GIBRALTAR

HC Deb 13 February 1956 vol 548 cc2106-31

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

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

About three months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) raised on an Adjournment debate the economic plight of Gibraltar. I want to deal this afternoon with one of the main reasons, perhaps the only reason, lying behind the economic plight of Gibraltar—reasons to which my hon. Friend alluded briefly in the course of his speech on 31st October. It is for that reason that I asked that this Adjournment debate should be answered by the Foreign Office today, and I congratulate the noble Lord on being already in his place at this exceptionally early hour for an Adjournment debate.

To appreciate what is going on in Gibraltar it is necessary to understand the position as it used to be before the announcement of Her Majesty's proposed visit to Gibraltar about two years ago, when all these things which I am about to describe started.

Owing to its peculiar geographical position and its special economic needs, Gibraltar has for a long time been dependent upon Spanish good will— perhaps a better phrase would be "give and take—for its economic viability, because the economy of Gibraltar hinges very largely on its dockyard, which needs many more unskilled and semi-skilled workers than are available within Gibraltar itself.

For many years there has been a system of workers' passes which used to be freely given to enable large numbers of Spanish workers to cross the frontier daily at La Linea to work during the day in the dockyard and to return to their homes in Spain in the evening. This system, oddly enough, continued to operate even during the last war, as I know from my own experience, because I spent some weeks in Gibraltar during the war. I would remind the House that it was a war in which Spain was officially neutral, although some cynics described her position as one of neutrality on Hitler's side.

I remember an occasion when three or four British ships were blown up and sunk during one night by human torpedoes and limpet mines which were dispatched from neutral Algeciras which is across the bay from Gibraltar. They were propelled by Italians who took off from Spanish soil. Yet, even during that atmosphere, this system of workers' passes in Gibraltar dockyard continued, which indicates that it was of some value to the Spaniards as well as to us in Gibraltar.

I used to see a long line of workers going back across the frontier in the evening, each being given a loaf of bread as a kind of bonus, and, no doubt, as a special inducement to them to work in the dockyard, because without the bread their families in Spain would have been very nearly on the starvation level. It was a system of give and take from the Spanish point of view, largely because of Spain's chronic inability to provide adequate employment for her nationals in the area around Gibraltar. It helped us and it helped Spain.

What happens today? Fewer workers' passes are being issued, and I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the precise position today. It is not very clear to me whether any new passes are being issued or whether merely the present number is being steadily and deliberately diminished by the Spanish authorities.

The Spanish workers are no longer able to take any goods out of Gibraltar, as they used to do, because they know from experience that such goods will be confiscated at the frontier by the Spanish customs authorities. They are, in addition, forced to change part of their pay— I think the greater part of it—which they receive in sterling in Gibraltar, at the frontier into pesetas at the official rate of exchange. This, incidentally, is much less favourable to them than the rate which they can obtain at any tobacconist's shop in Gibraltar, because I understand that all tobacconists in Gibraltar are also unofficial bureaux de change. There have recently been cases where Spanish workers have been told to change into pesetas more money than they actually earned in sterling in Gibraltar, and when they protested they were told that they must go back and ask their British employers to pay them more in £ sterling per week. That ties up also with the fact that Spanish labour associations, which are not trade unions in any sense in which we understand those words in this country, are systematically trying to stir up industrial unrest in the dockyard in Gibraltar and elsewhere. So much for the new attitude of the Spanish authorities towards Spanish workers going into Gibraltar.

I would now like to say a word about their attitude to British subjects. Let us first take the Gibraltarians themselves, many of whom have lived for a long time, not actually in Gibraltar, but in what is known as the Campo area just over the frontier in Spain. Again, they used to have no difficulty in crossing the frontier, but today they are allowed to enter Gibraltar only for a very special reason—perhaps to see a doctor or dentist, or something like that. Young men who have finished their schooling in Gibraltar and gone to live with their families in the Campo area are refused workers' passes to work in Gibraltar.

So many restrictions and difficulties have been placed in the way of Gibraltarians living on the Rock itself who want to enter Spain, that many of them have given up even trying to cross the frontier. This is a bad thing for Spanish shopkeepers also, because many people used to go over and buy goods in Spain and bring them back into Gibraltar. Nevertheless, the Spanish authorities are apparently prepared to cut off their nose to spite their face.

I should like to give one illustration of what is going on. A Gibraltarian decided recently that he would like to go shooting in Spain. He made inquiries and discovered that arrangements existed whereby foreigners could take sporting guns into Spain. So with his gun over his shoulder, he went to the frontier, where he was promptly turned back by the Spanish guards. He said, I thought there was an arrangement for foreigners to take guns in." The frontier guard said, "But you are not a foreigner." The man answered, "Are you saying that I am Spanish?" The guard replied, "No, certainly not." So the man said:" I am a foreigner—I must be. As a matter of fact, I am British. Here is my British passport." The frontier guard said," No, you are not British." At that, the man exploded and the frontier guard said," I am sorry, but that is what I am told to say. You are not British, you are not a foreigner—you are a Gibraltarian." Another restriction has been placed upon British troops in Gibraltar, and I understand that no troops under the rank of sergeant are allowed to cross the frontier. The ostensible reason for this, I understand, is to protect Spanish womanhood in La Linea and elsewhere.

