Westminster Hall Sitting of 8 June 2000

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Gibraltar
[Relevant documents: Fourth report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1998–99 ( HC 366), and the Government's response thereto (CM4470). Memoranda on Gibraltar reported to the House by the Foreign Affairs Committee.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: It is my pleasure to introduce for debate the fourth report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of last Session. I have just been reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) that it is a year to the day since the report was published. I do not know what conclusions we can draw from that delay. We also have before us the Government response to our recommendations and various unpublished memoranda, one from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and one, dated 4 June, from the Government of Gibraltar. I know from experience that there is considerable interest in the House in the subject of Gibraltar. It is, therefore, wholly fitting that our report should be brought before this Chamber.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report was unanimous and followed a short but, I hope, comprehensive inquiry. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for working together constructively and speedily to produce a document that has, I hope, been a catalyst for change in relations between this country and Gibraltar. I shall begin with our conclusions to show the spirit in which we worked. In paragraph 125 we say:
Of all our overseas territories, Gibraltar is in the unique position of having to conform to almost all EU regulations and directives. This means that the British Government have a special duty of care towards Gibraltar in the European Union, and places extra responsibilities upon United Kingdom Ministers to uphold the interests of Gibraltar. We urge Her Majesty's Government both to recognise and to act in full accordance with these responsibilities.
That was the theme—the leitmotiv—of our report.
The report was sparked by the fact that, in January last year, the border between Gibraltar and Spain was closed to traffic in a culmination of a dispute about fishing by Spanish vessels in Gibraltar's territorial waters, and Gibraltar became even more prominent on the parliamentary agenda. Thus, the Committee decided that it should look at the situation. One of the great advantages of our Select Committee system is that we can respond flexibly to crises in that way. I have stressed our special duty of care, but we should not forget what the people of the Rock did for the allied war efforts during the second world war.
The Committee visited Gibraltar in March last year. We met the then governor, our former colleague, Richard Luce, the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, and
118WH
the leader of the Opposition, Joe Bossano, all of whom are well known to hon. Members; and Gibraltar is well served by its representative in the United Kingdom, Mr. Albert Poggio.
In London, we took evidence from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), who then had responsibility for Gibraltar in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and from Peter Caruana. We are extremely grateful for the enormous help that we received. During our visit to Gibraltar, which was my first, we were received with great warmth, which made clear to me our special relationship with its people.
We did not take evidence for our report in Spain, and received only one piece of evidence from a Spanish source—although that was important, as it came from Rafael Estrella, the Socialist party's then foreign affairs spokesman. He has a special interest in relations with Gibraltar, because he represents a constituency in the adjoining region—or autonomia—of Andalucia. We would, of course, have welcomed other memoranda, had other Spanish sources responded to our invitation.
We were able to study the proposals for the future of Gibraltar that the then Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Abel Matutes, had made as part of the so-called Brussels process. Those proposals, with their call for joint sovereignty in Gibraltar, were clearly unacceptable to an overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians, and must, therefore, eventually be rejected.
We also saw at first hand the threats that Spain has made against Gibraltarian interests, and received much evidence about the effect that Spanish action has had on the life and economy of the Rock. We naturally took the opportunity to visit the border, in company with the Chief Minister, Mr. Peter Caruana, and saw the unacceptable delays.
In essence, our conclusion was that Spain has made many wild and unfounded allegations against Gibraltar. The territory is not the haven for smugglers, drug traffickers and tax evaders that some Spanish propagandists pretend.
On the compliance of Gibraltar with European Union obligations, there were just two remaining regulations with which the Government of Gibraltar had not complied. The recent memorandum submitted to us by the Gibraltar Government states—in response to our report's recommendation that
the Foreign and Commonwealth Office continue to press for the early adoption of legislation in Gibraltar to bring into effect the Fourth and Seventh EC Company Law Directives
that
The required legislation is now
on
the statute book and operative.
I am delighted that that positive change has occurred since our visit.
We raised important questions about whether Spanish conduct against Gibraltar may not itself infringe EU law. I have in mind not just the disgraceful absence of free movement across the border—of which more later—but such issues as the then non-recognition of Gibraltarian driving licences and passports, the restrictions on Gibraltarian telephone services, and the

119WH
attempts to exclude Gibraltar from the entitlement to benefit from all aspects of its EU membership. We called for more rigorous action in the EU to defend Gibraltarian interests.
Our report was published last June, since when an amendment has been moved—I am delighted to be able to use that parliamentary expression. That amendment is the very welcome, but limited, agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain, which has been hailed by the Government of Gibraltar as a key step on the road to normalisation of relations. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole Committee in saying that we, too, welcome that step forward. We were delighted by the announcement on the agreement that was made on 19 April by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Speaking with due deference, I have little doubt that our report helped to hasten the process.
It is always possible to talk up a dispute into a crisis, but, as our report says,
nothing is to be gained by bombast and megaphone diplomacy.
For that reason, we devoted the last part of our report to an analysis of what we believe the British Government should do to develop relations with Spain. That is important because—I stress this—Spain is an important ally of this country, not least within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. There are many areas in which we work extremely amicably with our Spanish partners, and we have many common interests, including, for example, our approach to the intergovernmental conference, which will be concluded in Nice in December. Also, many Britons holiday in Spain and many others live there.
In the past, the temperature of the debate occasionally became too heated because of Gibraltar, and it should be lowered. The meeting of the two Prime Ministers in early April helped that effort. I understand that they have an extremely good relationship—their chemistry is good—which has been used constructively for the benefit of the people of Gibraltar, and we hope that they will go well beyond that first step.
The Foreign Affairs Committee does not believe that co-operation with Spain should in any way be equated with appeasement. The tendency in Gibraltar to criticise successive British Governments in that regard is regrettable. Co-operation is, in our view, the most sensible way forward. In our report, we singled out the airport as a place at which there should be practical, cross-border co-operation to the benefit of Gibraltar and of Andalucia, which is the adjoining region.
The Brussels process, which was started by the Brussels agreement of 1984, was an attempt to develop practical co-operation. However, in our judgment, the process became ensnared in fruitless discussions about sovereignty, and we believe that it is time for the agenda to move on. We therefore propose a new process of regular dialogue on all of the many areas in which agreements and co-operation could yield substantial and beneficial results. In that context, some of the views that have been expressed in Spain and Gibraltar, especially by Rafael Estrella and Peter Caruana, are constructive, helpful and enlightened.
120WH
Our report recommended putting the issue of sovereignty to one side and concentrating on co-operation and on the need to make progress where that is possible. That is surely the only sensible way forward. A banner that was displayed at La Linea last year stated: "Fewer restrictions, more solutions". That is what happened in April's agreement, when a breakthrough was achieved on European Union matters.
A new governor is now in place in Gibraltar. Peter Caruana received further endorsement in the elections that were held in February, and the Spanish elections have similarly consolidated the position of the Spanish Government of Mr. Aznar. Mr. Josep Piqué is the new Spanish Foreign Minister.
However, I do not pretend that everything is rosy. There are unwarranted delays at the border. I believe that now is a propitious time to move forward, and that we should use the limited agreement in April, however welcome it was, as a platform for further advance.
I shall not go through the helpful memorandum in detail—
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman said that a new Government have been re-elected in Spain and that a new Foreign Minister has been appointed. Would not now be an opportune time to press the approach that the hon. Gentleman described because there is every chance that it will be favourably received?
Mr. Anderson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's very wise words will be well received by our Government—I look forward to the Minister's reply—and by the Spanish Government.
The report contains detailed analyses of delays at the border. Obviously, the fact that customs officials operate at the border means that some checking is necessary, but the delays are still being manipulated for political purposes. They can be turned on and off like a tap, irrespective of the amount of traffic—
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Depending on which British Minister is visiting.
Mr. Anderson: Indeed, yes. It is done for quite extraneous reasons. It is wholly unacceptable behaviour by the Spanish Government, and in the new spirit of the April 1999 agreements, something should be done about it.
The only other area in which we hope for progress relates to the delays in telephone operations mentioned on page 6 of the memorandum. In our paragraph 67, we recommended that
the Government take all steps open to it under the Treaties to ensure that a determination is made by the European Commission with no further delay in the case of telephone operations.
The Gibraltar Government responded as follows:
The Gibraltar Government agrees. The situation is now very critical. Gibraltar has run out of numbers for mobile telephones (with a waiting list of 200) and has only sufficient fixed line numbers until the end of this year. This means that Gibraltar cannot comply with its obligations under the telecommunication liberalisation regulations since there are no numbers available for new operators.

121WH
The Spanish Government's refusal to recognise Gibraltar's 350 code is a breach of its obligations under Community Law…There is no indication that the European Commission is prepared to commence formal legal proceedings against the Spanish Government…The Gibraltar Government cannot agree that this issue should be dealt with in a manner which subjects the enforcement of the EU Rights of Gibraltar citizens and companies to a process of bilateral political negotiation between the UK and Spain.
I have not discussed this further matter with the Committee, but I anticipate that there will be total endorsement of the Gibraltar Government's view.
We recognise that much helpful progress has been made, that there is a new spirit of co-operation, and a new platform on which we can build. However, some of the matters that need to be dealt with, such as the telephone question, are critical and urgent while others, including the border delays, are still clearly being manipulated for political purposes.
I hope that the Minister will give the Chamber some assurances on those matters. There are still areas in which the European Commission is trying to avoid taking a decision on matters that are properly its responsibility. I hope that the Minister will also address the question of when we can expect the legislation to extend the European franchise to residents of Gibraltar. I cannot speak for colleagues from other parties, but I would hope that this would be a consensual matter in the House, and that the passage of such legislation could be facilitated in such a way as to avoid falling foul of any pre-election problems.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that when this matter came before the House some time ago, some of us were very keen that the franchise should be extended and amendments were tabled accordingly, only to be struck down by his Government?
Mr. Anderson: It is not my purpose to find fault with one or other Government. There has been substantial progress, but there remain many problems and this is one of them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has taken a close interest in Gibraltar over the years, will try to ensure that there is no opposition or blockage from any part of the House over which he has some little control.
I hope also that the Minister will confirm the Committee's view that moves towards greater self-government under the Crown in Gibraltar—if that becomes the proposal of the House of Assembly Select Committee currently examining the Gibraltarian constitution—will not be contrary to the treaty of Utrecht. In our view, such a course will not amount to alienation of Gibraltar from the Crown referred to in article 10 of the Utrecht treaty.
The Foreign Affairs Committee report has been a constructive contribution and has helped to encourage people of good will on both sides of the Spain-Gibraltar border to work towards happy co-existence in a historic and beautiful corner of the European Union. The report has been overtaken, in part, but the moves in April are most welcome.
I have one final point. People sometimes ask, "What is the use of Select Committees? Do they have any influence?" In future, I shall answer with one word:
122WH
"Gibraltar". It is not showing too much self-esteem on our part to say that the report made a constructive contribution to the debate, on behalf of Gibraltar and in the interests of promoting better relations between this country and Spain.
2.50 pm
Sir John Stanley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in speaking to a report that was, as he said, unanimously agreed. The tone of the report was both reasonable and firm in its protection of essential Gibraltarian interests. The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of issues on which there has been progress, but I want to speak about three important issues on which practical progress to date has been zero.
First, there is the issue of frontier delays. Like other hon. Members, I was struck by the Foreign Secretary's announcement, made in a written answer on 19 April. I welcome the progress to which he referred, but, as hon. Members will know, frontier delays were not among the items covered in the announcement. Although the Foreign Secretary was singularly upbeat in his announcement, frontier delay is still a serious issue. The Foreign Secretary said that the discussions that had taken place had produced
a very good outcome for the UK, for Gibraltar and for all our EU partners.
He also said that he hoped that they would
help to improve the climate of dialogue and the spirit of co-operation with regard to Gibraltar between Spain, and the UK and Gibraltar—[Official Report, 19 April 2000: Vol. 348, c. 499W.]
In practical terms, there is no evidence whatever that there is an improvement in the "climate of dialogue" or the "spirit of co-operation" with regard to the frontier delays.
We can see minutely whether progress is being made in this area. The Gibraltar Government keep day-by-day records of the average length of the delays for vehicles exiting Gibraltar. The delays are deliberately contrived by Spanish officials and Spanish Ministers have ultimate responsibility for them. Table B of the Gibraltar Government document shows that the average delay time on 19 April—the day on which the Foreign Secretary made his statement about the new spirit of co-operation—was 52 minutes. On 30 May—the latest date we have—the average time was 51 minutes. I was curious about whether there had been a dramatic improvement before our debate, so I spoke to the Chief Minister's office this morning. I was given figures for the past few days, including yesterday—7 June. The delay is still 51 minutes. So, despite the talk of a new spirit of co-operation, all that has been achieved since 19 April is an improvement of one minute in the average delay time on the border. That is not good enough.
One must ask whether the Government's response is good enough. The final part of the Government's response states:
We note the Committee's recommendation that the Government take action under Article 227 of the EC Treaty should the Commission itself fail to take swift action. Ministers have already raised the issue of border delays with the incoming Commission, and will keep the situation under review.
I do not think that keeping the situation under review is anything like good enough. Something much more specific and positive must be done. The Select

