{"Overview":{"Id":5420650,"ExtId":"D24A4F2C-A706-4570-98D2-8A81320FB71D","Title":"EU, Euratom and UK Agreement on Gibraltar","HRSTag":"NewDebate","Date":"2026-10-20T00:00:00","Location":"Grand Committee","House":"Lords","Source":2,"VolumeNo":860,"ContentLastUpdated":"2026-10-21T01:49:06.77","DebateTypeId":2,"SectionType":1,"NextDebateExtId":"","NextDebateTitle":"","PreviousDebateExtId":"3B91B0C9-ED68-4A92-962A-AD250E66ACE7","PreviousDebateTitle":"Arrangement of Business"},"Navigator":[{"Id":5420647,"Title":"Grand Committee","ParentId":null,"SortOrder":1,"ExternalId":"f519256b-9c41-4636-a7f8-bac1bb589a0c","HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":null,"Timecode":null},{"Id":5420650,"Title":"EU, Euratom and UK Agreement on Gibraltar","ParentId":5420647,"SortOrder":4,"ExternalId":"D24A4F2C-A706-4570-98D2-8A81320FB71D","HRSTag":"NewDebate","HansardSection":"AA-AB","Timecode":"2026-10-20T15:45:00"}],"Items":[{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711165,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":null,"Value":"Motion to Take Note","OrderInSection":1,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"de1b416f-8029-4f4f-b4a8-62b440bb1cb3","HRSTag":"hs_DebateType","HansardSection":"AA-AB","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693163,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"15:45:00","OrderInSection":2,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AA-AB","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711166,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":null,"Value":"Moved by","OrderInSection":3,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":"hs_TabledBy","HansardSection":"AA-AB","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711167,"MemberId":5410,"AttributedTo":"Lord Barrow","Value":"That the Grand Committee takes note of the agreement in respect of Gibraltar between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community of the one part, and the United Kingdom, of the other part.\r\n\r\nRelevant document: 2nd Report from the European Affairs Committee (special attention drawn to the agreement)","OrderInSection":4,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"33562390-5A07-467C-80AA-D55C88224394","HRSTag":"hs_TabledBy","HansardSection":"AA-AB","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711168,"MemberId":5410,"AttributedTo":"Lord Barrow (CB)","Value":"My Lords, my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup asked me to pass on his apologies, because he cannot be with us today, and to speak on his behalf. I can only imagine the disappointment, if your Lordships were expecting the military and a diplomat turned up, but that is how we are today. The one recompense I can give is that I will not, therefore, intervene later in the debate.\r\n\r\nBefore I speak on behalf of my noble and gallant friend, I need to declare my interests: I was not only negotiating many of the agreements that may be referred to but was part of the early days of this negotiation. If your Lordships look carefully at the evidence, I think they will find that witnesses gently allude to that role when they were asked why it took so long to get an agreement. However, I think one of the reasons was that success was not inevitable, and we should approach this debate in that light.\r\n\r\nOn behalf of my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup, and with his permission, I am introducing the debate today. On 14 July, the UK Government laid before Parliament their agreement with the European Union on Gibraltar. In accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Parliament has 21 sitting days to scrutinise the agreement. This period expires on 22 October.\r\n\r\nSince this is an agreement with the European Union, it came for consideration before your Lordships’ Committee on European Affairs rather than the International Agreements Committee, which normally reports on international agreements. The European Affairs Committee had to decide whether to report the agreement for the House’s attention or for its special attention and debate. It chose the latter option, given the matter’s political importance in settling one of the major issues outstanding from Brexit.\r\n\r\nI note that the agreement does not require the approval of your Lordships’ House. Under the CRaG process, should the other place resolve against ratification of an agreement, a second period of 21 sitting days is triggered to allow for further consideration. That has not happened in this case. Should your Lordships resolve against ratification, the Government may still proceed after laying a statement before Parliament giving their reasons for doing so.\r\n\r\nThe agreement has been operating provisionally since mid-July, and the expectation is that the UK Government will ratify it once the CRaG period expires. The EU ratification process is already under way. The committee’s report does not constitute an inquiry into the agreement: the CRaG process does not allow sufficient time for such an investigation; the report is more in the nature of a guide to the agreement, setting out its background and key features, with the aim of helping the reader to navigate a lengthy and complex document.\r\n\r\nThe committee was, however, able to take evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, who is the responsible Minister in the FCDO, and from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the honourable Fabian Picardo, setting out the perspectives of the UK and Gibraltar Governments. We also received a written submission from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gibraltar. We are grateful to them all for their assistance, and their evidence is attached as annexes to the report. I am also grateful to the staff of the committee for all the support they provide.\r\n\r\nGibraltar was not included in the trade and co-operation agreement that formalised the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU. This left open the question of the broader arrangements between Gibraltar and Spain, arrangements that are of fundamental importance to the economies of Gibraltar and the adjacent region of Spain. Resolving the issue was not, however, a matter for them but for the UK and the EU. Nevertheless, in 2021, the UK Government agreed with Gibraltar a joint approach to the subsequent negotiations that sought to secure the future prosperity of Gibraltar and its surrounding region, to bring confidence, legal certainty and stability to the lives and livelihoods of the people of Gibraltar and its neighbouring communities, and to ensure fluid and open movement of people and goods between Gibraltar and the EU.\r\n\r\nIn March 2021, the then Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Dominic Raab, gave an assurance that the UK would not agree to arrangements under which sovereignty over Gibraltar would pass to another state or reach an agreement with which Gibraltar was not content. This undertaking was repeated by the new Government in September 2024, following the general election earlier that year. A draft UK-EU agreement was published on 26 February 2026 and was debated in March by the Gibraltar Parliament. Ahead of that debate, the Chief Minister published three separate legal opinions stating that the agreement did not undermine UK sovereignty or jurisdiction over Gibraltar. At the conclusion of the debate, the Gibraltar Parliament agreed unanimously to call upon the UK Government to ratify the agreement subject to two conditions: that Gibraltar reach a concordat with the UK that the agreement cannot be terminated without Gibraltar’s consent and that any decision by the Gibraltar Government to terminate the agreement will be subject to a referendum. The concordat was signed on 14 July 2026.\r\n\r\nThe final agreement has now been laid before Parliament. It is in seven parts and contains 43 annexes. The main sections cover: common and institutional provisions; circulation of persons; economy and trade; frontier workers; financial provisions; dispute settlement; and final provisions. I will not try your Lordships’ patience by going into the specifics of each section, which I am anyway sure noble Lords have all read in detail already. Rather, I will highlight a few issues on which noble Lords may wish to reflect.\r\n\r\nPart 1 includes a section on dispute resolution. It provides for the role of the European Court of Justice in adjudicating on the interpretation of EU law. This reflects existing arrangements in the withdrawal agreement. It also specifically excludes disputes regarding Gibraltar’s sovereignty and/or jurisdiction. Part 1 also makes it clear that in areas covered by the agreement, Gibraltar is required to align its domestic law with that of the EU, so-called dynamic alignment. The wider issue of dynamic alignment is the subject of a current inquiry by your Lordships’ Committee on European Affairs.\r\n\r\nPart 2 contains detailed rules on border procedures for entry into and exit from Gibraltar. It is worth noting that decisions on these are a matter for the Government of Gibraltar, not for the UK. Importantly, non-resident members of the UK Armed Forces and their family members are exempt from passport and visa regulations and from Schengen checks. More generally, the FCDO Minister then responsible, Stephen Doughty, told the other place on 8 July that the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities in Gibraltar was unchanged by the agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Wood, confirmed this when he gave evidence to us, adding that there is no Spanish role in approving, authorising or controlling UK military operations, UK personnel, deployments or military movements. That is absolutely clear.\r\n\r\nPart 3 of the agreement establishes a customs union between the EU and Gibraltar. This will have an impact on trading goods, but Gibraltar’s economy is based largely on services which are not covered by the agreement.\r\n\r\nPart 4 contains provisions for frontier workers, an issue of fundamental importance to Gibraltar’s economy. In his evidence to the committee, the Chief Minister confirmed that some 15,500 people come through the frontier every day to work in Gibraltar. Only half of them are Spanish, and one-quarter of them are British.\r\n\r\nArticle 5 commits to a financial mechanism aimed at promoting cohesion in the region. The cost of this is unclear, but the Chief Minister confirmed to the committee that Gibraltar would be responsible for funding it. Final provisions in Part 7 include a clause under which the parties agree to review the implementation of the agreement after no more than four years, and at regular intervals thereafter. Either party may terminate the agreement at any time, with 12 months’ notification. It may also be terminated if the UK, in respect of Gibraltar, does not accept and implement a new EU Act falling within the scope of the agreement. This is subject to a failure of the co-operation council to agree on an alternative arrangement within 90 days. In addition, either side may terminate if it is dissatisfied with the operations agreement after the review conducted at or before the four-year point. Spain, if it so wishes, may at that time request the EU to begin the process of termination. The UK is, of course, bound by the concordat it has signed on that matter.\r\n\r\nThere is naturally an enormous amount of detail in the agreement. But considering it in the round, noble Lords may wish to reassure themselves that the objectives set out by the Government in 2021, and reiterated by their successor Administration in 2024, have been met. Noble Lords may wish to note the Chief Minister’s view that, since early logistical teething issues at the border, the new system has been working effectively since its provisional introduction on 14 July.\r\n\r\nFinally, your Lordships will no doubt wish to take into account the view of the Gibraltarians themselves, as expressed through the outcome of their own parliamentary process. For them, this agreement resolves some fundamental issues which they faced in the wake of Brexit, which, unaddressed, threatened to derail the functioning of the territory. With those points in mind, I beg to move.","OrderInSection":5,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"3579E6A5-36FB-400B-AA40-3284E781590B","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AA-AB","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693164,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"15:56:00","OrderInSection":6,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AC-AD","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711169,"MemberId":14,"AttributedTo":"Lord Redwood (Con)","Value":"My Lords, Gibraltar has done extremely well over the years, with a very successful service sector-led economy, a very happy relationship with the United Kingdom, and as the possessor of a crucial base for the United Kingdom and NATO. I have always welcomed the close collaboration between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I rise to ask some questions of the Minister, because I fear for Gibraltar’s future under some of the details and terms of this agreement with the European Union. It seems to me very one-sided, with plenty of give to the European Union and not very much take for Gibraltar. There are a number of areas where I think we need to scrutinise it very carefully.\r\n\r\nThe first is the money. Can the Minister give us more information about what the social cohesion payment would be? How much tax do the Gibraltarians have to pay to improve adjacent parts of Spain? Under the alignment mechanisms, is it not the case that business in Gibraltar could find itself the subject of more levies or taxes, which would start to undermine the excellent competitiveness which Gibraltar has enjoyed through her own sensible choices? Part of the success of Gibraltar is relatively light taxation and an effective, but not oppressive, regulatory regime for the services she trades with the world. It would be a great worry if that was impaired or demolished by maybe inadvertent crazy EU actions.\r\n\r\nIf you look at Gibraltar’s sovereignty, it is clearly badly impaired because Gibraltar will now be under European Union law and will have to adopt all European law in the relevant areas as it comes forward. That seems to me very foolish, given the excellence of Gibraltar as a self-regulating territory within the United Kingdom family; it has put together very good business and economic success, but how can it be sure that that will not be impaired by bad laws and oppressive regulation? After all, Signor Draghi, a great hero of saving the euro and the European scheme, has himself penned an excoriating report about the lack of economic progress and growth in the European Union. He blames excessive lawmaking and overregulation, and has been one of the influences trying to persuade the EU that it should be reducing the number of regulations it imposes.\r\n\r\nAlthough there have been warm words to that effect at the Council of Ministers and from the Commission, there is absolutely no evidence that they going to do it, because we see every month that more laws are passed, more regulations imposed and higher costs made mandatory. Let us look, for example, at the energy situation, where adopting the acquis in energy means carbon pricing, emissions trading and large carbon taxes to guarantee that the EU—and Gibraltar attached to it—will be hopelessly uncompetitive with, for example, the United States of America, which does not impose similar burdens on its own activities.\r\n\r\nThere is then the issue of the control, or non-control, of the border. We know that the land border will be treated very differently from the air and maritime border. The land border removes its controls, but it will of course be shaped by Schengen. It is very clear that the main driver of land border decisions, made jointly by Spanish EU officials and Gibraltarian officials, will be under European control and will clearly be designed mainly to favour the movement of Spanish and EU citizens across the border in Gibraltar. I appreciate that there are some restrictions on them then gaining citizenship of Gibraltar, but Gibraltar needs to think very carefully about how it provides even temporary accommodation. Gibraltar is providing a great asset to the part of Spain adjacent to Gibraltar, which tends to be an area of rather low incomes and higher unemployment. Gibraltar is a more prosperous area with much fuller employment and much higher incomes. The transfers are daily and will continue to be one-way, favouring the EU and Spain.