Possibly of less serious effect from an economic point of view is the treatment which the Spanish authorities are meting out to British subjects living in Spain in and around Gibraltar. This amounts to a sustained campaign of pin-pricking and humiliation. For more than a century, many British people have been resident in this part of Spain, many of them—perhaps most of them—earning their living in Gibraltar daily and going back to their homes at night. Until two years ago, they were allowed to move perfectly freely, to cross just as they liked and as often as they liked.

Now, these British residents in Spain fall, as far as I can gather, into three categories. The first category consists probably of less than twenty individuals, most of them officials, who have white passes, which permit them to move freely, just as everybody used to be able to do before these restrictions were introduced. Secondly, there are some British subjects who cannot get an exit visa at all and who are consequently prohibited altogether from going to Gibraltar. Thirdly, there is the category—perhaps the largest —of those who are able to obtain exit and entry visas from a Spanish consulate, but with a maximum of three entrances in every three months.

As part of this campaign, however, the Spaniards closed down their vice-consulate in Gibraltar some years ago. Of course, they have no consulate in Spain itself and, therefore, these British residents, in order to get a renewal or extension of their three months' permit, have to go across to Africa and get a renewal from the Spanish consul in Tangier, for that is the nearest consulate. A friend of mine who was over there wanted to take his child into Gibraltar to see the doctor. He had used up the three entrances that were permitted him in the quarter, and he had to go over to Tangier in order to get into Gibraltar.

One could go on indefinitely with this long list of irritations. As far as British subjects are concerned, it may well be that taken individually the irritations may be considered trivial, but they add up to a campaign of deliberate humiliation on the part of the Spanish authorities and the Spanish Government.

I should like to give just two more examples of what is going on. I am not an expert on football, but I understand that Spain and Gibraltar are both very keen indeed about soccer but no Spanish soccer team is allowed to go into Gibraltar to play. Some little time ago Sir Stanley Rous, the Secretary of the Football Association, interceded with his opposite number in Madrid about this and was told that nothing could be done because the instruction came direct from the Spanish Government itself.

Lastly, there are the arrangements about motor cars. There have been various arrangements over recent years, but the most recent one was called the Lilli Imossi Agreement, which permitted British people working in Gibraltar but living in Spain to have their cars registered in Gibraltar, provided that they were guaranteed by the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce. This agreement has been cancelled and the people have been told that the alternative is that they can have their cars registered in Spain; but this involves an enormous duty—I believe, something like 300 per cent. ad valorem duty—and a permit to buy the car, which is normally refused.

I should like to ask the noble Lord why, in his view, the Spanish Government is behaving like this and what it all amounts to. Trivial as many of these complaints in themselves are, together they constitute a war of nerves and a conscious attempt on the part of the Government of Spain to impose, at any rate, a partial blockade on Gibraltar and to strangle her economically. Let us make no mistake about it, that is certainly what the people of Gibraltar think; and that is what the Spanish Press and radio say, for they have stated quite openly that the Spanish Government in the very near future will place Gibraltar in such an impossible position that Britain will have no alternative but to surrender Gibraltar to Spain. That is their avowed aim.

But there is nothing at all new in Spain's desire to get Gibraltar back. What is interesting is why this campaign should have started up about two years ago and why it has been steadily intensified since then. Here we come to the rather curious role in all this of our allies in the United States. For the last two or three years, as the House knows, the United States has been pouring millions of dollars into Spain, bolstering up her economy and, incidentally, bolstering up a regime as undemocratic as any regime on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

In its feverish search for reliable anti-Communist allies, the United States has been all too ready to clasp Fascist Spain to its bosom. This passionate wooing, after a period in which Spain had been cold-shouldered by most of the countries of the West, very naturally went to General Franco's head. With such a powerful friend, no doubt he felt the time had come when he could take a chance at the old game of twisting the lion's tail, and he felt strong enough to make what was, in his view, a real bid for Gibraltar.

Of course, very few of those American dollars have filtered through to the Spanish workers, but there are public works such as air bases, port development schemes, and the like, which are going on? and are paid for by United States money. I have described Gibraltar as being slowly starved of Spanish workers, but not immediately starved, and that, I submit, is because there are not yet enough works to absorb the displaced workers in that part of Spain. I understand, however, that one of the items in the programme is a port development scheme for Algeciras. No doubt, as that progresses, the Spanish Government will think it safe to withdraw more and more workers away from Gibraltar.

All the time the Americans in Spain are not only ostentatiously exempt from the restrictions placed on British subjects but a red carpet, as it were, is put down for them by the Spanish Government. One would think, incidentally, that Gibraltar was of some value as a N.A.T.O. as well as a British base. By keeping silent our American allies are condoning this anti-British campaign. One single word from the State Department and this nonsense would stop tomorrow. Of course, this silence may be unwitting. It is just conceivable that the Americans do not know what is going on, but I would ask the noble Lord whether they have been informed by us, and whether any help has been asked of them in the way of diplomatic representations to the Spanish Government, and, if such a request has been made, what reply we have received.