123WH
Committee made it clear in its report that, ultimately, if the Commission is unwilling to take action under article 226, individual EU member states have the right, under article 227, to take action themselves against an individual member state. In view of the clear evidence that the Commission has failed to take swift action, which was the benchmark that the Government used in their response, why have the Government not so far initiated proceedings under article 227? When, while these intolerable delays continue, will they do so?
The second issue that I wish to raise, where again, regrettably, there has been no progress, is the use of Gibraltar for NATO defence purposes. A long-standing incongruous geographical feature of the NATO alliance is that at the eastern end of the Mediterranean two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, treat each other as potential belligerents and at the western end, another NATO ally, Spain, treats a fellow NATO ally, Britain, in a Gibraltar context at least, as a military leper, with whom contact should be avoided. That is a serious issue.
I want to look in detail at the Government's response on this point. It is a three sentence response and I shall take each in turn. The first is:
The Government continue to believe that the Spanish imposition of restrictions intended to hamper NATO military activity in and around Gibraltar is an inappropriate approach for a NATO ally.
I fully signed up to the Foreign Affairs Committee's view that we should avoid bombastic terminology and megaphone diplomacy, but that goes far too far in the opposite direction. One member of a serious military alliance is deliberately hampering the agreed military activities of another. Surely wording rather stronger than "an inappropriate approach" would have been justified. The Foreign Office should reflect on the impact such wording has in Madrid when the Spanish Government see that all the British Government are prepared to say in our own Parliament and to our own Foreign Affairs Select Committee is that their activities in deliberately hampering NATO operations and activities are "an inappropriate approach". That does not remotely convey the right message to them.
The second sentence is:
The Government intend to continue bilateral discussions with Spain aimed at maintaining progress towards the lifting of all restrictions, particularly in the light of Spain's recent joining of the NATO Military Structure.
The Government missed a significant moment in permitting Spain to enter the integrated military structure of NATO on 1 March 1999 without resolving that issue or obtaining assurances from the Spanish Government that they would discontinue such hampering of NATO activities. That should have been a major issue in the negotiations, but it appears that it was let slip.
People may say that the previous Conservative Government let Spain into the political structure of NATO in 1982 and did not finally resolve the issue. That is a fair point. Although I was not in the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office then, I remind hon. Members that we had to take into account Spain's important strategic position and the fact that we were still involved in the cold war. It was reasonably seen as
124WH
desirable to get Spain into NATO at almost any price. However, we were in a fundamentally different position in 1999. An important window of opportunity was lost when we let Spain into the integrated military structure without obtaining copper-bottomed assurances that such hampering of NATO's activities in Gibraltar would stop.
The third and final sentence of the Government's response was clearly designed to try to score brownie points with the Committee, which took a strong line on the issue. The Government said:
A move towards normalisation of the relationship between two NATO allies was demonstrated recently when Spain took part for the first time in a NATO communications exercise in which Gibraltar also participated.
I welcome the fact that Spain participated with Gibraltar in a NATO communications exercise, but on the other side of the scale, the Gibraltar Government have said:
Far from doing what the Committee's conclusion and recommendation would expect from her, Spain is actually actively discouraging other NATO countries from visiting Gibraltar with their military ships and airplanes.
That is a more serious downside than the small plus of the communications exercise to which the Government's response refers. My concern is that we are moving backwards and enabling Spain to hamper NATO operations and exercises involving not only British military assets, but those of our NATO allies. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response on that.
The last recommendation on which we have not achieved practical progress concerns the right of Gibraltarians to vote in European elections, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East referred. Although the Government have seriously failed on that issue, the previous Conservative Government failed equally seriously. Both Governments are culpable for denying Gibraltarians the ability to vote in European elections.
I was delighted that Denise Matthews won her case in the European Court of Human Rights last year, although it is a sad day for the mother of Parliaments when a British citizen must go to that court to establish her right to vote in our democracy. The Government's response makes all the right noises, but does not make a clear binding commitment that Gibraltarians will have their right to vote in the 2004 European elections.
I have just two questions. The Secretary of State's response says:
The Government are working hard to ensure that this extension of the franchise to Gibraltar is achieved before the 2004 elections.
However, the evidence of years and years shows that hard work is not sufficient to achieve success when the Spanish Government dig their toes in on an issue. The Foreign Affairs Committee anticipated that there might be difficulties in implementing the decision that has been made in the European Court and in getting that through the European Union bureaucratic thicket in Brussels. Therefore, in paragraph 92 of its report, the Committee put to the Government a fallback position, in the event of continuing Spanish obstruction:
If there is evidence of Spanish obstruction, we believe that it will be possible—and desirable—for the United Kingdom to act unilaterally, at least as a stop-gap. This could be done by amending British law to allow British citizens resident in Gibraltar

125WH
to register to vote in European constituencies in a similar manner to the extension of the franchise in domestic and EP elections to British citizens resident abroad under the Representation of the People Act 1985.
The Government's response is silent on the use of that unilateral legislative power. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government, if they cannot have their way in Brussels, will discharge their democratic obligations to the people of Gibraltar and implement the unilateral legislative solution that the Foreign Affairs Committee recommended?
The last question arises from the Gibraltarian Government's paper, which says:
Spain has recently informed the EC General Council that it will not agree to Gibraltarians voting in Gibraltar and offering them the opportunity to vote in Spain.
I hope that the Minister will dispose of all the diplomatic language with which his brief and the Government's response are stuffed, and make it absolutely clear that the British Government are adamant that the people of Gibraltar voting in the European elections for the first time in 2004 will vote in one place only—Gibraltar.
3.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I welcome this debate and I am pleased to see so many colleagues from across the political spectrum who, like me, have enjoyed the Gibraltar national day and the hospitality and friendship of the Government and people of Gibraltar and their House of Assembly. I hope that we can replicate this debate annually, at least. Ideally, we ought to have a debate each part-Session. We are focusing on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but we need to take account of many other issues, including the Government's stewardship, the role of the governor, chief constable and chief justice, all of whom are appointed by Whitehall. Westminster has a duty and an obligation to deal with those issues, but perhaps we can do so on another occasion.
I should like to comment on the Select Committee report. It is fair to acknowledge that much has been achieved since it was published. We should recognise, for example, the purchase of a fast patrol boat, which resulted from financial collaboration between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Gibraltar. The fourth and seventh Euro-directives have been placed on the statute book and problems relating to driving licences have been resolved. The competent financial authorities of Gibraltar have been facilitated by a "post box" system via London. We are also pleased to know that there are currently no fisheries disputes.
What is the kernel of the debate, and why is the Minister in the dock? I hesitate to use that phrase, but I shall justify it in a few moments. Paragraph 125 of the report states:
We conclude that there have been occasions in the past when the British defence of Gibraltarian interests has not been as robust as it should have been. Of all our overseas territories, Gibraltar is in the unique position of having to conform to almost all EU regulations and directives. This means that the British Government have a special duty of care towards Gibraltar in the European Union, and places extra responsibilities upon United Kingdom Ministers to uphold the interests of Gibraltar. We urge Her Majesty's Government both to recognise and to act in full accordance with these responsibilities.
The Government responded by saying:
126WH
The Committee does not cite any occasions when the defence of Gibraltar's interest has not been robust… This Government would reject the claim that it has ever been less than robust in its defence of the interests of the people of Gibraltar, and is encouraged that a full and diligent inquiry by the Committee does not produce any such example.
Whoever penned that has not addressed himself to the contents of the report. Colleagues have already cited examples such as problems at the border. As we sit here this afternoon, the people of Gibraltar and other UK citizens face indefensible frustrations at the border. In extremis, flights headed for Gibraltar were recently unable to use the Spanish airport and were diverted to north Africa. Telephone facilities are another problem, and because of the tardiness of the European Commission and the Spanish Government in resolving it, the Gibraltar Government have been embarrassed commercially and are unable to fulfil other obligations. The franchise to the European Parliament is another major issue.
Will the Minister amplify on his discussions with Madrid? It was reported that he was somewhat pleased about the reduction of the waiting time at the border. He clearly understands that hon. Members regard the existing average waiting time as wholly unacceptable, and I want to know if there is a disagreement between him and us on that matter. If the Minister shares our view that it remains unacceptable, what is he going to do about it? Parliament is entitled to know.
In parliamentary replies, the Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said that they are continuing to pursue the matter in Europe. Yet the Gibraltar Chronicle reported on 29 November last year that the European Commissioner had said that it was not a matter for him, but should be sorted out bilaterally. The Minister must tell us whether it is a bilateral matter or should be dealt with by the European Commissioner. Can he give us an assurance that the European Commissioner is pursuing the matter with vigour?
On aviation, I should like the Minister to respond to paragraph 2 on pages 3 and 4 of the unpublished memorandum submitted by the Gibraltar Government. It states:
On 3 May this year, a scheduled civilian flight carrying 90 passengers was unable to land at Gibraltar due to poor visibility and after circling for 20 minutes requested on three occasions to divert to Malaga airport. This was refused on grounds that the aircraft had made no attempt to land at Gibraltar. The aircraft was therefore forced to divert to Tangier.
I do not want to sound like a long-playing gramophone record, but what are the Government doing about that?
My colleagues have dealt with the issues of NATO and telephones, but there is one other item on our list that has yet to be covered. We recommended that, as a matter of common sense and courtesy, the Chief Minister should have access to the Prime Minister. However, the Government's response has been rather mean, which simply is not good enough. We should remember that the people of Gibraltar are not represented in this place. We trespassed on that issue in our report and suggested that reform of the other place might facilitate representation. The Government said that we should await Wakeham, but Wakeham failed to comment, so we need to revisit the issue.
Because the people of Gibraltar are not represented in this place, their representatives in the House of Assembly should have greater access to the Prime

