TUESDAY 30 MARCH 1999

THE RT HON JOYCE QUIN, MP, MR DAVID REDDAWAY and MS FIONA PATERSON  

  20.  How long will you give the Commission before they reply because the Commission itself could be taken to the Court if they fail to reply in due time?
  (Ms Quin)  The Commission, as I understand it, have sent it to their legal services for their opinion.

  21.  How long are you going to give them?
  (Ms Quin)  We will seek to get from them when they expect a reply.

  22.  Was it not the case—and I know it is not your responsibility, Minister, and I am back to fish again, and I say that with no regrets whatsoever—that in the mid eighties, when the then United Kingdom Government passed the Merchant Shipping Bill, the European Commission acted with alacrity in response to this Bill, this Act of Parliament, the Merchant Shipping Act, which it claimed discriminated against Spanish fishing interests, and the Commission took the then British Government to court because of the discriminatory nature of section 14 of that Act of Parliament, passed without a division in the House of Commons, you will recall, Minister? In that case, acting on behalf of Spanish fishing interests, the Commission got its skates on. I know it has got other problems on its mind, but it certainly did not wait for months before going to the European Court, but it was the British Government that was in the dock as it were.
  (Ms Quin)  Obviously I would need to look at some of the details of this because it was some time ago. Did you say 1986?

  23.  I am referring to the Merchant Shipping Act of, I think, 1986. The Secretary of State was John MacGregor and the European Commission acted quite quickly, shortly after that Bill received the Royal Assent, to put the Government in front of the Court in Luxembourg.
  (Ms Quin)  I can certainly investigate the point which you have raised in order to see———

  24.  All we can ask you to do at this stage is to respond to Mr Godman by saying with what alacrity the Commission responded at that time, tell us at the same time when we made our complaint, and then we can compare the response of the Commission to the one complaint and to the other.
  (Ms Quin)  Could I add something however? In the case that Mr Godman has quoted it actually related, as I understand it, to a specific Act of Parliament that had been passed, so there was a written text that presumably the Commission had and they were aware during the course of this Act that it was being passed.

  25.  I could even tell you that it was section 14 of that Act.
  (Ms Quin)  I did think that they had a written text to go on. They were not just looking at implementation of rules; they were also looking at a specific written text, but I will certainly take up the point that the Chairman has raised.

  26.  Minister, in your opening remarks and in a question since you have mentioned the phrase "counter-productive" three times. In the Foreign Office official memorandum the phrase "counter-productive" is mentioned two or three times. What is meant by "counter-productive" in terms of the Spanish action in relation to Gibraltar, and does the phrase mean that it is counter-productive to Spain's ambitions towards sovereignty of Gibraltar at some future date?
  (Ms Quin)  Yes, because Spanish aspirations to have sovereignty over Gibraltar could only be realised if the people of Gibraltar wished that to happen. Therefore measures that make the life of Gibraltarians more difficult are hardly likely to endear them to that approach or that solution.

  27.  In using that phrase you still adhere to the preamble of the Constitution that the rights of the people of Gibraltar will be paramount?
  (Ms Quin)  Absolutely. I hope that I make that clear both today and in other statements that I have made on the floor of the House. I think that the measures are also counter-productive in a more general way in terms of Spain's compliance with what one would expect as behaviour within the European Union and adherence to what are often European Union rules and regulations.

  28.  Minister, with regard to the people of Gibraltar, whilst their citizenship status is different from yours and mine, would you not agree that Her Majesty's Government owe equal duty to protect and promote the interests of the people of Gibraltar as they do for the people of Thurrock, Durham, Livingston and Sedgefield?
  (Ms Quin)  First, as I understand it, the citizenship of the people of Gibraltar will be rectified—I would not say rectified, but certainly changed—under the terms of the Overseas Territory White Paper, particularly in the ability to pass British citizenship on to descendants. I think that change will be welcome although it is true that the Gibraltarians had greater citizenship rights than some other territories which have now been brought into line if you like in the White Paper.

  29.  With respect, that was not my question. In fact, I was putting aside in a sense the difference of their citizenship status or what it might be. At this moment we have a moral obligation of equal status to those people as to the people of Durham, Washington, Sedgefield, Livingston or Thurrock, do we not?
  (Ms Quin)  We do indeed have a very strong moral obligation towards them.

  30.  Can I put it to you, Minister, that if 17,000 people of your constituency, of Livingston, Sedgefield or Thurrock, were effectively cooped up in a state or a geographical area of a few miles and frustrated from reasonable mobility, there would be one hell of a bloody row in this place, would there not? I just find it incredible. Just answer this: if it was your constituency, 17,000 in a comparable situation, it would be deemed intolerable, would it not?
  (Ms Quin)  We have said that the border delays and restrictions are intolerable.