There have been American actions which have damaged our economic interests in Gibraltar which could not have been accidental. I will mention one of them. There is a large American shipping company called American Export Lines, which has run a regular passenger and cargo service for many years from New York to various Mediterranean ports, and its first Mediterranean port of call had always been Gibraltar. Suddenly, starting only last month, its port of call was made not Gibraltar but Algeciras, across the bay. This is a decision which, in my view, could not possibly have been taken on any commercial considerations.

One has only to look at the two ports. The only communication from Algeciras to Madrid is by means of an old, dusty, uncomfortable train journey which takes seventeen hours. There are no air services, and there is not even an airport. There are mo dockside facilities. The ships will have to anchor offshore and passengers and cargo discharged by tender and lighter. There is one rather poor hotel. On the other hand, Gibraltar has excellent dock facilities, at least one first-class hotel, and air communications with Madrid and many other large cities. It is inconceivable to me that such a switch as this could have been made except under some political pressure. I should like to know where the pressure was exercised. I cannot imagine a large American enterprise being dictated to by the Spanish Government.

There are strong hints that the pressure came from Washington, in the pages of an American-owned newspaper called the Moroccan Courier, published, I think, in Tangier. In it was an article written by its American editor. Discussing this decision of American Export Lines, he said: It would appear logical that our Congress and foreign service would do well to seriously study the ramifications of the proposed change. Are we to further antagonise and possibly jeopardise an already proven friendship with our only natural linguistic ally, England, because of such a move?…Are we to trade certainty of friendship with England for flowery promises from the land of siestas, fiestas and mananas? That is interesting, coming as it does from an American source.

I know that the action which the Americans took of withdrawing their consul from Gibraltar did not help at all. I gather that the official reason was one of economy. Only then did the Spaniards withdraw their vice-consul, and this was generally thought in Gibraltar to be due to the fact that the Spaniards took the American action as the green light for their being unpleasant to the British. If the American action was innocent, it was certainly thoughtless and unwise.

I thought it as well that the facts about the Gibraltar situation should be known in this country because I do not think that they are widely known at present. The Foreign Secretary has been very coy about it. I put down some Questions just before the Recess, to which the present Minister of Health, when he was Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied, and I thought that there was an air of complacency about his replies. Certainly, that opinion was shared by people in Gibraltar. I understand that a vigorous protest came from the Gibral- tar Chamber of Commerce, claiming that one of the replies given by the right hon. Gentleman was distinctly misleading, and asking the Colonial Secretary to inform the Foreign Secretary what precisely was the situation in Gibraltar. I should like to know what representations have been made about these matters.

The people of Gibraltar undoubtedly feel that they are being let down by Britain. They feel very bitter about the friendly facade of Anglo-Spanish relations at a time when they are suffering daily humiliation at the hands of the Spanish authorities. They wonder why we appear to be falling over backwards to restore normal diplomatic relations with Spain, why we are seeking trade talks the whole time, why the Royal Navy has resumed courtesy calls at Spanish ports, why we backed Spain's entry into the United Nations, without a single concession to Gibraltar on the part of Spain. And well may they wonder.

Despite all this, it ought to be made abundantly clear that, from the information I can gather, the people of Gibraltar remain solidly loyal to this country. Indeed, a plebiscite as to whether Gibraltar wanted to remain British or to become part of Spain might be a very safe gamble for the British Government, and might be one way of putting a stop to this nonsense once for all. The general opinion in Gibraltar is that such a plebiscite would result in a 105 per cent, victory for Britain. Perhaps the noble Lord will say that the Government are not going to let this really intolerable situation go on indefinitely, that he is going to make protests and vigorous protests to the Spanish Government, and that he will, if necessary, seek the assistance of our American allies in putting an end to it.

5.8 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

There have often been moments when I have wondered whether it is ever right that matters pertaining to our rather strained foreign relations should ever be raised in the House; and although, as I think hon. Members opposite will agree, I am only too ready to exercise my own right to say what I think, yet I have sometimes wondered whether the timing of what we say here about such matters is right or wrong.

I am in no position to say whether the facts, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has related them, are correct or incorrect, and I know that the luck of the Ballot has a good deal to do with his having brought them up now; but I cannot help feeling that the timing of his remarks about our American allies has been unfortunate, when today we have had a statement from the Prime Minister on his return from Washington, and we have all been very impressed by the great success of his talks there. It would be singularly unfortunate if anything were said in the House today which would be likely to detract from that. As we know, there are many people who would be delighted if anything were said to make it seem as if the talks were not as successful as in fact they have been, and we have had news from Moscow over the weekend which is obviously designed for that very purpose.

Whatever our views on the regime in Spain—and I should not like to live under it—we should realise that if General Franco had not stopped a Communist regime from establishing itself in Spain, which was a risk, we might have found ourselves in a more difficult position than we are now in fighting the cold war. Therefore, I would qualify some of the hon. Member's comments in relation to General Franco and his Government.