127WH
Minister who, ultimately, is their Prime Minister. We should remember that if the United Kingdom were to go to war, Gibraltar and the other overseas territories would not be able to pass a resolution stating, "If you don't mind awfully, we'll sit this one out." They are locked in to our decisions here, and we must recognise that this place is also their legislature.
I am extremely angered by the issue of the franchise for European elections. Originally, Her Majesty's Government were peddling the story that it is not possible to extend the franchise. The Committee stage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, and amendments were tabled not only by me but the Conservative Opposition. The Opposition experienced a Pauline conversion on the matter. Nevertheless, they sought to ensure that there were votes for Gibraltarians in European elections. During the debate, I said:
Reference has been made to arguments advanced in another place by Baroness Symons—
the former Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—
that, somehow, there is an impediment to altering the law without unanimity among EU member states. That is simply wrong in law. It is nonsense, but it is indicative of the kind of stuff that is peddled at an official level in the Foreign Office. Even if I am wrong, it is up to the British Government to challenge such a premise. I am quite confident—I say this with as much humility as I can muster—
[Laughter.]wait for it—
that I happen to be right, and that the Foreign Office is wrong.—[Official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 196.]
The Foreign Office was wrong, and I was vindicated. The European Court concluded that the Foreign Office's expensive lawyers had got it wrong and that the hon. Member for Thurrock had got it right.
There is a lesson to be learned here. The same people are still advising Ministers. They have now altered the story and tried to rewrite history. The Minister will say, "Hon. Members and Madam Deputy Speaker, we want to extend the franchise, but we need the agreement of Spain and the European Union." I shall tell the Minister—and I shall quote this on future occasions—that he and his advisers are once again wrong. However, I cannot help but feel that the Foreign Office has displayed a wilful ignorance in this matter. It is unacceptable that it is even deemed to be a matter of competence for the European Union or a foreign Government to decide who or what should be our franchise.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill)—who I know hopes to catch your eye later on, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I are at different poles on the question of the European Union, but on this matter I wholeheartedly agree with him: it is our exclusive competence to decide who is on our electoral register. We should at least put enabling legislation on the statute book now, so that we do not have to come to Parliament after an agreement, perhaps at the 11th hour.
To underline the poverty of legal advice given to Ministers on this matter I shall quote my hon. Friend the then Minister of State's words in responding to me on 24 February 1998. She said:
128WH
As I have said, there are differences between the status of Gibraltar in the European Union and, for example, the status of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. However, for the purposes of the EU parliamentary elections, it is clear that they have the same status. That is the legal position. If that position were to be changed, it would require a proposal from the European Parliament, and a unanimous decision in Council followed by ratification by all member states. I am sure that the formidable political obstacles that would be encountered by that course of action are more than evident to the Committee.—[official Report, 24 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 608.]
My hon. Friend was proved to be wrong, and I hope that the Government will now have the humility to recognise that, particularly as the Labour Government have an obligation to ensure that the franchise is extended to these people. After all, the people of Martinique and Reunion in the Indian Ocean can vote in the European elections, but our own folk in Gibraltar, to whom we owe so much, are denied that opportunity.
I am sorry to have laboured the point, but it demonstrates that the humility should not be with me but with those on the Government Front Bench, who have repeatedly taken advice given by Home Office officials that, time and time again, has been shown to be flawed and morally wrong.
3.22 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I should say at the outset that I am not a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I have read its report with great interest and I congratulate the Chairman and all members of the Committee. The report was interesting and frank. Members of the Committee put clearly to the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), their views on a wide range of issues, which were also evident in their discussions with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana.
Like many other hon. Members I have visited Gibraltar on numerous occasions. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and I went to national day in Gibraltar. It was a moving occasion. I was last there last year, when I led a delegation to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, which was being held there. While there, we heard the views of the Chief Minister, of politicians and of business people, but, above all, we heard the views of the men and women of Gibraltar, and there was no doubt about what is and is not acceptable to them and their country.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that, as other hon. Members have said—and this emerged clearly in the Select Committee report—the views of the Government are not those of the people of Gibraltar. In the elegant presentation of his views, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made it clear that the Government to whom many of us in this Room are proud to belong, sadly, often get it wrong. They get it wrong in Gibraltar and they get it wrong in many other parts of the world that have close links to us through their membership of the Commonwealth. They get it wrong repeatedly. I hope that, as my hon. Friend has said, we will make known to Spain the views not of the British Government, who often put their views forward, but of the people of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.

129WH
The on-going problems that, sadly, Gibraltar faces at the border, where there are many delays in traffic movement, were mentioned earlier. When the CPA delegation was there for a week, we watched, day by day, what was happening. Spain deliberately caused the delays to inconvenience Gibraltar and to disrupt its economy and tourism trade. The Spanish have not suggested that they have other reasons for causing the delays.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) dismissed out of hand some of the accusations that the Spanish Government make against Gibraltar, and our Government should do the same. Neither I nor any other hon. Member is in any doubt about the fact that the Spanish Government's accusations are totally unacceptable to the people of Gibraltar.
There was a vote on the sovereignty of Gibraltar in the 1967 referendum and it is worth spelling out the result. A total of 12,138 people voted to remain linked to the United Kingdom and 44 voted for Spanish control of Gibraltar.
The British Government might say to the Chief Minister, "The 1967 vote took place a long time ago, and the matter should be retested. Let's have another referendum to test the views of the people of Gibraltar by December this year." If they said that, does any hon. Member believe that there would be any change from the 1967 voting figures? I do not, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister does not either.
Many hon. Members have many political interests in Parliament, and I happen to chair the all-party group on the Argentine. The Argentines are hell-bent on trying to take over the Falkland Islands. What do the Government, and what did the previous Government, say repeatedly to the Government of Argentina? They said, "There are things that we will talk to you about, and we want co-operation between our two countries, but we will not enter into a discussion about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands."
I recently hosted a visit that was made by the newly elected Vice President of Argentina. He met various Members of Parliament, and we discussed many things, but there was one matter that we did not discuss—the British Government had made it very clear to the Government of Argentina that sovereignty was not for discussion. I hope that something as forceful as what was repeatedly said to the Government of Argentina will be said to Spain—it is, I believe, our duty to do so.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman think that, in view of the Government's propensity to consult the people about many aspects of political life, it is somewhat strange that they are reluctant to consult the people of Gibraltar? Would he recommend that such a consultation should now take place?
Mr. Cox: I note what the hon. Lady has said, and shall deal with that point in a moment.
Paragraph 104 of the report contains two key aspects, one of which I fully support and of one of which I am deeply critical. I support the proposal for the representation of Gibraltar in the House of Lords, which deserves serious consideration. I hope that the
130WH
Minister will not say, "We are sympathetic to that, but we would have to consult the Spanish Government before we could put it in place." Sadly, that is often the tenor of the Government's actions in any dealings concerning Gibraltar. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, if it is the wish of hon. Members that there should be a Gibraltarian representative in the reformed second Chamber, that decision should be taken by the British Parliament.
The aspect of which I am highly critical—this may answer the intervention by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing)—is the fact that no meetings between the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the Prime Minister take place prior to meetings between the Spanish Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. According to the report, the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, said that she
spoke regularly with the Chief Minister, and reported on these discussions to the Prime Minister.
That is totally unacceptable. It is an utter discourtesy to the people and to the elected Government of Gibraltar that the British Prime Minister—any Prime Minister, not just the present one—does not meet the elected Chief Minister of Gibraltar before he meets the Spanish Prime Minister for discussions about Gibraltar. Those meetings do not happen often so it would not place enormous pressure on the Prime Minister to do so. When a meeting of such great importance is to take place, and we know that issues concerning Gibraltar will be on the agenda, Gibraltar has a right to ensure that its Chief Minister meets the Prime Minister to discuss those issues.
The next European elections have been mentioned. Comment 13 of the Government response states:
The Government are working hard to ensure that this extension of the franchise to Gibraltar is achieved before the 2004 European elections.
The language should be much tougher than that. Those elections are in June 2004—some four years hence. Are we being told that, between now and June 2004, we are not capable of ensuring—as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said in his forceful speech—that those people will have a right to vote where they want to vote? We know where they want to vote, and the Government should take the necessary action.
My final point concerns the airport. The report and the Government's response discuss the airport's potential for future development, which none of us disputes. However, the action that Spain takes towards flights into Gibraltar is totally unacceptable. I can give an example. I chair the CPA sub-committee that is now preparing for the CPA 2000 conference, which will take place in London and Edinburgh in September. The CPA executive committee held its meeting in Gibraltar on 9–15 April this year to discuss the agenda for this year's conference. Several members of the executive planned to fly into Gibraltar airport, but high winds meant that the aircraft could not land there. They sought permission to land at a Spanish airfield, but it was refused, so they had to fly to Morocco. That is unacceptable. Can the Minister give an assurance that any discussion about the airport will not be a matter solely for the Spanish and

