TUESDAY 30 MARCH 1999

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

  120.  It was a codicil agreed at 4 o'clock in the morning.
  (Ms Quin)  They did agree to that form of words and therefore that is an important element in the consideration of——

  121.  If I could just finish. That was about the existing acquis. Then there is the question of new measures. The phrase is "building upon". If one builds upon the existing Schengen then it is by qualified majority voting if we apply to do certain things. I am not quite sure what these are and perhaps you could help me on this. What are the additional things we want to build upon which would not be caught by the veto under the existing acquis but would allow us to push it through under qualified majority voting?
  (Ms Quin)  For example, it would be up to the Commission to introduce new proposals to build upon the Schengen acquis. We would examine those. If we wanted to be part of them then we would be able to participate and it would be subject to qualified majority voting.

  122.  The Home Secretary's recent statement on the measures that he wished the United Kingdom to be part of, are they the existing acquis or building upon future ones?
  (Ms Quin)  They are the existing acquis. You cannot say that you definitely want to be in measures which have not yet been proposed. We have indicated areas of the existing Schengen arrangements which are the areas we would most likely want to participate in and therefore future proposals in those particular areas would also be the ones that would be most likely to be of interest to us.

  123.  Sorry, Minister, you lost me half way through the sentence.
  (Ms Quin)  For example, the Schengen information system is part of the existing Schengen acquis. If it was proposed to build up the Schengen information system in particular ways or develop it in particular ways that would be a proposal which would come forward and we would be allowed to opt into subject to QMV.

  124.  In fact, none of the present proposals by the Home Secretary apply to the existing Schengen, they apply to the possible development of Schengen and would constitute future proposals and therefore be the subject of qualified majority voting?
  (Ms Quin)  No, the Home Secretary has said the Government is interested in existing aspects of Schengen and it has also said that in those particular areas of Schengen if new proposals come forward we may well be interested in those as well.

  125.  Finally, if the Home Secretary comes forward with proposals covered by the existing Schengen and therefore covered by veto and we find the Spanish Government saying, "You can join minus Gibraltar", are we going to be very clear and state very clearly that in these proposals we come with Gibraltar?
  (Ms Quin)  Obviously if that happens the Home Secretary will need to look at the areas which are being referred to and look at them in order to decide whether it is so important to the United Kingdom that he would want to recommend us to be part of it anyway or whether he feels that if there is some attempt to exclude Gibraltar that is simply unacceptable and we would do as we have done with some other legislation and not participate.

Chairman:  Minister, we have got to the position where we have 20 minutes or so to go. Dr Starkey wishes to ask a question, then Mr Godman wishes to ask a question on fisheries and Mr Illsley on the airport. Dr Starkey?

  126.  Mine is a point of clarification on something Ms Paterson said just now on the difference between exclusion and suspension. Could you clarify what is the difference?
  (Ms Paterson)  What I was trying to say is we have not excluded Gibraltar from any First Pillar measures. What we have done is agreed to its suspension. The First Pillar measures are the aviation measures and the Government agreed to Gibraltar's suspension pending agreement of the 1987 Airport Agreement. In other words, Gibraltar is, if you like, frozen from those aviation measures; it is not entirely excluded. What Gibraltar has been excluded from is a certain number of Third Pillar measures in the justice and home affairs area. The three that we discussed earlier with Sir John Stanley were the measures which as negotiations were proceeding were discussed with the Gibraltar Government and the Gibraltar Government decided reluctantly that it would prefer to be excluded entirely from those rather than to be included but under a United Kingdom competent authority umbrella.

  127.  What is the practical outcome of the difference between suspension and exclusion? Are you saying on suspension that if the Airport Agreement was included then you would not have to take a separate decision, they would automatically become part of it, but in the exclusion bit you have to make a positive effort to renegotiate if they are to be included? Is that right?
  (Ms Paterson)  As you describe suspension that is correct, yes.

