HC Deb 09 February 1983 vol 36 cc1119-26

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

11.55 pm
Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, West)

I am grateful for being allowed this debate tonight. I make no apology to the House for bringing to its attention yet again the devastating effect that the Gleneagles agreement is continuing to have upon the prospects and activities of British and Commonwealth sportsmen. The Minister will be aware of the strong feelings held by many hon. Members and people outside the House about this agreement. It was signed and sealed by a Labour Prime Minister, who at the time was desperate for support from any national Government who wished to attack South Africa. It was approved, regrettably, by the Prime Minister twice at the various conferences but never had the approval of Parliament, let alone approval from the representative sports bodies such as the Sports Council or the Central Council of Physical Recreation.

It is a document without legal foundation or statutory requirement on the individuals concerned. It is to the Government's shame that the agreement is in force. It restricts the freedom of the individual to exercise his choice to play wherever and against whomsoever he wishes. It is to the shame of the Government that they continue to support the agreement. They have allied themselves to a cause which is unashamedly Left-wing and, in some cases, Moscow-inspired.

The Minister knows that the actions of at least 75 per cent. of all the sports bodies that have expelled South African sportsmen from competition in recent years have resulted from Russian resolutions and usually with the approval of the United Nations. Those Commonwealth countries that wish to isolate further the South African people are doing so for political reasons that have nothing to do with sport. Sportsmen have become the easy weapon of South Africa's opponents. Those opponents trade happily with that country and in some cases almost entirely depend on them for food and survival. This hypocrisy and double-standard should receive the Government's immediate attention.

Since our last debate in the House on the subject of the Commonwealth declaration of sport, or the Gleneagles agreement, as it is more popularly known, two significant and, I believe, dangerous developments have occurred. The first is the new code of practice that has been adopted by the Commonwealth Games Federation, and the second is the banning of entry by the Australian Prime Minister of British nationals who have competed and played sport in South Africa.

I ask the Minister tonight for his opinion of the new code of practice. He will know that the federation's decision now means that any sporting bodies within the federation—

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

rose—

Mr. Carlisle

I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wishes to make an intervention, but I do not intend to give way to him. I was saying that any such sporting bodies which are unwittingly represented by individuals in South Africa have become liable to expulsion from the games.

Furthermore, the federation is encouraging its members to criticise other sporting authorities that participate in South Africa. It could be incumbent on the Amateur Athletics Association to criticise the English Rugby Union if, as I hope it will, it goes to the Republic for its tour in 1984. What humbug this is.

Is the federation saying that Britain cannot compete in the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1986 if a British swimmer takes part in a competition in Pretoria? Is the federation saying that if an English bowls player, who happens to be on holiday in Durban, is invited to take part in a local competition, his participation could jeopardise his country's entry into the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh in 1986? Is the federation telling our amateur boxers that each time they climb into the ring with a young, black South African heavyweight, they jeopardise the chances of all Commonwealth Games sportsmen to participate?

It seems to me, and to many other people, that the Commonwealth Games Federation is trying deliberately to wreck Commonwealth sport, to ruin the chances of thousands of young men and women who aspire to represent their country, and to cede all responsibility to the respective Governments. What is more, it places its own members in an intolerable situation. Only Britain and New Zealand abstained on the vote, but they are bound by a decision. They have always believed that each federation should take its own decision on its own association with South Africa.

It will be recalled that at the time of the Moscow Olympics some sports opted out of the Government's decision and decided to go. If this new code is to be observed, it will mean dissension in their own ranks as well as deep divisions within those representing sports outside those ranks.

I heartily congratulate the Central Council of Physical Recreation on issuing its recent statement condemning this new code, for standing up for the freedom of the British sportsman and for completely absolving itself of any association with this resolution. I trust that this evening my hon. Friend will wholeheartedly support the CCPR in its decision.

The second vicious twist to this unfortunate saga is the decision by the Australian Government through the Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Malcolm Fraser, to deny entry visas to any British sportsmen who have played cricket in South Africa. That he has apparently done in the name of the Gleneagles agreement. Such action has already been considered despicable and condemned by citizens of his own country and has led to anger and puzzlement among sportsmen throughout the world. Only today I had a telephone call from Mr. Geoffrey Boycott, of Yorkshire and England fame, asking whether he would now be able even to enter Australia, let alone to play—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) seems to think that this is funny. If Mr. Boycott is denied the living for which he is trained and the living to which he is entitled, we ought to make some protest in this House.

