would be striking at the roots of freedom under the law. Once we admit the right of people to enforce their views by violent means with impunity—and there are many examples in the world today—democracy is at risk. I beg the House not to under-estimate in any way the real importance of this side of the argument.

§ Mr. Michael Foot
Are we not also debating the judgment of the Cricket Council in proceeding with the tour? Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to that question, particularly in the light of the different judgment reached by the Sports Council?

§ Mr. Maudling
It is not for this House to sit in judgment on the Cricket Council or on any other private body of people within the law. The duty of this House is to deal with Ministerial responsibility in these matters. This debate arises only in so far as there is Governmental responsibility.
I turn to the question of the Commonwealth Games. I accept that it would be a tragedy if these Games were undermined, bearing in mind all the effort which has gone into this event and its importance to Scotland. But that is not the only argument. What is the relevance to the Games of the admission of a South African cricket team to this country?

§ Mrs. Anne Kerr
White South African.

§ Mr. Maudling
White South African, yes. We were told that it would be a humiliation to other people to come here to take part in these Games in athletics when at the same time another team was doing something quite different elsewhere. I find that hard to understand. There is no South African team taking part in the Commonwealth Games and, by allowing a South African team to come here, we are not condoning the policy of apartheid any more than we are condoning it by continuing to trade with South Africa. We must not yield to pressure. If we do, where will it stop? It was rightly said by the Minister or the right hon. Gentleman that sport should be above politics, but how long will it be above politics if pressure—one could almost say "blackmail"—is effective to stop people doing something legal simply because other people disapproved?
Where might it go after South Africa? Some other countries in the Commonwealth pursue non-white immigration politics which might well be offensive to some of our Commonwealth friends. What is the position of America? Might it not be said to be wrong to admit American sportsmen or athletes so long as they had a discrimination against the African-origin population in the South? Where does this stop once we start down this road? It is of the utmost importance to make up our own minds and not be deflected, pressurised, bullied or blackmailed by any pressure from outside which we believe to be wrong.
Finally, the fourth argument is the strain on the police and the effect of possible civil disturbance. To blame the strain on the police, as I think the right hon. Gentleman did, on the Cricket Council, is turning logic on its head. There will only be violence, there will only be need for police intervention, there will only be occasion for further police casualties such as we have seen in recent weeks and months, if the demonstrators start the violence; it will not be the cricketers who start it. It is an absolute nonsense to blame on the people who are doing something peaceable and lawful, something which might arise if other people take the law into their own hands.
I was glad to hear from the Minister a clear undertaking on behalf of the 1486 Home Secretary that the Government would ensure that the peace was kept. It is the primary duty of the Government to ensure—I hope that they will not deviate from this in any way—that if the tour goes ahead, as I hope and believe that it will, and any demonstrations are caused of a non-peaceable character, the forces of law and order will deal with them. It is not so much properly described as a question of law and order. It is the fundamental principle of freedom under the law. Unless the law is observed there can be no freedom. Surely this House should be fundamentally concerned with this, which is the basic point of the whole argument.
What, finally, is the rôle of the House of Comons in this matter? Surely, as I said earlier, this debate is taking place only on the basis of some Ministerial responsibility. Our job is either to urge the Government or to criticise the Government. The Government, therefore, must make their position rather clearer than they have up till now. Without any doubt, they have the power to stop the tour by denying as they are legally entitled to do, admission to this country to the people who are coming to play in it. If they want to stop it they should use this power and accept the responsibility.
What is wrong is that the Government should try to evade this responsibility by vague expressions of hope or of preference. If they believe it to be in the national interest that the tour should be stopped, let them accept their responsibility as a Government. Let them use the powers which they have and let them explain their reasons—

§ Mr. John Mendelson
Do you recommend it?

§ Mr. Maudling
No, I have made it absolutely clear that I do not. But the party opposite, who appear to believe that this tour should stop, should make it clear that they are asking their Government, in the name of themselves as Members of Parliament, to use their legal powers to stop it. If the Government do not intend to use their powers to stop the entry of these men to play cricket in this country, it is obviously their duty to see that the peace is kept and that citizens about their lawful, peaceable occupations, are in no way 1487 prevented by violence from doing what it is their right as citizens of this country to do.
I said at the beginning that these issues are deep and emotional ones. I recognise the arguments on both sides, but I appeal to the House to recognise that one thing which is fundamental to all this argument is that if the South African team arrives and is admitted to this country lawfully to be here amongst us they are entitled to play cricket here and the Government should see that they are able to do so.

§ Mr. Reg Prentice (East Ham, North)
It is a curious constitutional doctrine for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to say that the House should be concerned this afternoon only with the limits of the Government's responsibility in this matter. I should have thought that it was the right, and indeed the duty, of a sovereign Parliament to debate things of this kind which are important to the community, which are important to our international relations, to race relations in Britain and to the many other aspects which have been mentioned. the Government's responsibility here is only one aspect—although an important one—of the matter under discussion.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) on his initiative in getting this debate. We all agree that, whether or not this is his last House of Commons speech, it was certainly a very distinguished House of Commons speech and it was particularly fitting that he of all hon. Members, with his great record in international affairs and in sport, should have introduced this debate.
The two speeches from the benches opposite have been feeble in the extreme. They relied mostly—or at least they pretended to rely, for public relations purposes—on the law and order argument. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said—I hope that I took down his words correctly—that it would be a very serious and disturbing matter if lawful activities had to be abandoned because of the threat of force.

