Gibraltar
387. In the Foreign Affairs Committee's most
recent Report on Gibraltar, published in July 2003, our predecessors
recommended that the FCO should withdraw its then joint sovereignty
proposal in favour of establishing normal and co-operative relations
between Spain and Gibraltar; and that the Government should invite
the government of Gibraltar to participate in any further talks
on the future of Gibraltar, whether or not under the Brussels
process (see Part Two for more details).[613]
388. In October 2004 Spain and the UK agreed
to consider and consult further on how to establish a new forum
for dialogue on Gibraltar, with an open agenda, in which Gibraltar
would have its own voice. On 18 September 2006, the first Trilateral
Ministerial meeting was held in Cordoba. This resulted in the
Cordoba Agreement, which concluded that:
- a single larger airport terminal
would be built at the border by 2009, all Spanish air restrictions
against Gibraltar Airport would be removed, and flights from Gibraltar
to Spain would start in December 2006;
- Spain would recognise the Gibraltar direct dialling
code and enable roaming for Gibraltar mobile phones;
- the Gibraltar government would make premises
available for Spain to set up a Cervantes Institute (Spanish body
similar to the British Council) in Gibraltar;
- pedestrian and traffic flows at the border crossing
between Gibraltar and Spain would be improved;
- there would be a settlement on pensions to compensate
those Spanish citizens who lost their livelihoods when the border
between Spain and Gibraltar closed in 1969; and
- co-operation between the port authorities of
the Bay in relation to their operations, and in continuing to
explore possibilities for collaboration in fields of common interest,
would be welcomed and encouraged.[614]
Trilateral Forum
389. There have been further meetings of the
Trilateral Forum since September 2006. Following the March 2007
meeting, the then Minister for Europe wrote to inform us that
the agreements reached at Cordoba were "on track and working
well" and that the UK, Gibraltar and Spain had "reaffirmed
their commitment" to the Forum. At the most recent ministerial
meeting, held in November 2007, agreement was reached to extend
future agendas to six new areas of cooperation: protection of
the environment, maritime safety, education, financial services
and tax, police, judicial and customs matters.[615]
During a short visit to Gibraltar in April 2008, the Minister
for Europe told reporters that the next round of trilateral talks
would take place at the earliest possible opportunity and would
be attended by both himself and the Foreign Secretary.[616]
390. In its evidence to our inquiry, the government
of Gibraltar wrote very positively about the Forum:
The agenda is open, and thus not focused or preconditioned
on sovereignty. And nothing can be agreed unless all three sides
agree, thus giving Gibraltar an effective veto on unacceptable
agreements. […] in addition, the unacceptable Brussels process
has been effectively disabled, because the UK has committed itself
to the Gibraltar Government that it will not take part in any
Sovereignty discussions or negotiations with which Gibraltar is
not content. Gibraltar has never been in a position as politically
secure as this. […] The Gibraltar Government remains fully
committed to continue participation in this Trilateral Forum to
continue to achieve the greatest possible degree of friendly and
constructive co-operations and normality of relations between
Gibraltar and Spain.
However, the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Joe Bossano
MP, was less positive about the Forum, telling us:
[…] little comes out of these things […]
If anything new is in the pipeline and we are on track to achieve
it, we will know it after the event and will then have to judge
it post hoc. We cannot evaluate it beforehand, because no information
is available.[617]
391. We asked the Minister for Europe whether
he was satisfied with the outcomes of recent meetings of the Trilateral
Forum. He told us that in terms of structure the trilateral process
was "more mature" than the bilateral Brussels process.[618]
He spoke of a "very healthy dynamic" with the Spanish
government[619] and
argued that the Forum had resulted in "important improvements
of substance" including ones relating to roaming charges
and ease of movement across borders.[620]
392. We also asked the Minister whether sovereignty
discussions with Spain were now off the agenda for good. He replied:
[…] we have made it very clear […] that
the UK Government will never […] enter into an agreement
on sovereignty without the agreement of the Government of Gibraltar
and their people. In fact, we will never even enter into a process
without that agreement.[621]
Pensions
393. The Cordoba Agreement resolved an outstanding
issue about liability to pay pension benefits to Spanish workers
who contributed to Gibraltar's state pension scheme until Franco
unilaterally closed the Gibraltar border in 1969.
394. EC Social Security Regulations prohibit
discrimination in social security benefits (but not in social
assistance schemes) on the grounds of nationality or residence.
Upon Spanish accession to the EC, Spanish former workers in Gibraltar,
irrespective of the level of contributions they had made, became
immediately and automatically entitled to receive a pension from
the Gibraltar scheme at the same rate as Gibraltar resident pensioners.
As a result of this, the Gibraltar Fund became financially unsustainable.
395. In December 1985, the UK and Spain agreed
bilaterally, without consulting Gibraltar, that Spanish former
workers would receive the same uprated pensions as Gibraltar resident
pensioners, as of 1 January 1986. In the same month, the British
Government agreed to fund in full the payment of these pensions
for three years and the Gibraltar government handed over to the
British Government the £4.5 million consisting of Spanish
contributions (with interest) in the Gibraltar Pension Fund. In
1988, the British Government agreed to meet the full cost of the
Spanish pensions for a further five years, on two conditions:
that in 1993, the Gibraltar Pension Fund would be dissolved, and
that pensions to all pensioners be frozen at 1988 rates.