Mr. Tom McNally (Stockport, South)

Is there not also a need for sportsmen to think hard about when they are used as political pawns by both Governments and commercial organisations which put up large sums to induce them to go to South Africa for political rather than sporting reasons? Should not that also be condemned?

Mr. Carlisle

The party of which the hon. Gentleman was formerly a member might disagree, because his former colleague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, recently said on television that he thought that the whole thing should be looked at again. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that sportsmen should be picked out rather than business men, what is the policy of his party towards business in South Africa and the 200,000 jobs involved in British trade?

Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the most important thing is the freedom of the rights of individuals, be they West Indian or English, to play cricket in South Africa, Australia or wherever? Mr. Boycott and Mr. Rowe, a distinguished West Indian cricketer, are playing cricket in South Africa and that is what they should be allowed to do, regardless of the way in which Opposition Members condemn them.

Mr. Carlisle

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has highlighted the difference between the Opposition and Conservative Members, in that we agree with freedom of choice of the individual and they do not.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it absolutely clear tonight where British sportsmen stand on this issue. As he knows, hundreds are involved. If the ban applies to cricketers, why should it not apply to tennis players, athletes, golfers, and even to jockeys who have enjoyed sport in South Africa? I hope that my hon. Friend will reinforce the general condemnation of Mr. Fraser's action and say that the British Government would never enforce such a ban for such a reason. Many are waiting to hear what he has to say tonight.

The only answer lies in the complete abandonment and scrapping of this agreement. Frankly, it has now ceased to be necessary. It states in its preliminary that it is directed against any country, including South Africa, where sports are organised on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin". My hon. Friend will know that such a situation simply does not now exist in South Africa. He does not need to take my word for it. There is the evidence of his own Sports Council, the International Cricket Conference, the International Tennis Federation, and a French parliamentary delegation, as well as the evidence of numerous individuals who have visited that country, many of whom have changed their minds after seeing the situation out there. Only recently, the South African national olympic council declared that it would swear an affidavit to the effect that its sport was organised on a selection merit basis only. We know that spectators can sit where they like. There is the evidence of moderates, such as Tommy Bedford and Sydney Maree, who have pleaded with the international organisers to recognise the progress that has been made.

Unfortunately, my Government and my hon. Friend still refuse to acknowledge these facts. How can we justify standing by an agreement the basic requirement of which is now satisfied? How can we, in honesty, keep the terms of a treaty that asked for change, instituted change, and then refused to acknowledge that change? It smells to me rather like the trade union leaders — and, in some cases, managements — who accept the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute and then ignore his recommendations.

My hon. Friend should go out there and have a look for himself. No British Minister has visited the Republic since we came into office. He should go out and spend time in the black township of Soweto and go, as I did, to a football match with some 40,000 supporters. He should go to the coloured township of Mitchells Plain, just outside Cape Town, and look at the facilities there and the people who are taking part. He should go to the suburbs of Johannesburg and talk to the Indians and the young Indian cricketers. They will tell him that sport is fully integrated. He will have every opportunity to ask them about it. If we make an agreement we should not be afraid to question that agreement and test its validity. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the agreement is harming those whom it is meant to benefit.

I hold no truck with apartheid and with parts of the South African Government's policy. I consider many of them—as do many other hon. Members—to be an abomination of human rights, but I wish to encourage those who seek to break it, and I want to support those who are trying to change the system. I call on my hon. Friend and the Government to give international support a boost—a boost that ignores blackmail, ignores the hypocrisy, and frees sport of this ever-growing cancer of political interference.

My hon. Friend is in a unique position. His is a unique appointment. I know that he is a keen sports lover and that he is a capable competitor in his own right. I also know that in his Department he wears many hats. I ask him tonight to wear his sports hat and to act in the best interests of sportsmen.

12.9 am

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) has pointed out, it is some 18 months since the House last debated this subject. That was on 31 July 1981, when he was similarly successful in the ballot. If marks were awarded in the House for persistence in pursuit of an issue, my hon. Friend would get an A rating, even if he does not always echo my views in all aspects of this complex subject.

