SPORT IN SOUTH AFRICA

HC Deb 04 June 1980 vol 985 cc1638-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

3.2 am

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, West)

The significance of the timing of this debate is obvious to all, coming as it does when a British Isles rugby team is touring South Africa and small pockets of political unrest are being reported there by the world press. That those events have occurred in and around where the Lions are playing is not without coincidence, as the All Blacks rugby team found in 1976. By the very nature of the unrest, it is obvious that South Africa's political opponents are taking every opportunity of causing trouble in that part of the world while world attention is focused upon them. All is not well. Even South African politicians admit that. However, the very nature of the disturbances indicates a minority view that is obtaining majority publicity.

The Sports Council visit, led in January by its chairman, Dickie Jeeps, a distinguished former rugby international, has produced a very fair and balanced report. Nowhere does it make a definite recommendation. Its attitude is vague as to its intention. Its message is clear—that in the opinion of the delegation dramatic progress has been made towards a total multi-racial sports society and that this Government should consider renewing their sporting links immediately.

The report is extremely long and comprehensive. The programme was decided by the council and every attempt was made to see as broad a section of South African sports as possible. Some may argue that too much time was given to the views of the South African Council on Sport—SACOS—which refused fuir co-operation with the delegation, withheld information and attempted to deceive the council in its intent. This body represents a minority of coloured black sportsmen in South Africa—probably a maximum of about 400,000 in a population of about 25 million.

SACOS receives funds from outside South Africa, possibly from Eastern Europe, and yet maintains some respectability with Western Governments. The delegation found its members difficult to contact, biased in their views and deceitful in their information. Some organisations which it claimed to represent did not even exist, and its slogan No normal sport in an abnormal society precludes any chance that its organisation will be of any value to a mixed racial society.

The delegation also found disturbing evidence that there were allegations that SACOS was operating a system of intimidation and that victimisation took place. Complaints had been made that one SACOS spokesman's daughter had been hit on her tennis arm with the sharp edge of a ruler because she had shown interest in participating in a tennis programme run by the provincial association, a non-SACOS body, Also reported was the case of a young table tennis player, a Miss Wisneth, who did not compete in the 1979 open championships because of certain pressures from outside sources. If one adds to that the posturings of Mr. Paul Stephenson, the coloured member of our Sports Council, and his inflammatory remarks aimed at setting white against black, one realises the antagonism that the delegation faced in its attempts to produce a fair and balanced verdict.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

SACOS has a "child ", I understand, which runs around this country in nappies, known as SANROC. Why is it that whenever the BBC wants to interview anybody from South Africa with regard to sport in that country it always turns up with SANROC, which is utterly unrepresentative of sporting interests in South Africa?

Mr. Carlisle

I am glad that my hon. Friend made that point. I shall say something about SANROC later in my speech.

The majority view, however, was reported as held by those sporting bodies that are prepared to work within the system to achieve change. The delegation received deputations from many sporting fields and formed the immediate impression that any young South African, whatever the colour of his skin, could achieve that accolade of sport—the Springbok blazer.

Nor was there any evidence to suggest that segregation existed in crowds. Indeed, some blacks are now complaining that they cannot obtain tickets for matches, because they used to have a stand of their own and that facility is no longer available. Certainly some extra facilities are needed, such as encouragement of coaching, a new soccer stadium, more encouragement at school level and a major capital investment on facilities in the black townships.

There is no doubt that the Jeeps report found South Africa in a period of transition. Prime Minister Botha is committed to irreversible change—not always popular with his own party—and the heartening feature of those taking part in the field of sport is that they are becoming the pace-setters to achieve integration. One can well imagine their extreme frustration and despair at the negative response they receive from Britain, where the Minister has made little comment on the report, or, indeed, on the recommendation that other countries should also send delegations. Recently nine French Members of Parliament reported back favourably to their Government. We still await the International Cricket Council's report, which is rumoured to be favourable, and, of course, the International Tennis Federation reported in a favourable way.

To stand at each end of a field and fire shots at each other is no way to achieve any sort of harmony. South Africa has made several concessions that would have been unheard of a decade ago. The Jeeps report confirms this, and it must be right that the British Government should in their turn recognise that change and seek to encourage it. Active discouragement will only encourage the ultra-Right, which is only too ready to return to the old ways. My hon. Friend must realise this danger and the fact that his constant refusal of recognition is prejudicing the sporting opportunities of thousands of blacks.