\r\n\r\nWe are told that joining the customs union is no problem, because Gibraltar does not export many goods. However, the main problem with a customs union is that it requires often hefty tariffs on imports. That will affect Gibraltar fundamentally, because part of the lifestyle of Gibraltarians rests on being able to import good-value products from around the world. Being forced into the EU customs union will mean that they then can buy only dear European goods or alternatives from elsewhere in the world with high tariffs, in many cases designed by the European Union to thwart the Gibraltarian customer and get them to buy the inferior or dearer EU product. The customs union is a particular blow to Gibraltar. I have long been an advocate that the United Kingdom should not go anywhere near the customs union again—how proud I was that we stripped tariffs from 2,000 line items when we came out of the European Union. We had a rule that, if we did not make or grow the thing ourselves, there should be no tariff on it. Why burden yourself with extra costs for something that you cannot make or grow? In Gibraltar’s case, there are many things, naturally, that a small population cannot make or grow. It would be silly to burden it with very high tariffs in the way that the EU would demand for its own purposes.\r\n\r\nI am also concerned about the airport. It is an MoD base, and I believe it is leased for commercial and civilian purposes. We should understand that its primary task was as a very important air base as part of NATO. That needs to be fully baked in. I am told that people who have read the legal detail are reassured that the MoD will continue to be able to take priority if needs arise. However, it seems an unnecessary encumbrance to put this under some kind of joint management and control when it is very clearly a Gibraltar-UK facility and very important part of the NATO arrangements. The idea will be to manage the airport in a way that encourages aviation within the EU and makes aviation more difficult with the rest of the world, which is not necessarily a good thing for a population trading international services in the English language, where they are more likely to do that with places that are not in the EU itself.\r\n\r\nLooking at these various problems—I will not give the Committee many more—this seems to me a very one-sided transaction. I can see why the EU wants it: it will get money from Gibraltar; it will tax and regulate Gibraltar to bring it more into line with EU practice; and it will want to develop and change Gibraltar’s economy so that it is more dependent on imports from Spain and the rest of the EU. It will want to undermine Gibraltarian consumers trying to buy cheaper and better things more widely from the rest of the world.\r\n\r\nAs alignment of laws is ever more detailed, it is highly likely that the way in which people conduct services and business, set up businesses and are taxed will be adversely affected, so I strongly recommend a great dose of scepticism about this transaction. Gibraltarians should be very careful about it because, despite the immediate joy of removing a few of the barriers on the land frontier and allowing people to come to Gibraltar from Spain and do their jobs more easily, there will be all sorts of other consequences, of which I have mentioned a few, which could be extremely damaging to the long-term economic future of what is a priceless jewel: a very successful free-trading service economy, of which many of us are proud.","OrderInSection":7,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"D1CF54DD-4D05-40C9-8516-4E9EAD8939BC","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AC-AD","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693165,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"16:05:00","OrderInSection":8,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AE-AF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711170,"MemberId":2167,"AttributedTo":"Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)","Value":"My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, in the speakers’ list, and I can assure him that his contribution today will go straight into the fiction part of my library. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, on standing in at rather short notice for the Chair of his committee and on introducing this report so comprehensively and ably.\r\n\r\nI need to begin my contribution with a declaration, not of interest, as I have none, but of involvement. In 1982, when I was Assistant Under-Secretary of State at the FCO with responsibility for relations with the European Communities, I was tasked by Lord Hurd of Westwell, then Minister of State, with trying to bring about the opening of the border between Spain and Gibraltar, closed many years earlier by General Franco as part of his campaign to subvert our sovereignty over Gibraltar. I was asked to do this before any Spanish treaty of accession then being negotiated was brought before the House of Commons for ratification.\r\n\r\nAfter a number of detailed discussions with the then Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, whose successor but several I welcome to our audience—I wish the previous speaker had shown a little greater respect for the views of Gibraltarians—and after many meetings with my opposite numbers in Madrid in charge of Spain’s accession negotiations, a basis for lifting the Spanish border closure was established ahead of the ratification of its accession agreement. The result was a resumption of large daily border crossings by Spanish workers with jobs in Gibraltar and, eventually, the arrangements for Gibraltar airport to give access to both Spain and Gibraltar. These arrangements have operated ever since, to the mutual benefit of the UK, Gibraltar, the EU and Spain, although on only an increasingly shaky legal basis since the UK left the EU in 2019. It is their replacement by a properly constituted and negotiated agreement between the EU and the UK that we are debating today, and I hope that we will it give broad support.\r\n\r\nSince the 1980s, much water has flowed under many bridges, but the essentials have not changed. Most importantly, the Brexit vote in 2016 created an anomalous and aberrant outcome. The UK as a whole voted to leave the EU by a small margin, and the Gibraltarians voted by 99% to remain in the EU. In effect, that UK vote removed Gibraltar from the EU, since its inclusion was derived only from being a European territory which was part of a member state. If ever there was a case for separate and special treatment, this is surely it. Otherwise, what weight are we giving to our quite rightly reiterated view that Gibraltarians should have a real say over their own destiny?\r\n\r\nSince Brexit, the Governments of the UK and the EU, with Spain having a key voice, have been negotiating a viable solution. The present Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Mr Fabian Picardo, who is among us today, and successive —quite a few—British Governments and Spanish ones have negotiated with great perseverance and determination. As a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gibraltar, I can bear testimony to that, since the Government of Gibraltar have been meticulous at keeping us informed. The agreement before us today is the outcome of those negotiations. Has anything had to be conceded over sovereignty or other matters of crucial importance to reach the complex arrangements for handling Schengen and customs union issues? I do not believe so, nor do Gibraltar’s Government and its assembly, which have endorsed what has been negotiated. I hope we can lend our support to them through this debate and through the Government’s subsequent ratification.\r\n\r\nWhat could be the consequence of the UK not ratifying and rejecting the agreement reached, which, of course, this Committee does not have the right to recommend anyway? We have some idea of that because of our experience during General Franco’s closure of the border. It would be very costly. It was some hundreds of millions of pounds in the 1970s and no doubt a great deal more now. There would also be difficulties for our defence arrangements in Gibraltar, which are fully safeguarded by the present agreement—both points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. I would argue that considerations of principle and of practice point us towards supporting the agreement wholeheartedly, as I do.","OrderInSection":9,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"07346EF9-769C-43B0-B383-32AD74D5A9A6","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AE-AF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693166,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"16:11:00","OrderInSection":10,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AE-AF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711171,"MemberId":1705,"AttributedTo":"Lord Tugendhat (Con)","Value":"My Lords, I begin by welcoming the Gibraltarian delegation attending our debate and saying how very much I appreciate the fact that they are taking so much interest in our deliberations. I had the pleasure of hearing the Chief Minister when he gave evidence to our committee, and that was a very convincing performance. For my part, I not only support the resolution in front of us but I go further and, like my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I certainly commend this agreement to the Committee.\r\n\r\nIt must be seen in the context of the United Kingdom’s Brexit vote. This, of course, ran contrary to the wishes of the people of Gibraltar, who believed, rightly in my view, that it was against their own best interests. That, in my view, imposes on the UK Government an obligation to mitigate as far as possible what the people of Gibraltar regard as the harmful consequences to them of Brexit. I think we have a duty to do that. It is against this criterion that we should judge this treaty. The answer is clear, as the unanimous decision of the Gibraltar Parliament shows.\r\n\r\nReally, the Gibraltar Parliament is the best judge of the interests of the Gibraltar people, and I was very uneasy to hear my noble friend Lord Redwood explaining to them how they did not see seem to understand what their own best interests were—we in London must not assume that we know better than other people what their own best interests are. The people best able to judge the best interests of Gibraltar are those in the Gibraltar Parliament and not those of us sitting in London. I congratulate the Gibraltar Parliament on its decision and to go against it would be an act of some impertinence on our part.\r\n\r\nI congratulate the Government on the agreement, in particular the officials who have negotiated it. I cannot remember a time when disagreements over Gibraltar have not caused trouble for the British-Spanish relationship and difficulties for the people of Gibraltar. The number of officials who have devoted years of their career to working on this problem is legion, and I take heart from the fact that this agreement is an example of what the UK and the EU can achieve when they approach a negotiation in what might be called a success-oriented frame of mind. I hope that the success of reaching agreement over this matter will act as an indication that agreement between us and the EU is possible on other matters as well, and that this will create a precedent.\r\n\r\nIn conclusion, I recognise, of course—how could I not, after listening to my noble friend speak?—that some noble Lords see the creation of the EU-Gibraltar customs union, and all that follows from it, as a derogation of sovereignty. It is certainly new, in so far as the policy areas covered by the treaty are concerned, that Gibraltar will be subject to a different set of rules from the rest of the UK. I remind noble Lords of what Geoffrey Howe so wisely pointed out, goodness knows how many years ago, when he explained that one of the attributes of sovereignty is the ability it gives to share with others, if we believe that that is in the best interests of the UK or of some part of the UK. That is not a surrender of sovereignty, it is a constructive use of sovereignty. This agreement is a very good example.\r\n\r\nI certainly commend this agreement. I congratulate those who negotiated it; I wish the people of Gibraltar success and prosperity as the years go forward under the aegis of this agreement.","OrderInSection":11,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"EC75A87E-8C70-4F01-8732-2394CE56B208","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AE-AF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693167,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"16:17:00","OrderInSection":12,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AG-AH","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711172,"MemberId":4879,"AttributedTo":"Lord Frost (Non-Afl)","Value":"My Lords, I thank in his absence the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and his committee for a careful and useful report. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, for standing in at short notice and introducing the debate.\r\n\r\nThe committee rightly notes in its report that this debate is the only opportunity this House has to consider the treaty in detail. It has been in provisional operation for three months now; it needs no legislation here and, as others have said, cannot be stopped by this House under the 2010 Act.\r\n\r\nI repeat what I have said in other debates: after the EU exit, it cannot be right that treaties of such importance can come into force without a clear yes/no vote in this Parliament. One day this process will have to be changed.\r\n\r\nIn his evidence last month, the Minister was kind enough to suggest that if the committee wanted to know why an agreement was not included in the TCA, “it should get Lord Frost in and ask him”. I am always happy to appear before the committee, but in fact the Minister went on to give more or less the correct answer. Negotiating the biggest trade and co-operation agreement in the middle of a pandemic meant simply that there was not time for everything, particularly given the situation resulting from the EU commitment in 2017 to give Spain, effectively, a veto on any deal, and it was inevitable that this would have to be dealt with separately. I actually think that the interim agreement at the end of 2020 was not a bad agreement in the circumstances, but it was never going to last, and that is why we are where we are now.\r\n\r\nWe all know the situation in Gibraltar; I know the issues directly as I was for a time the Foreign Office director responsible for Gibraltar after the previous Labour Government’s attempt to reach a so-called shared sovereignty deal. We know that 15,000 people cross the frontier every day. Frontier workers make up about 40% of Gibraltar’s workforce, and restrictions at the frontier always affect Gibraltar’s economy negatively. We know how fraught the issues are; we know the politics of the issue in Spain. We know too that Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, and these realities all have to be acknowledged and accepted.\r\n\r\nI understand why a fluid border—to use what is apparently the new term of art for these circumstances— for people and goods between Gibraltar and Spain is so important and why achieving it is so important to Gibraltar. That is the context for the concerns that I shall go on to express.\r\n\r\nThe first is the airport, and particularly border control. It is all carefully hedged but, for the first time, Spanish officials will be carrying out border checks on arrivals into British territory. Under the treaty’s provisions, they can search British travellers arriving in the course of border control and demand their fingerprints. That is new. What is less clear to me, even now—having read the treaty and all the evidence sessions around it—is that there nevertheless still seems to be some unclarity about how the interaction between Spain and Gibraltar will work in this area, or perhaps has been working for the last three months. It is not clear who has the final say and who is really constrained in their discretion here.\r\n\r\nTo take just one example, the Minister said in his evidence session:\r\n\r\n“When an individual is the subject of an alert on the Schengen Information System … or they do not meet the requirements for entry into the Schengen area, Spain may refuse them entry into Schengen. In those circumstances … the Government of Gibraltar have taken their own decision to mutually recognise decisions taken by Spain to refuse entry … based on security or public safety concerns”.\r \r\n\r\nFrom subsequent discussion in the evidence session, it seems that this is automatic.\r\n\r\nLike others, I am delighted to see the Chief Minister here today. When he was asked about this, he said that,\r\n\r\n“Gibraltar would make its decision and, if it permits the individual to come in, the individual goes to the Schengen check also to be permitted access to Schengen. If that individual is permitted access to Schengen they have no problems. If we permit access to Gibraltar but access to Schengen is not permitted, the individual has the right to visit only Gibraltar and not Schengen”.