The paper which has prompted this debate is called the 1977 Commonwealth Statement on Apartheid in Sport. As hon. Members know, its popular name derives from the fact that it was drafted by Commonwealth Heads of Government during their weekend retreat at a Scottish hotel and golf complex in 1977. Those hon. Members who have a penchant for that splendid game will no doubt think that the selection of that location was rather canny.

The statement is not a formal agreement. There are no signatories and it is not legally binding. It is a policy statement agreed by Commonwealth leaders giving expression to the deep abhorrence of apartheid, particularly in sport, shared by the Commonwealth and recognised by my hon. Friend in his remarks. It obliges Commonwealth Governments to discourage their sports-men and women from undertaking sporting contacts with South Africa. It is drafted in terms of broad principle so as to allow individual Governments discretion to fulfil their obligations according to their laws. Indeed, the statement says that it is for each Government to determine in accordance with its laws the methods by which it might best charge these commitments. Therein lies the hon. Member's concern.

By design, therefore, Commonwealth Governments interpret their responsibilities differently. In itself this does not mean that we should seek to renegotiate or even revoke the 1977 statement. By contrast, the flexibility which it allows is one of its greatest strengths, recognising at it does the varying relationships between Government and sport, immigration and visa entry rules, that apply in different Commonwealth countries. Therefore, my first point is that the 1977 Commonwealth statement affects primarily Governments, not sports people. It is Governments' interpretation of the obligations of the statement, and their wider polices on sporting links with South Africa, that in turn affect sports people.

I doubt whether any hon. Member would deny the evils of apartheid, but I recognise that some, especially on this side of the House, are uneasy about the fact that the Commonwealth has placed sport in the forefront of what it perceives as a struggle against apartheid. My main concern is the continuation of international sport in its present non-racial form, especially within the Commonwealth because of our close and historic ties with other members.

Many Commonwealth countries and sports bodies feel that apartheid is totally irreconcilable with the principles of sport and do not therefore wish to see South Africa compete in the international arena. Sport led the way. My hon. Friend will recollect that it was a South African Prime Minister who said that the MCC team of 1968 was unacceptable. In 1970 the International Olympic Committee and the International Cricket Conference excluded South Africa from the fold. The ICC has confirmed its decision subsequently, as did the IOC when it met recently in Los Angles. FIFA, the governing body of the world's most popular sport, excluded South Africa in 1974. The point is that all those decisions were some years before Commonwealth Prime Ministers met at Glenagles to agree a joint statement of their approach. The 1977 statement was therefore, and remains, largely an endorsement of the actions and stance of certain international sports bodies. It also paved the way for the continuance of free sporting contacts within the Commonwealth. This was and is most important.

For sports people themselves, its most obvious and immediate impact was probably to ensure that the 1978 Commonwealth Games in Edmonton went ahead as planned without the sort of boycott that cast a shadow over the Montreal Olympics two years perviously. The Olympics survived that, but I doubt that the Commonwealth Games would have continued had there been a significant boycott in 1978. That would have been a sad loss. My hon. Friend was, however, concerned that the 1977 statement has damaged rather than helped the interests of sportsmen. I am well familiar with his views, but without an historical perspective any assessment of the effects of the 1977 statement would be unbalanced.

What is the Government's policy? The then Foreign Secretary confirmed the Government's acceptance of the statement's provisions soon after we came into office in 1979. That has been reaffirmed on various occasions—as my hon. Friend pointed out—and was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting at Melbourne in 1981, and to the House on 11 November 1982. Our policy on sporting contacts with South Africa rests on the statement's provisions, and in accordance with those the Government seek to discourage such links. I do not, and the Government could not, countenance moving beyond that and taking steps to prevent such links. Such actions would be wholly contrary to our established traditions and rights of free movement, which we cherish and are determined to uphold.

On such matters, it is my practice to advise the governing body concerned, not the individual sports people. But it is for the governing bodies and individual sports people to decide whether they accept that advice. As far as United Kingdom sportsmen are concerned, this is the immediate day-to-day impact of the 1977 statement. I must emphasise that the Government take no sanctions against those governing bodies or individual sportsmen and women who choose not to accept my advice.

So far, my remarks have been confined to United Kingdom sportsmen and women. I shall contrive to cover all the points that my hon. Friend made before the end of the debate. However, I certainly do not propose to ignore the wider concerns cited by my hon. Friend and I do not apologise for focusing my attention so close to home. Mine is essentially a United Kingdom responsibility, but is would be foolish to try to deny the impact and importance of other Governments' policies prompted by the 1977 statement.