  31.  But it is like hitting a door with a wet sponge, is it not? The people of Gibraltar, and speaking for myself—and it might be the view of my other colleagues—we are looking for some demonstration of anger and frustration after what has been a period of time of acquiescing, if you like, in this. There seems to be no demonstration of counter-productivity. This matter is not being pursued in the courts. There are no measures which are being taken as far as we can see to say to Spain, "If you are not going to play ball on this we are not going to play ball on that." You cannot answer whether or not the Prime Minister is going to have this as item number one on his agenda. I have to say to you that I, and I think other people, am totally frustrated about the inability of Her Majesty's Government to say, "This is wholly unacceptable". I put it to you: where is the demonstration of anger and irritation which is commensurate with the fact that it is a human rights issue in a way, is it not, because these people are entitled in Europe, in the European Union, to reasonable mobility and, whilst border controls are of course lawful, there has to be applied the test of reasonableness and you and I are agreed that what is being applied is unreasonable.
  (Ms Quin)  You say that you want us to say that this is wholly unacceptable, but we have said that on many occasions. Indeed, the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and the efforts of other Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have all tended in that direction. What I do find strange is that since we have been so active people keep complaining that we have not been active.

  32.  Because nothing has happened. This afternoon there are still people being frustrated on the border for an hour or two hours.
  (Ms Quin)  It is not true to say that nothing has happened. In the height of the atmosphere after the local fishing agreement was secured, which we supported incidentally, the border delays were sometimes six hours. I have spoken to the Governor today and he has told me that those delays are one hour.

  33.  But one hour is unacceptable.
  (Ms Quin)  I am not saying that it is acceptable but it is also not reasonable for you to say that nothing has happened.

  34.  All right, Minister. Can I go back to one other thing you volunteered to the Committee, and it was this. My colleagues asked about the statements by the Spanish Foreign Minister. The way I understand the constitutional position, the things which the Spanish Foreign Minister was traducing Gibraltar on, ipso facto he was traducing the stewardship of this matter by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because in terms of money laundering, in terms of smuggling and drugs, the control, policing and regulation of all these matters are matters which are reserved for the Governor and/or the Foreign Office, not the home government. Is that correct?
  (Ms Quin)  Yes, indeed, the Governor has responsibility in this area.

  35.  Again can I express amazement? If I suggested that the Foreign Secretary was acquiescing in drug smuggling, in money laundering, he would no doubt punch me on the nose or do the political equivalent, but it surely is intolerable that we do not find this wholly repugnant and unacceptable to be traduced? Does it not give credence to people outside the triangle of Spain, Gibraltar and the United Kingdom that it is somehow the home governorship which is being dilatory in this matter? It is your office and the Governor that is being traduced wrongly? Why are you not kicking up rough about it?
  (Ms Quin)  First, I just do not accept that we are not, to quote you, "kicking up rough about it", and indeed in terms of the allegations that have been made about money laundering and other criminal activity, we have asked the Spaniards to provide proof and, in the absence of that proof, those allegations should be withdrawn. Indeed, some information was transmitted from the Spanish Government to ourselves. We have checked some of this information out. We believe that the vast bulk of it is completely unjustified, but there are one or two areas where we are looking at further details. To say that we have not cut up rough about it or not defended Gibraltarians against wrongful allegations of either money laundering or other types of criminal activity would be completely and wholly unjustified.

  36.  Going back to this whole question of language, Minister, Sr Matutes said that all Gibraltarians were parasites, translating it as quickly as I can from the Spanish. Because it was permitted by the United Kingdom it is not only an allegation about Gibraltar; it is an allegation about the British Government's behaviour. It is extraordinary language by any standards. What we are saying is that we do not find the response commensurate with the type and character of the language used by the Spanish Foreign Minister.
  (Ms Quin)  Obviously, I do not agree for a minute that Gibraltarians are parasites. I have visited Gibraltar, I know Gibraltarians———

  37.  We are not asking about that.
  (Ms Quin)  And indeed we have challenged these words by the Spanish Minister and have asked for proof in the way that I have described. We also of course have done a lot in recent years to create new systems of financial control in Gibraltar with the setting up of the Financial Services Commission there, the work that it does and indeed the———

  38.  That is accepted, that we do have excellent systems of financial control in place. It is accepted also that if the Spaniards took proper action themselves, any Spaniards who were guilty of money laundering would be caught. The question which is asked is, here is very extravagant language being used by the Spanish Foreign Minister directed at this Government. Are we just going to make tame protests or do we say that we want clear proof and we want a retraction of those statements which are so over the top?
  (Ms Quin)  But that is what we have done, Chairman.

  39.  Have we had retractions?
  (Ms Quin)  As I explained a minute ago, we got a response and we will respond to the response by saying that some of the allegations are unfounded, we have checked them out, and there are one or two which we have to make further enquiries about.