§ Mr. Prentice
I would agree with that conclusion, as most of us would, if the premise were correct. Surely it is absolute nonsense to suggest that the main opposition which is being expressed towards this tour is coming simply from those who will break the law and commit violence at the time of the cricket matches.
Let us take the demonstrations themselves. We know from our experience as constituency members—I certainly know it from my brief experience on the committee of the Fair Cricket Campaign—that many thousands of people intend to demonstrate against these matches who would never dream of breaking the law or committing violent acts. Indeed, many thousands of people will demonstrate who have never demonstrated in their lives before. My own post on this subject, and that of other hon. Members, shows that this is so.
I hope that no hon. Member would suggest that there should be any doubts cast upon the rights of people to protest and demonstrate peacefully simply because there might, on the fringe of that demonstration, be an element of violence. Peaceful demonstrations and protests have a long and honourable tradition in this country and many of our basic liberties spring from the fact that people did protest in many ways in the past, sometimes in ways which involved great sacrifice to themselves.
So let us recognise here primarily the right to peaceful demonstration, and let us recognise that it will happen on a massive scale if the tour still goes ahead. But, on top of that, let us recognise that for the thousands of people who demonstrate there will be millions of people who object to the tour taking place.
I believe that, when the original invitation went out, when the original decision was made by the M.C.C. and the Cricket Council, the people who made the decision had no idea then—I do not mean this as a criticism of them; I say it because I believe it to be a fact, from what I have learned of the situation—of the extent of the opposition which would be raised in this country, opposition which has now been expressed by the Government, by the Churches, by the Trade Union Congress, by the Community Relations Commission, by hundreds of organisations of all kinds, and by many 1489 thousands of individuals who have written to them to ask them to think again.
I should like to underline an appeal which I know is going in writing from the Right Rev. David Sheppard to each individual member of the Cricket Council that they should have an early meeting to review this situation. As I understand it, they have no plans to meet between now and the date when the South Africans are due to arrive, and they should meet. This is something in which every individual member of the council has a great responsibility, and it should not be left to a small sub-committee. There should now be no doubt about the extent of the opposition to the tour, an opposition which has been reinforced this morning by the decision of the Sports Council that they really ought to have an early emergency meeting to discuss the matter. I believe that they should discuss it in the framework of the three concentric circles of responsibility defined this morning by the Sports Council: first, its effect on their own sport; secondly, its effect on sport in general; and, thirdly, its effect on the community as a whole. In all three contexts the arguments point the same way.
I do not want to go over arguments that have already been made, because I wish to be brief. If they were to confine themselves to the arguments about cricket alone, there are overwhelming reasons for abandoning the tour. In their own pamphlet defending the tour they speak of the long tradition of cricket as a multi-racial sport, and say: The Council feels that there is no need to emphasise the contribution made to the development of the game throughout the world with no thought of distinction between class, creed or colour. For many years teams from this country have visited West Indies, India, Pakistan and Ceylon and, more recently, the developing countries in Africa, such as Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania ". If the proposed tour goes ahead there is a very real danger that this kind of contact will be eliminated. There is a real danger that international cricket will deteriorate into a game in which only white teams can play each other and only black teams can play each other. That would be a great tragedy for cricket.
I should like to come to the argument which has best been expressed by Mrs. Helen Suzman. We all respect the stand 1490 that she has taken on many issues in South Africa and we listen to what she says with great respect. We do not want to isolate the South Africans, but they have isolated themselves. They have brought their repugnant politics into sport in a way which the rest of the world cannot ignore. Whether it is in the Olympic Games, the Davis Cup or whatever context it may be, other countries have had to choose. The British cricket authorities have now to choose whether they will follow the South Africans into their self-imposed isolation or line up with the rest of the world.
The most serious argument is the potential danger to race relations in this country. We are now a multi-racial society. I speak as a Member of Parliament for a multi-racial constituency. For several years I have watched the barometer of racial feeling going up and down in my constituency. I believe that on the whole we are making progress in the right direction. People of different racial origins are now learning to live together and to respect each other.
In education we have the fastest progress. When I pass the playgrounds of primary and secondary schools in my constituency I see little black cockneys integrated in the community playing with their little white friends.
At work we are also making progress. In the bus garages, railway stations, hospitals and factories people of different colours are working together, and there is greater mutual friendship and respect than there was a few years ago.
In our social life progress is slower, but there is progress. But from time to time events like this which get sensational publicity tend to bring out the latent bigotry of people who still have bigoted views on the subject. This is why the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) have been so damaging. If the tour takes place, events surrounding it will stir up the kind of bigotry and prejudice which otherwise is slowly becoming less of a force in our community. It is particularly disturbing that there should be the prospect of a Test Match at the Oval which is in the centre of an area with a large immigrant population.
One of the moments of truth in the whole argument was on "Panorama" a 1491 few weeks ago when representatives of the M.C.C. admitted that they had issued the invitation, and persisted with it, without taking any advice from people experienced in community relations. They have had that advice since. In particular, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) yesterday introduced to leading members of the Cricket Council a distinguished group of people in community relations, and they had no uncertain advice from them. If they originally made an error on the basis of insufficient information, if it did not occur to them then to make those inquiries, to persist with the error now would be unforgiveable.
It should not be necessary for the Government to impose the cancellation of the tour. I suggest that, reinforced by the arguments that have been employed today, a clear message should go out from the majority of this House to the Cricket Council that it still has time to think again. We urge it to think again before it is too late.

§ Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)
We are debating this afternoon, not the policy of another country with which by and large we disagree, but a suggested specific action, exceptional in its character, and seeking to assess the consequences of it. After all, if we were to trade and maintain relations only with those countries whose policies we approve we should be living in a very shrunken community. Britain would be in danger of being a rather virtuous, but embarrassed and solitary wall-flower in the ballrooms of the world.
How many members of the United Nations, of the nations participating in the Olympic Games and the nations participating in the World Cup, practise in their political lives things of which we would wholly approve? There are countries all over the world practising varying degrees of totalitarianism whose systems are poles apart from ours. But we do not, either in our political or cultural and sporting life, play the Pharisee and draw the hem of our garment from them. Our practice is to maintain relations while refusing to endorse or approve their systems, and to hope that in so doing, slowly but steadily, 1492 we can propagate the ideas of liberty and the rule of law by which we are guided and sustained.
If it were otherwise, if absolute dissociation were the inevitable concomitant of disapproval, I echo the question: what is the Red Army Choir doing here? If it were right, as has been suggested, that visiting sportsmen and entertainers bear with them the imprint of their national policies, then that choir is here with the blood of Czechoslovakia still on its boots. But that choir is here and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not question it, because that is the practice that we have followed.
I do not believe that the selective application of this proposition of dissociation is made out by the application of purported Christian principle in this case. The arguments of bishops have been prayed in aid by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I should like to quote part of a letter written by the Bishop of Peterborough which appeared in The Times on 1st May. There is not time to quote it in full, but I hope that hon. Members will read it in full. The Bishop said: We have a right to reject policies but not people…British policy, therefore, towards South Africa…should encourage every sort of personal contact in trade, cultural exchange, sport, science and education…We all need our minds and hearts changing in some way or other…The constant and militant assertion of righteous indignation is merely an indulgence which will certainly not bring about any Christian solution. I find that a truer interpretation of Christian principle than some of the utterances of perhaps more publicised prelates.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
No. I always give way in a full day's debate, but I think it better not to in a short debate, if the hon. Lady would have the goodness to excuse me.
The principle and practice of apartheid has very few adherents in this country, and I am certainly not one of them. but that is not the issue that we are debating here. I believe, as my right hon. Friend has said, that the central issue here is nearer home, and it is this: are we to maintain in this country the rule of law and the rights of citizens, or are we to accept a position where 1493 resolute and aggressive minorities can impose their will and prevent the pursuit of lawful activities by their fellow citizens?
My right hon. Friend quoted The Times leader of today. May I recall to the House The Times leader of 2nd May, which said that what is at stake is the proposition that one section of people may, in what seems a good cause, forcibly impose their view on another section of people by unlawful means. That is to substitute mob rule for the rule of law. The Times is right. Cancellation now, whatever may be said, would be hailed as a victory for minority threats and intimidation, and a proof of the power of what The Times calls mob rule. The example, once shown to be successful, would be followed on increasing scale and with intensifying vigour. We should have paid the danegeld and we should never get rid of the Dane.
Ministers must take their share of blame for bringing about this situation. Ministers have repeatedly stressed what they call the right to peaceful demonstration, without reference to the limitations on that right which necessarily apply in a free and orderly society. These limitations are recognised both by international convention and in English law. Among the restrictions specified in the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are restrictions required for the prevention of disorder or crime, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others. Similarly, in English law limitations arise because of the rights of others and the remedies which others have in trespass, nuisance, and so on. Limitations arise from the law governing obstruction and from the law relating to riots and unlawful assembly, together with many statutory restrictions. All these restrictions derive from the same basic and proper principle, that the law seeks to give freedom for all, not licence to some to encroach upon and deny the rights of others.
Ministers have stressed the rights of demonstrators, and tended to ignore the rights of others.

§ Mr. Denis Howell
The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to give such a blanket impression. I have appeared on television on three occasions, and there 1494 and elsewhere I have stressed the importance of the two principles we uphold: first, the right to play games if people wish to; second, the right to peaceful dissent. I have always stressed both, and never ignored one.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
I am glad to hear that.

§ Mr. Howell
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said the same thing on several occasions.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
I am glad to hear that. I did not see the hon. Gentleman's television performances.