If the facts which the hon. Member has given about conditions as they affect the individual British citizen in Gibraltar are correct, I hope that the Foreign Office will take appropriate steps to deal with the matter. As I have said, I am not in a position to know whether the facts are correct or not. But when the hon. Member asked the House why there has been an increased pressure by the Spaniards upon our position in Gibraltar, I should have thought that the answer was not so very difficult. If one looks at the record of the hon. Member's own Government when they were in power, and what a chain of calamities followed from the policy of getting out when things grew too awkward, it is not altogether surprising that pressure should be applied wherever we are weak.

I always remember that Stalin, in his writings, asked, "Where do you strike at Imperialism?" and answered himself by saying, "Where the chain is weakest." I think that he was then thinking of India. There are those who believe that there is something wrong with British Imperialism, but my own view is that British Imperialism is the answer to many other means of managing world affairs. There are those who are violently antagonistic to British Imperialism, and they will try to push us out wherever they think the chain is weakest. If Gibraltar had to defend itself with its own population its chances would not be very great. Peace is maintained only because other Powers know what action against Gibraltar would lead to.

Nevertheless, this is a useful opportunity of discussing the position of Gibraltar, especially in the light of what has been happening in the last few days in Malta. I realise that the Foreign Office is not immediately responsible for our Colonial Territories, but it is important that we should bear in mind that there are some similarities between the position of Gibraltar and the position of Malta, although fortunately Malta has not the territorial problem which Gibraltar must inevitably have by reason of being on a land mass.

I sometimes wonder, however, whether there is not a missing link in our Commonwealth constitution, and if there is not a place for some status in between that of a Dominion and that of a Colony into which Gibraltar might one day fall. I think I am right in saying that most of the Crown Colonies which we have today are Colonies as a result of having been ceded by treaty, whereas the ordinary Colonies are often those territories which we have developed through our trade. It might well be that some redefinition is required, and that Gibraltar might one day become in status something between a Dominion and a Colony. Perhaps some such phrase as a "Sovereign Colony" would cover what I have in mind.

I hope that we shall never think that Gibraltar's constitution is static and should never be changed should the people who live in Gibraltar wish it to be changed. There is no doubt about it that all these smaller territories are in a very precarious position in the present state of the world. The smaller they are, the more they must turn to this country, and the more important it is that we should be ready to take the appropriate action at the right time.

If the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North had a direct complaint about Gibraltar itself it would probably have been infinitely preferable if he had written to the Foreign Office about the subject and given details.

Mr. K. Robinson

I put a Question to the Foreign Office, and it was because of the nature of the reply and the fact that I thought that there was complacency that I decided to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Major Legge-Bourke

I merely reiterate that I sometimes wonder whether matters affecting other Governments are best brought to light first by Questions in the House. I think that the Foreign Office is able to give a fuller reply if it is able to write to an hon. Member rather than answer him across the Floor of the House. It is sometimes extremely difficult for Ministers to answer these matters in the House.

I should like to say something about the American part in all this. I should not say it if it were not for what the hon. Member has said. It is important that if we think American business firms or other bodies not directly concerned with the American Government are doing things of which we disapprove or which we regret we should be very careful to distinguish the acts of private individuals from deliberate acts of Government. As far as I understand the hon. Member, his complaints are rather about actions by individuals or groups of individuals in matters of trade.

We can well understand the hon. Member disliking those alleged actions, but it is not always fair to blame the American Government, just as we should not think it fair if the British Government were blamed for what British traders did overseas. I hope that when my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replies to the debate, a clear distinction will be made and that it will be made plain whether or not the acts alleged by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North were the acts of the American Government or the acts of American companies. There is a world of difference.

I am sure that we are all quite certain in our own minds that, in resisting what is the real menace to the world, the Americans and ourselves are at one. We might differ in the methods which we employ, but to suggest that the American Government are deliberately taking action designed to make our position untenable in Gibraltar or anywhere else is distinctly unfortunate. In the days of Abadan we did not like the actions of Mr. McGhee very much, and I was not very happy at times about certain actions in Cairo, but it is important that we should distinguish between the policy and action of the Government concerned and the action of individuals who are under the administration of that Government.

I would hope, therefore, that what my noble Friend says in reply will, above all, do two things. First, I hope that it will make clear that there is no rift whatever between the American Administration and our own in the matter of policy towards Gibraltar and Spain. Secondly, I hope that it will be made clear that we shall keep prominently in our minds the need to be united in the future in resisting all attempts to drive a wedge between us.

I hope the hon. Gentleman did not have that as his motive when he said what he did——

Mr. Robinsonindicated dissent

Major Legge-Bourke

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman indicating that that was not his motive, because there are certain quarters of the world which might place that interpretation upon his remarks. For that reason I hope that none of us will do anything likely to weaken in the slightest degree the position of those who base themselves on the Christian religion and are stalwart in their fight against Communism. Had it not been that Spain prevented a Communist revolution taking hold we might find it more difficult today to fight the cold war than we do.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford)

The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has repeated again and again the dangers of driving a wedge between Britain and America. He seemed to forget that this Adjournment deals with the conditions in Gibraltar, about which I thought he would have known a little more when he rose to address the House. I am sure that the people of Gibraltar will be deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for having brought forward this matter in connection with the Foreign Office. As one of a deputation which visited Gibraltar in January, 1955,1 can say that my hon. Friend has raised some of the matters which were very much to the fore at that time.

