GIBRALTAR (Hansard, 21 July 1966)

§ Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)
In the last speech which I made to the House on the subject of Gibraltar on 3rd August last year, I stressed that I was a friend of Spain and had no wish to quarrel with Spain, with her people or with their Government. Since that time, the Spanish Government have flooded British Members of Parliament with a lot of expensive propaganda which distorts completely the real situation affecting Gibraltar. Spain cannot, therefore, object if British Members of Parliament now hit back on behalf of their countrymen in Gibraltar.
The House will know that Spain has imposed what amounts virtually to a blockade on Gibraltar since October, 1964. At about the same time, the United Nations Committee of Twenty-four called for Anglo-Spanish talks on Gibraltar in order to find a negotiated solution bearing in mind the interests of the people of the territory. The Spanish Government interpret that request as a rejection of the principle of self-determination for the people of Gibraltar and maintain that the only answer now is to annul Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht and give Gibraltar to Spain. I maintain that no impartial person could possibly read that meaning into the statement of the Committee of Twenty-four.
If anyone takes the trouble to study the records of the Committee's discussions in 1963 and 1964, he will see that all the representatives, with the exception of those of Venezuela, Uruguay, Tunisia and Syria, supported the principle of self-determination, and all those four countries, with the sole exception of Venezuela, accepted the view put forward in 1963 by the United Kingdom that the interests of the inhabitants were paramount, which is, of course, Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.
The House will recall that the British Government refused to negotiate under duress and, quite rightly, demanded the lifting of the frontier restrictions as a 1055 precondition of negotiation. Rightly or wrongly, in February, 1966, they reversed that decision and announced that talks with Spain would start in May.
As I understand it, at these talks the Spanish proposals were as follows: first, that sovereignty over Gibraltar should be transferred to Spain; secondly, that the British should be allowed to retain a military base in Gibraltar which would be co-ordinated with Spanish defence requirements; thirdly, that a personal statute giving certain guarantees to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar should be offered by the Spanish Government; and, fourthly, that a degree of regional co-operation was envisaged for the whole of the territory surrounding the Bay of Algeciras.
The House will see immediately that those proposals paid no regard whatever to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, and it is interesting to note that they were made at exactly the same time as the Spanish Government were themselves defending the retention of their own African colonial possessions, including two towns, Ceuta and Melilla, captured, respectively, from the Portuguese in 1415 and from the Berbers in 1470, and both, like Gibraltar, defended in a series of sieges. Also like Gibraltar, they both have a 90 per cent. European population and contain a military garrison.
It was only last month, when speaking of another Spanish colony in Africa, that Admiral Carrero Blanco, a Minister of the Spanish Government, is reported in the Spanish Press to have said: No nation has the right to endeavour to revindicate the sovereignty over your territory, and no one has the right to exert pressure over your self-determination! The Admiral went on: If your will is to remain indissolubly tied to the country which has for so many years protected you, as one of her provinces, then that country will never abandon you. What I hope is that a Minister of the British Government will give an equally categorical declaration of faith to the people of Gibraltar. I know that a request for a categorical rejection of the claim of Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar has been made quite a number of times in this House in recent months. Only about a week ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) sought an assurance that there 1056 was no question of conceding sovereignty in any way to Spain over Gibraltar, unfortunately in his reply the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary trotted out that rather hackneyed formula that … we have no doubt as to our sovereignty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 731, c. 1015, 11 th July, 1966.] Of course we have not, but do we intend to fight for our rights and for the rights of the people of Gibraltar?
It is a somewhat interesting reflection that when in opposition, the party now on the other side of the House concentrated on abusing Spain. Now they are in favour, apparently, of appeasing Spain.
I would like to ask these questions. If the talks were to start with the frontier restrictions still in force, why did they not start in 1964? Why have we to wait until Gibraltar has had to endure these restrictions for eighteen months? Secondly, why, since the talks in May, have two Under-Secretaries from the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, respectively, been sent to Gibraltar to ask if the people wanted regional co-operation and continuation of the talks with Spain? I understand that they received pretty salutary replies to both of these questions. Thirdly, why has the Prime Minister refused to put Gibraltar under the Home Office when the Colonial Office ceases to exist at the end of this month? Is there any truth in the story that in the July talks last week Her Majesty's Government offered to remove all gates and obstacles on the British side of the frontier in return for the lifting of Spanish frontier restrictions?
All of these events lead Gibraltarians to wonder whether the British Government are preparing to do a deal at their expense. I do not suggest that this is so, but I do suggest that if the Government are not prepared to retaliate against Spain, then the Spanish blockade will continue and will intensify. Gibraltar believes that she is getting the kicks in a dispute that is really between London and Madrid. She faces an intensification of the blockade and wants to know what Britain is going to do to help.