396. In 1993, the Gibraltar Pension Fund was
accordingly dissolved and pension payments ceased. However, the
Spanish pensioners complained to the European Commission, and
in 1996, the British Government again agreed to meet the full
cost of the liability to Spanish pensioners, without time limit,
but once again only if payments to all pensioners were frozen
at 1988 rates. The Gibraltar Pension Fund was reinstated, and
paid out at the same frozen rates to all pensioners except the
pre-1969 Spanish pensioners.
397. In 1989, a group of private individuals
established a charitable trust in Gibraltar called the Community
Care Trust. Among its objects, the trust paid a financial sum
(the Household Cost Allowance—HCA) to all persons of pensionable
age resident in Gibraltar, regardless of entitlement to an old
age pension. The trust received donations from the Gibraltar government
of £60 million before 1996, and a further £5 million
subsequently. Although the Gibraltar government insisted that
payments of the HCA were not pension payments, because they were
payments made regardless of pension entitlement and by a private
trust rather than by the government, it is clear that the reason
the HCA was introduced was precisely because it was unrealistic
to expect Gibraltar pensioners to live on pensions frozen at 1988
rates. In February 1996, the British Government urged the Gibraltar
government to reform the HCA, on the basis that it was a social
security and not a social assistance payment because it was based
on age rather than need, and that it might therefore breach EU
rules prohibiting discrimination because it was not paid to non-resident
Spanish pensioners. The Gibraltar government claimed that because
the payments were made by a private trust, it had no power to
interfere. In July 2001, the European Commission wrote to the
British Government explaining that it had received complaints
from Spanish pensioners that their pensions had been frozen, and
asking for an explanation of the rules on regular increases of
pensions in Gibraltar. In its response, the British Government
explained that pensioners in Gibraltar received financial assistance
in the form of the HCA. In April 2002, the then Europe Minister
Peter Hain referred to the HCA as "a pensions scam that is
down to the government of Gibraltar."[622]
398. Although the Cordoba Agreement did not directly
address the HCA, under the settlement the UK agreed to pay lump
sum payments to Spanish pensioners whose frozen payments it already
paid in return for them leaving the Gibraltar Fund. Since April
2007 the UK Government has uprated pensions of Spanish pensioners
and the government of Gibraltar has uprated pensions of pensioners
who remain in the Gibraltar pensions scheme. The Leader of the
Opposition in Gibraltar opposed the deal, arguing that the arrangements
agreed for the pre-1969 Spanish pensioners discriminated "against
all others on grounds of date of contribution, nationality, and
residence and may be in breach of EU law".[623]
The government of Gibraltar's submission dismissed this allegation
as "political opportunism of the worst kind".[624]
399. The additional costs to be borne by the
UK as a result of the Cordoba Agreement have been estimated by
the FCO to be about £73 million: £48 million for future-uprating
of pensions; and £25 million to be paid as lump sum payments
to encourage Spanish pensioners to leave the Gibraltar Social
Insurance Fund. The FCO also estimates that the cost of continuing
to pay ongoing frozen pensions (which it would have incurred regardless
of the Cordoba Agreement) is about £49 million.[625]
In oral evidence, the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar told
us that the "the total bill […] from 1 January 1986
to up to when the final Spanish pensioner dies, and his final
descendant disappears" would be "somewhere in the order
of £250 million".[626]
400. We asked the FCO whether the pensions agreement
was a good settlement for the UK. The FCO replied that it was,
because "it removed a substantial financial liability from
the UK tax-payer", pointing out that as part of the settlement
Spain had agreed not to claim back from the UK the healthcare
costs for the affected Spanish pensioners and that following the
settlement, the European Commission also closed infraction proceedings
against the UK for alleged discrimination against affected Spanish
pensioners.[627]
Military movements
401. Military cooperation was not included in
the Cordoba Agreement and although Spain is now a fully participating
member of NATO, it continues to refuse to co-operate with direct
military movements or communications between Gibraltar and Spain.
The NATO Standardised Agreement (STANAG) 1100, which sets out
the procedures for visits to NATO ports by naval ships of NATO
members, includes a reservation inserted by Spain to prevent visits
by NATO ships to or from Gibraltar directly from Spanish ports.[628]
Requests by military aircraft from NATO nations which have Gibraltar
as their departure or arrival airfield also continue to be denied.[629]
Spain also bans direct communications between the British military
in Gibraltar and Spanish Armed Forces.