\r\n\r\nMaybe I am missing something here, but I am not quite sure how these two statements can be reconciled—maybe they describe slightly different situations—unless the right to enter Gibraltar is a right unable to be exercised in practice, only in theory. I will have some questions for the Minister on this, but I will move on.\r\n\r\nMy second concern is hot pursuit. I asked the then Ministers about this in June last year. The answer was that Article 41 of the Schengen convention would not apply, but it has subsequently become clear that that has largely been reproduced in this treaty. Spanish officers will be able to follow suspects into Gibraltar by land; there are safeguards, but the principle has been conceded.\r\n\r\nThe third is dynamic alignment arrangements in the treaty. Under Article 19, if Gibraltar does not accept and implement a new EU Act, the whole arrangement ends unless the co-operation council can agree an alternative within three months. We are now becoming familiar with the arrangement by which disputes about the meaning of EU law are sent by an arbitration panel to the ECJ. Gibraltar now has a customs union with the EU, which takes it out of British trade policy for goods. All this means a loss of control.\r\n\r\nMy fourth concern is the exit clauses. Under the concordat, as the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, noted, the UK has undertaken that it will not terminate the treaty, except in the most exceptional circumstances, unless three-quarters of Gibraltar’s Parliament or a referendum support it. The committee also notes that the concordat\r\n\r\n“does not constrain the EU’s own rights of termination or suspension”.\r\n\r\nUnder Article 66, the EU will take the necessary steps to end the agreement if Spain so requests, so Spain has a sword of Damocles over Gibraltar. In a way, it always has had such a sword, but it has been given a new legal and usable version of it, which future Governments in Spain may seek to use as leverage. Since the current Spanish Government may—I personally hope they will—lose the election and may be succeeded by one that tends to be more aggressive on Gibraltar questions, this is maybe not an entirely theoretical question.\r\n\r\nThose are the concerns I have about this treaty. Where does this leave things? The Chief Minister, whose long service to the people of Gibraltar I acknowledge as he prepares to stand down, told the committee that:\r\n\r\n“I can put my hand in the Gibraltarian political fire and tell you that not an iota of our sovereignty has been compromised”.\r \r\n\r\nHe is correct in the sense that Gibraltar or the UK can always denounce the agreement, just as the UK could always leave the EU if it did not like its sovereignty-destroying effects, but as long as Gibraltar is part of this agreement, it is losing sovereignty in the sense that it does not have a say in the laws that govern it. It is subject to a legal system in certain areas over which it has no say, and if it does not adopt EU laws in a long list of areas, and cannot persuade the EU to accept alternatives, it loses the entire treaty.\r\n\r\nGibraltar’s rights to allow entry to British citizens and third-country nationals are compromised, shall we say, in practice, and it is not clear to me—I will come back to this—whether it has rights to refuse entry to Schengen nationals at all. I note there was some unease in Gibraltar about some of these terms from the opposition and Sir Peter Caruana, among others, but not going so far as to oppose the treaty. I think they are right to be uneasy. I think we all have a right to comment on this, and my view is that I do not think that this treaty is going to be good for Gibraltar in the long run, assuming it wants to stay part of the UK orbit. Of course, there are gains on the border, but there are also losses in important areas, such as the import of food and goods, border controls and information-sharing, taxation and so on. It seems inevitable to me that, over time, the effect of this treaty will be to produce a tilt towards Spain and the EU and away from the UK. Gibraltar must live with the constant risk that the treaty will be denounced if it is insufficiently compliant. There are plenty of points of leverage. To me, that is a pity.\r\n\r\nThat said, there is no suggestion, indeed quite the contrary, that Gibraltarians do not want this deal. It passed in Parliament unanimously. There is no suggestion that HMG have put pressure on Gibraltar to accept it. So be it on every question, except I think those pertaining to the military base itself. I do not think that the Government can be more sovereigntist than the Gibraltarians themselves. I would rather something different had been agreed, but I do not oppose it. If Gibraltar has decided that this is the price of the working frontier, I do not think it is for us to overrule Gibraltar, and I do not even think, in contrast to the reset proper, that a future Government should reverse it.\r\n\r\nHowever, we have to recognise that this treaty changes something in the relationship and things may not be in future as they have been before. There is only so much cover this country can give Gibraltar in the areas where it has ceded sovereignty, and in those areas, Gibraltar and its authorities are going to have to find an accommodation over time from a position of weakness with the EU and Spain if it wants those arrangements to continue. I regret that, I do not oppose it, but that is the situation that the treaty has created, and I think we ought to be honest about it.\r\n\r\nTo finish up, I have a small number of questions for the Minister. Let us come back to the travel question on arrivals by air or sea. If a British citizen arrives in Gibraltar for tourism and the Spanish refuse Schengen access, can that person still enter Gibraltar—yes or no? If a Brit arrives to work in Gibraltar with a residence permit and the Spanish refuse access to Schengen, can that person still enter Gibraltar to work or live—yes or no? Can Gibraltar refuse entry to Schengen nationals? I think that the Minister promised to clarify this at the evidence session. If I missed the clarification, I apologise, but I could not find one, so I would be interested in the answer to that question. Furthermore, could the Minister give a clear statement of what this Government will do if a future Spanish Government use any of these arrangements to put further pressure on Gibraltar in any area? What is the Government’s view on Gibraltar’s opposition requests for a stronger concordat? Is this something that is being considered? Finally, do the Government have in mind any arrangements for reporting to Parliament on the treaty and its operation over time?\r\n\r\nI end where I began. An important treaty has come into force with no vote and no power for us to stop it. It does bring real gains for Gibraltar, and I do not deny them, but it also hands Spain and the EU a variety of new legal weapons to be used against Gibraltar. Gibraltar has made its choice, and I accept it. We are not losing Gibraltar and sovereignty over it—I agree with that—but we are sort of sharing it more than we ever have before, it seems to me. I think a bit of honesty about this would be welcome. Dynamic alignment and outsourcing of legal powers is a bargain whose terms are easy to sign and sometimes hard to live with. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that future Ministers here and in Gibraltar, perhaps facing a less friendly Government in Madrid, will come to understand the risks of what has been agreed, and maybe even come to regret it.","OrderInSection":13,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"72BFA2E7-D232-4C4A-A208-CEAB1E9CC699","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AG-AH","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693168,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"16:31:00","OrderInSection":14,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AJ-AK","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711173,"MemberId":3804,"AttributedTo":"Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)","Value":"My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is overpessimistic. This is a treaty that Gibraltar has studied with great care, and it wants it. I am a member of the parliamentary group and have been going to Gibraltar for many years. In May, I went with Martin Vickers MP; we went as individuals without any remit except what we wanted to do, which was to make a short fact-finding tour to find out what people in Gibraltar thought about what was then, and still is, the draft treaty. We went at our own expense, not as guests of the Gibraltar Government. We met the governor; we then went to the airport, where the Chief Minister took a great deal of trouble to take us through the new double system of entry.\r\n\r\nOn my later visit in September to Gibraltar, I experienced it as somebody entering. The new system is slow and rather cumbersome, and it takes a very long time to get through. One has to walk miles—I actually said to the Chief Minister that he ought to put some travelators in, but I suspect the passages may not be wide enough. What I understand is that continental and other foreign flights will now be able to take off and land in Gibraltar, which has not been the case in the past. As I understand it, there have not been any alerts yet—and as I also understand it, if somebody is refused entry by Schengen, by the Spanish, they can enter and work and live in Gibraltar, if that is the decision of the Gibraltarians. Although it is a system for two, it works first for Spain and the rest of the EU, and quite separately for Gibraltar. That is what I understand, and I find it difficult to see why people think that this may be a matter of some controversy.\r\n\r\nAfter visiting the airport, we met the commissioner of the British base. We were assured, as is absolutely clear, that the treaty has no effect on the sovereignty and working of the base. But there is co-operation with the Spanish in the provision of a Spanish military liaison officer with very limited remit. We were told that an American nuclear submarine had visited the previous day. I also understand that Americans visit the base regularly and frequently. It is clear that the Americans recognise the importance of the base, its role and its strategic position in NATO. We talked to retailers on Main Street who, like those in many other countries including our own, are having problems. They had reservations about the impact on them of the treaty, but no one opposed it. They looked at the good of Gibraltar as more important, as one particular retailer said, than the fact that he might have to close down.\r\n\r\nWe visited the commissioner of police, who has many internal problems that clearly need to be sorted. The Chief Minister very kindly gave us lunch, and we met other Ministers. We also met the leader of the opposition, who understandably raised issues and some objections. However, it is noticeable that in the Gibraltar Parliament, the opposition supported the treaty. We went to the hospital, which had practical problems in moving a patient to a Spanish hospital, having to either transfer the patient at the frontier and put the patient into a Spanish ambulance or use a Spanish ambulance in Gibraltar. That problem is now sorted, and it can use their own ambulance drivers.\r\n\r\nWe discussed the implication of the treaty on the university with the vice-chancellor. She referred to the new immigration rules, and we noted in our report that the university would closely assess the import on its attractiveness to prospective students from around the world. Research funding has been difficult since Brexit, and the vice-chancellor hoped that it might be eased with the conclusion of the treaty.\r\n\r\nWe had an interesting discussion with the CEO of the very large Morrisons superstore. She was clear that Brexit was a disaster, particularly for the store, and that the treaty was not much better. It might have to reduce the products it offered, perhaps from 20,000 to 19,000 or 18,000. I rather wonder whether the customers will notice much difference. She was hopeful that customers would come across the frontier as they already do, but in greater numbers. I gather that buses are now provided in Spain that bring people over to shop in Morrisons. She said that Morrisons would do as it had always done: it would cope.\r\n\r\nThe conclusions of our report are contained in the written evidence of the APPG to the European Affairs Committee. I particularly thank the Chief Minister and his team, particularly the UK representative, for their great help in helping our trip. It was extremely interesting and most instructive.\r\n\r\nThe first and most important element of the treaty is the retention of the sovereignty of Gibraltar to retain its position with the UK and make its own decisions. As we know, the British base is outside the treaty. I learned a word that I do not think I have ever previously used: fluidity. It seems to be the basis of the treaty that flows from these 1,000 pages. It means that 15,000-plus people cross the frontier every day without going through entry and exit requirements, at least half of whom work in Gibraltar. This is crucial to Gibraltar, as the workers from the small town La Línea on the other side of the frontier are a huge part of the Gibraltar workforce. It is also crucial for La Línea, as it is a poor town, and the main part of its workforce crosses the frontier every day. Fluidity means that Gibraltar has freedom to cross the frontier under a special arrangement without joining the EU—a bespoke arrangement with the EU and, I believe, probably the only one of its kind.\r\n\r\nAs we know, Brexit had an adverse effect on Gibraltar. It has had six years of uncertainty and can now move forward, knowing where it stands and with great prospects ahead. The treaty does not cost the UK a single penny —that is to say, other than the hours, days, weeks, months and years of the hard work and perseverance of Foreign Office officials and Ministers of the Governments here and in Gibraltar. All our Ministers, especially Stephen Doughty and the noble Lord, Lord Wood, are to be congratulated for holding the line, engaging and ending with a workable treaty. Even more to be congratulated are the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister—both here—and the Attorney-General. I must say that all participants have worked with tenacity, huge patience and ultimate success in creating a treaty, which the Chief Minister has said is not perfect, but is good enough and hugely to be welcomed. Gibraltar is understandably very pleased with it.\r\n\r\nI want to make a comment about the European Court of Justice, which was referred to earlier. When I was a judge, I visited Luxembourg, met the judges and sat in the court many times. I listened to the arguments and the judgments. I find it difficult to understand the noted lack of enthusiasm for the court in this country. It made a number of extremely sensible judgments needed, if not wanted, by the UK. It has only an advisory role, which I am sure it will carry out extremely well.\r\n\r\nI would also like to say something brief about the concordat between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. It is a very sensible agreement which answers many of the points of concern which have been raised, notably in the debate in the other place and by two noble Lords today. It sets out how both Governments give effect to the obligations under the treaty, including how the committees created under the treaty will work. I have to say, and it has already been referred to, that I worry a bit about the impending Spanish elections in November. The treaty will be completed in Brussels in December before a new Spanish Government are likely to be in place. The treaty is between the EU and the UK, not Spain and Gibraltar, and seems to be sufficiently robust to withstand criticism, but Gibraltarians may need in the future to ignore hostile rhetoric. All of us who care about Gibraltar ought to be very glad about the new treaty and welcome it. I wish Gibraltar a happy and prosperous future.","OrderInSection":15,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"E4ACAD76-3A00-4E6C-A3FE-69E01D6D71A8","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AJ-AK","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693169,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"16:42:00","OrderInSection":16,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AL-AM","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711174,"MemberId":1551,"AttributedTo":"Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)","Value":"My Lords, as a member of the European Affairs Committee, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I join in the congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the chairman of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, who is deputising, made an excellent contribution and adds great heft to work of the committee.