  128.  One of the things that came up while we visited Gibraltar was the military involvement within the rock, the port and the RAF actually owning the airstrip and this issue of the 1997 Airport Agreement. It struck me that there is obviously a Ministry of Defence input into any question of sovereignty or giving up Gibraltar or whatever because of their involvement. It is two and a half square miles of island territory and 32 miles of tunnels which include various MoD supplies routes and so on. How big an input does the Ministry of Defence have into issues surrounding the Gibraltar airport and European Directives affecting Gibraltar in general? Then I would like to ask whether there is any chance of the Airport Agreement being resurrected. We were told whilst in Gibraltar that the intervention of the 1987 elections there led to a dispute between Gibraltar and Spain as to the definitions contained within the agreement, ie, did it mean joint use or joint control? Gibraltar accused the Spanish of looking towards the agreement as giving them joint control whereas Gibraltarians looked upon it as giving joint use. Is there any chance of resurrecting that to the benefit of both Spain and Gibraltar in the future? Could a new agreement be negotiated which simply gave joint use? Is it the British Government's view that the agreement does agree to joint use and not joint control or sovereignty?
  (Ms Quin)  Firstly, on the question of the MoD, the MoD's involvement is restricted to military matters. When we were discussing earlier in the Committee some of the aviation measures, the responsibility for those within the British Government has been with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and that has been the main Government Department acting in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar. In terms of the Airport Agreement, obviously you are right in your account of difficulties that arose in the context of the agreement in the past and fears that it had sovereignty implications. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the airport is an area where it would be good if we could make some progress and some agreement in a way that would be acceptable to Gibraltar, to ourselves and to Spain. In theory, it is a useful asset, one that could serve both Gibraltar and the neighbouring region of Spain and perhaps in a somewhat different climate to the one at the moment could be a good way of building up confidence and also economic contacts between Gibraltar and the Campo and I think it would also be very good in terms of tourism. It would be an airport that could be well used. There are examples of airports being run by two different authorities, indeed even two different governmental authorities in the case of Basle airport, for example, where you can go out either into Switzerland on one side or into France on the other and, therefore, in theory I think it is an area where it would be possible to make some progress and where we are certainly interested in making progress but it has to be done in a way which is acceptable to all sides. I think for that reason it makes sense not to try to go back to the old agreement and re-visit it clause by clause but actually take into account some of the changes that have taken place in aviation since then and try and build on something different for the future. I think it is an area of potential.

  129.  But nothing is happening on it at the moment? There are no active negotiations on it?
  (Ms Quin)  Occasionally interest has been expressed on all sides but at the moment there are no specific proposals on the table to relaunch the airport idea although we continue to raise it in discussions with our colleagues in the Government of Gibraltar and also with Spain.

  130.  I have a question on the fisheries dispute but may I ask first of all when drafting domestic legislation is it the practice of the Gibraltar administration to approach the Foreign Office or other departments of state in London for advice?
  (Ms Quin)  Yes indeed there are very regular discussions between the Government of Gibraltar and officials in the Foreign Office and also in other departments, for example the Treasury on financial regulation.

Mr Godman:  It was before your time of course but would that have been the case vis-á-vis the Nature Protection Ordinance which is referred to in your memorandum and in a subsequent memorandum on fishing? In the original memorandum I am referring to paragraph 35 at 42 and paragraphs 7 through to 8 in your subsequent memorandum. May I refer to paragraph 39 of your original memorandum. You talk about the Spanish trawler with the 14 man crew being arrested on 27 January for fishing in Britain's waters. "The fishermen appeared in court later in the day and pleaded not guilty. They were released on bail. Their boat was released but her nets were retained as evidence. The fishermen are due to appear again in court on 17 March." I have to tell you that we were there at the time and five of them were adrift. What you say in your subsequent memorandum is that you know of no general principles of maritime law that govern these arrests. Might I put to you that when, and it happens frequently, a Spanish fishing vessel is arrested for illegally fishing off, say, the west coast of Scotland or the west coast of Ireland the nets are confiscated and rest of the gear and the catch upon conviction, but it is only the skipper who appears in the court and it seems to me daft to have a law that drags into court the galley boy or the cook on the trawler. It is the skipper who has the responsibility for the fishing operation so might I suggest to you that that law perhaps ought to be changed to conform to general principles of maritime law. I do not accept what you say in your subsequent memorandum. It is the case in maritime nations that it is only the skipper who appears in court. I think that given, if you like, the current circumstances surrounding the relationship between Britain and Spain concerning Gibraltar, it inflames matters to have this law allowing the Gibraltarian police to put the whole of the crew in court. Should not that law be modified so that it is only the skipper that is in the dock?

  131.  Minister, we may be asking you a technical question for which you did not come prepared and if you are not able to answer that immediately it may be possible for you to give a considered written response to Mr Godman.
  (Ms Quin)  Yes indeed we do need to check and give a written response. On the point about the skipper certainly if it is not dealt with adequately in the existing legislation it is something that the Government of Gibraltar could look at.

  132.  May I say I pointed this out to the Government that it is absurd to bring the whole crew into court.
  (Ms Quin)  Could I say in answer to the earlier point which Mr Godman raised about the 1991 Ordinance, obviously we can check whether there was British Government approval in that but there are some areas in which the Government of Gibraltar is able to make legislation on its own initiative and does not need to consult formally with us because those are areas under its own constitution where it has responsibility. It may well have consulted with us in practice but I cannot tell you that at this point in time, I will have to check for you.