I must be fair and say that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has done his utmost to live up to his responsibilities to the people of Gibraltar, but it seems that the nigger in the woodpile is the Foreign Office, which appears to wish to flirt with Spain at any cost and to ignore its responsibilities to Gibraltar. I notice from his expression that the noble Lord the Joint Under-Secretary of State does not like that statement, so a little later I will quote words used by a former Governor of Gibraltar, Field Marshal Lord Ironside, who puts the point better than I can.

The people of Gibraltar are intensely loyal, as my hon. Friend has said. In fact, one cannot go to any part of the world and find as loyal a community inside the British Commonwealth as the Gibraltarians. Yet many of them have felt for some time that those who are intensely loyal are at the end of the queue when it comes to getting benefits from being inside the British Commonwealth. From correspondence in the Gibraltar Post every week I gather that many people there are beginning to feel that unless they copy some of the activities of the people of Cyprus, nobody will take any notice. In this respect it is felt that the Foreign Office is the worst offender. When statements have been made about Gibraltar in the Spanish Press, over the Spanish radio and by General Franco it is felt that the Foreign Office should have replied.

It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that we will not give up Gibraltar, but more than that is needed. Surely the representative of the Foreign Office knows that the screw was put on by General Franco when the programme of the Royal visit to Gibraltar was announced. As a consequence, the visits of British warships to Spanish ports were suspended. These have now started again to Barcelona and other ports although the economic strangulation of Gibraltar is continuing. I have here a copy of the Gibraltar Post for 10th December, which shows that even at this late hour the Colony wishes to be friendly with Spain. There were floods in the adjacent towns of San Roque and the Gibraltarians sent money to help the Spanish people there.

The editorial comments: … it is equally true to say that a deliberate economic blockade can cause as much harm and damage as these floods have done. Spain will never be successful in her efforts to ruin us, but the fact remains that she is doing her utmost to do so. Our extended hand of friendship provides therefore a grand opportunity to the Spanish Authorities to wipe the sheet clean and return to a more normal state of affairs. We must live side by side, so why not behave in a sensible and civilised manner? The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the dangers of Communism, but there are dangers from other isms" as well, and as a most intelligent Member of this House he should have known that during the last two years the Colony has been fighting against slow economic strangulation by Spain, with which Her Majesty's Government seems to be especially friendly. While the people of Gibraltar recognise that this is desirable, it should not be at their expense.

I will give some evidence to show that this is not just a question of hon. Members on this side of the House wishing to say something nasty to the Government because they are in opposition. This is what Field Marshal Lord Ironside, onetime Governor of Gibraltar, wrote in Time and Tide on 15th October last year: During our long occupation of the Rock, there has sprung up a loyal British population of over 20,000 souls. Have we the right to barter their birthright for any good which may come to us thereby in our affairs with Spain? Those words indicate what is happening over Spain. It is time that the Foreign Office told Franco that when we say that Gibraltar is to remain inside the British Commonwealth, we mean it. We also mean, even though it is a small community, that once they have so elected we will not barter their birthright for several million pounds' worth of trade with Spain.

Here is a glorious opportunity to indicate to the rest of the world, especially to communities still inside the British Commonwealth, that no matter how small they are, any matters affecting their happiness and their livelihood will be protected by this Government, who will see that they do not suffer from any economic embargo imposed by any other country.

I ask that in giving these people every opportunity of earning their living there will be acceleration of the discussions now taking place to help them in their economic fight. Last June, I tabled a Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty about the allocation of Admiralty bunkerage which would help the civilian authorities of Gibraltar to attract more liners to the port. I received a letter from the Admiralty stating that the Question had been transferred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I table another Question, this time to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the same point of oil bunkerage which was discussed in January last year. In reply, I received a letter from the Secretary of State informing me that I must put the Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. That is the way things go on. Meantime, the Spanish authorities are taking special steps to improve the ports of Ceuta and Algeciras in order to provide facilities which will encourage even more American liners to transfer from Gibraltar to their ports.

The people of Gibraltar want to know why the Foreign Office is so favourably disposed towards Spain when it is obvious that Spain wishes to apply, and is applying, an economic stranglehold to Gibraltar. I hope that tonight, as a result of the work of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North, a message will go out to the people of Gibraltar telling them not only that we are reaffirming that they shall stay within the British Commonwealth but that, at long last, we shall use some influence with Spain to ensure that the labour and economic blockade is brought to an end at the earliest possible moment; and, if it is not, that we shall stand by our friends in Gibraltar even if it means offending the people of Spain.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

While I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that problems like this are sometimes better raised in private than in public, now that the matter has been raised I should like to endorse one or two of the things which have been said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) as a result of a very brief visit which I paid to Gibraltar last August.