I would like to make two suggestions. The first is about the constitution and the second about finance. Under the 1964 constitution, Gibraltar moved a step forward in the process of decolonisation. It 1057 is, however, a temporary and intermediate step, but the people of Gibraltar want a secure future for their children, and this in accordance with a decision of the United Nations, can only be achieved in three ways.
First, independence, which is ruled out as incompatible with Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht and which is not desired in Gibraltar. Secondly, integration with the United Kingdom, which would give Gibraltar the status corresponding to an English county, probably with representation at Westminster, and certainly with British taxes and welfare services.
The third possibility in accordance with the views of the United Nations is what is termed free association with the United Kingdom. This is something on the lines of, say, the Channel Islands' association with this country, or perhaps a more up-to-date and more apt example is the association devised between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, which I suggest might be a very good example for Gibraltar. This free association would preserve a much higher degree of local autonomy, whilst leaving Her Majesty's Government in charge of international affairs and defence.
Though a new constitution for Gibraltar is the responsibility of this House and of Parliament as a whole, if the right of self-determination is to be maintained, surely only the people of Gibraltar are capable of deciding which of these possibilities they really desire? The Secretary of State pointed out in a recent Answer to a Question by me that the Legislative Council of Gibraltar had expressed satisfaction with the present constitution. I wonder whether this is still the case. Is it not a fact that there is a constitutional committee in Gibraltar at the moment looking into this matter?
It seems clear that it is only under free association, or under integration, that Gibraltarians can have the guarantee of remaining British for as long as they desire. Surely the first step towards this freely e.,s pressed wish of the people of Gibraltar, and, indeed, a testimony of the British Government's good faith, should bt., the transfer of Gibraltar to the Home Office, by which it was administered prior to 1801?
1058 My second suggestion concerns finance. Her Majesty's Government have on a number of occasions recently made play of the fact that during the three years 1965 to 1968 Gibraltar has been allocated grants of £1 million plus a loan of £200,000. Is it not a fact that out of this sum £325,000 was unexpended from previous grants, and that the normal amount of financial aid to Gibraltar over three years would be about £400,000? Is not the additional grant therefore less than £500,000, which is not a very generous amount considering the circumstances in which Gibraltar has found herself during the past two years?
We know that there is a development plan for Gibraltar, and a report on development from the Federation of Commonwealth Chambers of Commerce. Can the Minister assure the House that adequate funds will be made available as they are required to finance this development plan? Would not the Minister agree that even with these development plans every effort must be made to attract both shipping and tourists, and what efforts are the Government making in this direction on Gibraltar's behalf?
I understand for example that United States warships now seldom call at Gibraltar, and that the fact that Gibraltar is one of the only Western Mediterranean ports of call for Soviet merchant ships and trawlers is doing much to assist the commercial life of the city.
I think it is clear that on both sides of the House we wish to see the end of the present quarrel with Spain, which is having an adverse effect on AngloSpanish relations. A number of my colleagues have resigned from the AngloSpanish Group in this House in order to express their solidarity with the people of Gibraltar. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), particularly asked me to mention them in this respect.
I am convinced that neither side of the House would permit sovereignty to be handed over against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. Indeed, the Minister knows that there would be a hell of a row if any Government ever tried it on. We must, however, realise that the present situation cannot continue. I 1059 think that this is the nub of the problem. If the Spanish Government continue to be unreasonable, and if these talks break down, then I believe that in all honour Britain is bound to retaliate, and we have plenty of means of so doing.
I believe that the people of Gibraltar have expressed their loyalty to this country by enduring nearly two years of frontier restrictions and other Spanish pin pricks. They now demand our help, openly expressed, and freely afforded, and I would like to know what the Government propose to do about it?

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Stonehouse)
The House and the country will be grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for initiating this Adjournment debate, because it gives us an opportunity of sending good cheer and a message of good will to all Gibraltarians at this time of stress and strain. I have not had the good fortune to go to Gibraltar myself, but I have had the opportunity of discussing the problem of Gibraltar with the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, and his deputy, Mr. Isola, and I appreciate, as does my right hon. Friend, the great concern felt in Gibraltar about the state of relations with Spain and the Spanish demand to Gibraltar.
I am glad to have the opportunity afforded by the debate of confirming the attitude of the Government towards the present negotiations with the Spanish authorities. Throughout these negotiations we are considering the real interests of the people of Gibraltar. That is our essential concern, and we are in no way departing from it. I am glad to have this opportunity of sending such a message to Gibraltar tonight. It also gives me an opportunity of sending a message to Madrid to say that although the frontier restrictions are being continued this will in no way deter us in our resolve to continue to regard our negotiations in respect of the future of Gibraltar by that criterion, namely, the real interests of the Gibraltarians themselves. I am glad to give that assurance tonight. I recognise the interest and the background of experience of the hon. Member, and I am grateful to him for initiating the debate.