§ Mr. John Mendelson
My hon. Friend said it today.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
I am referring to the record to date. It was not the hon. Gentleman that I had primarily in mind, and I say to the House that the interpretation which has gone forward has stressed the one, rather than the other, and, rightly or wrongly, has been widely interpreted as an invitation and a licence to demonstrate.

§ Mr. Howell
Which Ministers have taken that line of action?

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
The Prime Minister for one.

§ Mr. Howell
Perhaps I might refer to what my right hon. Friend said at col. 1049 on 28th April. He made a point about peaceful demonstrations, and he quoted his words on an earlier occasion, which he does sometimes. He reminded the House that on 16th April he had said: all of us can demonstrate our detestation of apartheid in peaceful ways in a peaceful country. There is no justification whatever for breaking the law….".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1568.1

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham)
Perhaps I might remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in his television broadcast. He said that the South Africans had put themselves beyond the pale. He also said that they had made an ill-judged decision. If those two points are taken in conjunction with his views expressed on television, does not that represent a measure of incitement?

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
The point I am making is that in these utterances there has been no clear expression of the limitations which the law places on what has been said to be an unqualified right of peaceful demonstration. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman must know, as we all do, that these demonstrations will not be peaceable in the event. There are too many elements resolved that they should not be, because behind the respectable element—the politicians, the pamphleteers the prelates, and so on—is the ugly reality of the anti-social element, the thugs, the hooligans, the anarchists and the criminals who injured 68 policemen in Grosvenor Square and are probably waiting to do the same again.
If police or citizens are damaged in these demonstrations or riots to come, if property is damaged, or lives forfeited, the Government will bear their share of responsibility. It is the duty of Government to maintain public order and to see that lawful activities can be lawfully pursued. If the Government feel that they cannot do that; if they feel that the Frankenstein which has been created cannot be controlled they should take the responsibility, as my right hon. Friend has said, of cancelling the tour and justifying their actions to the nation if they can. But they should not take that action unless and until they have exercised the powers which the law gives them, in particular the powers under the Public Order Act, 1936.
I have today by Parliamentary Question asked the Home Secretary to make an Order prohibiting for three months the holding of processions designed to disrupt or prevent the lawful activities of citizens or to molest or intimidate those participating in them or the general public. If the Government wish to maintain the rule of order and of law, and to prevent injury to police and citizens alike, that is their duty.
Finally, may I say a few words in the context of the Commonwealth Games. I have sympathy for and understanding with the point of view of many of these countries which are making this request. Indeed, I have pleasant relations—political, professional and social—with people in many of these countries. Nevertheless, though we would instinctively like to comply with a request coming from such 1496 a source, I do not believe that this is a request with which we can properly comply. In asking us to sacrifice the rule of law and the rights of citizens to pursue lawful activities, they are asking what we cannot give.
We of this generation cannot yield those principles which lie at the very heart of the Commonwealth today, because they are not ours to yield. They are principles that we have inherited from the labours and fortitude of our forefathers and which we in turn hold on trust to pass on unimpaired. The rule of law is at the heart of this matter, and it is one which we in this House should be resolved to uphold.

§ Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)
My constituency lies next to the Oval. It consists of many thousands of coloured British citizens. I do not think that any of them would be impressed by the purely legalistic arguments which have just been adduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). He thought that he was addressing the Court of Appeal. If he had been, he would have lost his case. The carefully typed brief which he has just read to us will carry no weight with the people who are vitally interested in the problems that we are discussing.
I would like to have heard from any hon. Member opposite some kind of appeal to the Cricket Council to reconsider its decision. We have not yet had a word from the benches opposite suggesting that, in all the circumstances, it might be a good idea for the Cricket Council to reconsider its decision.

§ Sir Ian Orr-Ewing (Hendon, North)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Lipton
No. I refuse to give way.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman implied that if this cricket tour did not take place that would be a concession to mob rule. I reject that allegation utterly. I refuse to allow the opinions of so many thousands of my constituents to be regarded as mob rule. My constituents are not mobsters, hooligans, gangsters or thugs. But they object to the South African cricket team playing at the Oval.
It may be that the rule of law can be maintained if the Commissioner of Police 1497 for the Metropolis brings in 6,000 or 7,000 police. But, for the sake of a cricket match, is it worth while employing all this force to enable a function to take place which is loathed by many thousands of law-abiding citizens?
I am not concerned with the philosophical disquisitions which have come from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. All I want to emphasise is that ordinary, decent, law-abiding people object to this tour. I voiced my fears on the subject in a Motion which I put down on the Order Paper three months ago. No one took any notice of it at the time. The matter has now developed. All kinds of overtones and undertones have been introduced into the argument. People feel that they cannot recede from whatever position they have adopted without loss of face.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to regard it as a matter of little consequence that 12 out of 18 Commonwealth countries will not take part in the next Commonwealth Games. I regard that as quite serious. No one can tell me that we can intimidate them into taking part in the games. No one can argue that, because they refuse to take part in the games and the games will probably disappear from the face of the earth, this is a concession to the forces of misrule, disorder and lawlessness. The whole argument falls to the ground.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends, who have been spouting for generations past about the virtues of the Commonwealth and the British Empire, now say, "What the hell?" when 12 out of 18 Commonwealth countries refuse to have anything to do with the Commonwealth Games. They prate about law and order and give us these philosophical disquisitions which mean nothing to those countries for whom they have professed such a pathetic and touching regard.
All the arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are hypocritical. I would respect their sincerity more if they addressed some kind of appeal to the Cricket Council. That is the acid test of whether they are sincere in their arguments. Instead, they are playing a dirty party political game. What they are trying to do is to get the Government 1498 to impose a ban on the entry of the South Africa team. They would love that, because they would be able to make political capital out of it.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that we had to choose between two evils. He said that it would be evil to cancel the tour and that it would be evil to give way to the forces of mob rule and violence by asking the Cricket Council to climb down. Very well. We have to choose between the lesser of two evils. We have to decide what will be the least embarrassing long-term consequences of this unfortunate episode.
As a result of this debate, I hope that there will emerge from this House, as representing common sense, average public opinion, an appeal to the Cricket Council. We should not reproach the Council. We should point out that it is not too late, but that, taking into account developments since the invitation was issued, this House is of the opinion that the Cricket Council should reconsider its decision.

§ Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)
Some weeks ago, I agreed to become a vice-chairman of the Fair Cricket Campaign. I did so because, as someone who utterly deplores and opposes violence and disorder, I had come reluctantly to the view that the South African cricket tour was likely to be bad for community relations in this country, bad for the future of cricket, bad for the future of sport generally, bad for the Commonwealth, and bad for law and order in Britain.
I came to that view reluctantly, for two reasons. The first, let me assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), is that I take seriously what he said today about the threat of unlawful force. The second, if the House will forgive my mentioning it, is that I happen to be a member of the M.C.C. and a cricket lover.
I first watched a South African Test side at Lord's about 35 years ago. That was the occasion when Bruce Mitchell and Cameron, as batsmen, and Balaskas, as a bowler, caused England a very heavy defeat. I have watched with pleasure every single South African side that has toured England since then.
1499 I have always believed that the links of sport, and not least those of cricket, were among the most valuable links binding the Commonwealth together. I remember an occasion when Mr. Harold Macmillan, as Prime Minister, was going to the West Indies. At the time, I was a junior Minister at the Treasury. A mesage came to my private office asking if, then and there, I could draft a passage on West Indian cricket for inclusion in one of Mr. Macmillan's speeches. I can recall the enthusiasm with which I wrote of some of the achievements of the three Ws—Weekes, Walcott and Worrell.
It is precisely those of us who value most the links which I have mentioned, who question most earnestly the wisdom of going ahead with the South African tour this summer. Many hon. Members believe that this summer will be unpleasant but that, somehow, we will get through and that international sport within the Commonwealth will then go on as before. I hope they are right, but I ask the House to seriously consider the possibility that it may not prove so simple as that. It would be tragic if one wrong decision now were to undo all the fine work which the M.C.C. has done over the years to promote integration in sport.
This is an apt moment to pay tribute to the work of the M.C.C., whose members are justly proud of what they have achieved. I also take this opportunity to thank personally the members of the M.C.C. and the Cricket Council for all the courtesy that has been shown by them to me and to other visitors who have discussed this matter with them recently.
Many of my hon. Friends feel that the initial decision to embark on this tour was probably wrong, but that it would be an equal or even bigger, mistake to call off the tour now. This is a sufficiently widely-held view for me to try to meet it; with this argument often goes, also, the view that if there is a danger to race relations, it comes from those who are threatening demonstrations rather than from the prospect of the tour itself.
There is, of course, something in this argument. Those, whoever they are, who advocate disruption and violence—or what is sometimes called "direct action"—are certainly harming race relations in this country. As one who in the past has profoundly admired Bishop Huddleston, I personally regretted what 1500 I would describe as his quibble over the distinction between "violence" and "direct action" in an article which he wrote some days ago. I certainly would not wish to identify myself with what has been written or spoken on this subject.
There are, indeed, some people in this country who do not want this tour to be stopped—they want it to go on as an excuse for disruption; and, even more, I would separate myself from them.
But when one has said this, I still believe that the actual presence of a white South African team in Britain for a period of 12 matches, a team chosen in accordance with the rules of a country in which integrated sport is positively against the law, must itself prove harmful to good community relations. I ask the House to consider this point most seriously.
We have to consider the total situation; the fact that there is a world race situation, with poverty and the tropical areas of the world so closely linked; the fact that the race situation in this country is still at a formative stage; and the fact that, on top of this, we may have the arrival of a white South African team chosen in accordance with the rules of a country where integrated sport is against the law. That combination can, in my view, only prove damaging to community relations in this country.
My belief—and on this I agree with the Minister—is that a tour of this kind seemed to make sense in 1960. It just made sense in 1965 but not now. There is nothing extreme or disruptive about holding the view that what seemed just tolerable in 1960 or 1965 no longer makes sense in 1970.
I am concerned about the danger of the polarisation of opinion in Britain this summer, with more and more hubbub coming from the extremists on both sides of the argument. We should remember that, at the very end of the tour, there will be the climax at the Oval, which is probably the most difficult area of the lot, from the point of view of community relations.
I say this on the basis, mainly, of what has been said to me by teachers and members of political parties who know this area well. For instance, whatever differences of party may exist, nobody will question that Alderman Mrs. Lena 1501 Townsend, as a former Chairman of the Inner London Education Authority, is highly knowledgeable about the state of the schools in Inner London.
The Fair Cricket Campaign has been, and still is, working for the cancellation of the tour. However, if we should fail, then we are equally committed to trying to minimise the effects that the tour will have. I emphasise that we have said clearly that we shall have no part whatever in encouraging violence in pursuit of the aims of the campaign.
There are many who want to see the tour cancelled, but will not wish to take part in any form of organised protest if the tour goes on. However, there is, I believe, a wide body of opinion in this country, including many people who are not naturally marchers or demonstrators, who will wish, in the event of the tour taking place, to take part in one orderly act of protest this summer.
It will be said—I believe that it has been said once today—that on these occasions the violent militants will always call the tune. I hope, given hard work and proper preparation, that this need not necessarily be so. I believe that one mark of a civilised community—the sort of community in which most of us in this House believe—is that, every now and then in our society, a larger section than usual should wish to express itself by means of peaceful protest, properly organised and, of course, in a suitable place.
This debate may seem, in the present conjuncture of world affairs, a rather high-powered debate to hold about a cricket tour. But this debate is not only about cricket. The issues raised by the South African tour do arouse genuine emotions among many people who simply cannot be written off as extremists or fanatics.
A number of hon. Members will not have agreed with some of my remarks, and I am grateful to the House for the very fair hearing that I have received. Of course, I recognise exactly what many of my hon. Friends feel when they point to the dangers of hypocrisy, and of judging by "double standards".
No hon. Member enjoys the experience, in what is likely to be his last speech in this House, of expressing disagreement 1502 with many of those who have been his close personal friends for a considerable number of years. Nevertheless, I must say, looking back on the past fortnight, that I do not regret having joined the Fair Cricket Campaign. And my last words in this debate—perhaps the last words I shall ever deliver in this House—are that I still believe that the wise and right decision would be, even now, not to go ahead with this tour.

§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)
The whole House very greatly respects the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). It is a great tragedy and a sad commentary on British politics today that he has perhaps made his final speech in the House and is being driven from politics—

§ Sir E. Boyle
No.

§ Mr. Hamilton
The right hon. Gentleman is being driven from politics largely because of the race problem in his constituency.

§ Sir E. Boyle
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think it right to withdraw those words, which are quite untrue. I beg him to believe that there is absolutely no question of my being driven from my constituency. There is no truth whatever in that.