131WH
British Governments? Any changes regarding the airport must take place only with the full and total consent of the people and Government of Gibraltar. We have a duty to make such points in our debate. If we did not, we would fail in our duty, in the light of the Select Committee report.
The Select Committee did a first-class job. The report shows the commitment of many Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, to Gibraltar and its people. That is how it should be. None of us should forget the role that Gibraltar played in the last war. Gibraltar is a Commonwealth country, and I and other hon. Members who are deeply committed to the Commonwealth see us as all being equal. It does not matter whether we live in a big Commonwealth country or a small one. The people of Gibraltar have a right to our support when they need it, and there are many current issues on which they need it. It is the British Government's duty to give them that support and to enter into proper consultation with them. Above all, they should make known to the Spanish Government the views of the Gibraltarian people, which, I regret to say, the British Government often fail to reflect.
3.37 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: It is somewhat disconcerting to take part in a debate where all hon. Members are united in their views on the subject. Everyone who has spoken so far has referred to the issue of votes for Gibraltarians.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) rightly drew our attention to the debates that we had in the House. At that time, many of us were anxious that Gibraltarians be given the vote for the previous European elections, not just the next ones. We felt that there was no impediment to that, and I remember putting to Ministers the same evidence that Michael Llamas, a barrister in Gibraltar, put to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Denise Matthews. I considered that evidence to be entirely coherent and sensible, and hon. Members know that it carried the day, for the court found in favour of Denise Matthews. The Government must do something to correct the situation.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said, when the Government say that they are working hard on a solution, we begin to wonder who is running the show. It should not be a problem for the Government. They can do anything that they want, provided they have the determination. What is lacking is the political will to get on and do it quickly and give Gibraltarians the satisfaction of knowing that their views are represented properly and seriously in Parliament.
Hon. Members have referred to visits to Gibraltar on national day and I, too, have visited Gibraltar on national day. It is a most extraordinary experience. Where else in the world would we, as Members of Parliament, stand in front of 10,000 people who apparently hang on our every word? I was left in no doubt about their feelings about their country's future, which were expressed in a dramatic way and with obvious enthusiasm and with no apparent dissenting
132WH
voices. The hon Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to the referendum in 1967, in which only 44 people voted against Gibraltar remaining British and it is true that Gibraltarians want to remain British.
The other theme that has run through today's debate is border delays. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling rightly said, the delays are contrived; a point that was reinforced by the comments of the hon. Member for Tooting. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding us that delays are consistently of the order of 50 minutes. We have been reassured that the situation is under review, but I ask the Minister to confirm or deny that, when recently addressing an audience in Spain—it might have been in discussions with Ministers—he expressed the view that delays of an hour are acceptable. If the Minister did not say that, I am sure that he will tell us.
To my mind, such a delay is totally unacceptable, as are delays of 50 minutes. Those of us who know Gibraltar—I would imagine that we all do—see no reason for delays of more than a few moments, particularly given that, at certain times of the day, no one is waiting to cross the frontier. Nevertheless, delays are consistently contrived in an unreasonable way, regardless of the time and the press of people who want to cross the frontier.
Reference has been made to the part that Gibraltar has played in our history, not least during the second world war. We must consider the importance to this country of Gibraltar's strategic position and its potential as a strategic staging post for peacekeeping forces. The western community takes our forces to many parts of the world and many naval forces and air forces call in at Gibraltar, which is often 1,000 miles closer to the threat than the home bases. Our aircraft carrier force is now significantly reduced, and Gibraltar constitutes a static aircraft carrier at the entrance to the Mediterranean. In the light of the threats that we are now encountering, it also represents an important staging post for all warships and warplanes. There is no doubt that, when a naval task force was sent to the Adriatic or, more recently, to west Africa, Gibraltar proved a very important asset. That must never be forgotten.
When the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) introduced the debate, he said that the Matutes proposals must eventually be rejected. I question the use of the word "eventually". Many of us here this afternoon feel that the Matutes proposals should be rejected out of hand now. It is not acceptable for the proposals to hang like a sword of Damocles over Gibraltar when they should be struck out and we should proceed on a sounder basis.
One point that has not been raised in the debate is the question of cruise ships calling at Gibraltar. Perhaps the Minister can give us some up-to-date information on that. Cruise ships are becoming an important source of revenue to Gibraltar, which has been extremely successful in diversifying its economy since the time, not so long ago, when it was almost entirely dependent on the armed forces. Their contribution is comparatively tiny now.
In the meantime, the Gibraltarians, to their great credit, have diversified into financial services, and other areas. The same problems apply to cruise ships as apply

133WH
to naval forces. Spain puts restrictions on where they can have called before calling at Gibraltar and where they may call when they leave. That makes it much more difficult for Gibraltar to attract cruise liners to their harbour. The cruise line agents will choose ports on either side of the straits of Gibraltar. This is a serious problem. The Gibraltarians have been successful so far in generating a reasonable amount of cruise business, but just think how much more that could be if these restrictions did not exist.
In relation to another limitation on the diversification that is so important to Gibraltar's economic prosperity, I must repeat the plea made by other right hon. and hon. Members; there must be an early resolution of the question of telephones. Businesses cannot operate today without adequate communications. The stranglehold that Spain is apparently imposing is totally unacceptable. Spain is our ally in NATO and our partner in the EU. It is time that we told Spain in no uncertain fashion how many beans make five. We should not be prepared to take no for an answer, as we have appeared to be in the past.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I come back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. What did we get from Spain in exchange for allowing it to join the integrated command structure in NATO? We appear to have received absolutely nothing. Spain undoubtedly wanted to join the command structure and as we all know, as a consequence, the NATO flag has been hauled down in Gibraltar. That must have pleased Spain, for reasons that the Spanish understand better than I do. I am sure that it gave them some satisfaction. But what did we achieve in return for granting them membership of the integrated command structure? Will the Minister assure the House that Britain will not be such a soft touch in any future negotiations?
3.49 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I have been to Gibraltar only once and that was as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I came to the matters covered in the report totally green and without preconceptions. I should like to offer to colleagues and to people outside the Chamber a few brief observations.
The first is the powerful sense of community identity in Gibraltar. People there truly feel a sense of community and that must be fundamental to our thinking and consideration at either ministerial or parliamentary level. The second is a robust internal democracy, which has allowed full debate on the whole panoply of democratic issues in a small community.
I do not want to go over ground covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), who made a typically forceful contribution in analysing the changes of the past 12 months and the absence of progress on key issues. I shall therefore not cover European election or NATO issues.
The report is not simplistic, populist or instinctive, but well reasoned. Furthermore, a consensus on issues such as this is precious, so Ministers should take it seriously. Not all contributions so far have sufficiently
134WH
recognised the Government's success and achievements over the past 12 months in key respects that were a serious source of concern 12 months ago. I recall getting bogged down in the detail of issues such as the functioning of Gibraltar within the single market, postboxing, justice and home affairs in the context of the Schengen agreement and so forth. Those are meaty parts of our report.
To make a gentle criticism of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, who concentrated on key points where progress had not been made, we should properly acknowledge that the Government's patient diplomacy and the creation of political relationships with their Spanish opposite numbers has achieved considerable progress. Many concerns—about financial services and Gibraltar suffering from the negative elements of belonging to the European Union without reaping the benefits—have begun to be worked through and resolved. Real progress has been made, particularly regarding Schengen and issues of justice and home affairs.
The work done by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in developing contacts and warm relationships with Spanish opposite numbers is an important contribution to British-Spanish relationships and to relationships in Europe. However, that must never occur at the expense of Gibraltar's interests. We are right to remain vigilant about that and to act as a democratic watchdog over the development of British-Spanish relationships, which must never sacrifice key Gibraltar interests. I supported the report's use of the term "special duty of care" regarding Gibraltar, particularly in the context of the European Union but, in any case, because it remains a dependent territory. It is not an independent state, so we have a special and particular responsibility for it.
Before I move on to border issues, will my hon. Friend explain another change that has occurred over the past 12 months and which has not been mentioned in any speech today? I refer to the interesting change of appointment of the governor. I make no criticisms of the new governor, though it is a change not just of personnel, but of policy or approach. The previous governor was a high-profile political appointment. Richard Luce and I had some great debates and arguments over the years, but it was nevertheless a clear decision of the Government of the day to make a political appointment because they considered that the status of the governor in that context was a matter of high politics. I do not impugn in any way the ability of the new governor, who I am sure is very competent, but the decision to change the character of the post requires explanation. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up he will explain the thinking behind the change.
I do not come to this debate with any hostile views about British-Spanish relationships, or with any gung-ho or chauvinistic instincts about Gibraltar, Britain and Spain. I make my final observations more in sorrow than in anger. The way in which the Spanish authorities treat people at the border is a disgrace and is utterly unacceptable. Sadly, the problem is not just the inconvenience or the frustration for people, but the abuse of administrative power and bureaucracy for a political purpose. That is the serious point.

135WH
I shall choose my words carefully here. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, were in the House when Greece, Spain and Portugal were military dictatorships. The wonderful transformation of three autocratic societies into powerful modern democracies has taken place in our parliamentary lifetime. It is therefore extremely worrying to see such behaviour that is more about the old autocracy than the new democracy. Administrative and bureaucratic procedures are being used, about which citizens have no apparent rights of redress. Imagine if our Customs and Excise behaved in that way. The matter would immediately go before the parliamentary ombudsman. There would be questions in the House. There would be that instinctive, natural response in a representative democracy to deal with an abuse of citizens.
Along with other members of the Select Committee, I witnessed that petty bureaucratic behaviour. It was obviously being condoned. It was not being stopped. These were not the arbitrary actions of a couple of overzealous officers who were feeling liverish that day. It was a consistent approach. The evidence provided by the Gibraltar Government shows that it is clearly and methodically organised.
The adjustments in the time delays are a sad indication that this is not a local initiative but a considered administrative decision that is undemocratic and anti-democratic. One of the saddest aspects is that in Spain—a now-thriving democracy—no representatives stand up in the Cortez to condemn the nonsense that is taking place on the border. Many Spanish citizens suffer this bureaucratic abuse.
We cannot allow these issues to go on and on. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling reminded us of the Select Committee's proposal concerning article 277. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked whether the Commission had responsibility. Of course it has; it has a fundamental responsibility. The centrepiece of the European Union is the freedom of movement. The obstruction of that freedom of movement is a blatant administrative and bureaucratic issue. The Commission certainly has responsibility, but so do Ministers.
It was with some concern, therefore, that I read the memorandum from the FCO, dated 22 May. Paragraph 12 states:
Unwarranted delays at the border between Gibraltar and Spain continue, though waiting times for cars have fallen slightly since the Government's last report to the Committee—
4.1 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.16 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Rowlands: I have to put it on record, assuming that the suspension is now over, that I think it is discourteous of the Minister not to be present. My last
136WH
few remarks were to have been personally directed to him, and I wanted him to reply specifically to the points that I am about to raise. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. I hope that the Minister will resume his seat.
Mr. Rowlands: I was about to make my final observations just before the Division bell rang. They were to be directed to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I was about to draw to his attention the memorandum sent to the Select Committee on 22 May in his name. It stated:
Unwarranted delays at the border between Gibraltar and Spain continue, though waiting times for cars have fallen slightly since the Government's last report to the Committee.
There is a difference of one Spanish minute, apparently. The memorandum went on to say:
The Government remain in close touch with the Commission on the issue, and continue to press their concerns on Spain.
That language is wholly inappropriate to the situation that too many citizens of Gibraltar and others are facing. The final sentence states:
Commissioner Vitorino has assured Mr. Vaz that the issue is under active consideration by the Commission.
I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that those words have had the dust blown off them and, apart perhaps from a change in the name of the Commissioner, are identical to those put to us 12 months ago and, no doubt, 12 months before that. They are, therefore, an insufficient response to the situation. Will the Minister tell us what the Commissioner has done? Has he sent formal notes to the Spanish Government, asking for replies within a meaningful time scale? What have Ministers and our people in Madrid done? Have they formally submitted appropriate notes of the kind and character befitting the circumstances that still exist at the border?
I am perhaps rather more tolerant than some other hon. Members. A specific time scale should now be applied to the Commissioner's efforts. If, for example, within a month, there has been no meaningful response from the Spanish authorities to the Commissioner's work, it is the responsibility of Ministers and the Government to activate the article to which our report refers, which was put to my hon. Friend by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. In other words, if the Commission and Her Majesty's Government cannot take appropriate action and receive a proper response from the Spanish authorities in a specific and narrow time scale, the powers available to us under the treaty should be exercised urgently.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister again of what all those who served on the Select Committee agreed to—that Ministers and the House owe a special duty of care to the citizens of Gibraltar.
4.20 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Gibraltar, which is important and timely, but there are concerns about whether Her Majesty's Government will stand firm in their discussions with the Spanish Government over the sovereignty issue. As we know, the Matutes proposals, which would have led to sovereignty of Gibraltar being