One very telling and revealing sector of the report is to be found in the question and answer paragraphs, prepared for the council by the South African Olympic and National Games Association. This sector pulls no punches. I shall not detain the House for too long on its findings, but confine my remarks to one or two points.

The answers confirm that sporting participants of all colours can share facilities, such as hotel accommodation, dressing rooms, refreshments arrangements, toilets, receptions, use of liquor and travel, all on an equal basis. It is admitted that in the election of officers for clubs, club membership and club rules, South African sports clubs still follow the custom enjoyed by many British clubs, in that they can accept what members they like. Many will not question a club's right to discriminate in the composition of its membership.

To the allegation that whites are enjoying financial favour in terms of services, facilities and planning for sport, the report points out that in 1978 and 1979 about 2½ million rand was spent on sport for whites, and nearly 10½ million rand on sport for other participants. The association admits that more money for black sportsmen is required. Much of the shortfall that needs to be made up is caused by the recent active interest being shown by non-whites in sporting activities. That is bound to take time to correct. It is admitted that much remains to be done, especially with the liquor laws. But they were never intended to apply to sport, and the sports bodies will continue to press for their sports to be exempted from them.

Perhaps the most interesting evidence comes from the IOC fact-finding committee of 1967, headed by Lord Killanin—one who has not endeared himself to the Government by his stubborn determination to stage the Olympic Games in Moscow. The report found that SANROC, the South African Non-Racial Open Committee, now operating from London, is supported only in spirit by the majority of non-whites in Africa but its methods are a cause of embarrassment to the majority in South Africa for whom it claims to speak. It is not without significance that, following the report, South Africa was invited to the Mexico Games, but political pressure eventually caused the invitation to be withdrawn. If the IOC thought South Africa a fit member in 1968, how can it exclude it after 12 years of change and progress?

Reaction in South Africa to the Jeeps report has been favourable. Mr. David Dalling, an Opposition MP, said: If changes in sport were encouraged in South Africa by not cutting off relations, or, for a trial period reopening relations there would be a massive reaction to change in South Africa. He went on to say that if separation continued on the lines recommended by the former British Minister with responsibility for sport, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Small Heath (Mr. Howell), there would be a slow backlash that would retard change.

Mr. Abe William, a senior coloured rugby official, said about the Lions' tour to South Africa, according to an article by Franks Keating in The Guardian of 27 May: Afrikaners, you change their rugby, you change their life, man. P. M. Botha is our hope for the future. If he goes, we are back to square one … Once they were dark days, now at least we have some hope.' I wish to mention but one sport, football, which is the favourite pastime of blacks in South Africa. The Jeeps report stated that football has achieved full integration and that there is nothing more their administrators can do to achieve more integration. It is indeed a disgrace that the world is now discriminating against every black man in South Africa, even though South Africa has complied with every aspect of what it has been asked to do.

Inevitably, I must conclude with the Gleneagles agreement, a decision thrust upon this Parliament without its ever having a chance to approve it; nor, of course, was there any consultation with the Sports Council or sportsmen throughout this country. For a Conservative Government to be hogtied to such an agreement, made by a Labour Administration, is an extraordinary situation.

Mr. Edward Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil)

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present at Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday when she——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) asked the question.

Mr. Rowlands

—reaffirmed her support for the Gleneagles agreement, and made it clear that in her opinion, and in the assessment of the Government, the changes have not been sufficient to justify the abrogation of the Gleneagles agreement.

Mr. Carlisle

I note the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, I asked the question. In an answer to a question of mine on 18 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated that progress is not yet sufficient to discuss with Commonwealth colleagues the possibility of modifying the Gleneagles agreement."—[Official Report, 18 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 729.] Because of those answers and because of the reaction of the House, the South African Government are now at a loss to know what they are expected to do. No hint of correction has come from my right hon. Friend's office and there has been no indication of the further steps that are considered to be necessary.

The Jeeps report was a fact-finding mission funded by Government money. Surely it is not too much too ask that Parliament be informed whether the Government feel that that money was well spent and whether they intend to act on its conclusions.

I urge my hon. Friend to indicate what he now expects of the South African sports authorities, whether he will encourage our Commonwealth colleagues to accept the report and whether he will commence, however slowly, the process of restoring South Africa to full international sporting participation.

3.15 am

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I shall be brief, because I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wishes to make the Government's position clear.

I speak as someone who is very interested in sport and who has been privileged to visit South Africa on two occasions, meeting representatives of black, white, and coloured South Africa and of the Indian community. I have visited virtually every part of South Africa, including many of the townships, coloured, black and Indian, where the South African Government are endeavouring to provide sporting facilities and to bring about a gradual integration in sport.