\r\n\r\nI will concentrate substantially on residency and the ramifications for the labour market, but I also want to talk briefly about two much bigger issues. One is the use of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in the scrutiny and oversight of international treaties and agreements. I believe we have a weak treaty scrutiny regime. The 21-day sitting period for ratification does not require Parliament to scrutinise, debate or even vote on treaties and is poor compared with other jurisdictions, notably the United States Senate, where a two-thirds majority is required to push through a treaty. Little time is given to consider the documents in detail, and now we have no European Scrutiny Committee in the other place that omission is compounded. We cannot influence the terms of arrangements or treaties. The implementation of statutory instruments is subject to scrutiny, but that is not the same as influencing the treaties themselves.\r\n\r\nI also want to talk about Brexit. I hate to do it, but I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. I take issue with the idea that Gibraltar’s autonomy and decision-making should be central to this issue. They are important, but they are not the primary issue. Gibraltar has 40,000 people; the ancient county of Rutland has 42,000 people, but we do not build foreign policy around the views of the people of Rutland.\r\n\r\nThe point is that the British Government have a duty and a responsibility to look after the interests of and to observe and respect the democratic will and the parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and this treaty, or arrangement, undermines that. Martin Selmayr, then chef de cabinet to Jean-Claude Juncker, famously said in the wake of Brexit in 2016 that the EU had two objectives: first, to make Brexit as difficult as possible—I think it has probably succeeded in that endeavour—and, secondly, to ensure that the UK had no long-term competitive economic advantage over the EU, so we must be unsentimental when we are considering treaties, agreements and arrangements with our friends in the European Union.\r\n\r\nThere is an issue of sovereignty. Notwithstanding the legal advice that has been received on Article 2, which, no doubt, the Minister will pray in aid, the treaty diminishes UK sovereignty by backing Gibraltar into the Schengen regime. The Spanish Government’s summary confirms that Spain will carry out Schengen controls at the airport and port. Spain may object to the issuing or renewal of residency permits on specified grounds, and Gibraltar will be compelled to notify Spain of all current residence permit holders. Also, Spain is authorised on behalf of the EU to issue short-stay visas for individuals wishing to visit Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nOn a related matter, and this has been raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I am concerned at the potential reach of the CJEU and the requirement dynamically to align domestic legislation with the EU as it is developed and updated under Articles 19 and 20 of the treaty—a significant erosion of sovereignty. We know that the EU is always, in terms of dispute resolution mechanisms, jealous of its autonomy and strictly adheres to interpretation of the acquis by the CJEU, often to the disadvantage of the other party. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will take a robust approach on this issue? Similarly, will he reassure us that Articles 22 and 23 of the agreement, in respect of the co-operation council and special committees and their ability to amend the agreement, will not be exercised without good reason and in anything other than exceptional circumstances? On dynamic alignment and the single market, is the Minister in a position to estimate the likely financial obligation that Gibraltar will need to meet by way of financial contributions to the regional cohesion fund?\r\n\r\nI will leave my noble friends to interrogate the Minister on the customs union and trade implications, but the following are a few of the outstanding unresolved issues that His Majesty’s Government may wish to address. The treaty does not allow the gaming industry in Gibraltar to serve EU customers directly. The costs of transaction and the tax implications of transaction rules and state aid alignment costs, especially in retail and trading firms, is not altogether clear. The treaty ends Gibraltar’s long-standing VAT-free regime in favour of Spain’s tax equalisation policy, and we know that Spain is not a slacker in respect of the collection of taxes that are due.\r\n\r\nFinally, as I raised it in the committee with Mr Picardo, the Chief Minister, I wish to focus on Gibraltar’s new residency regime and the labour market implications. I interrogated the Chief Minister for very good reasons. To be fair, he was kind enough to write promptly to the committee to address some of the issues that I had raised in the meeting. This is an aspect of the implementation of the new arrangement to which I very much hope the Minister will give careful consideration. Three provisions seem particularly troubling. First, a new employee seeking residence in Gibraltar must ordinarily earn at least £37,500 per annum. This is a remarkably high threshold for residency. It excludes many junior and early-career jobs as well as a range of perfectly respectable occupations from the normal route to living in Gibraltar. There are exceptions, including arrangements for applicants under 30 and governmental discretion in other cases, but they do not remove the fundamental problem.\r\n\r\nA British citizen offered a job in Gibraltar paying £30,000 may be perfectly entitled to work in Gibraltar but will not ordinarily qualify to live there. Where is that person expected to live? The answer, of course, is Spain. This creates a potentially extraordinary distortion in the labour market. A Gibraltarian employer wishing to recruit someone already resident across the border in Spain does not face the same practical relocation problem as when recruiting a British citizen from the United Kingdom. There is therefore an obvious incentive to recruit from the existing Spanish-resident cross-border workforce. The long-term political and demographic consequences of such an incentive, quite apart from the economic consequences, deserve serious consideration by the Government.\r\n\r\nSecondly, there is the age restriction. Under the ordinary eligibility criteria, an applicant must be aged 55 or younger. The Chief Minister has discretion to admit somebody above that age where that is considered to be in Gibraltar’s interest, but that does not remove the fundamental distinction that an otherwise entirely suitable British citizen aged over 55 no longer falls within the ordinary route to residence simply because of his or her age. Indeed, Gibraltar’s own published guidance states:\r\n\r\n“The purpose of the age requirement is to make sure people contribute to the economy for a significant period before they are entitled to live in Gibraltar longer term”.\r \r\n\r\nBut the economic consequences begin well before the age of 55. Consider a 49 year-old senior professional with a spouse and children contemplating moving his family to Gibraltar, buying a home and establishing the remainder of his career there. Would he reasonably make that commitment if he was uncertain about his ability to remain after retirement?\r\n\r\nThis brings me to a related and perhaps even more fundamental issue. For a new British resident, the pathway to Gibraltarian status now requires 20 years of residence. Gibraltarian status ultimately provides an unrestricted right to reside in Gibraltar. What, therefore, is the secure, long-term position of a British citizen who moves to Gibraltar, works and pays taxes there for, say, 10 or 15 years and establishes a home and family there but then retires before completing the 20 years necessary to apply for Gibraltarian status?\r\n\r\nThirdly, residence permits under the new regime are renewed annually. How is somebody expected to confidently move a family, establish a career, purchase a home or make a substantial long-term investment in Gibraltar when residence is subject to renewal every 12 months?\r\n\r\nTaken together, these provisions seem capable of producing precisely the opposite result of what one might have expected after such a lengthy negotiation. They have the potential to discourage younger and early-career British workers through the threshold; to discourage older British citizens through the age criteria; to create uncertainty for professionals approaching retirement; to discourage families from making long-term commitments through annual renewals; to incentivise employers to recruit people already resident in Spain rather than British workers who would need to relocate; to transfer residential demand from Gibraltar to Spain; and to weaken both the lower and upper ends of Gibraltar’s residential property market.\r\n\r\nI have some final questions for the Minister. Are the £37,500 income threshold, the age-55 criteria and the annual residence renewals required directly or indirectly by the agreement, or are they policy choices made by the Government of Gibraltar? What secure route exists for a British citizen admitted under the new regime who establishes his or her life in Gibraltar but retires before completing the 20 years required to apply for Gibraltarian status? Have the Government of Gibraltar assessed whether these rules create an incentive for employers to recruit workers already resident in Spain rather than British citizens from the UK? Have the Government assessed the resulting implications for Gibraltar’s demographics and residential property market and, more broadly, for the maintenance of Gibraltar’s British character? Why is annual renewal considered appropriate for people whom Gibraltar wishes to encourage to make substantial and long-term professional, family and financial commitments to Gibraltar?\r\n\r\nThe central question seems a simple but important one: which of these restrictions were genuinely necessary to implement the treaty and which were decisions taken independently by the Government of Gibraltar? I hope that the Minister will be in a position to answer these questions in lieu of the Chief Minister, who will unfortunately be Trappist-like today, unlike at our committee.\r\n\r\nThis agreement ties up the final post-Brexit loose end, but it is flawed. Once again, it diminishes and undermines the UK’s status as an independent, democratic, sovereign, self-governing nation.","OrderInSection":17,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"9B900430-C05D-42D2-B603-D913D20E9FE4","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AL-AM","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693170,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"16:55:00","OrderInSection":18,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AP-AR","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711175,"MemberId":2005,"AttributedTo":"Baroness Hooper (Con)","Value":"My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, for taking up the theme, for enabling us to have this important and useful debate on the future of Gibraltar. In saying that, I take a very different view from that of my noble friend Lord Jackson about the role of Gibraltar in the negotiations leading to this agreement.\r\n\r\nI declare my interest as a long-standing member and officer of the All-Party Group on Gibraltar and of the All-Party Group on the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Let us not forget the importance of the overseas territories to this country in general. I have also been president of the Friends of Gibraltar Heritage Society for some 25 years and remain a vice-president. The current president is none other than Mr Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, and the chairman is our very good friend Sir Bob Neill.\r\n\r\nI should perhaps explain that my involvement with Gibraltar started when I was elected as a Member of the European Parliament representing Liverpool in 1979, in the first elections to the only directly elected Parliament in the history of the world. The citizens of Gibraltar, while being part of the then European Economic Community, did not, however, have the right to vote in those first historic direct elections. So the then Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred, decided to approach 12 Members of the European Parliament—six Labour and six Conservative. I was fortunate in being one of those, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat was one of the two British commissioners to the EEC at the time. Under the leadership of the then Lord Bethell, we campaigned to ensure that Gibraltarians could vote, and that was something that came into effect when the voting system changed to a regionalist system and it therefore became more possible. So, however many difficulties there are in the distance of Gibraltar from this country and its separation, overcoming them is very important.\r\n\r\nAt the United Nations this month, the United Kingdom Government restated that they will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Of course, Gibraltar’s Parliament unanimously called on the United Kingdom to sign and ratify the treaty. Under the UK-Gibraltar concordat, the UK will not, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, move to end it—unless three-quarters of that Parliament or a majority in a referendum supports that.\r\n\r\nIn 2001, when speaking in a debate in the House of Lords, I referred to the border controls causing a daily irritation to anybody attempting to cross, especially to the workers coming in from Spain on a daily basis. However, since 15 July, there have been no immigration checks at the frontier, and the treaty protects that fluidity with enforceable remedies, consultations within 30 days, or 20 days in urgent cases, and then binding arbitration. So that particular difficulty has been catered for.\r\n\r\nGibraltar’s own officers remain responsible for entry into Gibraltar. Spanish officers carry out the separate Schengen check at the airport but cannot stop Gibraltar residents entering Gibraltar. The airport has its own sovereignty and safeguards—RAF control and military use are unaffected. The terminal stays in Gibraltar government ownership; a joint venture with Spain will only select and supervise the civil operator by public tender, narrower than the 2006 Córdoba arrangements envisaged.\r\n\r\nIn repeating, inevitably, some important points that have already been made, in terms of the actual agreement and treaty, I believe that we should follow the very clear voice of the people of Gibraltar, its present Chief Minister and its former Chief Minister, who is with us.","OrderInSection":19,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"275A5F84-34F7-47D2-9812-CACA06BE8B84","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AP-AR","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711176,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":null,"Value":"Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.","OrderInSection":20,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"261020107000202","HRSTag":"hs_Procedure","HansardSection":"AP-AR","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693171,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"17:13:00","OrderInSection":21,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AS-AT","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711177,"MemberId":2005,"AttributedTo":"Baroness Hooper (Con)","Value":"I was just summing up—to say that I believe that we should support this treaty and the concordat and listen to and appreciate the voices of Gibraltar. In view of the comments made by my noble friends Lord Redwood and Lord Frost, as with any treaty, we must all monitor from our different standpoints and sound the alarm if necessary. I think that probably goes without saying. But we must also learn to live with the new reality in Europe, and make Europe as united and supportive as possible to provide what is needed as an important balance in the complex world of today.","OrderInSection":22,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"23842770-F35A-42C5-95F9-4F8FA29235B6","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AS-AT","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693172,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"17:14:00","OrderInSection":23,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AS-AT","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711178,"MemberId":4541,"AttributedTo":"The Duke of Wellington (CB)","Value":"My Lords, I first declare my historic interests in Spain, not because I think they are in any way affected by this United Kingdom-EU treaty, but rather to explain why I have taken an interest in Gibraltar throughout my adult life. When this country voted to leave the European Union, the people of Gibraltar of course had a vote in the referendum and voted, I think, by 96% to 4% to remain. But of course Gibraltar left the European Union along with the rest of the United Kingdom in January 2020. However, like with Northern Ireland, there is a land border and it was not quite clear how the status of Gibraltar could be resolved, particularly as access to the single market had played such an important part in the development of the Gibraltar economy. In addition, as has been stated by several noble Lords, about 15,000 people were and still are crossing the frontier from Spain into Gibraltar every day to work.