The Commonwealth and South Africa

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 1:53 pm on 13 November 1987.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Bernie Grant Mr Bernie Grant , Tottenham 1:53, 13 November 1987

I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

As a new Member, I am sometimes rather confused. The Government say that they are against sanctions. Then the Minister this morning says, in a very liberal way, that people can choose their own paths; if some countries wish to apply sanctions, so be it, we will not interfere. But the Government's record is different. Things do not seem to match.

I am on the Standing Committee considering the Local Government Bill, clauses 17 and 18 of which will force local authorities that have refused for the past 27 years to have anything to do with firms that have links with South Africa to accept its goods and services, and to give contracts to South African companies and firms with major links with that country. Local government throughout the land—Labour, Conservative and alliance — all have policies of refusing to use South African goods and products. Indeed, I was told that in the answer to a question that I put in the House. Those two clauses, however, will change the position.

Let me briefly refer to a matter that causes me grave concern. The Secretary of State for the Environment has attempted to justify taking away the powers of local government in the following words: already more than 40 authorities impose contract conditions relating to links with South Africa. Too many councillors seem to find it more fun to play at national politics at their ratepayers' expense than to deal with the real local challenges and problems. That is crass ignorance, and it is an insult to local authorities. The Secretary of State is saying that, by not buying South African goods, we are playing politics and making fun of people.

Local authorities do not use South African goods because they have been produced by the blood, sweat and tears of black men, women and children. When British companies bring huge profits back to Britain, they do so on the basis of black people having spilled their blood for slave labour wages and of black people being moved around the country at the whim of their employers and the Government. Because they are humanitarian, local authorities are not prepared to use those products. They realise that for those products to be on our tables, black people have suffered. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) boasts that he drinks South African sherry. That is an insult to the House, but it is even more of an insult to those who have been killed and maimed by producing such goods.

This has been a fairly low key debate. A number of hon. Members believe that this subject is being dealt with too lightly. We must be realistic. We must deal with the problems in the system.

The Government have said nothing so far about the mini war that took place recently in Angola. The South African Government stated publicly that they sent their forces into Angola to fight alongside UNITA against the forces of the Angolan Government. In an editorial today, The Guardian mentions the episode and condemns the South African Government for their role in that war. It says that the military situation in South Africa is growing worse, and continues: it can only be a matter of time before the balance tilts and the MPLA becomes the first front-line government in southern Africa to give Pretoria a bloody nose for its constant destabilisation of the region in forward defence of apartheid. It is the only language Pretoria can be made to understand so long as it believes might is right.The Guardian is a moderate newspaper, and those words are relevant. We can talk calmly, without the fear of violence, but that is not so in South Africa.

South Africa is referred to a great deal, but we hear little about Namibia, even though the situation in Namibia is worse than it is in South Africa. Namibia is illegally occupied by 100,000 South African troops. There are tales of rape, torture, mutilation and looting by the South African forces. British firms have exploited for years the mineral wealth of Namibia. They have used the forces of the South African Botha racist regime to ensure their profits through the exploitation and the blood of the Namibian people.

United Nations resolution 435 calls for the removal of the South Africans from Namibia. I understand that Britain refuses to adopt a serious stance on this issue.