137WH
transferred from Britain to Spain, have still not been withdrawn. That should be a major consideration. They should be withdrawn now if Spain wants to prove its worth as a good European partner. That would be a good starting point.
We want to know that the Government will recognise Gibraltar's continued right to self-determination. That is also important, and we need to hear that loud and clear today.
The garrotting of Gibraltar and its economy also concerns me. I cannot think of a better word than garrotting for the slow strangulation of Gibraltar and its people by Spain's bully-boy tactics. I want the Minister to look at the problems of border control. In case he wonders why somebody from Chorley is worried about border controls in Gibraltar, I shall explain. Some constituents of mine visited Gibraltar, enjoyed their day and were coming back across the border. Tragically, there was an incident with a fishing vessel: Spanish fishermen were fishing within Gibraltar's territorial waters. The border was closed. My constituents were trapped in the middle, in neither Gibraltar nor Spain. They were not allowed to go back into Gibraltar or on into Spain. They spent more than 12 hours at the border post. There was no hot food; there was no drinks machine. It was totally unacceptable.
Mrs. Robinson, my constituent, who had tragically lost her husband not long before, was having a holiday to get over that tragic death, and this is how badly she was treated. She asked for help and none was given. The Clayton family, who were with her, gave her support, but to this day we have not had an apology from the Spanish Government. The arrogance of the Spanish ambassador in London was diabolical. Mrs. Robinson and I were given an ignorant reply that said that it was Spain's right to close the border. Thai is not acceptable, nor is it the way to treat European passport holders. I believe that Spain should now apologise and offer compensation to my constituents. The tourism industry is adversely affected when such things are allowed to happen.
I do not know—the Minister will be able to help me—whether Spain's proposal of 50 minutes or an hour has been accepted. It is not acceptable. A maximum of five or 10 minutes is acceptable, and no more. A country such as Spain, which applied to join the European Union and did so, should not breach European law and treat people with European passports in the way that we see day after day. That must be ended.
Some may say that my gunboat diplomacy is not the way forward, but it is not gunboat diplomacy. It is a question of facts and of doing something about it. We have spent too long debating the issue and pussy-footing around with Spain. The time has come to be firm and strong, and to say to Spain, "Please recognise that you are a good European partner. The way to prove that is to accept European law."
Let us see an end to the queues. Obviously, issues of democracy and Europe are involved. We are lucky to be among that luckiest group of people who enjoy democracy. However, everyone should have certain basic rights. It is tragic that a British overseas territory should be denied the democratic right to vote in European elections. We enjoy democracy, and we have preached its benefits around the world. I hope that the
138WH
Minister will ensure that people who are British passport holders have the same right to vote in European elections that we enjoy.
I recognise that time is short. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that people from Gibraltar could be elevated to the House of Lords. Several names spring to mind, but I shall not mention them. France and Spain have no problem offering democracy to their dependencies, and double standards seem to apply in this context. We should end such double standards—they are unacceptable.
The report is helpful because it focuses our minds on the need to make progress. The people of Hong Kong, which was an overseas territory, were let down when we took democracy away from it and gave it back to the Republic of China. Please, let us not do the same with Gibraltar. We should listen to the people of Gibraltar and respect their wishes and views. We let down the people of Hong Kong, but we must not do the same with the people of Gibraltar.
4.27 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I begin by thanking the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for reminding us that Gibraltar provides us with a special duty of care and that Spain has made many unreasonable claims towards Gibraltar which he and his Committee members found to be generally unfounded.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who worked assiduously with other Committee members on the report. He has since passed on the baton of membership of the Foreign Affairs Committee to me. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did—I hope that Committee members recognise that his work made a measured contribution to the Committee's tasks.
I want to discuss some of the speeches that were made today, and I shall begin with the speech that was made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). He set out clearly three salient points, to which I hope the Minister will respond. The first involved the issue of frontier delays. I shall not dwell on that, but it is clear that nothing practical has so far been achieved. A difference of 51 minutes compared with 52 minutes is, frankly, laughable. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman discussed the use of Gibraltar by NATO for defence purposes. He clearly set out the British Government's inadequate response to Spain's efforts to hamper NATO's operations—I believe that he said that we were moving backwards rather than making progress. Thirdly, he said that the right of Gibraltarians to vote in European elections has been a long-running failure on the part of successive British Governments. Many other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon also emphasised that.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made a powerful case about the failure to defend Gibraltar's special interests and to secure its representation in the European Union. He was ably supported in an impassioned manner by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Both hon. Members made us think about the realities of the situation—people are being deprived of basic democratic rights in a part of the world that is sovereign to this country, that

139WH
owes its allegiance to this country and that is owed a duty of care by this country. The relationship works both ways.
I turn to the report. We find ourselves in the strange, if not ludicrous, situation of having to debate a report by the Foreign Affairs Committee a year to the day after its publication. If a week is a long time in politics, surely a year is the better part of a lifetime.
Unsurprisingly, things have moved on. We welcome the agreement that was reached in April, although it made parts of the report somewhat dated, if not redundant. I hope that the Minister recognises that the report informed and guided the Government in their negotiations with Spain and the European Union. It is generally agreed that the negotiations resolved several of the Gibraltar-related issues in the European Union. However, the sovereignty of Gibraltar and the Gibraltarian aspiration towards self-determination are part of an exceptionally long-running affair.
It is unreasonable to expect to resolve disputes to the satisfaction of all parties in the short term—and, in some cases, that may never be possible. It is not tenable to argue that the fact that the territory of Gibraltar was achieved by force 300 years ago means that Gibraltar is an irrelevant detail of some distant part of our history. There is a tendency in our culture to reflect on the glories of our earlier conquests with a little too much enthusiasm. Who can blame the Royal Marines, who have a long association with my home county of Hampshire, for proudly bearing the name "Gibraltar" on their battle honours? I believe that that was the first such honour that they gained. It is part of their history that they were in the "van" that scaled the Rock by force of arms around 1700.
It is a fact of history that, in cases without number, the boundaries of nation states have been determined by conflict. In the majority of such cases, those boundaries have stood the test of time and remain intact today. We should make no apology for our history but, now that we are in the 21st century, we must deal with the issues that constrain the well-being and aspirations of the ordinary citizens of Gibraltar.
I am pleased to note that the Government of Gibraltar responded to our report in June—a few days ago—by agreeing to 18 out of our 23 recommendations. The other five recommendations were dealt with, to an extent, in the agreement that the Government announced in April. Those common-sense arrangements are in the interests of Spain, Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and the European Union. That demonstrates that without raising the issue of sovereignty, it is possible to make significant progress. Previous speakers have already pointed out that as Gibraltar's defence role has declined, its role as an offshore financial services centre has increased.
Our debate so far has not highlighted the fact that Gibraltar is the gateway between north Africa and Europe and that it has a vital role to play in the fight against trans-frontier crime in that region. It is in our interests, and those of Spain and the rest of the European Union, to give full support to Gibraltar's commitment to combat the cross-border drugs trade, smuggling and other criminal acts.
140WH
Previous speakers have already referred to the scandal of the restriction of Gibraltar's telephone services. For four years, the Gibraltarian Government have been unable to comply with the European Union telephone liberalisation directives, for three reasons. First, Spain refuses to recognise Gibraltar's international dialling code. Secondly, Spain will not allocate to Gibraltar more than 30,000 numbers in the Spanish telephone system. Thirdly, Spain has prevented Gibraltar's mobile phone network from being granted roaming facilities with Spain. In other words, the Gibraltarian mobile phone network is cut off from the rest of Europe's facility of interchange between the networks.
We know that Gibraltar is an expanding financial centre, the continued growth and development of which is a key aspect of the success of its economy. One of the fundamental necessities of a modern economy based on financial services is robust and expanding access to e-commerce.
The Government are on record as saying that the future of our economy is linked precisely and aggressively with the way in which we develop e-commerce, yet they have done nothing to provide Gibraltar with access to the new economies of the 21st century, despite their awareness of its economy's dependence on that access. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the seriousness of that problem to the Gibraltarians. Without access to modern electronic communications, Gibraltar's economy will be shackled and will face decline in the 21st century.
It is not good enough for the Government to pass the buck to the European Commission, with the matter to be decided as a private complaint. They must not only take all possible steps under the treaties to ensure that a determination is made by the European Commission without further delay, but be proactive in taking all possible steps bilaterally with Spain, so as to ensure that the issue is resolved. There is a major stumbling block to the future economic growth of Gibraltar and consequently to he well-being of Gibraltarian citizens.
Bilateral intergovernmental negotiations are essential, but so are regional level discussions—with the Government of Gibraltar and its agencies and with Seville and its agencies. Their common interests in the development of the region mean that national negotiations must be supplemented by regional dialogue and policy initiatives.
The airport arrangements must be reconsidered. Hon. Members have referred to several incidents highlighting the disgraceful way in which flights into Gibraltar can be hindered by the Spanish authorities. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there has been progress in that respect. The dual mandate plan was rejected, but surely another model can be pursued. For example, the Mulhouse airport arrangements on the Swiss border allow for the sharing of sovereignty.
Gibraltarian representation in the European Parliament remains a major outstanding issue. The Government must admit that they let the Gibraltarians down at Amsterdam. The effective Spanish veto over Gibraltarians' basic human right of representation is not only unfortunate, but unacceptable. The Government must ensure that during any further treaty negotiations, such as at Nice in December, the effects of

141WH
treaty changes on the Gibraltarians must be considered and must be a priority for consultation and agreement. That is not to say that Gibraltar should be an overriding priority and that the British veto should automatically be wielded at the first hint of trouble, but the Government cannot allow Spain to hold all the cards.
We would probably all conclude, rather pessimistically, that constitutional talks on the future of Gibraltar's sovereignty are unlikely to make much progress in the foreseeable future. The positions of the Spanish Government and those of Gibraltar and the UK are too far apart. It is therefore better to take steps to regularise Gibraltar's status in the European Union—and NATO, bearing in mind the points that have been raised today—so that the Gibraltarians are not prejudiced as a result of their historical allegiances in a Europe that is trying hard to turn its back on its fractious past. That must be the Government's objective, to be pursued with diligence and commitment.
During today's debate, right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have expressed their deep frustration, and even anger, at the Government's apparent disinterest in Gibraltar. They seem to regard the matter as a little historical difficulty that is consigned to the margins of current negotiations. That simply will not do.
4.39 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I wholeheartedly welcome the debate and the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). The report pointed up deficiencies in the British Government's current stance towards Gibraltar, and I can only hope that the situation improves.
May I begin by genuinely complimenting all hon. Members who have participated in this afternoon's debate? There have been speeches of real passion and force. I cite in particular the robust speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on NATO and Spanish obligations of membership, and the issue of voting rights. That issue was also discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and—most eloquently—by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
The report concluded that
there have been occasions in the past when the British defence of Gibraltarian interests has not been as robust as it should have been.
I am afraid that the Secretary of State's response to that statement was not encouraging. He said that the Committee had been unable to produce examples of a lack of robustness on the Government's part, yet several such examples are clearly cited in the report. Many have been mentioned this afternoon, and I shall refer to some in my brief remarks.
I, too, welcome the recent Anglo-Spanish agreement, particularly given that its contents were welcomed by the representatives and people of Gibraltar. I also welcome the unblocking of business and the Secretary of State's categorical assurance that the agreement fully upholds Gibraltar's constitutional position. However, the Government of Gibraltar have expressed concern at
142WH
Gibraltar's exclusion from the Schengen information system. As the Chief Minister has made clear, this concern is based less on the practical importance of the system to Gibraltar than the principle that, under pressure from Spain, it should not be excluded against its will from any EU measure. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that principle.
The common thread running through the findings of the report is that the Government must be unequivocal about their commitment to the wishes of Gibraltar's residents. I want to make it clear to the Minister that any equivocation makes it more difficult, not less, to engage in constructive dialogue with Spain, because it encourages the belief that a possible tranche of concessions is in the offing. The objective of British Government policy should be to respond to the wishes of Gibraltarians.
One way in which the Government could demonstrate their good faith in this respect is to reject outright the Matutes proposals on joint sovereignty and, in line with the Committee's recommendation, to do so now. The proposals were tabled in December 1997, but I am told that they remain in the Foreign Secretary's in-tray. Ministers will respond by saying that they will be dealt with at the next meeting of the Brussels process, so I have two questions for the Minister.
First, will he now endorse again Sir Malcolm Rifkind's rejection of the earlier informal joint sovereignty proposals? Secondly, if the Minister still feels that he cannot comment on such a fundamental issue outside the confines of a Brussels process meeting, can he tell the Chamber when the next meeting is due to take place, so that the uncertainty can be ended? Such constitutional issues are not the only ones on which this Government's approach might be described as less than robust.
One year ago, the Select Committee described the delays at the Spanish border as
unacceptable and wholly inappropriate between two parts of the EU.
The on-going delays, as many hon. Members have said, are no less unacceptable 12 months later. If relations are being normalised, why do such delays continue? They inhibit the free movement of people and put Spain in direct breach of its EU obligations. The Foreign Secretary told the Committee that the Government continued to press Spain to act, but the Government's approach does not seem to be having the desired effect.
The Committee urged the Government to initiate proceedings against Spain under article 227 if the Commission was unwilling to take swift action. The then shadow Foreign Secretary supported that call. One year of border delays later, the Government say that the situation is kept under review. Is it not time to do more than simply review? Have discussions on the issue taken place with the new Spanish Foreign Minister? What progress is being made, and why did the recent agreement not refer to action on border delays?
We must consider the crucial issue of the right to vote, for which hon. Members have forcefully expressed support this afternoon. Gibraltarians are the only EU citizens who cannot vote in or stand for European parliamentary elections. In February 1999, the European Court of Human Rights decided that the United Kingdom had violated the European convention

