§ 2.56 p.m.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a clear and 500 unequivocal declaration that they will sustain and support by all means in their power the determination of the loyal people of Gibraltar to remain within the territories of the British Crown.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK)My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear yesterday, Gibraltar is British by right, and it is our determination to safeguard the interests of the people of Gibraltar as the United Nations Charter requires.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am sure we must all welcome the firm tone of the Government reply. I wish we had had such a tone earlier. But it invites, surely, this further question. We now know two important things: first, that in the view of the Government Gibraltar is British by right, and I take that to mean legal right. That is the view of the Government. Secondly, we know that the vast majority of the inhabitants of Gibraltar wish to remain British. In those circumstances, whatever made Her Majesty's Government take the step of submitting the question to the International Court? It is not we, but the Spanish Government, who wish to change the international status of Gibraltar. Why did we not leave it to them to take this question to the International Court if they so wished, instead of doing it ourselves?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Marquess's supplementary question, I would say that if the answers are firmer it is because the questions are more to the point. So far as the second part of the noble Marquess's supplementary question is concerned, the reason we have submitted this issue to the International Court is that we believe that matters of dispute between nations should go to that body for settlement.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is not the most important circumstance in this matter the fact that Gibraltar is a member of the Commonwealth and is entitled to have the opinion of her own inhabitants safeguarded—in other words, self-determination should apply to Gibraltar 501 as to any other part of the Commonwealth'?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I am not too certain what study the noble Lord has given to the Treaty of Utrecht. I suggest that he gives that Treaty further study and then puts down another Question on this point. A White Paper will be published on Thursday, and any further questions on this matter would, I should have thought, be better framed in the light of the information contained in that White Paper.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not, and has it not been for many years, the policy of Her Majesty's Government that every member of the British Commonwealth is entitled to self-determination, and that no foreigner should interfere with that?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I think that there are here two issues, or rather two aspects of one issue. One is the legal aspect. This is in dispute, and we have therefore submitted it—or are prepared to submit it—to the International Court. The other aspect of this matter is the physical pressure which Spain is attempting to apply. So far as that aspect is concerned, one can say quite definitely that the attempt of Spain to secure her way by physical restriction will fail. There is absolutely no doubt as to the determination of the British Government in that regard.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that many of us do not wish to see him or his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary browbeaten into making bellicose noises at a time when a matter of this kind should be resolved by legal means?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I have no intention of being browbeaten, by one side of the House or another, or by one sex or the other.
§ BARONESS STOCKSMy Lords, I want to ask a question to which I really want to know the answer. Are there not a number of legal questions which arise, irrespective of our right to the sovereignty of Gibraltar, such as the use of the airstrip (which I think was a matter not dealt with by the Treaty of Utrecht, for 502 obvious reasons), access to the port, various conditions in connection with the customs barrier at La Linea, all of which require legal interpretation but do not necessarily impugn our sovereignty of the Rock. Is that so?
§ LORD BESWICKThat is so, and a great many other things are so. I honestly feel that a number of people who ask questions and make statements about this matter would do well to read all the facts about it before they pose their questions.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, in view of the noble Lord's statement that it is improper for us to mention this subject, which is in fact what he did, may I say that it is perfectly improper for any member of the Government to try to muzzle this House in anyway whatever. We have a perfect right to say what we think, and I am now going to say something more. Did not the Government appreciate that such action by us in submitting this question to the International Court was only calculated to raise doubts, as it has done, both in Gibraltar and in this country, and, indeed, all over the world, as to whether the Government really thought our legal position as strong as we had always held before? Surely it was not a matter of civilised behaviour, as has been suggested, but merely asking for trouble.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, in the first place I have never suggested it was improper, and it would be quite wrong for me, a comparative newcomer to this House, to suggest that it was improper, for any noble Lord to raise any matter he thought was right. All I have tried to suggest on other occasions is that it is wrong in this matter to equate excitability with determination. What I have suggested as the sensible and civilised way of getting these legal matters settled, in the best interests of the people of Gibraltar as well as ourselves, is to have the matter properly considered by the International Court.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, will the noble Lord tell us that he appreciates that the Treaty of Utrecht was signed a good many years before the United Nations came into life? Might we therefore not go by that Treaty, rather 503 than be browbeaten, as noble Lords have said, by the United Nations?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: the United Nations has emerged since the original Treaty, and, as the noble Baroness on this side of the House mentioned, the airstrip also has been constructed since the Treaty was signed. All this goes to indicate the complexity of this matter, which I think is best sorted out by the proper international authority.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, but when it comes to instituting litigation before any court, is it not usually the party which is not satisfied with the status quo that institutes the litigation and not the party which is perfectly satisfied with things as they are?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I should not have thought that this was litigation.
§ LORD BESWICKI turn to some of those who are more expert in legal matters, but I personally should not have thought that this was litigation. We have offered to submit this dispute to a proper international body, the International Court, which I should have thought was in accordance with the support given to its institution by both sides of this House. This is not a question of going in for litigation; we are proposing that the matter be settled by the International Court.
§ LRD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that one of the objects of Question Time, and indeed of any discussion in this House, is to ascertain the facts? We who are possibly more ignorant than he is on the facts are anxious that he will put us right on them. Therefore, it is not for him to lecture us and to take away from our privileges in this House by suggesting that we should get up our facts before we come here. We have got up our facts. We were hoping for some more facts from him.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has another factual question to put on the Order Paper, I will endeavour to give him a factual answer.
§ LORD SOMERSMy Lords, I should like to know from the noble Lord what our position will be supposing the International Court decides against us?
§ LORD BESWICKWe have already stated that we are so confident of our case—
§ LORD BESWICKNoble Lords may smile, but certainly we are more confident of our case than, apparently, are noble Lords opposite, and we are prepared to accept the decision of the Court.