\r\n\r\nThis treaty probably puts Gibraltar in as strong a position economically as it has been for many years. The frontier has been taken down, people can move freely between Gibraltar and Spain, and people arriving by air or sea have their passports checked by both UK Gibraltarian officials and then by European officials, who will normally be Spanish. Gibraltarian goods and services will have access to the markets of the EU, including, of course, Spain. Gibraltar will dynamically align with EU laws unless it finds itself unable to do so, in which case there are provisions for arbitration.\r\n\r\nIn March this year, the Gibraltar Parliament voted unanimously—as has been said but we must keep reminding ourselves—to accept the treaty, subject to agreeing a concordat with the United Kingdom. The treaty cannot be terminated without the agreement of Gibraltar, and the concordat was duly signed in July.\r\n\r\nWe have heard a number of perfectly interesting points about the disadvantages for Gibraltar from this treaty, but I take the view that we must assume that the points were all considered by Members of the Gibraltar Parliament who still voted unanimously in favour. So the people of Gibraltar are happy with this new arrangement, the Spanish Government are in agreement, and the United Kingdom and the EU, which were the negotiators, are now committed to the treaty.\r\n\r\nOne aspect I have not yet mentioned is the NATO base. In answer to a question I put in the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, confirmed that our local military commanders are entirely content with the new arrangements. The treaty specifically protects the operating autonomy of the UK military facilities in Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nIn conclusion, what is there not to like about this treaty? It has the unanimous support of the Gibraltar Parliament, the Spanish Government, the British Government and the EU institutions. It has my total support. I am sure it will be ratified in the near future by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. It is a very positive development for Gibraltar.","OrderInSection":24,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"D539F622-5E16-4DE7-B898-DD071B8B3834","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AS-AT","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693173,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"17:18:00","OrderInSection":25,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AS-AT","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711179,"MemberId":5007,"AttributedTo":"Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)","Value":"My Lords, I speak as a member of the European Affairs Committee. After we left the European Union, Gibraltar lived on temporary arrangements and, as we have heard, thousands cross from Spain every day to work in Gibraltar. The Chief Minister told our committee that, under the EU’s new entry/exit system, each crossing could have taken 15 to 30 seconds through only two or three lanes. The agreement puts a stop to that and protects the operational autonomy of our military facilities. It was supported unanimously by the Gibraltar Parliament. Many Gibraltarians have family in Spain and, as many in this debate have emphasised, Gibraltar’s economy depends on an effectively functioning frontier. This is equally important, of course, to the Spanish who work in Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nGibraltarians voted by 96%, as we have heard several times, to remain in the European Union, but they also want to remain British Gibraltarians. Offered shared sovereignty with Spain, 17,900 voted against and 187 in favour. The Chief Minister told our committee that the key issue has always been that\r\n\r\n“the exclusively British sovereignty of Gibraltar should not be compromised by one iota”.\r\n\r\nThe noble Lord, Lord Hannay, just told us that he believes that no sovereignty had been conceded, and my noble friend Lord Tugendhat agreed with him. I devote this speech to the key issue of whether British sovereignty is or is not diminished by this agreement.\r\n\r\nThe Government assert that our sovereignty is untouched. As regards legal title, they are correct, but sovereignty is not just about legal title: it is the power to make your own laws, to set your own taxes, tariffs and trade policy, to decide who may enter your territory, and whether and when to leave an arrangement that no longer serves you.\r\n\r\nFirst, on laws, in the areas the agreement covers, Gibraltar must, unless it wishes the agreement to terminate, align its law with the EU’s not only as it stands today but as it is changed in future, with no vote on how these laws will change. I asked in committee whether Gibraltar would be bound by the product aspects of the AI Act, the product liability directive and the cyber resilience Act. The Chief Minister responded that this was “a murky, grey area”. In other words, it is difficult to know. I have written to the Government, again asking this question, and I know that they are working on a reply.\r\n\r\nSecondly, on taxes, Gibraltar’s import duties have been abolished, replaced by a transaction tax whose rate may not fall below the lowest VAT rate in the EU. A joint body with Spain may recommend higher rates where Gibraltar’s are thought to distort trade with Spain. From April 2029, Gibraltar’s excise duty on fuel must be within 6% of Spain’s rates. Therefore, on taxes, sovereignty over a British territory has been lost.\r\n\r\nThirdly, I refer to trade. On Gibraltar’s customs union with the EU affecting British sovereignty, the Minister responded to me that the agreement\r\n\r\n“does not touch on sovereignty at all”.\r\n\r\nHe said, correctly, that Gibraltar was not joining “the” EU customs union but had “a bespoke customs union”. He said that for me to suggest otherwise was “a misrepresentation”. I agree that the two are different, but pointing that out says nothing about whether there has been any loss in sovereignty. It had taken earlier questioning from me for the Minister’s official to confirm that Gibraltar will now be allowed to join the CPTPP only for services, not goods,\r\n\r\n“because they are in a customs union with the EU”.\r\n\r\nStill not addressing my point about sovereignty, the Minister pointed out that it was\r\n\r\n“a customs union that they have chosen to go into”.\r\n\r\nBut the effect is still that, for those goods, Gibraltar now follows EU rules and EU tariffs.\r\n\r\nThe Minister’s official and the Chief Minister both said, in effect, that this does not matter much, because Gibraltar exports almost no goods. But they were speaking about manufacturing and exports, when the real effect, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Redwood, is on imports. On the Government’s own figures, Gibraltar imported some £840 million of goods last year, about a quarter of its GDP. About £360 million of that—43%—came from the United Kingdom.\r\n\r\nUnder the agreement, goods may now be placed on the Gibraltar market only if they meet EU rules, while Gibraltar’s own government guidance says that goods must enter by land. Foods containing the colouring E171 permitted in Great Britain but banned in the EU; drinks with caps not tethered to the bottle; more importantly, phones and headphones without a USB-C port and goods without the CE mark: each can be sold in Britain, but it appears that none can now be sold in Gibraltar. Goods that Britain itself imports from non-EU countries will incur the EU’s tariff in Gibraltar, which tends to be higher than ours—again, increasing what Gibraltarian consumers will have to pay.\r\n\r\nIf British goods must meet EU rules, travel through Spain and be cleared at EU customs posts, the natural supplier becomes the Spanish wholesaler a few miles away. It will be surprising if, within a few years, Britain was still Gibraltar’s main supplier of everyday goods. On trade, I think we can agree that the UK has lost not just sovereignty but a market.\r\n\r\nFourthly, on entry, Spanish officials, as we have heard, now carry out Schengen checks at Gibraltar’s own port and airport. The then Minister, Stephen Doughty, compared this to St Pancras, but at St Pancras the arrangement is reciprocal: British officers check passengers in France. Would the Minister care to say where in Spain British officers will be doing the same? When my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough put it to the Minister that Spain can now object to Gibraltar residence permits, it was not specifically rebutted, although others in this debate believe we can be reassured on that point. It remains to me unclear. Gibraltar’s airport, as we have heard, is to be run as a joint venture. All in all, on entry, we have clearly lost sovereignty.\r\n\r\nFifthly, on exit, the UK, except in the most exceptional circumstances and through the concordat, binds itself not to terminate the agreement unless, as we have heard, that is supported by Gibraltar’s Parliament or people. The Minister told us that the concordat does not have any legal standing so, as my noble friend Lord Frost pointed out, it constrains us but not the other side. Spain, which is not a party, has more room. After the four-year review, a Spanish request would commit the EU to take steps towards terminating the agreement—and we have heard about the upcoming elections in Spain, so we know that this is not set in stone.\r\n\r\nOur chair asked whether that termination right is one-off or recurring. The Minister’s official was “fairly certain” that it was one-off, and undertook to confirm. However, the Minister’s letter to our chairman did not do so. Possibly the Government do not know—but at least once for sure, and possibly thereafter, the EU would be committed to act on a Spanish request to terminate. If Gibraltar declines a new EU law, the agreement terminates, unless the co-operation council agrees an alternative. The EU side again requires Spain’s consent. We have constrained ourselves, Spain has not and, on exit, therefore, our sovereignty is clearly compromised.\r\n\r\nThat is an impressive list of compromises of sovereignty. Gibraltar is now bound more closely to the EU and Spain than to us, with arrangements for the future that will draw it ever further in the direction of the EU. How do the current Government view British sovereignty over our 14 overseas territories, which give our country a presence at the gateway to the Mediterranean, in the South Atlantic, in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere? These are territories that, if populated, are home to British peoples.\r\n\r\nIn May 2025, the Government signed a treaty recognising Mauritian sovereignty over the whole Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, while agreeing to pay some £10 billion in cash over time—£3.4 billion in net present value. That treaty has, thank goodness, stalled and is not yet in force, but it was signed. Argentina has called again for talks on the Falklands, and the Americans say that they may review their position. In one overseas territory, we have agreed to give sovereignty away completely. In a second, we have agreed that a neighbour’s rules will govern its goods and that a neighbour’s consent will be needed to keep the arrangement working. In a third, our position is threatened. Countries that covet any of the remaining 11 territories are watching carefully.\r\n\r\nI have put a series of questions on these points to the Minister in writing, too long to repeat here. I know that his officials are working on them, and I look forward to receiving answers to them. Nothing that I have said today is necessarily an argument against the choice that Gibraltar has made. Rather, it is an argument for honesty about what that choice involves for the UK and its sovereignty, and whether the outcome that is a good thing for British sovereignty. British sovereignty over Gibraltar is much less today than it was a year ago, with a worsening direction of travel. The Committee should be clear about that before this agreement is ratified.","OrderInSection":26,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"89F83CBD-3F6A-40C2-AA31-CDD19BC1D1F6","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AS-AT","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693174,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"17:30:00","OrderInSection":27,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AW-AX","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711180,"MemberId":3809,"AttributedTo":"Lord Bilimoria (CB)","Value":"My Lords, on 10 September, I was proud to attend Gibraltar National Day, along with our Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wood, and a parliamentary delegation. I was there to witness the most impressive speech by the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, who is here with us. It was his last national day—he has been Chief Minister for almost 15 years—and his speech focused on what I think came across as his crowning achievement in his tenure: the completion of the UK-EU agreement in respect of Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nI thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for initiating the debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, for stepping into his shoes today. I first learned about Gibraltar from Field Marshal Sir John Chapple, who was one of my late father Lieutenant General Faridoon Bilimoria’s best friends. They met as Lieutenant Colonels when my father was posted to the UK. They both rose through their respected Armed Forces and both headed up the Gurkhas in the UK and India. John Chapple became Chief of the General Staff and my father, commander-in-chief of the central army in India. After Sir John retired, he was appointed Governor of Gibraltar. That is when I learned about Gibraltar from that great man.\r\n\r\nI am very lucky that the current Governor, Lieutenant General Sir Ben Bathurst, is a friend. I learned from him on the ground the role of a governor. It is not a ceremonial role; it is very much an important functional role of being a diplomat, a bridge between Gibraltar and the UK and commander-in-chief of Gibraltar. I saw first hand that it is a role that is respected by Gibraltarians. In the case of Sir Ben Bathurst, he has excelled in this and built phenomenal relations with the community. I commend him for that. He is supported by his tremendous wife, Kate.\r\n\r\nGibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. It has always been special. It is a special location at the mouth of the Mediterranean. It is a strategic location and has been for centuries, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, very well knows. It is reassuring to know that this treaty does not affect in any way the position of Gibraltar when it comes to the UK and the presence of our Armed Forces—and therefore NATO—in Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nI am chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK and the regional co-ordinator of the ICC in Europe, which covers 35 countries. Gibraltar officially comes under the UK as an overseas territory, but ICC presence is embedded within its chamber of commerce. The ICC is the biggest business organisation in the world, with 45 million businesses. It is well known that Gibraltar has a very strong legal presence; the Chief Minister is a lawyer, and the incoming Chief Minister is a lawyer. The ICC is the world’s number one dispute resolution court, headquartered in Paris; it is regarded as by far the best and the biggest in the world. However, the ICC is also the leading organisation in the world when it comes to trade. It has a seat at the WTO and observer status at the UN, the World Bank and the IMF.\r\n\r\nI was doing some research: in the Brexit debates that we had, I spoke about Gibraltar three times. In 2017, when we were talking about,\r\n\r\n“no deal … is better than a bad deal”,\r\n\r\nI said that,\r\n\r\n“Gibraltar has suddenly come up”.—[Official Report, 4/4/17; col. 1030.]\r\n\r\nLater on, I spoke about a “blind Brexit” and warned that,\r\n\r\n“Spain is already talking about having a veto over Gibraltar”.—[Official Report, 20/11/18; col. 219.]\r \r\n\r\nIn 2019, in the debate on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, I warned of a “blindfold Brexit” and said that,\r\n\r\n“the subject of Spain and Gibraltar has been brought up”.—[Official Report, 14/1/19; col. 42.]