143WH
on that issue. That ruling contrasts with the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, which says that Gibraltarians cannot vote as UK citizens in European Parliament elections. Which option will the Government choose? Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that full enfranchisement will be in place by the next European elections in 2004, as the Committee recommends? The overwhelming majority of people in Gibraltar wish to vote in an English constituency. Will the Minister respect their wishes?
I welcome the appointment of my colleagues Lord Bethell, Roy Perry and Dr. Charles Tannock as Gibraltar's representatives in the European Parliament, following a unanimous vote in the Gibraltar legislature. They have tirelessly advocated Gibraltar's interests, like many hon. Members across the party divide.
In the time available, I can touch only briefly on some remaining concerns of Gibraltarians. Other hon. Members have already discussed the issues eloquently. The House will be aware of the Government's U-turn in December 1997 on protecting Gibraltar's interests when discussing the NATO command structure. The Committee said:
We regard it as extraordinary that Spain was allowed to join the integrated military structure of NATO while imposing restrictions on the military movement of one of its partners in the Alliance.
That was a missed negotiating opportunity. What progress is being made to make Spain lift those unwelcome restrictions?
The Committee rightly mentioned future potential in the use of Gibraltar's airport. The Foreign Secretary said that the airport's situation would not change without consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government of Gibraltar would have to consent before any change took place?
Finally, I shall deal with the telephone codes. The Spanish attitude to the 350 code and the mobile network could cause serious long-term damage to the Gibraltarian economy. Does the Minister consider that to be another issue on which action can be taken through the EU to ensure that Spain meets its obligations?
The residents of Gibraltar have expressed concern about the Government's stance on several issues. We debate Gibraltar all too seldom. We have close and sound relations with Spain and the links between our countries are strong and enduring. Spain is a success story, and I applaud the role that it plays so fully in NATO and the European family of nations. However, I trust that the Minister will not issue bland assurances about the vital issue of Gibraltar's future, but will acknowledge and respond to the legitimate concerns of the people of Gibraltar—our friends and fellow Commonwealth members for whom we indeed have a special duty of care.
4.49 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): As this is today's only foreign affairs debate, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in saying how shocked and saddened we
144WH
were to hear of the death this morning of Brigadier Stephen Saunders and to send his family our deep condolences.
I am pleased to respond to the debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Gibraltar. I know how seriously the Committee takes its responsibilities and I am aware of the depth of interest in Gibraltar, which is borne out by requests for updates to the Government's response to the report and by the continual correspondence that I receive from hon. Members on issues affecting Gibraltar.
I agree with the, hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that we have had an excellent debate and that all who participated spoke with passion and knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that he wants to be remembered for the word "Gibraltar". I thought that he was a Member for Swansea, but he is obviously a Member for Swansea and Gibraltar. We in government will do our best to do justice to the sentiments, emotion, passion and, indeed, logic of what right hon. and hon. Members have said today.
I am privileged to have Gibraltar among my portfolio of countries. I paid my first visit there as the responsible Minister in May this year and held several useful meetings. I had discussions with Mr. Caruana, the Chief Minister of the Government of Gibraltar; with our new governor, David Durie; and with Opposition leaders. I enjoyed walking down the high street and meeting many of Gibraltar's citizens, to whose concerns I listened. I found it a prospering and thriving place.
All right hon. and hon. Members who have visited Gibraltar will know that it is a special place—so special that it can unite, for the first time in my parliamentary lifetime, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). We must obviously cherish the place. Gibraltar has a flourishing people and a flourishing press, especially the excellent Gibraltar Chronicle. The only person I did not meet while I was there was Mr. Albert Poggio, who was in London. There will for ever be a part of Britain that is Gibraltar, in the shape of Mr. Poggio.
As the formal response to the report makes clear, the Government are strongly committed to our relationship with Gibraltar and its people. We view that relationship as a partnership, with all that that implies in terms of responsibilities and obligations. There can be no dilution of the British Government's commitment to Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke with his customary passion. He used the example of his visit to Argentina and his conversations there about the Falkland Islands to argue that our commitment to Gibraltar is less strong than our commitments elsewhere. Let me reassure him and the House that Her Majesty's Government will never—and I mean never—enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes I want to make that absolutely clear.

145WH
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that, and that I shall not need to repeat it. That was and remains our view.
Mr. Chidgey: In that case, will the Government reject the Matutes proposals?
Mr. Vaz: I will come on to the Matutes proposals, which many people raised during my visit to Gibraltar and subsequently Spain. We will study the proposals and respond to them. They are part of the Brussels process. However, they must be consistent with the statement that I have just made, which is crystal clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting mentioned the referendum in which 44 people voted against remaining linked to the United Kingdom. I am sure that people are still looking for those 44 people. He asked whether I believed that the number voting against would be even lower now. That was an emphatic vote. We can play with statistics, but we cannot argue with them, and those statistics are absolutely clear. In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), we will respond to the proposals when the time is right. When that response is made, the Brussels process will continue, but we shall respond in our own time, considering the situation carefully and consulting constantly.
One feature of the new arrangements was the constant communication between my officials in the Foreign Office, Peter Caruana and the Spanish Government, despite the two elections that intervened. Mr. Caruana won an election in Gibraltar, and Mr. Aznar won an election in Spain. Discussions should take place privately. However, if hon. Members are under any misapprehension, I can reassure them that such matters are discussed all the time. When Mr. Caruana responded on the issue of cruise ships, there was an immediate response from the Foreign Office and an immediate telephone call to Madrid. That process is on-going and important in ensuring that we keep to our responsibilities.
As hon. Members know, the Government are responsible for promoting and upholding Gibraltar's interests in the European Union and other international forums. We have a keen interest in Gibraltar's economic well-being and strongly support its efforts to achieve a diversified and sustainable economy. During my visit, I was pleased to see what the Government are doing, the amount of private sector involvement and the enormous growth in the tourism industry, which is benefiting the people of Gibraltar greatly.
However, it is clear that building a constructive relationship with Spain is an important factor in Gibraltar's well-being. Trust, co-operation and dialogue remain the basis for progress. That is how we managed to achieve so much in our recent discussions. As I said, the arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 19 April followed intensive discussions with Gibraltar and Spain. They deal with a range of issues that involve or affect Gibraltar throughout the European Union. The arrangements constitute an import ant package for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and our EU partners. They also show the progress that can be made through quiet diplomacy, dialogue and co-operation.
146WH
We have been helped enormously by input from right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in Gibraltar and by the report produced by the Foreign Affairs Committee. Hon. Members should be in no doubt about how seriously we view that report and how much it has helped us to achieve our successes.
The arrangements deal with a number of concerns, which found expression in the Committee's report. They resolve the long-standing problems over the designation and role of Gibraltar competent authorities in the European Union. The arrangements mean that the Gibraltar financial services industry can enjoy the benefits of passporting its insurance and banking services into the member states of the European Economic Area. Furthermore, they will make reformatted Gibraltar ID cards acceptable as valid travel documents within the EU. They have led to the adoption by the Home Secretary and his Spanish counterpart of a framework for co-operation between the Spanish and Gibraltarian police and pave the way for the adoption at the May Justice and Home Affairs Council of the United Kingdom's application to join part of the Shengen acquis. Gibraltar will participate in the same elements of the Shengen acquis as the UK, with the exception of the Shengen information system and provisions on cross-border surveillance.
No one has claimed that these arrangements resolve all, or even most, of the outstanding issues affecting Gibraltar within the EU, let alone the bilateral issues between Spain, the UK and Gibraltar. I also know that the apparent lack of movement on border restrictions since the package was announced has caused disappointment and frustration in Gibraltar and in the House, although the border issue itself, did not feature in the talks.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Did my hon. Friend refer to the apparent lack of movement on the border issue?
Mr. Vaz: I will come more fully to the important border issue because many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned it. I am referring to what we discussed and that issue was not included. I have been to the border and I have a sense of what is going on there and I will come to it. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. The fact that the arrangements do not include any reference to the border problems does not reduce their value. On the contrary, they are a demonstration of the Government's determination to seek solutions to Gibraltar-related problems that protect Gibraltar's interests. I hope that it will be possible to build on the more constructive atmosphere that the arrangements have helped to create. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the role that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar played to help bring about the successful adoption of the arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other hon. Members said that Mr. Caruana has not met my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is not true. They were introduced by none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Poggio earlier this year. Obviously that dialogue is important. I have invited Mr. Caruana to come to the UK officially to continue our fruitful and constructive dialogue. He happens to have attended Ratcliffe college, which is just outside my constituency. I have invited him to return to his old school. I also congratulated him on