As I went there on holiday, I did not have time to investigate the situation as thoroughly as has the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds). However, I found that the arrangements for permits to enter and leave Spain were exactly as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has said. This also applies to people who obtain Spanish visas in this country, go to Spain and visit Gibraltar and return to Spain, in exactly the same way as it applies to Gibraltar nationals. It seems absurd that there should be the restriction of three visits only in three months.

This is also affecting the Spaniards adversely in the sense that many people in Gibraltar—there are many cars in Gibraltar; the traffic problem there is sometimes nearly as bad as it is here— would take advantage of the opportunity to make frequent visits to Spain in order to go for afternoon runs, and so on. I am sure that the Spaniards themselves are suffering to a certain extent because of the restrictions which have been applied.

I also confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said about the attitude of the people of Gibraltar towards ourselves. I remember visiting Gibraltar two or three times before the war—at least, landing there from a ship for a few hours—and I find them very much more friendly towards us now than they were pre-war. I do not remember that they were particularly unfriendly before the war, but they are certainly much friendlier now. Many of them were here as evacuees during the war, and they were well looked after and learned a great deal about our way of life. I believe that they appreciate being part of the British Empire. As the hon. Gentleman said, I am sure that their only wish is to continue under our rule. Consequently, I hope that this very difficult problem will be solved.

I do not want to be in the slightest degree anti-Spanish. During the past four years I have had three motoring holidays in Spain and I have always found the people most friendly. There was no difference in this the nearer I got to Gibraltar. The only exception was provided by the Spanish Customs at the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain where for the first time in many visits to Europe, I had to lift a piece of luggage from the top of the car and take it into the Customs shed to be examined. Naturally, that sort of thing happens every time one returns to this country, and one expects it then, but one does not expect it when travelling in foreign countries which have not much interest in what one is taking in and out because they are mostly one's personal effects and it is obvious that one is not trying to smuggle. When I took my bag back the Customs official, who made no attempt to help me in any way, asked for a tip. Needless to say, he did not get one. That is the only occasion when journeying to France, Spain, Switzerland, Germany and Italy during the last seven or eight years that I have had luggage examined by foreign Customs officials.

I hope that this trouble will be solved. I am sure that, given firmness by the Government, it can be. If that is not enough, I wonder whether the good offices of our friends in the United States could be enlisted. The problem ought to be solved as quickly as possible for the benefit of the people of Gibraltar and also so that we can bring to an end the unhappy situation existing between us and the Spanish Government.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn (Bristol, South-East)

This is one of those occasions when one rises solely because of a speech previously made in the debate. I listened with very great interest to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), and as the Adjournment debate has begun early enough for us to be able to challenge statements of this kind, it seems proper to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman advanced arguments which I feel should most certainly be refuted if the debate is to represent in the OFFICIAL REPORT a fair balance of views in the House.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman, of all people, has advanced these views since he took the very courageous step of resigning from his party when he heard that it was contemplating an act of abdication in regard to British interests, and when in his view the act of abdication was absolutely clear, he took the opportunity of rejoining his party. However, we will leave that without comment.

We have here something which anyone who has followed the newspapers knows to be part of a fairly long series of deliberately provocative acts by the Spanish against British interests and trade in Gibraltar. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) has very properly raised the subject. We have been told that for three reasons this is an unhappy debate, and my hon. Friend's speech was an unhappy one.

The first reason given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was that it is unfortunate to air these matters in Parliament. I try very hard not to do him an injustice, but if I were to accept what I understood to be his point of view, I should leave the House this evening and apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. The object of Parliament is to air the views and anxieties that hon. Members have about not only their constituents but British interests abroad and anything that we believe to be a matter of concern to the country.

My hon. Friend took the ordinary course of questioning the Minister and then the very proper course of notifying his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I cannot believe that the future of the world so hinges on Anglo-Spanish relations that it is improper for my hon. Friend to raise the matter in the House.

Major Legge-Bourke

I never for a moment suggested that it was improper. If it had been, I am certain that someone more important than I am would have taken the appropriate action. It was certainly not improper under our Parliamentary procedure to do so. I said that it was a pity.

Mr. Benn

It was obviously not improper. Neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman nor I would query the right of Mr. Speaker to allocate the subject for debate on the Adjournment. There was a suggestion from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when a matter arose which might involve another Government it was unhappy to debate it in the House of Commons. However, when various hon. Members feel that the Foreign Office has been lax in its duty, it becomes our duty to raise the matter, and I understood that was the object of the exercise tonight.

The second of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's arguments against the course which my hon. Friend has proposed is that in order to preserve a united front in the cold war, Anglo-Spanish relations must be kept warm and nothing must seem to come between us as a cause for controversy. That is something which in an ordinary Adjournment debate of half an hour would go unchallenged because there would not be time, but I should be very sorry if anyone reading the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT gained the impression that if one is anti-Communist, that is all that is necessary in order to be on our side in the cold war.