\r\n\r\nGibraltar is an overseas territory and therefore left the European Union when we withdrew on 31 January 2020. Importantly, Gibraltar was not included in the scope of the TCA, which is why this agreement is so important. This treaty replaces the routine land border checks with relocated border controls at Gibraltar Airport—I take the point from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about queues, and I am sure they are being addressed—supported by co-operation, information sharing and targeted safeguards. On goods, the treaty substitutes frontier checks with a trading framework including goods, movements, customs and taxation. It allows trade to flow without permanent border infrastructure while ensuring that the integrity of both parties’ markets is maintained. On security and policing, the treaty introduces co-operation mechanisms that enable risks to be managed effectively without reliance on a land border, so there is a fluid land border between Gibraltar and Spain.\r\n\r\nIt is important that people cleared at the airport are now able to travel freely between Gibraltar, Spain and the wider Schengen area and that—this point has not been stressed enough—UK military personnel entering Gibraltar will not be subject to Schengen checks. This will enable our facilities to continue their important operations without interference or interruption. The posting of UK military personnel to serve in Gibraltar with their families will not depend on Schengen border checks, as is the case now, and the UK will decide who will serve in Gibraltar. So much for sovereignty.\r\n\r\nLet us put Gibraltar into perspective. It has a population of just 38,000 people, compared with our total population of 70 million. Its GDP is £3 billion compared with our £3 trillion, but GDP per head in Gibraltar is £81,000 and our GDP per head is £43,000, so Gibraltar’s GDP is almost double ours. Inflation is roughly the same.\r\n\r\nThere are seven registered Gibraltarians who are unemployed, compared to our unemployment of almost 4.9%. Our debt as a percentage of GDP is approaching 100%, but Gibraltar’s is 21%. Its corporation tax is 15% and ours is 25%. Here is the thing: Gibraltar runs a budget surplus. It does not cost the UK anything; it is an asset to the UK not only as a strategic defence location but economically. It is in no way a burden to the UK, in any sense of the word. It is a small, rich, UK-facing services economy whose labour, goods and visitors come through Spain. Output per head is nearly double the UK’s, and it has four sectors—gaming, shipping, insurance and financial services—much of which is with the UK.\r\n\r\nGibraltar’s economy runs on the frontier and is dependent on this free flow of people. Residents of Spain hold 44% of all jobs and 55% of private sector jobs. Some 15,860 registered frontier workers cross daily. Daily visitors from Spain provide 73% of the £300 million of visitor spending. Gibraltar says that it buys about €1 billion from Spain and generates one-quarter of Campo de Gibraltar’s GDP. By the way, that area next door to Gibraltar has the highest unemployment rate of any Spanish city at 29%.\r\n\r\nWhen it comes to before and after Brexit, inside the EU Gibraltar’s financial firms could passport into EU markets outside the customs union and Schengen. As many noble Lords said, Gibraltar voted 95.9% to remain in the European Union. Passporting ended on 31 December 2020, and Gibraltar was left out of the trade and co-operation agreement. Five years of this disruptive informal arrangement could not have been of benefit to anybody.\r\n\r\nPeople are talking about flashpoints now, such as Spanish officers, the power of the airport and the 90-day or 180-day rule. Can the Minister provide some clarity on that? Dynamic alignment with the European Court of Justice and Spain’s termination lever after four years are issues that we need to look at. The Chief Minister said that no one cleared by Gibraltar has been refused entry by Spain to date. Could Can confirm that that is the case? Can he confirm that this treaty will be extended to cover services, as we have done with the Switzerland agreement, for example? It does not cover services at the moment. We have also heard that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the UK will not end the treaty unless three-quarters of Gibraltar’s Parliament or a majority in a referendum support that.\r\n\r\nOn the cost of failure, David Lammy warned in June 2025 that a hard border would place pressure ultimately on the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill. With no agreement covering Gibraltar at the end of the transition, it lost its passporting rights. One example is Bet365, one of our successful companies, which had already moved many of its 500-strong Gibraltar operations to Malta in 2019, citing Brexit uncertainty. Martin Sandbu of the Financial Times argued in July that:\r\n\r\n“Gibraltar, like Northern Ireland, has been left inside the bloc the UK left”,\r\n\r\nand,\r\n\r\n“if it’s good for the Gibraltarians, why not for all UK citizens?”\r\n\r\nThe UK Government ends up seeking closer alignment, and Prime Minister Andy Burnham is talking about plans for a softer Brexit—this is what has been suggested by the Financial Times—which applies to Northern Ireland, not Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nThe Chief Minister replied that the treaty is in fact “a model” for the UK, in effect a common travel area with Schengen, with residents exempt from entry-exit systems, but no freedom of establishment for EU citizens —mobility without free movement. It is worth evangelising. The 1.2 kilometre fence has been removed, frontier workers can now move freely without any checks and 90% of arrivals go on to holiday in southern Spain. Freight dipped for a while and is now back up to 250 to 300 lorries. Where financial services are concerned, we have 37 general insurers, and 40% of UK insurance policies are written by Gibraltar insurers. This is important to our economy. Gibraltar supported the equivalent of 24% of Campo jobs, earning £102 million with a £65 million spend this year, so it is worth it for the Spanish as well. Let us look at the visitor numbers: there were 9.82 million arrivals in 2025. To put that into context, our tourism is 44 million for the whole of the UK, and we are one of the biggest recipients of tourism. This little place gets 9.82 million people—9.26 million by land, 368,000 by sea and 188,000 by air—and they spent £300 million, with day visitors from Spain spending £218 million of that. Trade with the UK is £5 billion in total.\r\n\r\nI co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on India. The UK-India trade agreement was signed on 24 July 2025 and came into force—wait for this date—on 15 July 2026, the same day as this agreement. Its side letters on territorial extension commit only to discussions on extending the services provisions to the Crown dependencies. Gibraltar is not mentioned. Can the Minister clarify whether it can apply to Gibraltar and whether Gibraltar could join the CPTPP’s services chapter? We are now a full member of the CPTPP, but not for goods. Could the Minister clarify that?\r\n\r\nI conclude that the UK’s double lock is no transfer of sovereignty against Gibraltar’s freely and democratically expressed wishes and no sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. The freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar are paramount. Gibraltar wants this deal. Gibraltar appreciates this deal. We are proud of Gibraltar. We are lucky to have Gibraltar as part of the United Kingdom.","OrderInSection":28,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"237D7071-7BD0-4204-BFF9-1A25D74123E7","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AW-AX","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693175,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"17:43:00","OrderInSection":29,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"AY-AZ","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711181,"MemberId":4293,"AttributedTo":"Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)","Value":"My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I associate myself with all his remarks and the questions that he raised. I, like others, thank the committee for its work in scrutinising the treaty, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, for opening the debate and deputising so well for the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I mean no disrespect to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, but I find it reassuring, given the fact that I when visit tricky places I am often met by a diplomat rather than a military person, so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, took on this role today.\r\n\r\nLike others, I also wish to thank the veritable who’s who, and who was who, in Gibraltar who have been with us today in the Moses Room and pay tribute to the ministerial team and the Administration of the Chief Minister. The partnership that he has with the Deputy Chief Minister Joseph Garcia has been a model of partnership working and has helped to build the consensus that we saw in the Parliament of Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nI also pay tribute to the many officials and the support that the Chief Minister referred to yesterday evening at the reception marking Gibraltar National Day here in London. I would like to put on record that Jonathan Scott, the head of mission for the Government of Gibraltar in London, and his predecessor Dominique Searle, have been a model of interacting with and briefing parliamentarians. I have often found that our Whitehall Government could perhaps learn lessons from the Government of Gibraltar in offering timely, effective and prescient briefings. That was the experience leading up to the negotiation and conclusion of the treaty, but we have also seen the hard work of the Government of Gibraltar on the treaty’s provisional application since 15 July. We know that this treaty will serve its intended purpose only if it is properly implemented, and that takes a lot of time, effort and co-ordination between officials here in the UK and in Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nLike other noble Lords in this debate, I have had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar both before and after the Brexit referendum. On my pre-referendum visit, it was outlined to me in clear terms what would be the likely implications for the economy, cross-border frontier working, care, education and tourism if the UK chose to leave the EU. On my post-referendum visit it was little consolation to learn that all that was warned of had happened. The committee’s report rightly stated that Gibraltar has had to balance, in effect, the dual choice about its sovereignty: a vote of 99% of Gibraltarians to stay British and a vote of 96% to stay in the European Union. For some speaking in the debate today, that has been a clear-cut issue, but I think it has been more complex. That is perhaps why it has taken a number of years to ameliorate the impact of the referendum. In fact, a decade on from the referendum and five years on from the exit agreement, we are now finally debating this treaty today, so the suggestion that this has all been rushed and forced on the people of Gibraltar is slightly wide of the mark.\r\n\r\nBefore I continue, I wish to put on record my absolute agreement—I am sure they will be delighted to hear this—with the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Jackson, that the CRaG process is not fit for purpose. They did not have votes in the Lords at the time, but they supported the previous Government who rejected my amendment to the Trade Act to have up and down votes on treaties and trade agreements. In fact, that amendment was passed by this House and rejected by the previous Conservative Governments. But I am sure that their party leadership has heard of their repentance—there is no better place than the Moses Room for noble Lords to repent. I am glad that they are now with me in wanting to remove the barricades to improvements to the CRaG process.\r\n\r\nThere has been some debate today about whether this will undermine part of Brexit, or whether it is the final stage of it. Last week in the House of Commons, the leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, said that the Prime Minister\r\n\r\n“is not going to get a better deal””—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/26; col. 26.]\r\n\r\non Brexit. However, now that we are having to resolve this for Gibraltar, as well as the outstanding issues to do with the Falklands and the ongoing issues with the Windsor Framework and the Northern Ireland process, the reality is, of course, that it was a bad deal. Indeed, Gibraltar has had to work very hard to make adjustments to ameliorate some of the challenges that it created. The complications of the Brexit agreement in the Gibraltar context have to be added to the delicate diplomatic relationship with Spain. Sadly, Gibraltar has had direct experience of the economic and personal consequences of frontier disruption.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the priority has been to ensure timely, enforceable safeguards should there be a political dispute. Even though we may wish for it not to happen or for them not to be needed, they are essential mechanisms. I welcome the dispute resolution mechanisms in the treaty and the UK-Gibraltar concordat signed on 14 July, which adds a lock on termination, if needed, to protect the decision-making autonomy of the Parliament and the people of Gibraltar. This is essential; we all hope that it will not be needed, but nevertheless it has to be in place.\r\n\r\nThe benefits accruing from this treaty are economic and social. Of course, the impact of Brexit was palpable, and this is where I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Redwood, in particular. I think that they have slightly misread the fact that Gibraltar was seeking to both correct the challenges of Brexit and make sure there was prosperity for the future. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, seem to suggest that there was a huge differential between being part of the European Union customs union and not being part. The reality is that the EU-applied mean tariff around the world is 1.39%. The equivalent in the UK is 1.13%. There is a marginal difference between the tariff rates that the EU and the UK operate post Brexit. Post Brexit, the UK has trading relationships with 73 countries and the European Union with 70 partner countries. But the critical aspect is that the EU is the world’s largest single trade bloc, with 16% of world trade. I wish the UK were part of that trade bloc. I am rather envious of my friends in Gibraltar being part of it. Gibraltarian trade and services being part of that trade bloc is not a disadvantage but potentially an advantage, but it is up to the authorities in Gibraltar to make it work.\r\n\r\nThe most important aspect that we have heard in the debate today, which I think got it wrong, was the indication that sovereignty meant the complete and utter control of all our services. But the reality for Gibraltar, as we have heard elsewhere in the debate, is that over 15,000 workers from Spain travel into Gibraltar daily. This is half the workforce. When it comes to health and care services, it is 3,000 workers a day--some 70% of workers. It is okay from the House of Lords to say that we think that Gibraltar has signed away sovereignty, but when 70% of your care sector operates across a frontier, you have to work with partners pragmatically and sensibly. That is exactly what the treaty is designed to do, and I am glad that the negotiations have been carried out so effectively.\r\n\r\nIt does, however, mean that I have some questions for the Minister. Some lead directly on from those of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about the interaction we will have with any further UK agreements when it comes to services, because they will now, I presume, require Gibraltar chapters. If that is the case, I hope that, as with this agreement, the Government and Parliament of Gibraltar are included in any of the negotiations, and we establish a negotiation mandate which would then include them. We really want to avoid the absolute nonsense of the previous Government when they forgot to include the Falklands in the negotiation mandate on Brexit at all—so much for sovereignty there.\r\n\r\nWhen it comes to dispute resolution, I hope that the Minister might be able to say—in a situation we would not welcome but nevertheless where it may be necessary—how urgently these dispute resolution mechanisms can be applied in the event of disruption on the frontier. Have we made it clear diplomatically to our EU partners that the UK would not hesitate to act at speed if there was disruption? There is little point in having a dispute resolution mechanism that will take a considerable time given the scale of the daily crossings and the essential nature for the Gibraltar care and retail services of those workers crossing the frontier.