1060 Talks have been going on for some time—now being conducted by officials. They commenced on 18th May, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Castiella. I was present on that occasion and heard the very long statement, since released, made by Senor Castiella. I have it here, as I think the hon. Member has. I agree with him that Members of the House and the Press have been bombarded with this document. We have no doubt about the case which the Spanish authorities have put forward, but there is no doubt in our minds about our reply to this case. We are absolutely firm in our declaration that we have sovereign rights to Gibraltar. We are firm also in our declaration that we are in no way breaking the Treaty of Utrecht, which begins, The Catholic King does hereby, for Himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and intire propriety of the Town and Castle of Gibraltar, together with the port fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and He gives up the said propriety, to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever. This is our right to Gibraltar, and we are conscious of the fact that over 250 years that right has been more than confirmed time and time again.
In the discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister, my right hon. Friend made it crystal clear that we held firmly to that position.
The hon. Member raised a number of questions. He asked why negotiations had been started this year and why they had not been commenced two years ago. It is our wish to try to bring the relations between Gibraltar and Spain to a sensible solution, and we felt that by agreeing to negotiations at this time we would help to reach a sensible and civilised solution.
He asked why two Under-Secretaries had been sent to Gibraltar. We are in constant contact with Gibraltar. We are anxious that the people in Gibraltar should have the fullest opportunity of expressing their point of view about the negotiations as they are conducted. I make no apology for the fact that not only have officials gone to Gibraltar but that we have also from time to time invited the Governor and the Chief 1061 Minister to come to Britain to consult us.
We have refused to put Gibraltar under the Home Office because we believe that this would be no real solution to the problem. It is unlikely to satisfy the Spanish. We have to negotiate with them and this device would be no contribution.
We had hoped that the Spanish Foreign Minister's suggestion that the frontier restrictions would be removed during the negotiations would be an opportunity for improving relations between us. I regret that the restrictions are continuing in the way they are. We are giving a great deal of aid to Gibraltar, but, fortunately its economy is not too adversely affected by the restrictions. Although tourism has been affected somewhat, the health of the economy is not absolutely dependent on the restrictions being removed.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that we have given assistance to the Gibraltar authorities in the preparation of a development plan which we hope will help to strengthen the Gibraltarian economy in years to come. Two members of my staff are in Gibraltar at the moment, assisting in the development of the plan. I confirm what the hon. Gentleman said about economic assistance. We are making a million pounds available under the Commonwealth Development and Welfare Acts up to March, 1968, plus loans of £200,000, if required. We have also provided the major part of the cost of the Study Group's report on the development plan.
We gave a special grant of £100,000 in the last financial year for the budget of Gibraltar and further financial help for the period after March, 1968, will be considered in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development nearer that time—

§ Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)
Is it the Government's intention to continue these discussions with the Spanish indefinitely, even if the frontier restrictions are not lifted?

§ Mr. Stonehouse
We hope that we will be able to make some real progress during these talks and we do not want to do anything which will exacerbate the posi- 1062 tion. We are bearing in mind the real interests of the Gibraltarians, and if there is any chance at all of reaching a sensible agreement with the Spanish, we believe that we should take that chance. It would certainly not be in the interests of the Gibraltarians if the talks were to break down.
As I said, we stick to certain principles during these discussions with the Spanish and I am glad to have this opportunity of confirming this. We hope that the Spanish will be under no misapprehension in this respect. We do not believe that consideration of any other action we should take is wise at this stage. I know that the hon. Gentleman would like me to announce all sorts of tough action which we should take in order to bring Spain to heel. I think that, on reflection, he would agree that this would not assist the talks which are still in progress. In fact, it would probably mean ensuring that the talks failed. We certainly have to keep the position constantly under review, and I think the hon. Gentleman will realise what that will mean. But I do not wish at this time to say anything —and I am sure the House will agree that it would be unwise to do so—which would embarrass the progress of the talks which are now being conducted by officials.
In conclusion, I should like to say that all of us in the House who have met and discussed this problem with Gibraltarians of all political groups are fully conscious of their anxieties about the future of Gibraltar. We have a great deal of respect for their point of view and a great deal of admiration for the way in which they have matched up to the stress under which they now live. But I think we should advise them that in these circumstances it may not be very wise to look for solutions that are not within the realms of real possibility in the near future. We must ask them to be realistic and sensible. Although this may be difficult for them to do, I am quite satisfied that most Gibraltarians will have the good sense, following the example of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Isola, to adopt that attitude to the problem.
This is not the time to try to find extravagant solutions that cannot actually work out in practice. This is the time for statesmanship and for patience, and we 1063 hope that as a result, a real and lasting solution can be found to the problem of Gibraltar's relations with Spain.