When the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks about "our battle" with the Communist world, I take it that he means, as I do, that he objects to certain aspects of Communist rule. There is nothing magic about the word "Communist" which is evil; we object to Communism and Communist methods for the specific reasons that the people do not have an opportunity for expressing their view, that there is no free association under the law, that there is no treatment of people according to our Anglo-Saxon traditions of justice. I imagine that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely would object to those practices whether they occurred in Russia, Spain, the Union of South Africa, or wherever they happened. Therefore, if only for the record, I challenge the fundamental view that one has only to be anti-Communist to be an ally of the West and of the free world.

Major Legge-Bourke

The hon. Gentleman has carefully left out the other thing I said, which was that it was based on the Christian religion.

Mr. Benn

The hon. and gallant Member had better explain that principle. Is he suggesting that the Spanish regime has due regard for the religion of the free world?

Major Legge-Bourke

The Spanish nation.

Mr. Benn

I had better not go into wide issues like that which may take up a longer time than we have.

I come to the third very important argument which is whether the Anglo-American alliance is so delicate and fragile a relationship that we cannot raise with the Americans our anxieties about parts of the world where our joint interests are concerned. There is a view —I know that it is the view of some hon. Members opposite; I have never understood it—that the basis of the Anglo-American alliance should be that we should never query each other's line or policy and that anything which suggests disagreement should be instantly suppressed.

I do not know what experience hon. Members have of the United States. My own experience—and I go there for a few months every two or three years—is that the more one is willing to discuss frankly with the Americans one's view, the better the relationship. The one thing which Americans cannot stand is humbug, and I believe that the one besetting sin of British politicians is humbug. I am extending this to everybody. It is not intentional, but we all have a feeling that if one produces an agreed statement which says nothing, that is better than a statement in which everything is not agreed and which says something.

I am convinced that if the relationship between us and the Americans is to be fruitful we must have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) once put it, a sort of "creative friction "between Britain and the United States. To expect statesmen not to raise issues which are controversial and to say that that will impress the Russians and will make the Kremlin tremble, I very strongly doubt.

Here is an issue in which the Spanish Government have engaged in deliberate provocation of the United Kingdom and its interests in Gibraltar. It is something which affects the defence strategy of this country and Gibraltar's relations with the United Kingdom. In the cold war, the psychological value of the Anglo-Spanish alliance in the neutral countries of Asia and Africa is so slight as not to merit consideration. If the Anglo-American alliance is to be of perpetual value, as I fervently hope, the foreign policy of this country must be based on absolute frankness and expectation of co-operation. I hope that the Minister will feel able to answer the debate frankly so that we may all know what is his view.

5.44 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope)

I can say straight away that we certainly try to conduct our relations with the United States on the basis of absolute frankness, and I think I can show that. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) merely exaggerated what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was saying. Nobody on this side of the House has ever suggested that there should never be any outspoken disagreement between ourselves and the United States. The alliance, the comradeship, between us is strong enough to stand that sort of thing and, indeed, I think that I am right in recalling that the communiqué itself mentioned one point of disagreement.

The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Dodds) employed a phrase which, he said, he noticed I did not like. He must have had that observation in his notes before he made it, because I did my best to show no reaction. I certainly did not dislike it when he said that he was accusing the Foreign Office of flirting with Spain at any cost. I do not mind that. It does not happen to be accurate, but nobody could possibly dislike any statement which the hon. Member makes, because he always speaks with such sincerity and charm. It was in those terms that he made that very accusation this afternoon.

The Foreign Office is not flirting with Spain or with anybody—at least as far as I am aware—at any cost. What we are trying to do is to maintain friendly relations with the Spanish Government, but not at any cost and certainly not at the cost of bartering the rights of those who believe in us and who are our friends. But because sometimes a government or an organisation of any other sort acts in such a way as to disappoint one, that does not mean one must fly off the handle and lose a sense of proportion, nor, equally, that one should turn one's back on it and pretend that it is not happening. That is the view of the Foreign Office and, therefore, of the Government about Spain.

It is really quite untrue to say that we are complacent. That was another word used by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and by others. Complacency is not part of our make-up, either here or in any other sphere. All is not well in respect of what is happening vis-á-vis Spain and Gibraltar and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) was accurate when he described what was happening as "pinpricks." He was inaccurate, as I shall try to suggest later, when he came to the part that the United States may be playing in all this.

However, in so far as he was saying that the Spanish Government are indulging in a policy of pin-pricking and humiliation, that was certainly not an exaggeration of what is unfortunately happening at the moment. On the exact reason why this is being done his guess is as good as mine. All one can say with certainty is that this kind of thing is the greatest possible pity, because it can do no good to anybody, let alone Spain herself.

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me specifically to let him know what was going on about the issue of passes to the labour force. I can give him a complete answer on that. The position is that no passes are being issued to the following: to new recruits to the labour force; persons who have not worked in Gibraltar during the last five years; and persons who have been residing in areas other than the Campo area during the last two years. That is the answer to his question. I am afraid that it is not a very encouraging answer, but it happens to be the right one. I do not deny the allegations made about the continuance of this pin-prick policy towards British residents. What he said was certainly perfectly true in its general presentation.