For that reason, I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) raised this matter on the Adjournment. I hope that this debate will bring pressure on the Government to provide time to debate the Jeeps report in this place.

I was very sad when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered my hon. Friend in the way that she did on Tuesday during Prime Minister's Question Time. It indicated to me either that she had been badly briefed or that she had not read the Jeeps report. To say that there has not been a massive move towards integration in sport in South Africa—the Jeeps report confirms that that has taken place—is to deny the facts of what has happened. I have been to South Africa, seen what is happening there, and been impressed by the speed with which integration, in a very difficult situation, is being achieved.

I am surprised that a Conservative Government, who are setting about reforming many of the mistakes of the Labour Administration, are prepared to remain on this ridiculous hook of the Gleneagles agreement. I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to some of the words in the Commonwealth statement on apartheid in sport, which forms the basis of the Gleneagles agreement. It refers, first, to the members of the Commonwealth who attended and states: They were conscious that sport is an important means of developing and fostering understanding between the people, and especially between the young people, of all countries. But I agree that the statement then goes on to say: But they were also aware that, quite apart from other factors, sporting contacts between their nationals and the nationals of countries practising apartheid in sport tend to encourage the belief (however unwarranted) that they are prepared to condone this abhorrent policy or are less than totally committed to the principles embodied in their Singapore Declaration "— a declaration of many years previously.

I suggest that it is absolutely ridiculous that a Tory Government should be hung on this hook of an agreement made by a Socialist Administration when that agreement was not put before the House and, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, no consultation was carried out by the then Minister for Sport with the Sports Council or any other sporting body in this country. Therefore, I believe that the move suggested by my hon. Friend—that the Government should look at and provide time to debate the Jeeps report—is relevant.

I should like to quote briefly from the Jeeps report. Mr. Leslie Sehume, formerly secretary-general of the Committee for Fairness in Sport, who is known to my hon. Friend, asked why should they not be internationally recognised. The primary interest of SACOS was to bring the Government down. Mr. Sehume suggested that the opportunity to play sport should take priority over such considerations. What was needed was to point out ignorance and to make clear the changes that had taken place. Dr. Koornhof is now the Minister for Co-operation and Development, but he was previously the Minister of Sport and a man who had led much of the progress, as I am sure even the Opposition will admit, that has occurred in South Africa. Referring to SACOS, he said that, in his experience, they were not interested in sport per se as would be a normal sportsman: they were using sport for political reasons and that was why it was not possible to get them to co-operate. The Minister reiterated a comment he had made in the past to the effect that he would put up a monument to one who could persuade Mr Hassan Howa to co-operate with anyone. The motion that has been proposed is important. Let us get off the stupid hook that this House played no part in getting us on. Let us operate the Tory policy sensibly, and let us negotiate again with our friends.

3.20 am

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) raised this subject tonight. He was assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whose criticism of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this subject I cannot accept. The motion gives me a chance to clarify certain aspects and to set the record straight.

The mission was devised entirely by the Sports Council as a result of a resolution proposed by a member at its meeting last October and prompted by the controversy surrounding the tour here of the South African Barbarians rugby club. The council approved the resolution and proceeded with the fact-finding mission. At no stage had it anything whatever to do with Ministers.

The Sports Council is the major body representing sports interests in this country and when it was established in 1972 the Royal Charter gave it an international role. It is also independent of the Government but adviser to them. It is not an outpost of my Department. It is only right, therefore, that it should have acquainted itself of as many relevant facts as possible about sport and South Africa. At the same time, however, the Sports Council recognises that this matter is for political judgment also, and that this is the province of the Government.

The report is clearly the result of hard and diligent work and the enthusiasm of members of the mission. It was produced quickly. I have read it carefully. All hon. Members will agree that it will take time to distil all the information. Instant reactions are not possible. However, many readers of the report would have liked more cross-examination of the evidence. That would have strengthened the report.

As my hon. Friend said, the report draws no conclusions and makes no recommendations but as a whole confirms the Government's assessment that there is progress towards integration. Here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and his comments about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She was not making an off-the cuff comment. She knew exactly what she was saying and has said it constantly over the past six months.

The process of integration varies from sport to sport, from area to area and from club to club. It is generally greater on the field than off the field. Wider problems remain and laws have to be varied to allow for social mixing. Education is still racial, and schooling is very import ant relative to future attitudes. As the report suggests, rugby may be one of the less well integrated sports, and some confusion abounds between non-racial sport and matches between different races.

