Gibraltar (Hansard, 14 January 2002)

§ Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (by private notice)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Spanish Government's claim to have reached an agreement with Britain to share sovereignty over Gibraltar.

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
No agreement has been reached with the Spanish Government, and the Spanish Government have made no such claim. Discussions about Gibraltar's future, including the question of sovereignty, are continuing under the Brussels process established in 1984 by Lady Thatcher. [Interruption.]
Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister, José Maria Aznar, announced the resumption of the process last spring, we have kept the House informed of developments at every stage. On 20 November, I issued a detailed joint communiqué with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Piqué, about the process. We said: Our aim is a comprehensive agreement by summer next year. This will cover all outstanding issues, including co-operation and sovereignty". A copy of that statement was placed in the Library. The United Kingdom's objective is a secure, stable and prosperous Gibraltar enjoying greater self-government and the full benefits of normal co-existence with the wider region.
Let me repeat that we stand by the commitments first given in 1969. Any proposals affecting the sovereignty of Gibraltar would be subject to the consent of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and would require United Kingdom primary legislation.

§ Mr. Ancram
I am less than reassured by that response, and less than convinced that there is not a deal being done behind closed doors to share sovereignty over Gibraltar with Spain. Is the Foreign Secretary saying that the report in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday that Spanish officials had confirmed that the deal would be struck late this summer is inaccurate, or that Spanish officials had no grounds for saying that? Is he saying that reports in the same paper on the same day, attributed to the Foreign Office, that Britain plans to end Gibraltar's 298 year-old colonial status by signing a historic agreement with Spain to share sovereignty", are untrue, or that the Foreign Office should not have given that impression?
The whole process in which the Foreign Secretary is engaged is beginning to smell to high heaven, and the smell is of stitch-up and of sell-out. Is it not totally unacceptable to seek to pre-empt proper discussion of this vital issue of sovereignty behind closed doors? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House clearly and unequivocally whether he is discussing shared sovereignty with his Spanish counterpart, Mr. Piqué, and whether such an arrangement would be time-limited, indefinite or with a built-in mechanism to transfer to full sovereignty in due course?
Will the Foreign Secretary explain clearly to the House why joint or shared sovereignty is not surrender of sovereignty and the thin end of the wedge leading to 22 eventual abdication of sovereignty over the Rock? Does he not understand the suspicions of many Members of Parliament and of the whole people of Gibraltar that the British Government are being disingenuous in purporting to be holding genuine talks?
It is all very well for the Foreign Secretary to claim, as he has again today, that no change can be made without the consent of the people of Gibraltar expressed in a referendum, but does he not understand that we have all heard of offers being made that cannot be refused? A take-it-or-leave-it done deal on shared sovereignty put to the people of Gibraltar, surrounded by veiled threats of being left behind—to quote the Minister's words—or financially penalised, or harassed or left to sink, would amount to such an offer. That would run contrary to the spirit of the freely and democratically expressed wishes referred to in the constitutional preamble of 1969. Agreement sought under duress can never be agreement freely or democratically achieved.
What did the Spanish officials mean, if they were correctly reported in the same newspaper, when they said that the Hispano-British agreement would be useful even if it was rejected because it would mark a historic milestone in the dispute."? Does that not suggest that the Government are considering surrendering sovereignty in principle, and does not that also fly in the face of the constitutional guarantee? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman learn the lesson of his Government's experience in Northern Ireland, when they realised early on that such discussions cannot fruitfully be pursued without giving interested parties a full and separate voice and by ruling out joint sovereignty from the start?
The Foreign Secretary may believe that in pursuing his course he is building bridges with his partners in Europe. He must understand that he cannot do that by selling out the interests and rights of British people. Such a path will only end in tears. Today he has a chance to come clean with the House. Does he not agree that the people of Gibraltar have shown great loyalty to the Crown and to the United Kingdom and that we at least owe them openness and loyalty in return?
If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to bounce the people of Gibraltar, we will oppose him and support them. If he seeks to intimidate the people of Gibraltar or bring duress to bear on them, we will resist him and support them. If he seeks to achieve a done deal or sell out the people of Gibraltar, we will oppose him and support them. Can he today guarantee that the wishes of the people of Gibraltar will be capable of being freely and democratically expressed in the true meaning of those words, because anything less would be despicable and dishonourable and we would support the people of Gibraltar in opposing it?