I wish to make it clear that Americans are not now exempt from restrictions at the Gibraltar frontier. The hon. Gentleman thought they were. At one time there was discrimination, but that has stopped. That may not exactly be an improvement, but it is not quite as bad as it was in terms of discrimination between the Americans and ourselves.

Mr. Dodds

How does the hon. Gentleman square up this talk of pin-pricks with his reference to labour? Does he not appreciate that there is a very big wastage of Spanish labour and if no new passes are being issued, as he has stated, it can have a harmful effect on the economic life of Gibraltar? Does not he appreciate that that is being done at a time when there is widespread unemployment in Spain?

Lord John Hope

I do not dissent from that——

Mr. Dodds

It is not a pin-prick.

Lord John Hope

If enough pin-pricks are administered, in the end the victim is in a condition of considerable pain. That was the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate and I think it is accurate. It is just one thing after another.

I come now to the question of the American line, the shipping line, which the hon. Gentleman asked about. Unfortunately, it is true that this line—the American Export Line is the company concerned—have stopped calling at Gibraltar and call at Algeciras instead. It is a matter of the greatest possible regret to Her Majesty's Government, but there is no reason whatever to suppose that there has been any pressure from Washington. Here, we get on to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). As I am sure we all do, we must distinguish between individual actions, however unattractive, and Government-inspired action; and there is no reason to suppose that there was any pressure from Washington at all.

Whether it would not be extremely helpful if counter-pressure could be exerted is a different question. But I beg the hon. Gentleman opposite not to let it go out from this House that that has been done in response to some sinister political intrigue—which is what it would amount to—by our allies in Washington. It just is not so.

The hon. Member suggested that we were following the Spanish Government with far too much desire to please and had fawned upon it. One hon. Member said that we were seeking trade talks all the time. In fact, we are not. We are taking part in annual meetings of delegations to discuss the level of trade in each succeeding year. Less than that we could not do and conform with our duty as a Government.

Now I come to the matter of British policy towards Gibraltar. This has been stated quite fairly and squarely by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies more than once recently. I simply wish on behalf of the Foreign Office to repeat and to stand by every single word which my right hon. Friend has said. We are not prepared to consider any change in the status of the Rock. I go further and say that in my view and in the view of the Foreign Office the ventilation of this matter can bring only discord and will help nobody.

We shall never desert our friends in Gibraltar, who believe in us. I do not think it fair to say that they feel let down or bitter in any way. I had the pleasure of meeting their Parliamentary delegates when they came to this country a year or so ago, and I know quite well that they were encouraged and strengthened by the response they got from every department and from all quarters in this country.

Our policy is that we want friendly relations with the Spanish people and friendly contacts with the Spanish Government. That does not mean that we approve of what is going on now so far as Gibraltar is concerned. We beg our friends in Spain to desist from this fruitless activity which can only help our enemies. We shall be patient, and we shall also be firm, and then we hope that finally we shall be friends.

Mr. Benn

I have listened with care to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He said that the Government were not complacent, and then he simply confirmed everything said by my hon. Friend and gave not a single example of any Government action at any stage or protest about these things. Is he proposing to make no reference to that?

Lord John Hope

The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to maintain the aggressive mood which he showed so ably in his speech. All I can tell him is that if he is expecting a resounding declaration about a blockade, or something like that, he is not going to get it.

Mr. Benn

Have any protests of any kind been made to the Spanish Government?

Lord John Hope

The answer to that is: "yes."

Mr. Benn

When?

Mr. K. Robinson

The hon. Gentleman did not answer the specific question which I put to him. Have we asked for any assistance from our American allies with the Spanish Government, and if so, what reply have we received?

Lord John Hope

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me. I am not sure whether we have, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

Before my noble Friend sits down may I ask a question on that? I was a little surprised about what he said about the Parliamentary delegates. When they came here they were very worried about the situation and I think it only right that I should say so. Am I to understand— I should be glad were it so—that after the conversations which took place we were able to give assurances to them which they felt were sound and valid? It makes a tremendous difference if that is so.

Mr. Dodds

They are more worried than ever now.

Lord John Hope

The result of that visit was, I think I am right in saying, talked about in this House by the Colonial Secretary. All I was saying was that I happened to have the pleasure of meeting them. I was not then occupying the office which I now hold. But I did meet them and I was telling the House, because I thought hon. Members would like to know, that my impression was that they were extremely pleased and encouraged by the warm reception they had from all quarters in England.

Dame Irene Ward

Am I to understand that when my hon. Friend was making those observations he was not making them officially, but unofficially?

Lord John Hope

Well, it is difficult to divorce one side of one's personality from the other. I am now talking about something which happened a year or two ago. All I am saying is perfectly accurate in my memory. I did not think that I was barred from giving the hon. Lady the benefit of my memory, which is accurate in this case, nor did I think that the matter was in any state of controversy.

I am not saying that there are not a great many people who are worried now in Gibraltar, but this is some time after the delegation visited us. I was merely rebutting what I thought was an exaggerated charge of complacency made from the other side of the House.