It is important to note that the Sports Council, in its resolution passed on the report on 12 May, did not call on the Government to take action. It urged the IOC and the international sports bodies to review the state of South African sport. It simply asked the Government to note the action that the council had taken, and, as I have indicated, I am happy to do that.

The report does not affect the Government's position. We have made clear that this rests on the Commonwealth statement of 1977. The Foreign Secretary confirmed our acceptance of it in Parliament last June. It is worth recalling that that statement was an attempt to harmonise relationships within the Commonwealth. My hon. Friends and other hon. Members will recall that it was discussed, considered and accepted after the difficulties of the Olympics of 1976, subsequent to the New Zealand tour of South Africa, when there was great disharmony in the Commonwealth about the attitude within the Commonwealth to sport with South Africa. A serious situation was then developing over sports contacts with South Africa, and that is why the agreement was devised and accepted by the then Government.

But, of course, it was to that the IOC and the international sports federations had already isolated South Africa from international sport. Sport has been seized upon, as my hon. Friends have said, by anti-apartheid elements as a means of attacking the system in South Africa. The Commonwealth needed to devise a formula that was acceptable to all members of the Commonwealth, and that is presumably why the wording of the Commonwealth agreement is rather ambiguous and open to some doubt, as my hon. Friends indicated. But we shall continue to abide by it to the best of our ability within the context of our laws and tradition, as is allowed for in the statement itself.

As the House knows, we have thought it right to look towards the future possibility of seeking modification of the statement with our Commonwealth colleagues if and when we judge that sufficient progress has been made towards integration in South Africa. We made this clear as long ago as last September, in a press release. An important element in this is the attitude of international sports bodies, such as the IOC. It led the isolation of South Africa from world sport long before the Commonwealth statement.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Yet it is going to Moscow.

Mr. Monro

If it believes that sufficient progress towards non-racialism has been made in sport there, it must help to create the right atmosphere to pave the way for possible renegotiation. I am pleased that the Sports Council resolution was directed to it so that it can consider this very point. If South African sport can demonstrate to the IOC and the ISFs that it should be readmitted, Her Majesty's Government and others will take these views into account.

The Commonwealth is not alone in taking this attitude. Sports Ministers of the 23 Council of Europe members in 1978 unanimously adopted a resolution on sport in society far more stringent than the Gleneagles agreement. Britain cannot act in isolation over this matter. The next possible opportunity of discussing the Commonwealth statement is at the Heads of Government meeting next year. As I said, our view is that progress has been made but has been patchy from one sport to another. The end of isolation is not yet in sight, but it is right that international sport should keep the position under review.

Isolation has accelerated change. As the Sports Council report recognises, there is need for the carrot, or at least the promise of one. It is a difficult balance. To do too much slows down change. To do too little may dishearten both the white and black alike. Certainly the tour of the South Africa Barbarians club heightened the possibility of Britain finding herself increasingly isolated in international sport, as indeed by the Lions' tour today. There have been definite signs that the Commonwealth countries may seek to exclude Britain from the Commonwealth Games. Originally it was the Olympics, but that has been overtaken by Afghanistan and the Russian invasion and atrocities happening there.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

They are all going.

Mr. Monro

The loss of the Commonwealth Games, or a British entry, would be serious indeed, and I hope that those involved will take into account the interests and concerns of fellow sportsmen even if they are unwilling to accept advice from the Government.

The situation is not helped by the absolutely rigid attitude of various anti-apartheid elements. They are reluctant to-understand or appreciate the basic freedoms traditional in our laws and customs. The Commonwealth statement Fully acknowledged that it was for each government to determine in accordance with its laws the methods by which it might best discharge its commitments. A refusal to see the other point of view is unhelpful. That is particularly manifest in the draft convention against apartheid in sport that is being drawn up in the United Nations.

The way forward is not easy. A renegotiation of the Gleneagles agreement is essential before normal sporting contacts can be resumed. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that when sufficient progress has been made in the present arrangements in South Africa for integrated sport we shall consider revising the agreement. That moment has not yet arrived.

If and when the moment arrives will depend on many factors—for example, the attitudes of the ISFs, timing, the feeling within the Commonwealth and diplomacy of a high order. I hope that one day this can be achieved to the benefit of world sport. In the meantime, the Government will keep a close eye on developments.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Three o'clock am.