§ Mr. Hamilton
If what I have said is untrue, then, of course, I withdraw it. However, that is the impression that some of us have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Leave it there."] Some of us on this side of the House have the impression that there is an intolerant minority in his part of the country who are making his life in politics very hard to stand. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this problem has been wholly admirable and many people in all political parties in Britain will wish to pay tribute to him.
Most of the relevant arguments have already been put in this debate. I wish to put some which have not received a great deal of emphasis. One is the attempt by some hon. and right hon. Members opposite to pin on to Ministers of the Crown responsibility for what might happen as a consequence of this tour's going on.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) and the right 1503 hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) have both sought to convey to the people that the Prime Minister has, by implication if not by direct speech, condoned, or sought to condone, disorder and violence which might result this summer. I shall quote from The Scotsman of 27th April, from an editorial which sums up the situation very fairly. This is not a newspaper normally sympathetic to this side of the House. This is what the editorial said: Mr. Hogg and Mr. Macleod have accused the Prime Minister of encouraging disorder. He has done nothing of the sort. His advice is more honest than the attitude of some Conservatives. Their position is to mouth disapproval and to pass by on the other side. But if apartheid is the evil thing they avow it to be, it should not be ignored. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) began his speech by saying that all hon. Members deplored apartheid. He was not in a position to see the faces of some of his hon. Friends behind him when he made that remark. I am not quite sure that it is true. When we look at the record of some hon. and right hon. Members opposite on the Rhodesian question and on this tour we begin to doubt just how many hon. Members opposite actually deplore apartheid and are carrying their deploring to its logical conclusion.
The right hon. Member for Barnet talked about bridge building. We have heard a lot about that aspect of the matter, but we have been trying to build bridges between ourselves and South Africa over the years. We have been playing cricket against teams from South Africa, selected on a racial basis, for years, in the hope—the vain hope, as it has transpired—that South Africa would see the error of her ways, but far from that happening South Africa has gone to further extremes.
We now have a régime in South Africa which is far worse than it was in 1948 although we have been trying to build bridges in sport and in other ways since that time. The time has come to try other methods. The only method we can use in sport is that of refusing to play against teams selected on a basis of racial discrimination.
It is wrong to assume that sport can be divorced from politics. It never has been. It is not divorced from politics in the Soviet Union, nor in South Africa, 1504 nor in this country. One can go to some Conservative golf clubs and find that politics or racial discrimination is not divorced from that sport. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about this. If this tour had been allowed to take place without any kind of objection being voiced in this country one can imagine what the South African Press would have made of that. It would have said that the British people were commending their policies. I do not think that we can afford to do that.
The Observer was right when it said: Isn't it unthinkable for the men in white flannels at Lords to talk about the importance of building bridges between the races if the direct result of that action is to provoke disorder and exacerbate the precarious harmony between the races in England. The tour is also having very serious repercussions on the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh. Some of my colleagues in the House have pointed out that India, Pakistan and other coloured members of the Commonwealth have said that they will boycott the games if the tour goes on and they have described that as a form of blackmail but those Commonwealth countries have watched discrimination for so long in so many parts of the world that they are taking a stand, and everyone in the world is being compelled to take a stand, on a moral issue.
If they choose to boycott the Commonwealth Games that will be a very heavy price to pay for allowing a dozen games of cricket to take place behind barbed wire, with hundreds of policemen there to prevent trouble. That is a price no one ought to pay in this country. Not only would it jeopardise the Commonwealth Games, but the very future of the Commonwealth.
I know that some people regard the Commonwealth as a bit of romantic nonsense, but it is the best multi-racial organisation in the world today. It would be foolish to say that it is more important to play these white cricketers from South Africa than to save the future of the Commonwealth. I do not believe that they are evil or stupid men. I believe they have not recognised the national and international consequences of the decision they have taken. I do not believe it was their responsibility to do that. They were not equipped to do it.
1505 That is why I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the Government themselves realise the political implications for race relations in this country, they realise the political implications for the Commonwealth and for the world, and if the Cricket Council is not prepared to take a decision to stop the tour the Government should do so. I do not believe that we should contract out of this moral responsibility. Let the party opposite make all the political capital it can out of that decision. I am quite prepared to defend that decision on the hustings during the election. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West said that there were probably no votes in recommending tackling child poverty, but, nevertheless, he would do it. He will not get the chance to do that, but it was a noble decision on his part.
The Government ought to be ready to say that if the Cricket Council is not prepared to listen to responsible hon. Members on either side of the House, to the churches and trade unions, the Government have a tremenedous moral responsibility to give the lead. If they do not, it becomes all the more incumbent on them to make sure that demonstrators such as the right hon. Member for Hands-worth and my right hon. Friend and marchers and protesters in their thousands can protest peaceably.
If the "hippies" and "skinheads", some of whom John Arlott said were prepared to come from Australia, use force against British demonstrators, our police should be used to prevent that kind of thing. Let nobody under-estimate the moral indignation that will make itself felt throughout the country if and when the tour takes place. I sincerely hope that it will not. I hope that the Government will have the guts to take action to stop it.

§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)
I shall make only a short intervention. I want to relate it to the question of the Commonwealth Games.
I greatly welcome the opening part of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), because the type of speech which I find increasingly difficult to listen to is that which 1506 begins, "I hate apartheid, but" and then casts the opposition to apartheid away in a throw-away line and goes on to spend a great deal of time saying that we should do nothing about it. Although I did not agree with the conclusions of the right hon. Member, I thought that he made perfectly clear—much clearer than many others do—where his detestation of apartheid lay.
This debate is not about the general policies of the South African Government nor it it aimed at singling out the South African Government for special condemnation. Where the logic of the right hon. Member for Barnet and others goes wrong is that they do not make precise analogies. What would we say if the Russian Government, who we have reason to suspect are persecuting their Jewish minority, said to us, "From now on the public policy of the Soviet Government is to regard all Jews as second-class inferior citizens; and as part of that policy visiting symphony orchestras may not include any Jewish players"? If the Soviet Government said that that was their policy, would we receive the Leningrad Symphony Orchestra at the Festival Hall? We would not. There is not one hon. Member who would defend such an invitation. That is the precise analogy.
That is what has happened in the case of the Government of South Africa. They said that they will not accept Basil d'Oliveira in South Africa. They have said that they will not accept Arthur Ashe. They have said that it is their public policy not to play sport on the terms on which most people and most countries accept that sport is played, but that selection for sporting tours is open to only one-fifth of the population, to a political and racial minority. Therefore, the South African Government have brought their particular form of politics into sport.
In inviting the South African team to come to Britain, we are, whether we like it or not, acquiescing in that policy if we agree that the team should come. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talks about freedom under the law. There is not much freedom under the law as regards the selection of the South African team.
1507 At the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the whole House accepted tnat it would have been utterly wrong to allow the Red Army Choir to come here as a representative of the very organisation which was repressing Czechoslovakia at that time. There is a precedent for breaking the general rule, which I support, that sport and culture are useful bridges between countries of very different political and cultural views.
I said in my constituency in January, the week before the visit of the Springbok rugby team to my constituency, that I believe we would increasingly have to choose between racial and multi-racial sport. My one regret about the discussion now as to the future of the Commonwealth Games is that this debate has taken place much too late and that the participants in the games, the organisers of the games, and the Cricket Council should have faced this question of the Commonwealth Games being held at the same time as the cricket tour. The public discussion should have taken place earlier in the year instead of now, when it is much more difficult to persuade the Cricket Council to cancel the tour.
I admit that the Commonwealth Games organisers have been slow to recognise the dangers. A fortnight ago I was at the opening of the Commonwealth Games Stadium in Edinburgh. I spoke to Sir Herbert Brechin, Mr. Ross and Mr. Duncan. At that time they were very reluctant to make any representation to the Cricket Council on this question. I am delighted now at the strength of the representations, however belated they may be, that are coming forward and that the effect on the Commonwealth Games is being publicly recognised.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East referred to giving in to "resolute and aggressive minorities". Is the Sports Council of Great Britain a resolute and aggressive minority? Is the British Council of Churches a resolute and aggressive minority? Is the United Nations Association a resolute and aggressive minority? Are the leader writers of the Birmingham Post, The Scotsman and the Evening Standard—three newspapers I choose at random—resolute and aggressive minorities to whom we should not give in? We should seriously ask ourselves whether it is right that the tour should go on.
1508 I have been criticised in some newspapers, and by one Conservative Member of Parliament in the City of Edinburgh, for the part I have played. I want to answer this criticism, because I believe that any Member of Parliament, particularly one for the City of Edinburgh, should be quite clear where his duty lies at the moment. It is to help to get the cricket tour cancelled so that the Commonwealth Games may be a success for that city. I hope that we are not proceeding with the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh on the basis that they are the best tourist attraction we have been able to bring to the city for some time.
Certainly, this is not my basis for welcoming the Commonwealth Games there. It is a side effect that it is a very good thing for Edinburgh, for Scotland and for Great Britain; for we are acting as hosts to the Commonwealth Games. It is not just a tourist sideshow. It means something in terms of the Commonwealth as a whole and in terms of multi-racial sport.
I have thought all along that it is inconceivable that members of the Commonwealth countries and their sporting teams would ever accept the basic hypocrisy of public opinion and of sporting bodies in this country that we should say at one and the same time, "We believe in the Commonwealth. We believe in multi-racial sport. We are glad to welcome you to our shores. At the same time, down the road a different type of game will be played"—for one of the original cricket matches was to have been played just down the road—"because we have invited a team selected on political grounds from South Africa". Of course, people in Commonwealth countries were not going to accept that.
Other hon. Members may criticise me—I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is one of them—but I hope that they will not advance the proposition that Commonwealth Governments take their orders from the Liberal Party spokesman on Commonwealth affairs. That would be a ridiculous proposition. Much as I believe in the power of the Liberal Party, that would be more than a slight exaggeration. However, this is the line now being taken because it is politically convenient in some parts of 1509 Scotland. I hope that we shall hear no more of it.
I turn to the excellent speech made by the Minister for Sport. I must admit that I have changed my mind on one question, namely, the rô;le of the Government. It would be deeply repugnant if the Home Secretary had to use his powers to ban the immigration of the South African cricket team. Until a fortnight ago I regarded this as an absolute impossibility. I am not so sure now. I am prepared to say that I am changing my mind, just as I believe that we are asking the Cricket Council to change its mind on something else.
I have changed my mind because, if the Cricket Council fails in its responsibility it may well be, to use the much-hackneyed phrase, the lesser of two evils for the Home Secretary to intervene and to say that the damage to cricket, the damage to race relations, the damage to the Commonwealth Games, and the damage to law and order, is much more serious than the damage to the principle of non-interference in the admission of people to Britain.
I do not believe that the members of the Cricket Council are stupid. I do not believe that they are insensitive. I believe that they are fully aware of the dangers of what they are doing. However, I believe that they are frightened and worried men. They are afraid of being seen to do a volte face.
I understand this. None of us likes to be put in the position of changing plans that have been made. We should say to the members of the Cricket Council that they would be respected in all parts of the House if they now faced up to their responsibilities—because it is theirs, and not the Government's, in the first instance—and accepted the fact that the damage they would do if the tour went on would be very substantial indeed and that their duty clearly lies in meeting now and deciding, in the face of all the developments, that they should be men of courage and integrity and decide to call off the tour.

§ Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West)
It is a real privilege to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). 1510 I would like to emphasise that among many of us on this side of the House who are deeply concerned about what is at stake in the whole issue there is a great deal of sympathy for the members of the M.C.C. and the Cricket Council in their present predicament. We endorse the view that they are not wicked men and that they are not stupid. But we suggest that they find themselves at the centre of a political issue with far wider dimensions than they ever imagined when they first considered going ahead with the tour.
For everyone in the House who pauses to consider the political situation in Britain and the world as a whole it is without doubt true that one of the most explosive issues with which we are confronted is the issue of race relations. It is immediately clear that the issue cannot be treated in watertight compartments. There is not a separate problem of race relations in Britain, or in the United States or in Africa; the problem of race relations is international. What happens in any one society in terms of race relations inevitably has an immediate effect upon race relations in the political and social situation in other countries where the problem also exists.
It is obviously impossible to dissociate cricket from the general situation in South Africa. We must ask the leaders of the Cricket Council and the M.C.C. to consider for a moment how the tour will be interpreted if it goes ahead. By coloured British citizens and many others it will be seen, however honourable the intentions of the members of the Cricket Council, as an endorsement of racial prejudice and of a simply intolerable political system in the Republic of South Africa. In the Commonwealth and the world, whether justly or not, it will be seen as one more step by Britain towards siding, in effect, with the white minority in international society, and not making a stand for the principles which traditionally we have always attached to the dignity of man, irrespective of his colour and racial origin.
In South Africa, which I recently visited, I am convinced that it will be interpreted deliberately by Nationalist leaders as an endorsement by Britain of their political system, and among the majority of people, the black people, of South Africa it will also be interpreted in that way.
1511 The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in a very impressive speech, referred to Helen Suzman, for whom I, too, have a high regard. But I ask him and others to consider why she can still operate within the political context of South Africa. It is because whatever her immense courage, to which I pay tribute, she does not question the fundamental structure of South African society. It is not good enough, and it detracted from an otherwise very good speech, for the right hon. Gentleman to call in support the words of Helen Suzman. What we must call in support is the view of the majority of the people of South Africa, and 80 per cent. of them happen to be black. That majority, because it is black, have had no opportunity to express itself on this issue or any other.
As other hon. Members on both sides have said, it is absolutely true that there are among the white people of South Africa people who are even more courageous than Helen Suzman, and who, as a result of their courage, are finding themselves held incommunicadofor interminable periods under house arrest, unable to see their friends. We should also listen to people of that degree of courage when asking how we should form our opinions in the present situation.
We must also examine the position of the South African Cricket Association. I am as convinced as anyone that within it there are some honourable and courageous men who hold very enlightened views on race relations. But by implication it is sometimes suggested that the South African Cricket Association is a sad prisoner of the political situation within the Republic of South Africa. It would not be proper in a debate like this to forget that before the law ofapartheidwas deliberately applied to sport within South Africa the South African Cricket Association voluntarily operated a policy of apartheid, which applied to selection, training, the use of club facilities and accessibility to matches by spectators. Black and white spectators were separated, the black spectators even sometimes being separated from the whites by barbed wire fences.
For me, cricket has epitomised all that is best in the British traditions of sport, and right at the centre of that sport 1512 and its tradition has been the concept of fair play. Four out of five people in South Africa are excluded from any opportunity of selection for cricket teams claiming to play in the name of South Africa simply because of their colour and racial origin. This is not fair, and it is certainly not sportsmanlike. If British cricketers go ahead and play with cricketers representing such a system they will, whatever their motives, be doing irreparable damage to the whole tradition of cricket in Britain. It is our duty to tell them this.
We must also examine, and we must ask the cricketers to examine, another price they are paying in terms of for the future of cricket. However good their intentions are, they must ask themselves whether the price paid for going ahead and insisting on playing the South African team is reasonable if it amounts to perhaps forgoing the possibility in the future of playing cricket with countries like India, Pakistan and the West Indies.
A great deal has been said in the debate about the Commonwealth Games. What my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, particularly about the meeting of the Sports Council this morning, was most impressive. Surely cricketers as sportsmen will have to consider even at this stage the price being paid by sport as a whole in this country.
I turn for a moment to the issue of law and order. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East has left the Chamber. I thought that he made a most irresponsible speech. If we are being objective in our examination of the situation we must, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, ask ourselves whether the insistence of the Cricket Council and the M.C.C. on going ahead is not the provocation. We must understand and respect the fact that there are many people in this country who hold profound convictions on the issue and who find the whole concept of the tour going ahead immensely distasteful. They see it not just as a game of cricket but as a very direct and personal endorsement of the whole system ofapartheidwithin South Africa.
Therefore, I join those who call upon the Cricket Council even at the eleventh hour to cancel the tour. I believe that by doing so it would save its reputation 1513 for wisdom and sportsmanship and gain immense respect. It is a decision that can only be made by the council; it would be quite improper for the Government to impose their will on it. Either we live in a mature, democratic society, or we do not. We know that if the tour unfortunately goes ahead there may well be a high cost to be paid, in terms of social disorder. No one is more sad about this than I am. It would be foolish to pretend that there are not minute sections of our community which will seize the opportunity presented by the tour as an opportunity for social disruption.
I believe that they will be people who are not really concerned about the issue of apartheid,as speakers on both sides of the House today have been. I want to leave them on one side because they are a social menace and a real enemy to everyone who opposesapartheid,and address myself to the sincere protesters who will be coming forward if the tour goes ahead. I suggest that these protesters must ask themselves three questions.
The first is whether they are primarily concerned with demonstrating the strength of their own personal feelings. This is a perfectly honourable objective if they wish to do so, but they must ask themselves honestly whether it is their overriding objective.
Secondly, they must ask themselves whether their overriding objective is to stop the tour irrespective of what may happen to be the majority viewpoint in Britain at the moment. Again, that is an arguable and, from their point of view, sincere objective, but they must be honest with themselves.
Thirdly, they must ask themselves whether their objective is what I believe to be the objective of most speakers in this debate—to insist that, if the tour goes ahead, those of us who find the concept, traditions and methods ofapartheidfundamentally abhorrent must take the opportunity peacefully and through free argument and persuasion to try to draw into our support and our personal degree of commitment an even wider cross-section of the community than is already concerned.
1514 I believe that this third point is the overridingly important issue and that the first two points may actually be counterproductive in terms of the third. I ask the sincere protesters to examine this because, if they insist on imposing their will, however right their objective may be, morally, on the majority, irrespective of the view of that majority, they will be setting a very dangerous precedent in our political life and one which I do not believe any honest or responsible politician on either side could possibly endorse.

§ Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)
Hon. Members on both sides have expressed differing views with great sincerity in this rather emotional debate. I say at once with what attention I listened to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), with whom I share many things, including a love of cricket. I fancy that this evening I may share something else with him as well, since I, too, think it likely that this may be the last occasion on which I shall address the House. So, if I express views differing from his, I know that he will accept from me, because I have the highest regard for him, that I hold them with the same sincerity with which he holds his views.
First, I want to reinforce a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—that the South African cricket side due to come next month is not the first South African cricket side to come here against the background ofapartheid.Many South African touring sides have come hitherto against that background and it is only because of the extreme increase in the tensions of race relations in Africa that we are in the trouble we are now.
I go further. The pages of Wisden's Cricketers' Alamanac are filled with the names of South African test players who have achieved records, and the world of cricket would be poorer without them. They have been wonderful players and I suspect that the side due to come next month is probably the best cricket side in the world at the moment.
Secondly, I dislikeapartheidas much as anyone else. Apart from other things, 1515 it is unworkable in the long run. But it is not the only form of racial discrimination. In a way, I wish it were, but it is not. Asians are being evicted from East Africa, including Kenya. They are not allowed to grow as a separate community alongside Kenyans. They are being evicted, hounded out. That is racial discrimination of a bad kind. I find it difficult to understand how the Kenyans can be threatening that, if the South Africans come here, they will not take part in the Commonwealth Games. I seem to recall a parable about the mote and the beam. It surely does not lie in the hands of the Kenyans to throw that stone into other people's glass houses.
There are about 60 million untouchables in India and their plight is far worse than the worst phases or features ofapartheid.But no one has ever dreamed of demonstrating about that to the Indian cricketers when they have come here. Again, the very few coloured immigrants allowed into Australia—those who are admitted for a period of training—have to return to their own countries, but no one in his senses would object to any Australian cricket side playing here because of that.
Thirdly,apartheidis not at all the only issue of conscience in the world. It is not the only example of man's inhumanity to his fellow creatures or of his cruelty or oppression. Many other dreadful things have happened and are happening which should arouse our consciences just asapartheiddoes, but we do not hear so much about them. But once one tries to victimise sportsmen, whether they be cricketers or athletes, because of the policies of the Government of their country of which one disapproves, one is victimising the wrong people.
For example, the Indian cricketers are not responsible for the untouchables and the Russian jockeys who rode several years ago in the Grand National could not be accused of being responsible for the treatment of Czechoslovakia. If any Chinese tennis players came to Wimbledon, no one could say they were responsible for the arrest of Mr. Anthony Grey.
Equally, no one can claim that the South African cricketers are responsible forapartheid.I strongly endorse the 1516 view, expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), that if we discriminate against sportsmen on political grounds, we are destroying an essential link between them and other people of other countries and other views.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend emphasise another point, because there is some double thinking about this. Ifapartheidis so abhorrent and so intolerable, I was expecting hon. Members opposite to make strong speeches urging the Government to have a complete trade embargo against South Africa—economic sanctions. I wonder why they did not. I think I know the answer. If economic sanctions were imposed against South Africa, our balance of payments would, to use a cricketing metaphor, " go for six ".
Millions of tons of British shipping goes round the Cape every year, particularly with the Suez Canal shut, and is dependent upon the good will, skills and services of the South African ports for safe passage. It would seem that where economics comes in, conscience goes out of the window. I have yet to hear any Minister or any bishop saying that apartheidis so abhorrent that we should sever all connections, economic or otherwise, with South Africa.
In my view the Prime Minister, in lending his authority to peaceful demonstrations, made a very unwise move indeed. The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that demonstrations start peacefully, but very rarely end peacefully, and he also knows perfectly well there is a hard core of the demonstrators who do not mind in the least about cricket orapartheid;they are anxious only to start a row.
The issue now is that there are a great many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are really asking the Cricket Council to do something which the Government ought to do, but have not the courage to do. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues think the situation will be so bad in the coming months that he ought to send for the South African ambassador and explain to him that Britain is prepared to trade with South Africa, but not to play cricket with South Africa, that they are not at all certain whether they can 1517 marshal sufficient police to ensure the maintenance of law and order, that the " demos " have got us and that it would be better, on balance, to cancel the tour, so be it. But do not ask the Cricket Council to do something which the Government themselves are frightened of doing.
I very much hope that the tour will not be cancelled. If it is cancelled, it is the beginning of the end of international cricket, because every kind of political argument could be adduced to cancel almost every other tour. There could be demonstrations against the M.C.C. in India because of Britain's policy of controlled immigration. The same argument could be used in the West Indies. This is a game that two can play. This is why it was unwise of the Prime Minister to get on to that bandwagon. Not only would it be the beginning of the end of international cricket, but the beginning of the end of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) called freedom under the law, and that is serious indeed.
I have been a cricket fan all my life and I have played cricket on a very minor scale most of my life. I have played a good many games with hon. Members on both sides of the House, over many years, and thoroughly enjoyed it. We have played from 11.30 to 6.30, and we have drawn stumps and come back here and argued across the Floor of the House and gone into opposite Lobbies, and all that. Long may that continue. But is it too late to hope that we might, in this House, regain some sense of proportion and, incidentally, a sense of humour, and allow hundreds of thousands of cricket lovers to do what they want to do this summer, which is simply to watch 11 South African cricketers playing against 11 English cricketers at Lords, the Oval, Trent Bridge, or anywhere else?

§ Mr. Desmond Donnelly (Pembroke)
On a point of order. I am making no complaints on my own behalf. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. and gallant 1518 Gentleman the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) have a prior claim to speak. I accept that you seek to preserve the balance, Mr. Speaker, but, on the other hand, during the debate, we have had a number of speeches, all perfectly sincere, from both sides of the House. On this side, we have had two speeches, quite sincere, supporting one particular point of view that is against the general consensus here. On the other side, all the speeches have been one-sided. I may or may not represent anybody—

§ Mr. Faulds
The hon. Member does not.