147WH
taking a lead from our Prime Minister: his son, James Thomas Caruana, was born shortly before I arrived in Gibraltar.
We have an excellent relationship with the Gibraltar Government. That dialogue will continue. I cannot promise you now to arrange a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister but I can assure you that it will happen at an appropriate time, as it happened earlier this year.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is kind of the Minister to give me these assurances, but they would be better given to the Chamber.
Mr. Vaz: I do indeed give them to the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the appointment of the new governor. David Durie is an excellent choice. It does not in anyway represent a different strategy in dealing with Gibraltar. He has settled in well and developed good links. As someone who knows the European Union extremely well, having served for some time in UKRep in Brussels as a deputy to the current permanent under-secretary in the Foreign Office, I believe that he is uniquely placed to help with these discussions and the on-going dialogue. We must use the expertise of the governor, working with the Chief Minister and the United Kingdom Government, to deal with difficulties.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East and every hon. Member who has spoken today have mentioned the border delays. During my visit to Gibraltar last month I saw the border situation for myself and talked to a number of those affected by the delays. I know that it is an issue of concern to the Select Committee and I acknowledge that it has been raised constructively in the report and in the Chamber today. Having gone to the border with Mr. Caruana, spoken to more than a dozen people who were sitting in their cars waiting to cross the border and looked at what the Spanish authorities were doing when the cars got to the border, I assure hon. Members that it was a concern. That is why I raised it with my Spanish counterpart when I saw him in Madrid. Such concerns are raised on every appropriate occasion by officials in the Foreign Office with their Spanish counterparts. Clearly, if one does not take a car across the border, one is not delayed, and if one takes a moped, one is not delayed, but a person who wants to drive a car between the two areas is delayed.
We have told the Spanish authorities that we understand their need to search and check, but the time spent must be proportionate to what they are trying to do so that people are not inconvenienced and distressed. It is in nobody's interests for people to be inconvenienced. The hon. Member for Ludlow asked whether I said in Spain at a reception or a meeting that I thought that a delay of an hour was acceptable. I certainly did not. Anyone who knows me will know that I consider that a delay of even five minutes in a car, or wherever it is, to be unacceptable. Therefore, of course we did not say that.
A graph has been produced of the time that cars take to cross the border, and I showed it to my Spanish counterpart. What have we done about it? My hon.
148WH
Friend the Member for Thurrock was harsh on me and said, "It's all very well having these graphs and statistics, but what are you doing about it?" We have raised it with the Spanish officials, I raised it with Commissioner Vitorino when he came to London, it has been raised with him in Brussels and it is under active consideration by the Commission. We have made it clear that, on the basis of good will alone, Spain should cut the time that it takes to cross. We have said to Spain, "You have completed these arrangements. What is the point of making it such an issue?" We have made that point on behalf of the citizens of Gibraltar in our discussions with the Spanish authorities and with the commissioner.
Mr. Rowlands: As I and other hon. Members have pointed out, the words "concern" and "active consideration" were used twelve months ago and earlier. What specific action is being taken by the Commission now? Has notice been served on the Spanish authorities? What response did my hon. Friend have to the concerns that he expressed to his Spanish counterpart? I ask whether he had a response saying, "Yes, we will reduce the time. We are planning it. We are reorganising our border arrangements to achieve the minimum time." What has happened and is happening to deal with those concerns and active considerations?
Mr. Vaz: The words "active consideration" by the Commission should sound like words of praise to some hon. Members here, such as the hon. Member for Ludlow. We have made it clear that we expect the Commission to act. As a result of the debate, I will write again to Commissioner Vitorino to remind him in forceful terms of the concerns expressed here today and of my recent visit to Gibraltar and Spain. I shall re-emphasise what we have been saying. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: something must happen. However, there is a danger in talking about figures—and in saying what is acceptable and what is not that those criteria suddenly become a bare minimum and even though it would not be necessary to reach that minimum, those who search the vehicles would seek to do so. That is why we use the word ".proportionate".
When I went to Gibraltar with Peter Caruana and poked my face through the fence—with television cameras and a reporter from the Gibraltar Chronicle present—the cars suddenly went through very quickly. To those hon. Members who say that the only reason the delay was affected was that the Minister of State was visiting, I say that, when I was at the border, people went through very rapidly. However, I am not saying that I would like to go and stand there every week in order to sort out the problem.
As a result of what hon. Members have said today, I shall write again because this is something of which the Commissioner needs to be reminded. It will be appropriate for me to do so, because I have just visited Gibraltar and I can send him the photographs that we took of the waiting cars and ask for action to be taken. However, let us not say what is acceptable and what is not, because if one asked the average citizen sitting in the

149WH
queue at the border, he or she would say that a delay of five minutes was unacceptable. One must be proportionate.
Mr. Hoyle: What is acceptable and what is not should be spelled out clearly. Words and letters are fine, but at the end of the day they will not change the situation. What will happen if this continues?
Mr. Vaz: I have made it clear that we are concerned about the matter. I have raised it with the Spanish Minister for Europe, who is aware of what we are saying. We will take action and write again. I shall also write to the Select Committee, following the action that we have taken, to explain what we have done. I cannot say to my hon. Friend now that, as a result of my letter, the whole situation will be resolved—if only every problem on earth were capable of being resolved by a letter from a Minister of State. That is clearly not going to happen so we must keep up the pressure and remind people of the difficulties that are being faced.
Mr. Gill: Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), the Minister will be aware that some tough bargaining must take place later in the year. Is he prepared to say whether Her Majesty's Government will drive a hard bargain in Nice to obtain some satisfaction on this problem, which has gone on for so long? That is how the European Union works; by bargaining and counter-bargaining and by giving something away to get something else. We despair of any satisfaction being achieved by any means other than hard bargaining. Letter-writing and meetings do not seem to be delivering what we require.
Mr. Vaz: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman now feels that there is some use for European Council meetings and that we can discuss these matters and move forward. I am pleased about that, because I have read a number of his speeches on Europe and he is often critical of the effectiveness of those organisations.
I am not drawing up the agenda for Nice. We are about to approach the Feira European Council meeting, and I do not know what its agenda will be. However, I do not have to wait until the meeting in Nice to write the letter. It will be written as soon as this debate is over, and we shall make sure that the Committee is made aware of what is happening. The Commissioner has been to see me to discuss the matter. He is a man of integrity and also a lawyer, although I am not sure whether he is one of those expensive lawyers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock referred. He knows the law, and he knows what needs to be done. That is why I can say that the matter continues to be under active consideration.
Sir John Stanley: Before the Minister leaves this key issue, will he tell the Chamber whether the Government are willing, in principle, to use the article 227 power that they possess, and if so, when?
Mr. Vaz: We always consider any means of fulfilling our agenda, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it is a matter for the Commission. We will continue to focus on that issue in our discussions with the Commission.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Essentially, the Minister is saying that there has been no progress on the issue. He
150WH
has given an undertaking to keep the Committee in touch with developments. Does that mean that he will write to us? I have not spoken to colleagues on the Committee, but I anticipate that there will be some demand for the Minister to come before them to report, after a reasonable period.
Mr. Vaz: I always look forward to my visits to the Committee, and I shall be happy to go before it. Perhaps, "happy" is going too far, but I shall certainly respond to any letter from my hon. Friend, asking me to report to the Committee.
I must move on to other matters that have been raised, including, in particular, the issue of votes in elections for the European Parliament. The right of Gibraltarians to vote in European parliamentary elections is a matter of concern to the Committee, the House and the Government. The Government's commitment to secure the EP vote for Gibraltar is not in question. We tabled proposals in Brussels, during consideration of the common electoral principles dossier, and we will continue to work hard to secure consensus among our EU partners to give Gibraltarians the right to vote in European parliamentary elections. All EU member states should, as a matter of principle, help us to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asked why we contested the Matthews case, employing expensive lawyers to do so. The principles went beyond the simplistic conclusion. The case dealt with elections to a supra-national legislature, not just the legislatures of individual countries, so it was important to test the principle before the highest court. Within a month of the decision in the Matthews case, we put forward amendments to the 1976 Act. I was asked by the hon. Member for West Suffolk whether Gibraltarians will vote in the 2004 elections. I do not know, and I cannot answer him today. However, I can say that the Government will work extremely hard to ensure that they get the chance. We will do everything that we can to make it happen, but hon. Members know that we need the agreement of other member states to achieve it.
There is also the issue of whether people will have to vote in Spain. I have my own views on the matter, but I will not announce today where the polling stations will be. Such matters need to be considered carefully, to ensure that the people of Gibraltar feel that they are actively involved in the election campaign. That is crucial.
Mr. Mackinlay: We have now exposed the supine approach taken by the Government and the flaws in their legal and political thinking. The Committee does not accept that this is a matter for our European partners, although we might approach them as a matter of courtesy. It is an important issue of sovereignty and the Government are wrong about it. The issue is for us exclusively.
Is the Minister relying on the opinion, given by Baroness Symons in 1998, that the United Kingdom is constrained without the consent of our partners through annexe 2 of the 1976 Act? If that is what the Government are arguing this afternoon, why are they not raising it at the intergovernmental conference? I asked the Foreign

151WH
Secretary in Committee yesterday, and he said that it was inappropriate. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, who is here today, cannot have it both ways. If they are saying that there is an impediment under the treaty, which I do not accept, they have an obligation to raise it as a substantive issue at the intergovernmental conference and to say that it is a matter on which we shall stick.
Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the legal advice that he has just tendered. On balance, I prefer to accept the legal advice that has been given to me up to now.
Mr. Mackinlay: Which is consistently wrong.
Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend says so, but if he feels that it is wrong, I should be more than happy to study the legal testaments and texts that he puts before me and to consider that. I am talking about principles, and the Government are talking about principles. There is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights that is binding on this country. We want to implement it, ensuring that it happens as quickly as possible, which is why we tabled an amendment to the 1976 Act within a month of the Matthews judgment. We may have contested that judgment, but we accept it, and now it is up to colleagues and member states. It cannot be discussed. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right. He would not expect me to say that he was not, but he is right.
The intergovernmental conference has a short and focused agenda: it is discussing specific points to do with enlargement. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I have been involved in these processes and have attended the meetings, and I can tell him that it has a specific, focused agenda. I know that he is concerned and distressed about these matters and I assure him that we are doing our best to ensure that this matter is dealt with. I want to see the Matthews judgment acted upon, which is why we acted so quickly.
Mr. Simon Hughes rose
—
Mr. Vaz: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time, because I want to cover telecommunications and the airport. I would not want right hon. and hon. Members to say that I had not dealt with their points.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister. Specifically on the right of Gibraltarians to vote, can the Minister take back this proposition to his colleagues in the Government? If there is not agreement by a time that allows implementation well before the next European election, we should legislate to ensure that we give Gibraltarians the right to vote. We would, therefore, conform with the convention and the judgment. If the European Union thinks that we are in breach, let it take the United Kingdom Government to court, as it is entitled to do, but we have a duty to honour the court's judgment and a duty to the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman's legal advice is that of a trained lawyer. I am not saying that it is better than
152WH
that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but it is interesting. His opinion is that we should go ahead, if necessary breaking European Union law—[Hon. Members: "No."]—and wait for it to take us to court. I am sorry: that is what I thought he said.
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and the Chamber that we shall study these matters carefully. We do not want to disenfranchise the people of Gibraltar. We are seriously focused on this issue and will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the judgment is implemented. We live in a democracy. We want to make sure that people participate in elections. That is why we, as elected politicians, knock on people's doors and ask them to vote for us. Of course we want the people of Gibraltar to vote a quickly as possible. We will take the necessary steps, but we will not act unlawfully.
We thank hon. Members for what they have said and for the legal interpretations that they have suggested, and we know that they mean them genuinely, but we must act, and shall act, within the law.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on a point on which I asked for a specific response from him in my contribution, to which he has just responded. He will recall that I asked him for an assurance that in European elections the people of Gibraltar would be able to vote in Gibraltar. I imagined that it would be the easiest possible assurance for him to give. Is he aware that I, and I think other hon. Members, are utterly appalled by his reply and his equivocation on that fundamental point? May I offer him one more opportunity to give this Chamber the absolute assurance that the Government's policy for European elections is to allow the people of Gibraltar to vote in Gibraltar?
Mr. Vaz: I have not equivocated on that matter. I have enormous sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman said. I agree that it is an important and fundamental principle and that we need to study the issue alongside the question of how the people of Gibraltar are enfranchised. I cannot announce today where the polling stations will be. I can say that these matters are serious and fundamental and must be dealt with carefully.
Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry, but I want to follow up the point made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). The Minister has repeated what he said earlier—that he could not comment on the simple question of whether, if the people of Gibraltar have a right to vote, there will be polling stations in Gibraltar for them to vote in. I want the Minister to get up and say that when these matters are resolved, polling booths will be placed in Gibraltar.
Mr. Vaz: I have made my position clear. My hon. Friend and others want me to announce exactly where the polling booths will be, but I have put forward a clear principle that we want the people of Gibraltar to vote in the next European parliamentary elections. I have enormous sympathy with the points made by hon. Members, but I cannot go beyond what I have just said.
Mr. Hoyle: How would my hon. Friend feel if the people of Scotland had to vote in Wales? We are asking