\r\n\r\nOf course, we want good co-operation, and it is welcome that the co-operation council is established to oversee the agreement’s operation, co-chaired by a UK Minister and a member of the European Commission. But given that it can make binding decisions as well as non-binding recommendations and amend the agreement itself, can the Minister confirm that the Gibraltar authorities, Ministers and officials will form part of the UK delegation to the co-operation council? How will the co-operation council interact with Parliament? We have under the TCA the parliamentary relationship—what interaction will there be within the two Parliaments over this?\r\n\r\nI wish to pick up a point made well by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with regard to the issues that have arisen since provisional application. My understanding is that some Gibraltar residents have been wrongly registered on the EU entry and exit scheme since 15 July. What measures are being taken to ensure that Gibraltar residents are not delayed or refused entry while these records are corrected? I hope that this is a temporary mechanism and that it can be resolved very swiftly.\r\n\r\nFinally, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said that in his view this was the last loose end of Brexit being tied up—but we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that this now starts to unravel Brexit. I think that neither is right. We have to ensure that the worst elements of the Brexit agreement are reduced. Gibraltarians have had to find a pragmatic and practical solution to address a set of problems which they did not create or want. I commend their work, and we have in the UK Parliament and in the Government in Whitehall a duty to support them, not to second-guess them, and to work hard to ensure that the treaty and the concordat are implemented effectively.","OrderInSection":30,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"488C853D-9BC9-4C21-A703-F0A1F4A6C8A9","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"AY-AZ","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693176,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"17:57:00","OrderInSection":31,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"BA-BB","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711182,"MemberId":4336,"AttributedTo":"Lord Callanan (Con)","Value":"My Lords, I also start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, for so successfully and cogently introducing the debate on behalf of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and I thank the committee for its diligent work in scrutinising this agreement. I also welcome the Gibraltar Chief Minister to our debate today.\r\n\r\nWe recognise the significant challenges that have been faced by Gibraltarian residents and businesses in the years prior to this agreement; it is clear that post-Brexit arrangements with the European Union needed to be finalised. The Government have come to this agreement with the support of the Government of Gibraltar, and we on these Benches respect that. Like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I have visited Gibraltar in a personal capacity since the new agreement came into force provisionally, and she is right about the terrible queues at Gibraltar airport. One of the great things about going to Gibraltar previously was that you were straight in—passport control took seconds. I hope that the frictions that we are now seeing are only temporary. It was right at the start of the agreement, and I am sure that the Gibraltar and Spanish authorities will be working together to change that, because it was not a good experience.\r\n\r\nWe also welcome the fact that the agreement makes no change to the UK’s unquestioned sovereignty over Gibraltar. In that context, as I said, we do not oppose the agreement, but I take the opportunity of our debate today to press the Government on some of its practical effects.\r\n\r\nUnder the agreement, Spanish authorities will have responsibility, as has been said by a number of Members, for Schengen area border checks at the airport and indeed at the port, removing the need for checks at the land border, which have been a serious concern for residents and businesses—indeed, when I was there, the land border had completely disappeared and you could walk across easily into La Línea. The fact that the Spanish authorities will be managing border checks raises some important questions. While I appreciate that law enforcement remains the sole responsibility of the Gibraltarian authorities, Spanish border guards will operate at crossings established at Gibraltar’s port and airport. Will the Minister confirm that those Spanish border guards will be prohibited, for instance, from carrying weapons?\r\n\r\nAs part of the preparatory work ahead of the conclusion of this treaty, Ministers will no doubt have undertaken impact assessments on the effect of border checks managed by Spain. Will the Minister confirm how many British nationals per year the Government believe could be denied entry to Gibraltar by Spanish authorities? I understand that so far none has, but I wonder whether the Government have any estimate of what might happen in an average year. What recourse will be available to those nationals who are then denied entry? I find it peculiar that apparently the Gibraltarian authorities would be able to allow them to enter Gibraltar if the Spanish authorities have denied them entry, because then there would be nothing to stop them travelling onward into the rest of the Schengen area. I think we should be given some clarification.\r\n\r\nOn disagreements and recourse, Part 6 of the treaty establishes a dispute resolution mechanism between the UK and Spain that facilitates a resolution of any dispute that may arise as a result of Spanish administration of the border checks. How would the Minister respond to the comments of the Gibraltar opposition leader, Keith Azopardi, that the concordat between London and Gibraltar on dealing with future issues that could arise from the agreement falls short of his expectation?\r\n\r\nThe elements of the agreement that touch on business, trade and taxation in Gibraltar also deserve close scrutiny. I know that a number of Members have also posed these questions. Will the Minister explain which businesses were consulted when agreeing that Spain would get a joint say over Gibraltarian VAT and excise rates? Have the Government made any assessment of how the level playing field aspect of the treaty could impact trade and co-operation between the UK and Gibraltar?\r\n\r\nOn defence, did the Minister consult with the Armed Forces’ leadership in Gibraltar prior to the conclusion of the agreement to ensure that our service people can still carry out their duties with kit not subject to Spanish export controls? The agreement also establishes a financial mechanism to promote cohesion between Gibraltar and Campo de Gibraltar under Article 299. How much taxpayers’ money—or, rather, Gibraltarian taxpayers’ money—do the Government plan to send to the EU through that mechanism? Will the Minister also confirm what share of the cost of this financial mechanism Spain is shouldering?\r\n\r\nThere is also a longer-term impact of the treaty that we should consider, as my noble friend Lord Jackson indicated. The new residence criteria were announced and, as my noble friend also said, one now has to earn £37,500 per annum and be under 55, which means that many young Britons cannot move to Gibraltar to work. If we add that to the 90-day rule, it makes it almost impossible for a young Briton to go there for any significant period or to relocate unless they are extremely well paid.\r\n\r\nPrior to these new rules, pensioners could also move if they moved their pension; now it is almost impossible for pensioners to move to Gibraltar. At the same time, of course, Spanish and EU nationals can go any time, for as long or as short a time as they like, with no restrictions. The new residency rules will mean that Britons have much less favourable terms of access and employment than EU nationals.\r\n\r\nGiven that reality and those circumstances, can the Minister say what changes the Government expect to see in the long-term nationality make-up of Gibraltar? If the Government envisage that Gibraltar will become home to significantly more Spanish nationals over time, what impact might that have in any future discussions on UK sovereignty over the Rock? Many of these issues will play out over years to come. I am reminded of the famous quote from Chairman Mao when he was asked about the effects of the French Revolution: he said that it was still too early to say.\r\n\r\nThis is a very complex agreement that will have a significant impact on the future of Gibraltar, for many years to come, far beyond the short-term benefits of smoother trade and border arrangements with the EU. As I said at the outset, we do not oppose this treaty, given the broader context of the unanimous support from the Parliament of Gibraltar. However, I believe that Ministers must be clear-eyed about the impact of the treaty and the risk of future attempts to undermine British sovereignty over Gibraltar, given those effects.","OrderInSection":32,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"B4F824CA-CB02-4C22-998A-D90F7DF2DA70","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BA-BB","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693177,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"18:04:00","OrderInSection":33,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"BD-BD","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711183,"MemberId":4217,"AttributedTo":"The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Wood of Anfield) (Lab)","Value":"My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am sorry, but there were so many questions that I am not going to be able to answer all of them. I will try to get through as many as I can, and I am sure that I will be able to get back to noble Lords on others.\r\n\r\nI am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, for securing this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, for introducing it. I pay tribute to noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, as chair of the European Affairs Committee, which has scrutinised this agreement with characteristic rigour and care. I am grateful for the contributions of other noble Lords, and I will try to respond. I have lots of scrawl on my paper, so if I have to peer at my small handwriting, forgive me for a couple of seconds’ pause. I will try to respond to as many points as I can.\r\n\r\nI pay particular tribute to noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who I know have had long positive engagement with Gibraltar over many years. Both of them are highly valued by the people in Gibraltar who I met when I went for Gibraltar National Day.\r\n\r\nI was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the issues raised here with the committee on 15 September, alongside the valuable evidence that it received from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, to whom I also pay tribute for all his hard work in securing this treaty.\r\n\r\nAs noble Lords know, the UK-EU agreement in respect of Gibraltar was signed by the UK and the EU on 14 July and has been provisionally applied since 15 July. The agreement brings certainty and predictability to Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU after years of uncertainty following the UK’s departure from the EU. It provides a stable framework for Gibraltar’s future relationship with the EU, while fully guarding British sovereignty, in my view, and the operational autonomy of the UK military facility. The agreement delivers the removal of physical barriers at the Gibraltar-Spain border. It supports the free circulation of people and goods and provides certainty for the nearly 15,000 people who cross the frontier each day for work. It also protects Gibraltar’s economy. I again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for so vividly painting the picture of the character of the Gibraltar economy and the way in which its dynamics work. The agreement also protects the Gibraltar way of life while strengthening co-operation with the European Union and Spain.\r\n\r\nI will come back later to the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, which are a fascinating insight into the theology of Brexit, but I am surprised that someone who is so renowned as an apostle of free markets and open trade should be so sceptical about Gibraltar, a territory that has chosen a free trade agreement with its neighbour, but there we go.\r\n\r\nMuch of the day-to-day implementation of the agreement is being led by His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, working closely with the United Kingdom, Spain and the European Commission. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and a couple of others remarked, there have been some teething implementation problems. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned his trip. When I went to the airport, I was in and out within five minutes. Perhaps they knew that I was coming and that I was going to stand here and talk about it. There have definitely been teething issues. There is no doubt about it. I think everyone would admit that. They are getting better because of daily co-operation between the authorities. Their co-operation is required to make this work. It is progressing well, with thousands of people crossing the land border each day without interruption.\r\n\r\nOn parliamentary scrutiny, the Government recognise the close interest that Parliament has rightly taken in this agreement. We published the draft text well before signature, laid the final agreement before Parliament in accordance with the CRaG Act and have continued to engage with parliamentarians—I hope that noble Lords agree—throughout this process. I was pleased to give evidence to the European Affairs Committee last month alongside the Chief Minister. Today’s debate has been an important moment for noble Lords to scrutinise this agreement. We remain firmly of the view that this agreement provides the best available outcome for Gibraltar, fully protects sovereignty and defence interests and commands the support of the Government of Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nA few noble Lords have mentioned the concordat, namely the agreement of 14 July setting out how the UK and Gibraltar will manage the treaty between them. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her kind remarks about that. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, invited me to speculate on Gibraltarian opposition to the concordat. He will understand, I am sure, that I do not want to speculate on opposition views either here or elsewhere. He asked me about updates to the treaty. Any significant updates will of course be provided to Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked whether this treaty will extend to services. The answer is no, it will not extend to services.\r\n\r\nSince provisional application began on 15 July, implementation has progressed well. His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar have led an extensive programme of legislative, operational and infrastructure changes. The UK has fully supported this work alongside implementation on the other side by the European Commission and Spain. As the Committee heard, both we and the Chief Minister are pleased with the progress made so far and the benefits the agreement is already delivering for Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nI was struck when the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, talked about the experience of Gibraltar during the Franco years, and the contrast between a Gibraltar that is open to its neighbour and one that is closed off.\r\n\r\nThe agreement is already providing greater certainty for Gibraltar’s economy, preserving fluid movement across the border and increasing confidence among businesses and investors. Most of all, it provides a stable long-term framework for Gibraltar’s relationship in the future with the European Union.\r\n\r\nMost visibly, the removal of routine checks at the Gibraltar-Spain land border is already delivering tangible benefits for workers, residents and businesses on both sides of the frontier. I will return to the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, later, but I think his characterisation of the experience across the land border is a world away from the experience of Gibraltarians and people who work in Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nAs expected with a treaty this complex, there have been some operational issues, as I say, with implementation but I can assure noble Lords these are being addressed through the channels of communication between military officers, the police and other authorities. I saw this myself when I visited Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nWe continue to work in lockstep with His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar to support implementation and mitigate practical issues as they arise. Full ratification of the treaty will provide an additional degree of certainty and permanence for the people and businesses of Gibraltar and Spain that depend on the agreement every day.