Mr Godman:  The point I am labouring, Minister, is if a Spanish vessel is arrested in British waters, the skipper will appear in court on his own whereas here we have got the whole of the crew dragged in including presumably the poor ruddy galley boy. We may smile over this but the crew have no control over many of the decisions taken by the skippers of vessels. The Chairman, I suspect, is admonishing me here but it would be helpful to have you and your officials examine this glaring discrepancy in the way in which the skippers of vessels are treated in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Chairman:  And on the more general point, too, in a case of this sort whether there is legal advice given to the jurisdiction in Gibraltar as to how properly this matter should have been dealt with. Sir John on a NATO point.

Mr Godman:  Thank you, Minister, you were about to answer in the affirmative.

  133.  Minister, as you know the admission of Spain fully into NATO was a two stage process. Initial membership of NATO was followed subsequently by her acceptance into the integrated military structure. You have already referred in your evidence to the fact that Spain continues to impose restrictions on British military assets, aircraft and ships, notwithstanding her admission into the integrated military structure of NATO. Could you explain, Minister, why it was that the British Government allowed Spain into the integrated military structure of NATO as a fellow ally notwithstanding her continuation of restrictions over the operation of both RN vessels and RAF aircraft?
  (Ms Quin)  While we would like to see all the restrictions lifted, as I understand it the fact that certain of the restrictions were lifted as well as the fact that we felt that Gibraltar's position was enhanced in terms of its usefulness to NATO in the way that its assets could be used, that the Government felt that overall the deal represented an improvement from Gibraltar's previous situation.

  134.  But when you refer to the enhancement of Gibraltar from a NATO standpoint, surely you would agree that NATO is a sovereign territory and has always been available to NATO aircraft? It is a matter for the British Government as to who has access to both the naval facilities at Gibraltar and also the airfield.
  (Ms Quin)  Yes but the regional effectiveness of NATO, given that Gibraltar assets could also be deployed, was felt to be enhanced with Spain's membership of NATO and the integrated command.

  135.  Would you not agree that it was an extra ordinary proposition that Britain should have allowed into the integrated military structure of NATO a fellow NATO ally still retaining bilateral restrictions over RAF aircraft and RN vessels?
  (Ms Quin)  The Government took the point of view that it had secured the lifting of some of the restrictions and had also secured the objective of Gibraltarian assets being able to be used in that regional context and although the fact that there were continuing restrictions was not something that we were pleased about the Government felt it could pursue the lifting of those restrictions within the NATO context in the future.

  136.  Once it has surrendered all its negotiating position.
  (Ms Quin)  No we do not accept that. We believe we have got a strong position in NATO as one of the founders and we could pursue the remaining restrictions within the NATO context.

  137.  At what point do you expect all the remaining restrictions to be removed?
  (Ms Quin)  I do not have a date to give you but it is certainly something that we will be pursuing.

  138.  We have come to this position: Spain has its claim of sovereignty and they are not going to move on that. We have a commitment to the people of Gibraltar in the constitution and we are not going to budge on that. Until the people of Gibraltar decide or do not decide otherwise, how do we as allies within the European Union and allies within NATO seek to make progress—by perhaps setting the sovereignty issue on the side, freezing it? Are there areas we believe at the frontier regional level where we can hope, without in any way taking the sovereignty issue as an obstacle, to make progress in areas of mutual advantage to Gibraltar and to those areas of Spain immediately contiguous to Gibraltar?
  (Ms Quin)  I think the thrust of your question contains a lot of very interesting and useful ideas. Obviously sovereignty has been the most difficult issue and if it were possible to freeze it, as you say, to allow some of the measures which seem to many of us very sensible in terms of building up relations between Gibraltar and the neighbouring area of Spain, particularly in the economic sphere, then I think that would be a good way forward, but obviously it needs to have a commitment on all sides and in particular it needs to have a commitment by Spain. This goes back to the expression that Mr Illsley referred to before when I talked about the existing pressure on Gibraltar being counter-productive. I think there is a great deal of merit in pursuing the approach that you have referred to in your question in terms of seeking to look at practical ways in which Gibraltar and its neighbouring region and regions can work together for the common interest of both of their inhabitants. I would like to stress something that has certainly struck me forcibly in recent months and that has been the expressions of support that there have been for the Gibraltarians from some of the communities adjacent to Gibraltar and indeed some of the trade union support for example that has existed and the way that despite the difficulties, a local agreement was possible in the fisheries issue and, indeed, some of the statements by some of the local authorities in the area. Those things are helpful. They may seem modest in the present circumstances but I think they are forces which we should try and work with in order to create a more constructive climate for the future.

  139.  If the airport is the key to that regional development of mutual dependency why are we not taking a more active role in seeking an agreement on the airport?
  (Ms Quin)  I did not say that the airport was the key. Indeed, the airport would be a useful confidence-building measure without any doubt and would have a lot of practical benefits, but it is by no means the only measure that can be taken. However, I would also take issue with the comment in your question that we have not actively pursued the airport as a confidence-building measure; we certainly have.

Chairman:  We are obliged. You have been extremely helpful to the Committee. Thank you very much.