§ Mr. Donnelly
We shall see, but that is not the point.
The point, basically, is this, that if the House is to function efficiently in the future, regardless of who is here, then there should be a balance of points of view on all sides of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that not only Mr. Speaker, but the whole House, is aware of the principles which he has enunciated.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan)
I shall not be more than two or three minutes, because I want to deal with only one limited aspect of what has been said.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) expressed the fear that cancellation of the tour would mean bowing to the forces of disorder—the phrase he used. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that we must not yield to pressure, but the " we ", was not clear. I was not clear whether he meant the Government or the Cricket Council. The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) summed it up by saying that we should say to the South Africans, " We cannot marshal the police. The demos' have got us ".
My only purpose in rising is to remove that argument completely from the scene. There is no validity in it. Although, obviously, it will throw burdens on the police if they have to turn out at weekends and other occasions to deal with demonstrations, there need be no fear in anybody's mind that the police are incapable of handling this kind of demonstration. They will be fully able to do so.
1519 What is more, if, on the fringes of the demonstrations, there are the usual crowd of ruffians who wish to misuse the occasion in order to do other things, then it will be the duty of the police to prevent a breach of peace and to bring them before the courts.
It is important that this should be fully understood and that nothing should go out from this House which suggests that the police are incapable of handling this situation. What is more, chief constables have represented to me that they would not themselves welcome any attempt by the Government to interfere with the right of demonstration and protest. I think, therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) said, this lies now within the self-discipline of the demonstrators as to how these demonstrations shall pass off. I hope to have more to say about that a little later, but it is important to make this simple point for this purpose.
There seems to be a lurking belief that I detected in the Cricket Council when it came to see me that it is a lonely band of heroes standing against the darkening tide of lawlessness. I can relieve the Council of that burden. There is no need for it to feel that in any way at all. It is not required to demonstrate that lawlessness will not prevail in this country by going on with the tour. The real issue here is not the issue of law and order. I rely, as I have done on a previous significant occasion, on the good sense and the long traditions of the British people in the matter of these kinds of demonstration to ensure that we shall do again as we did last time—set an example to the whole world in the manner in which we can express our detestation of the particular issues that concern the South African cricketers.
I have no doubt at all about that. Let us put the responsibility firmly where it belongs. What we are discussing here is the judgment of the Cricket Council in inviting the team here in the face of an unparalleled crescendo of opposition. It cannot be pressurised into abandoning the tour. No one need stand up against that pressurisation for its own sake. When I hear the list of organisations who oppose the tour, when I consider the possible damage that could be done, 1520 on which I do not want to dilate this evening because it has been argued by other hon. Members much more eloquently than I, I repeat to the Cricket Council that it is for it to consider, against the general background of what has been said, whether its judgment to proceed with this tour is right.
What I fear is that there will be damage done to racial relations and other matters. But I have to weigh that, in the discharge of my duties, against imposing my judgment that the damage to be done is so grave that I should interfere with the traditional rights of people to carry on a lawful pursuit, even though it is an unpopular pursuit. So far, I have reached the conclusion it would not be right to do that. I still adhere to that view. There is a conflict of rights, a conflict of feelings here.
I believe that that is correct and that it is not unfair to throw the responsibility upon the Cricket Council. It invited the South Africans; it can uninvite them if it chooses to do so. If it does. I promise the Council this: no one will construe it, because he will not be correct, to mean that the Council will be bowing to the forces of lawlessness or disorder, or the demonstrators in this country.

§ Mr. Desmond Donnelly (Pembroke)
May I make an improper suggestion? May I waive my claim in favour of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), Mr. Speaker?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot do that.

§ Mr. Donnelly
Most of the debate has been extremely well conducted. Whatever the strength of our feelings, whatever the arguments advanced, there has been a great deal of sincerity—[Interruption.]on both sides—Order! [Laughter.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must make his own speech and not usurp the functions of the Chair.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I felt that you were not quite hearing what was going on, Mr. Speaker.
Most of this debate has been conducted with a great deal of dignity but for one notable exception, namely, the hon. 1521 Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds). I wish him a long and successful career on the television screen, playing other people's parts.

§ Mr. Faulds
With his never-failing loyalty to members of his old party, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me notice that he would mention me. We all understand his hysterical need to be noticed because of his impending political extinction. If it gives him any delight to mention me in this debate to further his own publicity purposes he has my full agreement, because I am much better known than he is, and I am much more highly regarded throughout the country.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I come now to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker)—

§ Mr. Faulds
And I will be here a lot longer than the hon. Member.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I will be much briefer if hon. Gentlemen do not interrupt.
The right hon. Member quoted Bishop Huddleston, but he did not quote the Archbishop of York—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This debate has proceeded in an orderly fashion so far. It must continue to do so.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I am happy to quote Bishop Huddleston as well.
When I was speaking at the Cambridge Union, and the Foreign Secretary was a witness to this, Bishop Huddleston said that Russia and China were more democratic countries than this. Not only is the Foreign Secretary a witness to that, but so is the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and several hundreds of people. I will not quote Bishop Huddleston as my example on any issue of this nature.
My credentials for speaking in the debate are tenuous except for the following. The first is that I am an Anglo-Indian. I am the first member of my family to live in this country for over 100 years.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I grew up playing with the children of Indian peasants. English is my second language. I am not a racialist In that Gallery above US—[HON. MEMBERS: " Order."]—running the 1970 1522 tour campaign, is another Anglo-Indian—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer, even indirectly, to the presence of strangers.

§ Mr. Donnelly
I am referring to him now indirectly. Mr. Ramon Subba Row is running the 1970 campaign fund and is responsible for much of its administration. He is also an Anglo-Indian. He has four English caps against South Africa. The person who has a complaint about this, more than anyone else is Mr. d'Oliveira and we know the dignity with which he has behaved and the pressures under which he has lived.
If I have any other credentials it is that I was privileged to serve with the 15th South African Squadron in the Desert Air Force, and I was proud to serve with it. I only wish that a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite had seen them in the mess and the way in which they behaved during those days when when they fought for freedom. I have some figures here. They might not interest many people, but they interest me. There were 211,123 and 123,000 non-Europeans, all volunteers, in the British forces during the war.

An Hon. Member
Where was Vorster?

§ Mr. Donnelly
I am not defending Mr. Vorster.
Out of all of this there were three South African Victoria Crosses, 108 Distinguished Service Orders, 37 Distinguished Service Crosses. 429 Distinguished Flying Crosses—I could go on, but the total comes to 7,114. If they were good enough to do that for us they are good enough to play cricket against us, or life has no meaning.
My next point is germane to the whole nature of the debate. It is why the previous tour was cancelled, because of Mr. d'Oliviera's exclusion by the South African Government. I want to make it clear that it was not the South African Cricket Association, but was the South African Government. We may argue about the M.C.C. but it is not a matter for the House of Commons as to who should be chosen in a cricket team. In my view, having known Alec Bedser as one of the England selectors for 30 years, having known Colin Cowdrey for a number of years, I know that these are men of integrity.
1523 Is anyone here impugning their integrity? I am asking: is anyone here impugning Mr. Cowdrey's integrity? [HON. MEMBERS: " The hon. Member's integrity."] I will not even dream of asking for your protection from these Members, Mr. Speaker.
Another important point concerns the Minister for Sport—and he is a good chap. He fought hard against the election of the Prime Minister, along with me. This is what he said on the radio on 25th May, 1969: Well. the Government's view is that if it is possible for the citizens of this country to visit South Africa or South Africans to visit this country, then sportsmen cannot be treated differently nor would I wish them to be treated differently from the rest of the community. That is a very different statement from what we have had today.
There is the whole strategic question which lies behind this. There is South Africa's position as the half-way house of the world. What would happen to British trade if we did not have the Cape route? A total of 85 per cent. of the oil that comes into my constituency, which is the largest oil port in the United Kingdom, comesviathe Cape route. A total of 58 per cent. of the United Kingdom oil comesviathat route. Behind all this is an attack on South Africa itself, a damaging attack against Western relations, and if I have one word of advice to the Cricket Council it is not to surrender to mob rule, to hooliganism, to the cranks, to the birdbrains and the self-important sanctimonious prigs.
It being three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 9(Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.)

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker
In view of the resolution adopted this morning by the Sports Council, and of the many eloquent appeals which have been made this afternoon to the Cricket Council, I beg to ask leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members
No.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Motion is already time elapsed.