Frequent reference has been made to the 1977 Commonwealth statement. It does not call for Governments to prevent sporting contacts with South Africa, nor to take sanctions against those who do, nor—in the Government's view—does it call for Governments to take actions against non-nationals. Therefore, I do not regard the Australian Government's recent announcement as being required by the 1977 statement. The Australian Government have, however, embarked upon a path that we do not intend to follow.

Mr. Brotherton

If I were a member of a private club, would I be advised not to send a team from it to South Africa?

Mr. Macfarlane

I shall not comment on that, because I have merely read press speculation about what may or may not occur. My crystal ball is no better than my hon. Friend's and I have no means of knowing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West did not mention one matter, although it is an integral part of the problem. I refer to the United Nations' instruments. Underlying these instruments and others outside the Commonwealth are the various Governments' fundamental concern about sporting links with South Africa. The 1977 statement on apartheid in sport is but one manifestation of that. Others include the efforts within the United Nations to secure the adoption of a binding international convention, and, more pragmatically, the United Nations Centre Against Apartheid's efforts to maintain a black list of offending sportsmen.

The Government's view is well known. We cannot and will not support any instrument that requires us to control the free movement of our sportsmen and we regard the black list as haphazard, unreliable and unfair. Both this Government and the previous Administration recognise that it was not binding. We certainly do not recognise it.

Whatever the background, these developments demonstrate that sport has acquired a role in international politics. The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) touched on that. International sport is news. I need only point to the enormous television audiences worldwide that the Olympic Games and the World Cup attract. I am a strong supporter of the importance of the established autonomy of sports organisations—inter-national as well as domestic—and I am determined to do what I can to sustain this and to resist pressures to use sport for political purposes. However, one must be realistic. Pressure groups might pretend otherwise, but politics is now an important factor on the international sporting scene. Alas, none of us can ignore that fact of modern life. My objective is to minimise to an acceptable level the influence and intrusion of politics. Sportsmen and women cannot evade the political role of sport. They cannot wish away any more the possible wider consequences of their actions for themselves and others. Those considerations are not paramount, but they exist and my hon. Friend will realise that they have to be acknowledged in whatever context.

My hon. Friend spoke about the Commonwealth Games Federation. Here again, there have been obvious misconceptions about the events and meetings that accompanied the games in Brisbane. The games were a great success, and about 50 members of the Commonwealth participated. We have had questions in the House suggesting that the 1977 statement has been redrafted or amended. However, I must make it clear, as I already have, that only the Commonwealth Heads of Government can seek to do that. The Commonwealth Games constitution cannot be used as a vehicle for altering the Commonwealth statement on apartheid and sport.

The games represented a gathering of sports people, competitors and administrators alike, and any decisions taken were theirs. There were no Governments and the delegates were able to make decisions freely and without interference.

Mr. John Carlisle

Is my hon. Friend saying that the decision by the federation to institute the code of practice has no binding requirement on members of the Commonwealth Games Federation?

Mr. Macfarlane

There are further meetings to take place in the not-too-distant future with the new organisation. As everybody knows, the next games will be in Edinburgh and further meetings will have to resolve many of these problems.

As my hon. Friend will know, the English delegate abstained at the last games, and there were some misgivings about the commitment of sportsmen representing one sport and the effect that others would have in the event of their travelling elsewhere. My hon. Friend has referred to the recent statement of the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the fact that it has been quoted on the Commonwealth Games constitution.

I know that my hon. Friend feels very passionately about these matters. He has spoken about the progress in South African sport and integration. I have not visited South Africa, but I have read a number of reports and documents by various governing bodies and individuals in recent years. Clearly it would be unfair not to recognise that there has been some progress towards integrating sport among the various races. I do not know to what extent that has been due to the policy of the past 10 or 15 years, but it is a fact of life.

The debate has focused attention on a number of important issues. It is my intention to have the closest dialogue with the governing bodies to find out what their plans and their progress are over the next few years. As I have repeatedly said in the House, the most important consideration has to be the pride that we have in our multi-racial sport in this country. The fact that the Commonwealth Games are due to take place in Edinburgh in just under four years will focus the attention of many minds over the next few months. I hope that the Commonwealth Games will be as successful in Edinburgh as they were in Brisbane.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.