\r\n\r\nOne of the agreement’s most significant benefits is the removal of routine immigration checks—about which many noble Lords asked—at Gibraltar’s land border with Spain. This is crucial for the 15,000 people who cross the frontier every day and crucial for Gibraltar’s economy and the prosperity of the wider region. To deliver these benefits while maintaining a fluid border, passengers arriving at Gibraltar Airport undergo, as noble Lords have said, dual immigration controls. As a result, visitors are able to travel onwards into Spain without further checks.\r\n\r\nThe noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked whether someone denied entry into Schengen would be allowed entry into Gibraltar. In most cases, Gibraltar will recognise Spanish decisions. It can, however, for reasons of, say, humanitarian concerns, in exceptional circumstances allow people into Gibraltar who are rejected by Schengen. This provision applies within the Schengen area to individual countries more generally. Gibraltar residents can always be permitted entry. Time spent in Gibraltar counts towards the EU’s 90 in 180-day rule for non-resident visitors.\r\n\r\nI should also have said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that there is no restriction on rest-of-world flights to and from Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nHis Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar have been clear that the significant economic and social benefits of a fluid border outweigh the limitations that these rules impose. As the Chief Minister told the committee, ensuring fluidity at the frontier was the most important issue facing Gibraltar after Brexit, and the agreement provides the solution that Gibraltar sought.\r\n\r\nThe noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Jackson, asked whether the treaty will discourage British citizens from becoming Gibraltar residents. To be clear, the treaty does not require Gibraltar to impose new residency criteria. As is the case today, residency requirements, including the minimum income threshold that noble Lords mentioned of £37,500 and other eligibility criteria, are not decisions of the UK Government. They are decisions of His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar. They are not obligations created by the treaty.\r\n\r\nThe noble Lord, Lord Jackson, raised a number of concerns about residency. I respectfully say to him that he needs to speak to the Chief Minister, as these are rules chosen by the people of Gibraltar and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would respect the democratic wishes of the Government of Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nTo ensure that young British people are not excluded from moving to Gibraltar, Gibraltar has also introduced an exemption for applicants under 30, as a couple of noble Lords mentioned. Under that exemption, the £37,500 minimum income requirement may be waived. These are all matters for the Chief Minister and his team, but as the Chief Minister made clear to the European Affairs Committee, there is\r\n\r\n“absolutely no question of a British person who wants to work in Gibraltar … not being able to come into Gibraltar as a result of this treaty”.\r\n\r\nOn the question of the customs union, it is “a” customs union, not “the” customs union. It is a freely chosen alignment that the people of Gibraltar, through their representatives, have made.","OrderInSection":34,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"60057E71-364F-4229-A75B-0D94F40F0E75","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BD-BD","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711184,"MemberId":4336,"AttributedTo":"Lord Callanan (Con)","Value":"If I may, I will ask the Minister a question about that, as I am perhaps not understanding it. He said that there is no question of a British person not being able to go and work freely in Gibraltar. Surely, if you are only a British passport holder, you will be subject at least to the 90 days out of the 180-day Schengen limit, so therefore you would not be able to work on a long-term basis. Is that right?","OrderInSection":35,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"98DD93A8-E12B-44DC-9040-11562567F5E8","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BF-BF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711185,"MemberId":4217,"AttributedTo":"Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)","Value":"I am not sure what the noble Lord is referring to, but the general point is that there is nothing in the treaty which offers additional restrictions. Nothing in the treaty has that impact.\r\n\r\nGibraltar has chosen to join a customs union; it has not joined “the” customs union. This is a freely chosen alignment which has consequences in the way that any contract or treaty choice does. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, raised a separate point about the exposure of Gibraltar’s economy to the rest of the world. Almost all of Gibraltar’s imports are from the UK or the European Union. Most UK goods are tariff-free. Gibraltar does not import from the world in the way that the noble Lord suggested. The general point about a customs union is that Gibraltar has made a choice. The people of Gibraltar made a choice about a customs arrangement with the European Union and the properties of that are the responsibility of the people of Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nThe noble Lord, Lord Barrow, raised the question of the military base. Protecting the operational autonomy of the UK’s military facilities in Gibraltar was another core objective throughout the negotiations. This agreement protects that autonomy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, eloquently explained, and allows our facilities to continue their vital contribution to regional security and prosperity. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved in the negotiations, and we have the full backing of the Defence Secretary on this agreement. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, rightly pointed to the support and enthusiasm that local military personnel have for the arrangements and the co-operation that has flowed from them as a result of the implementation of this treaty.\r\n\r\nMore broadly, the agreement fully protects the UK’s core interests in Gibraltar, including on sovereignty, jurisdiction and defence. Let me be clear: sovereignty was never on the table during the negotiations. It is not affected by the agreement. Article 2 expressly provides that the agreement does not affect the respective sovereignty positions of the UK and Spain. This treaty cannot be used to challenge those positions.\r\n\r\nThe Government have also remained steadfast in their commitment to the double lock. We will 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, nor will we enter into sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar were closely involved at every stage of the negotiations, and the agreement has the unanimous support of the Gibraltar Parliament.","OrderInSection":36,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"EFAFEC56-89BA-4EF8-8DE8-9ABDC90F30D0","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BF-BF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711186,"MemberId":1551,"AttributedTo":"Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)","Value":"If I may, I briefly intervene—I hope the Minister will forgive me if he intends to write to me on this—about the issue I raised about Articles 22 and 23. In what circumstances does he envisage the co-operation council—or, indeed, any other specialised committees—invoking its powers to substantially alter the agreement?","OrderInSection":37,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"1AA334DB-CBAD-4283-8915-97C448054001","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BF-BF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711187,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":null,"Value":"","OrderInSection":38,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":"hs_ColumnNumber","HansardSection":null,"UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711188,"MemberId":4217,"AttributedTo":"Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)","Value":"I am very happy to continue a conversation about the specifics, but I will not speculate on the future conditions under which the council may or may not decide something. I am happy to continue a conversation about that another time. Our basic approach remains nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nThe noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Moynihan, raised the ability of the Spanish to terminate the treaty. Articles 65 and 66 establish a separate review mechanism for the circulation of persons arrangements. Article 65 requires an evaluation of those arrangements no later than four years after entry into force. Following that review, Article 66 provides a specific termination mechanism that becomes available.\r\n\r\nFollowing the four-year review, the UK or the EU can decided to terminate the agreement. Spain may also request that the European Union pursue termination of the agreement. However, Spain cannot itself terminate the agreement; Spain is not a party to the treaty. To be clear, Article 66 gives Spain a particular role in this four-year review; it is a one-off, once-invoked review mechanism, after four years. It is not recurrent. That should not be confused with a unilateral power to terminate it because Spain cannot issue a notice of termination.","OrderInSection":40,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"734D80FC-98C1-4C6E-BE7E-0EC741A45255","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BF-BF","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711189,"MemberId":5007,"AttributedTo":"Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)","Value":"Surely if Spain wishes to terminate, the EU has said that it will follow Spain’s request. That is the point that this side has made. The Minister is correct in the letter of the law, but I do not believe that he is correct when it comes to the working of the agreement.","OrderInSection":41,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"EB42E2B0-7F52-49F0-AFAB-DF3209542AAE","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BG-BG","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711190,"MemberId":4217,"AttributedTo":"Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)","Value":"We can discuss that further. I am stipulating the terms of the treaty, and the suggestion that there is a Spanish veto is technically not correct.\r\n\r\nOn money, it is not true that the UK is making a contribution nor is it true that there is a contribution to cohesion payments. There is a joint fund, set up with Gibraltar money and Spanish money; it is up to the Gibraltarians to decide how much money will be spent on this. I do not know the amounts, but that is not for me to decide; it is a matter for Gibraltar.\r\n\r\nOn trade, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the extension of trade terms to other free trade associations. We can request the extension of any free trade agreement to Gibraltar for services, and we will of course have discussions with Gibraltar in the normal way on any agreement, such as that with India; there is no technical problem on that front.\r\n\r\nOn the Spanish position and Spanish elections, some noble Lords have raised concerns about the forthcoming elections and how they could affect the agreement. Earlier this month, of course, the Spanish Prime Minister announced a snap general election for 29 November. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on the outcome of that election, nor would I take up the kind invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, to speculate on pressure that might result from future occupants in power in Spain. However, the starting point is that this is a UK-EU agreement that provides a stable, long-term framework for Gibraltar’s relationship with the European Union which delivers practical benefits, not only for Gibraltar, but for communities and businesses across the wider region in Spain. It also resolves the remaining issue of Brexit with the EU, which is of significant mutual benefit to Gibraltar and Spain, whoever takes power. Shared interests will remain, whatever the outcome of the election.\r\n\r\nBefore I conclude, I have a couple of reflections on the character of the arguments being suggested by noble Lords who, coincidentally, are sitting in a group who share a sovereignty-dominated perspective from a Brexit background. There are three really striking characteristics of the arguments that the noble Lords, Lord Redwood, Lord Moynihan, Lord Jackson and Lord Frost, put forward—actually that applies more to the first three than the noble Lord, Lord Frost. First, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, put his finger on this: there is a sense that, somehow, we in the UK know what is best for Gibraltarians better than they do. Secondly, there is a fascinating tension which, with my academic hat on I suggest has been characteristic of the Conservative party for a number of years, between constitutional nationalism and free-market liberalism. This is an issue where these two principles collide, and we have heard that in some of the comments today. Thirdly, and I respect the fact that noble Lords who are not happy with some of the terms of the agreement have not said that they are in favour of ripping it up, the idea that there is a better treaty out there than this which would not result in greater isolation for Gibraltar is frankly fanciful.\r\n\r\nI conclude by underlining that the provisional application of this treaty is an important milestone for Gibraltar. It provides a stable framework for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU. It fully safeguards British sovereignty and the operational autonomy of British Forces Gibraltar. It is a long-term solution to one of the most significant outstanding issues arising from the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU—and, in passing, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, about why that solution probably was not possible a few years ago.\r\n\r\nWe will continue to work closely with His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, the EU institutions and Spain to ensure the treaty’s full ratification and effective implementation. Our objective is simple: to continue to provide the people and businesses of Gibraltar with the certainty, stability and opportunity that they deserve, while protecting the interests, sovereignty and security of the United Kingdom.","OrderInSection":42,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"13547BB3-E7C8-4DE2-A154-8B917DF16362","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BG-BG","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Timestamp","ItemId":3693178,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":"","Value":"18:25:00","OrderInSection":43,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":null,"HRSTag":null,"HansardSection":"BH-BH","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711191,"MemberId":5410,"AttributedTo":"Lord Barrow (CB)","Value":"I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and those who have listened. I think this validates the decision of the committee, led by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, to put this to debate. I think the debate has been enriched by having our Gibraltarian friends with us. Certainly, in the negotiation, from my perspective, they worked absolutely hand in glove. Finally, I just add my voice to all those who have congratulated all the officials, around the whole table, who brought this negotiation to conclusion. That was an undertaking which, as I said before, was not a given.","OrderInSection":44,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"4FFD9FB9-1702-4EEC-BACB-1E7E48C822BE","HRSTag":"hs_para","HansardSection":"BH-BH","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711192,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":null,"Value":"Motion agreed.","OrderInSection":45,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"261020107000203","HRSTag":"hs_Procedure","HansardSection":"BH-BH","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false},{"ItemType":"Contribution","ItemId":50711193,"MemberId":null,"AttributedTo":null,"Value":"Committee adjourned at 6.26 pm.","OrderInSection":46,"Timecode":null,"ExternalId":"261020107000204","HRSTag":"hs_Procedure","HansardSection":"BH-BH","UIN":null,"IsReiteration":false}],"ChildDebates":[]}