153WH
only for clarification. Will the polling stations be in Gibraltar? People in Scotland would not be expected to travel to Wales to vote. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Vaz: I have made my position clear. I cannot make an announcement today—before the 1976 Act is amended—about where the polling stations will be located. Asking me to do so is asking me to go beyond what I have said. I am not taking any more interventions, because I have answered the point and I want to move on to discuss other matters.
Mr. Spring: On that point, will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: With respect, the hon. Gentleman does not know what the point is. No, I am going to move on to telecommunications. This is an important debate that covers several subjects. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members would want me to proceed.
Telecommunications was another issue brought to my attention when I visited Gibraltar. The allocation of telephone numbers in Gibraltar was raised by Mr. Caruana and many officials on my visit. Although the Government have no formal locus in the case brought to the Commission by Gibraltar telephone companies, we have long pressed the Commission to bring about a speedy resolution of it. The shortage of numbers is now acute and we are in close touch with the Gibraltar Government about it. I have already spoken about my discussion with Mr. Caruana and I also raised the issue with my Spanish counterpart in Madrid. I asked him to look again at the problem, which is causing concern, and he promised to do so.
Clearly, Gibraltar is running out of telephone numbers. Mr. Caruana told me that there were only 30 telephone numbers left to be allocated. The request put by the Gibraltar Government to the Spanish Government was for an extra 10 million telephone lines—to deal not just with current, but with potential, usage. It is bizarre that in the year 2000, when so much is said about e-commerce, and the modernisation and globalisation of telecommunications systems, a place such as Gibraltar should be faced with this problem. That is why we raised it and asked for it to be dealt with as a priority issue. It cannot be right for no progress to be made.
The report rightly identified the airport as a key area for potential co-operation to the benefit of the people of Gibraltar and the neighbouring area. As with the border issue, the airport and EU aviation issues were not covered in the recent discussions with Spain and Gibraltar. However, all involved know that the Government are interested in making progress on that matter. We will continue to examine the possibilities for taking the matter forward in close co-operation with the Government of Gibraltar.
I saw the difficulties experienced at the airport. Hon. Members who have flown into Gibraltar will know that, at some point after landing, one can see people crossing the runway to get nearer to the border. I, for one, wondered what those people were doing. It is important to have a modern airport and that issue must be resolved in full consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. That point was put to me many times during my visit. Members of the private sector, including the chairman of GB Airways, urged me to obtain progress as soon as possible.
154WH
The Committee's report concluded with recommendations on handling the Brussels process and the sovereignty question, including the proposals made by Mr. Matutes in December 1997. We will reply to those proposals when the next Brussels process meeting is held.
Mr. Donald Anderson: With respect, when will that be? The schedule is as long as a piece of string.
Mr. Vaz: No meeting has yet been scheduled, but when it is, we will be in a position to respond to the proposals. I think that my hon. Friend knew the answer to his question before he asked it.
Mr. Anderson: That is why I asked it.
Mr. Vaz: He is a good lawyer. Perhaps he should offer legal advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.
Mr. Mackinlay: I have not irritated the Minister, have I?
Mr. Vaz: I can assure—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is very nice to have such a display of interest in Westminster Hall, but perhaps we should all calm down.
Mr. Vaz: I have attended far too many selection meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to be irritated by him. His contribution on Gibraltar and on other foreign affairs issues is extremely helpful.
Mr. Gill: Instead of legal advice, I suggest that we need an outbreak of common sense. What the Minister said will cause enormous alarm and despondency in Gibraltar. His refusal to say that there would be polling stations in Gibraltar cut right across the assurance that he gave at the beginning of his speech, when he said that sovereignty was not in question. If people cannot vote in their own country, sovereignty is indeed called into question.
Mr. Vaz: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to become too agitated. The record will show that I said that I would not announce the venues of the polling stations in today's debate. I have clearly set out the principles behind the entitlements of the people of Gibraltar. I have also referred to the law. The Government always abide by the law and we will implement the law to allow the people of Gibraltar to make decisions. I will not discuss again the venues of the polling stations.
Mr. Spring: The Minister's view on the intergovernmental conference is incorrect. It provides an opportunity to raise the issue to which we are referring, because one of its key elements is the charter of fundamental rights, which includes the right to vote. If he does not know that, what does he think the conference is about?
Mr. Vaz: I am sorry to correct the hon. Gentleman, who I know is new to his brief. The charter of

155WH
fundamental rights is not part of the agenda of the intergovernmental conference. He can read about the conference on its website. It will deal with three issues that were leftovers from Amsterdam, two of the most important of which are the size of the Commission and the re-weighting of votes. It does not deal with the charter of rights, which is being drafted separately and dealt with by a separate convention, not reporting to the intergovernmental conference, but making a report initially to Feira and later this year to another European Council. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman should read the website with greater care before entering the debate.
The Committee raised the issue of cruise ships, and I can assure hon. Members and members of the Committee that we have raised that matter again. The Spanish authorities have informed us that they do not intend to take any further action. Clearly, the arrival and departure of cruise ships is crucial to Gibraltar's economy because tourism is involved, and we have received extremely important assurances.
The Government have welcomed and valued the Foreign Affairs Committee's interest in Gibraltar. I hope that I have made clear the Government's determination to stand by our commitments to Gibraltar and to uphold its interests. That requires close co-operation with Gibraltar. The general political atmosphere between Spain, the United Kingdom and Gibraltar has improved since the Committee decided to hold an inquiry on Gibraltar.
However, many problems remain to be resolved. I have raised some of them, and hon. Members have raised others. The recent EU arrangements show that those difficulties should be approached with patience, dedication, common sense and good faith on all sides. I know that I can count on hon. Members' continued interest in the area, as we try to deal with those problems. I can assure hon. Members that I will write to the Committee about the points that they have raised and I look forward to appearing before the Committee in the not-too-distant future to deal with any other issues that it considers outstanding.
5.40 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief and I apologise for not being present during the first part of the debate, but I watched most of it on the screen. I want to make two points. The issue that has, rather surprisingly, caused most concern among hon. Members, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and others is the European elections. There may be a dispute about what the law is, but it is better for the British Government to be proactive and to try to assert their competence, rather than wait beyond the time of the next election.
I believe that the people of Gibraltar have not changed their view since I was last there to discuss the matter and other hon. Members have confirmed that. Having been let down by not being allowed to vote last time, the people are clear that it would be unconscionable, unacceptable and entirely inconsistent with the Court judgment if the people whom the treaty entitles to vote in the European elections do not have
156WH
their votes guaranteed in good time for the next election. There is no acceptable alternative. A Court judgment saying that people have the right to vote is no good, when that right cannot be exercised at an election. We missed the boat last time. It could be argued that that was defensible, because the judgment was made late in the day. However, no argument could make that acceptable next time.
The Government may be required to change their policy. They might have to take the view that they cannot wait for an agreement that might not come. Unless the Spanish Government concede that they will agree to the simple principle that, irrespective of other views about Gibraltar, Gibraltarians have the right to vote, the Government have a duty under law to act in accordance with the law. The first step could be for the Government to place their legal advice in the Library and for us to place our legal advice there—we could take it from there.
This late squall on the agenda was not foreseen as a difficulty by right hon. and hon. Members. I refer to the Minister's inability to confirm the location of elections. A strict interpretation of one part of what he said relates to his inability to identify in which street or building an election will take place. However, unless he or other Foreign Office Ministers publicly clarify within hours of this debate that the Gibraltar elections will take place in Gibraltar, they will be in for an extraordinary response. They will face the wrath of all quarters of the House. I cannot undertake not to work with my colleagues to ensure that the matter comes back on to the agenda at an early opportunity. Ministers will be forced either to defend the indefensible or to change their position.
Mr. Vaz: There is no need to come back within hours to clarify the position. I was asked whether I thought that the vote could take place in Spain. I think that it would be daft for a vote that concerns the people of Gibraltar to take place in Spain. Exactly where the polling stations are and how the election will be conducted—whether attached to an English constituency, or whatever—I cannot announce today. Let me repeat that I believe that it would be daft for voting in a Gibraltar election for the European Parliament to take place in Spain.
Mr. Mackinlay: Would the Minister rule it out?
Mr. Vaz: I am happy to say that, yes.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister is now being more helpful. We have only a couple of minutes left, and it would be even more helpful if the Minister made it expressly clear, on the record, that the British Government would not countenance the people of Gibraltar voting anywhere other than in Gibraltar. That would suffice. We would require no further detail. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, that would rule out Spain, but not necessarily a link to British constituencies. The key is that they vote in Gibraltar. If the Minister will affirm that, we will have a much clearer position. I am sure that he and his colleagues would be grateful for the opportunity of clarification.
Mr. Vaz: Again, as I have said before, I am not going to announce today where the polling stations will

157WH
be. I have made it clear that I do not believe that it would be right for the vote to take place in Spain. The hon. Member for Ludlow has asked me how daft I thought it would be for the people of Gibraltar to go to Spain to vote. The issues of whether there would be a link to an English constituency or an overseas list system—or where exactly the vote takes place—will have to be discussed with colleagues in the Home Office, who are responsible for elections. I cannot take that decision or pronounce on it now. As far as I am concerned, the vote should not take place in Spain.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful. I shall not pursue the matter throughout our remaining time, but I should like to secure one further clarification. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked whether the vote would take place in Gibraltar. The Minister need not worry about the method or the name of the constituency. Could we simply have a clear statement that it is the view of joined-up government across
158WH
Departments that the people of Gibraltar's vote in the election for the next European Parliament will take place in the colony of Gibraltar?
Mr. Vaz: It is not for me or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to take that decision. However, as a result of today's debate, I shall write to the Home Secretary to ask whether he has any preliminary views on the matter. We are a long way from ensuring that that happens, but we want to make progress as quickly as possible. I repeat that I shall pass on to the Home Secretary the comments made in today's debate.
Mr. Hughes: It would be in the interests of the Minister's Department, of the Home Office and, most of all—not least because, in negotiations, the Spanish know the score—of the people of Gibraltar that this matter is clarified. If it requires the Home Secretary to secure that clarification, the sooner it is done, the better for the reputation of the British Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Six o'clock.