§ Mr. Straw
I give the guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman seeks, as I have given it throughout my stewardship of my office. The process that we are following is that established in 1984 by the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member. It was established by Lady Thatcher, and we are following it. As I was speaking, the right hon. Gentleman claimed from a sedentary position that the 1984 Brussels process had nothing to do with sovereignty. That is untrue. The text of the communiqué 23 issued in Brussels by the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom on 27 November 1984 stated: Both sides accept that the issues of sovereignty will be discussed in that process. That was the position under Lady Thatcher and it is the position now.
Moreover, as I have repeated, we stand by the pledge, originally given by a Labour Government in 1969, that any provisional agreement reached between us and the Government of Spain will be subject, in a free, secret ballot, to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, without duress—as the right hon. Gentleman asks me for that undertaking—and would also be subject to a decision by this House and the other place in UK primary legislation.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am far from encouraged to hear that he is pursuing a process started by Margaret Thatcher? Will he accept that I am baffled as to why the Government have allowed themselves to be led into this morass by the appeasement tendency in the Foreign Office? Many of my hon. Friends will not accept any dilution of British sovereignty in Gibraltar against the wishes of the people in a referendum and will not tolerate them being bullied or blackmailed into voting in a referendum. Is it not hypocritical of the Spanish Government to go on and on about sovereignty in Gibraltar when they hold on to sovereignty in Ceuta and Mellila in Morocco? If there is to be a referendum, would it not be appropriate for it to take place on the same day as Spain holds a referendum in Ceuta and Mellila, to see if their people wish their sovereignty to be transferred to Morocco?

§ Mr. Straw
I was not expecting my right hon. Friend to be persuaded by my point about Lady Thatcher. However, I should have thought that it was a persuasive point for Conservative Members, as they started this process and it is actively supported today by many former Conservative Foreign Office Ministers and people who care both about Spain and about the people of Gibraltar, including Lord Howe and Lord Garel-Jones. [Interruption.] I am glad to learn that the distinguished record of people who have served this country faithfully is now dismissed.
I should be glad to hear from the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) whether the Conservative party is now discarding altogether the Brussels process established by the Thatcher Government of which he was a member. Is he or is he not? No, he is not, he says—he shakes his head from a sedentary position. In that case, let us be clear that all this is simply piffle and wind. The right hon. Gentleman is not abandoning the Brussels process, so what is this about? He is accepting that there ought to be negotiations and that these negotiations, subject to the consent of the people of Gibraltar, ought to consider the issue of sovereignty.
Let me give a direct response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The problem about Gibraltar is that it, Gibraltar, raises all sorts of difficulties that it has with Spain. Spain, in turn, raises all sorts of difficulties that it, Spain, has with Gibraltar. Short of sending a gunboat to start military action against 24 an EU and NATO ally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Well, short of doing that, the only way is by negotiation, and that is what we are doing. We have invited the people represented by the Government of Gibraltar to take part in these negotiations, and in any event the final outcome will be subject not to the Spanish Government nor to the British Government but to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. That is the guarantee we give.

§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
The Foreign Secretary has been in politics long enough to know why suspicion and insecurity arise in such situations. We welcome his indication that there can be no transfer of sovereignty to joint or shared sovereignty without the consent of the people of Gibraltar expressed in a referendum. Must it not be clear that that referendum should not be held in an atmosphere of coercion or on the basis that the people of Gibraltar would continue to be denied the basic rights to which they are now entitled, such as representation in the European Parliament and freedom of movement without undue restriction? It is up to the power that wants to increase its involvement in Gibraltar—namely Spain—to convince the people of Gibraltar that they will gain positive benefits from the change, and not to connive in any way in a denial of rights that they should have now, with or without this agreement.

§ Mr. Straw
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. There are all sorts of rights to which the people of Gibraltar are entitled which they are currently denied. The only way that I can see of even potentially securing those rights is by a process of negotiation, and that negotiation has to be with Spain. I also accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that there is an important responsibility on the Government of Spain to ensure that any proposals that we and they provisionally and jointly agree are beneficial to the people of Gibraltar and that a new atmosphere is created. That would be assisted considerably by a new approach from the Government of Spain.

§ Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)
As chair of the all-party group on Gibraltar, I would like to put a different spin on this from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and ask why, if we are to have discussions with Spain, we do not discuss further independence for the people of Gibraltar or, using the Spanish template, further integration for the people of Gibraltar, as is the case, say, with France and Corsica? Surely that is a way forward that the EU would welcome. Furthermore, sovereignty should not be discussed without Gibraltar being at the table and given an equal voice. No option ought to be considered without that

§ Mr. Straw
As regards independence, my hon. Friend is well aware that we are bound by the treaty of Utrecht. Under that treaty, if any issue of the United Kingdom giving up sovereignty arises, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain have to be given first refusal. That is the international legal position.
As regards my hon. Friend's second point, again—because of the treaty of Utrecht—that cannot be an issue, but we certainly accept the case for a greater degree of 25 self-government for the people of Gibraltar and we want to see that taken forward in the context of these negotiations.

§ Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest)
It is truly incredible to hear the right hon. Gentleman praying in aid the opinions of Lord Garel-Jones on this matter. The entire House considers them totally irrelevant, because we are looking forwards, not backwards—[Interruption.] They are totally irrelevant. If the Foreign Secretary is trying to persuade us that he truly wants to listen to the opinions of the people of Gibraltar, will he give the House an assurance that a referendum of the people of Gibraltar will be held forthwith, and before any further negotiation takes place between his Government and that of Spain?

§ Mr. Straw
The answer to the hon. Lady's second question is no. A referendum cannot be held until there are clear proposals to put before the people of Gibraltar, following agreement. The hon. Lady may not like that; I understand her anger at Lord Garel-Jones for simply telling truths about the position of the Conservative party on these negotiations. I understand that, but her abuse also covers Lord Howe, the former Conservative Foreign Secretary, who has spoken out—

§ Mrs. Laing
That is irrelevant.

§ Mr. Straw
With great respect, it is not irrelevant: Lord Howe had stewardship and custody of the issue for six years. The speech that he made in the other place at the end of December is well worth study because he said that the moment one raises the issue of Gibraltar—especially on the Conservative Benches—one is accused of disloyalty. However, it cannot be disloyal—above all to the people of Gibraltar—to recognise that they have problems, as they themselves keep telling us, and that those problems need resolution. The only way to resolve them is by a negotiation which, if it is successful, will lead to provisional conclusions being put to the people in a referendum.

§ Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool)
Without in any way wanting to draw a direct parallel between Gibraltar and Northern Ireland, may I make the following point to the House? In age-old disagreements of this kind, we cannot just stand still and allow things to fester without at least trying to find the basis of an enduring settlement. The Gibraltarians and the Spanish will have to show some significant movement. However difficult it is to find an accommodation in this situation, the Foreign Secretary is showing guts and skill in his approach and I urge him to keep going.

§ Mr. Straw
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He makes them against the background of great experience in the Northern Ireland process. That process has not been perfect but, thanks to his skill and professionalism and that of many of his colleagues, we now have greater relative peace in Northern Ireland than ever before; yet we understand from the position now being taken by Conservative Front-Bench Members that they would not have gone down that road—whatever position they held previously—and that they seek to break the process of peace in Northern Ireland and put things back rather than forward.
26 Of course, as my right hon. Friend said, the positions are not exactly comparable, but the truth is that the position in Gibraltar is least acceptable to the people of Gibraltar. The Brussels process—which the right hon. Member for Devizes apparently still supports—provides a means of trying to secure a better future for those people.

§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)
Many Conservative Members believe that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to work for and with the British people in Gibraltar, and not to sell them out to Spain. In his answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Foreign Secretary claimed that it was necessary to hold negotiations in order to move the matter forward, but one of the right hon. Gentleman's Treasury Bench colleagues—a member of the Home Office team—gave me an undertaking in Committee that the present Government would ensure, by the time of the next European elections, that the people of Gibraltar would have a vote in those elections. That undertaking is not dependent in any way on negotiations with Spain. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that his previous answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was incorrect in that regard? Will he further confirm that the British Government's duty is to support British people first, not Spanish people?

§ Mr. Straw
I gave a similar undertaking in the House on 27 November, so I simply do not understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We accepted the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and we are implementing it. We believe that the people of Gibraltar should have a right to vote in the European elections, and we are making arrangements for that to happen. As on so many things, those on the Opposition Front Bench are tilting at windmills and raising fears that simply have no substance. I have already made it clear that any provisional agreed proposal between ourselves and the Government of Spain will be subject to a referendum in Gibraltar. In addition, I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe told the Foreign Affairs Committee, again at the end of November: there is absolutely no prospect of the British Government agreeing to full Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar.

§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Is not one of the differences between Northern Ireland and Gibraltar the fact that, apart from anything else, there is unanimous support in Gibraltar for retaining the links with Britain, so a comparison with Northern Ireland is not really appropriate? Is not one of the problems simply that, over the years—whether under the Franco dictatorship or, unfortunately, since Spain has become a democracy, which, of course, we all welcome—that country has had a policy of outright hostility towards Gibraltar? Understandably, instead of seeing Spain as some kind of friend, the people of Gibraltar recognise that it has adopted such a policy, so they are very suspicious indeed of any moves along the lines about which my right hon. Friend has told us today.

§ Mr. Straw
I certainly accept that, as my hon. Friend says, there has been a climate of suspicion and hostility in Gibraltar about Spain, and therefore suspicions about any move by the British Government to try to change 27 the status. Of course I understand that, but the people of Gibraltar also face big problems. They have put those problems before us, and the only way that I can think of that those problems could be resolved is by a process of negotiation, which is what we are embarked on. We would like the Government of Gibraltar to be actively involved in that process of negotiation. That remains the position, and in any event the final outcome of any negotiation will be subject to the free and full consent of the people of Gibraltar.

§ Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)
Why is the Foreign Secretary so uncharacteristically tetchy this afternoon? Could it be because virtually all hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House oppose his policy? Could it be that a Foreign Office stitch-up has been discovered? While I am asking questions, let me ask another specific question. Is it not blackmail of the people of Gibraltar for them to have to vote on any referendum under duress? Is it not a pity that the Foreign Secretary has not yet said from the Dispatch Box this afternoon how he is trying in his negotiations and discussions with his Spanish counterparts to lessen that duress—apart from selling out Gibraltar?

§ Mr. Straw
There is no question of duress, but if there is an agreement, there must be a discussion, and a discussion is currently taking place with the Government of Spain. We would like the Government of Gibraltar to participate fully in those negotiations. We have made it clear, and I repeat the point, that any outcome will be subject to a referendum—free and fair, in a secret ballot—of the people of Gibraltar. For all their bluster, that is also the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench. The shadow Foreign Secretary has made it clear from a sedentary position that he continues to support the Brussels process. That is the one new thing that has emerged from today's discussion. The right hon. Gentleman continues to support the Brussels process, so he continues to support exactly the process in which we are involved—including a discussion, subject to the consent of the people of Gibraltar, of the issue of sovereignty.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
Is it not simply the case that, whatever the results of the negotiations, there is no way that the people of Gibraltar will accept in a referendum anything that sells out their interests or their views? In those circumstances, what are the negotiations about? They clearly cannot be about sovereignty, even if there is scope for consideration of other relationships between Gibraltar and Spain.

§ Mr. Straw
I am quite sure that the people of Gibraltar will not vote for any proposed agreement if they think that it sells out their views. That is palpably the case.
My hon. Friend asked about the other issues for discussion. The Government of Gibraltar and the people of Gibraltar feel profoundly disadvantaged by controls that the Government of Spain have imposed on the borders, by the Spanish approach to a number of EU instruments and by controls over the airport and so on.
28 Those are the subject of discussion, which is why the Brussels process was established by Lady Thatcher in 1984 and why we are continuing it today.

§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)
Cannot the Foreign Secretary see that, by entering into the negotiations, the Government are implicitly accepting that there is a valid dispute about the status of Gibraltar, when in fact there is no such question and no such dispute? Can he not see that while the status of Gibraltar may be an irritant to the European Union and, indeed, to his relations with Spain, it is the oft-expressed desire of the people of Gibraltar to keep their present status? If he is confident that the outcome of the negotiations may be acceptable in a referendum, why does he not admit the Gibraltarian Government as a full participating member of those negotiations? In the absence of that, will he publish the minutes and the agenda of the negotiations so that all may see what is being decided in their name?

§ Mr. Straw
The right hon. Gentleman asks me why we have entered into the negotiations—we have not. The negotiations were entered into in 1984 by the Government whom he supported, and it is a process that we are continuing. I realise that this historic truth is one that the Conservative party wishes to deny, but it is the fact of the matter. The template for our negotiations, in which we are now taking part, comprises exactly the terms of reference laid down by Mrs. Thatcher and the Prime Minister of Spain in 1984.
As for the Government of Gibraltar participating fully in the talks, I wish them to participate fully in the talks. An invitation for them to do so remains open.

§ Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that—at a time when millions of British people go to Spain each year and hundreds of thousands live there and when many Spaniards come to this country and many live and work here—relations between democratic Spain and its 40 million people and the democratic United Kingdom are the best they have ever been, and that this is probably the best possible time for negotiations about an intractable and difficult issue, towards a resolution that is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the two countries as well?

§ Mr. Straw
My hon. Friend is entirely right: relations are good. That does not mean that the negotiations will not be tough, because we are there not primarily to represent the interests of the United Kingdom, but to represent the interests of the people of Gibraltar. That is another reason why we wish the Government of Gibraltar were included in the talks.
Contrary to the view expressed by Conservative Members, it is not the case that the Government of Gibraltar or the people of Gibraltar wish to keep the present situation. They may wish to keep their present status, but one of the reasons why we have entered into these negotiations is that they wish the status quo to be changed so that they can lead better and freer lives.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)
Why does not the Foreign Secretary break off the negotiations until all the vindictive and petty restrictions placed on the people of Gibraltar by the Government of Spain are ended? Why does he not go to Gibraltar himself and try 29 to persuade its people that they have nothing to fear from the British Government? Why does he not go and win their trust and confidence before he starts to barter their future?

§ Mr. Straw
What the hon. Gentleman's question raises is the fact that there are many difficulties in the relationship between Spain and Gibraltar. Spain has many complaints about Gibraltar which we would be wise at least to acknowledge exist, even if we disagree with their substance. The way to resolve those difficulties is by constructive negotiation. Although it remains to be seen whether it will be constructive, that is the way forward and it is why I am involved in negotiations. And, yes, if it is appropriate, I will go to Gibraltar.