402. In response to the most recent Foreign Affairs
Committee Report on Gibraltar (July 2003), the FCO stated that
lifting the NATO reservation and other bans remained a Government
objective and that it would continue to pursue it whenever appropriate.[630]
403. During our current inquiry, the Chief Minister
of Gibraltar argued that there was "no justification for
Spain treating the British military any differently from the military
of any other of her NATO allies."[631]
The Minister for Europe told us that so far the measures had "not
had an impact on military capacity" except in relation to
kit and diving equipment, but agreed that it was "unacceptable—in
a NATO sense and because this is a nation with which we have otherwise
excellent relations—for such restrictions to be in place."[632]
In May 2008 Spain refused to permit two electrical generators
needed by US nuclear submarines which had sailed into Gibraltar
to cross the La Linea border. The generators had to be shipped
by sea instead.[633]
404. We asked the Minister what steps the Government
was taking to have the restrictions removed. He told us that he
was "determined to make progress on this" and that efforts
to do so through the FCO and Ministry of Defence were "ongoing",[634]
although outside the trilateral process.[635]
New airport terminal
405. Gibraltar's airport is located on the disputed
isthmus between the Rock and Spain. For many years, Spain actively
sought to make life difficult for those wishing to fly into or
out of Gibraltar, denying the use of its airspace to aircraft
using the airport. Under the agreement reached at Cordoba, civil
aircraft may now use Spanish airspace, permitting safer take-offs
and landings. The Agreement also included the construction of
a new terminal building along the line of the border.
406. The Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar
was very critical of the agreed immigration arrangements for the
new terminal. At present, a dual access system applies, whereby
passengers who arrive in Gibraltar on a flight from Spain can
choose to go into La Linea (a town on the Spanish side) without
passing through Gibraltar immigration or to come straight into
Gibraltar without first being cleared by Spanish immigration from
La Linea. When the terminal is complete, this dual access system
will change. The Leader of the Opposition told us:
[…] technically, nobody will be able to board
the aircraft in Gibraltar and exit the aircraft in Spain on landing.
Once the extension is there, they will be deemed to have entered
Spain before boarding the aircraft and to have remained in Spain
after landing, because the exiting from Spain arrangements take
place after landing and the entering Spain arrangements take place
before boarding.
[…] There are lots of unknown elements in the
new arrangements, which will only be tested once they are put
in place. Suppose somebody has shown his passport at La Linea,
and something happens between him showing his passport and getting
on the aircraft. Where is he? In no-man's land; still in Gibraltar;
or has he now left Gibraltar and is in Spain? Those things indicate
the peculiarity of the arrangements, which are intended exclusively
to allow Spain to argue that, in fact, they do not concede that
it is an international flight between Spain and Gibraltar, but
a domestic flight between one part of Spain and another.[636]
He also criticised the cost of the new airport:
We have a terminal in which, until something new
happens, we are investing £30 million quid to provide for
a weekend flight to Madrid and a daily flight to Gatwick. We do
not think that is a good way to spend public money.[637]
407. However, Gibraltar's Chief Minister defended
the new arrangements:
Madrid is inside Schengen, Gibraltar is outside […]
as is the UK […] there is absolutely no question […]
of Spanish immigration officials exercising any form of control
over entry into or exit out of Gibraltar. What they are doing
is giving Gibraltar passengers advance Schengen entry clearance,
and deferred Schengen exit clearance, which is also required under
the Schengen acquis […][638]
The FCO also told us that it was "content that
the immigration arrangements at the new terminal have no implications
for sovereignty and jurisdiction or control".[639]
Territorial waters
408. In June 2007 a dispute arose over the activities
of a US marine salvage company, Odyssey Marine Exploration, which
claimed to have lifted a considerable quantity of treasure from
a wreck off Lands End. Spain believed that this treasure was in
fact from a Spanish merchant vessel sunk by the British off Gibraltar
in 1804. On 12 July the Ocean Alert, a Panamanian-registered vessel
belonging to the US company, was detained by Spain's Guardia Civil
at a point 3.5 miles south of Gibraltar. We were alerted to this
issue while on a visit to Gibraltar and wrote to the FCO to request
further information on the incident.[640]
The FCO explained that the waters are considered by the UK to
be high seas and that the UK had therefore protested to the Spanish
authorities that the detention had occurred without its consent.[641]
The treasure consignments were flown to the US and became subject
to a court case in Florida between Odyssey and the Spanish government
won by the latter in April 2008. Odyssey's exploration was discussed
at the most recent Trilateral Forum. The Forum's communiqué
called for more transparency on Odyssey's part and cooperation
with Spanish authorities to ensure no breach of Spanish laws.[642]
409. Spain claims that Gibraltar has no territorial
waters. Following our evidence session with the Chief Minister
we received a letter from the Spanish Ambassador to the UK which
argued that Spain did not recognize as having ceded to the UK
any spaces other than those included in article X of the Treaty
of Utrecht and that it had stated clearly when ratifying
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea[643]
that this could not be construed as recognition of any rights
of maritime space except those included in that Treaty.[644]
However, the FCO told us that it "categorically" rejected
this view and that it did not allow Spain's assertion that Gibraltar
has no territorial waters to go unchallenged.[645]
410. The Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar
argued that the UK should increase its three mile claim to the
territorial waters around Gibraltar to the 12 mile of waters it
claims around many other Overseas Territories.[646]
John Borda, a Gibraltarian living in the UK, also called for this
change.[647]
411. However, the Chief Minister told us that
Gibraltar had "no economic or social need for more than 3
miles of territorial water".[648]
The FCO also told us that it believed three miles of territorial
waters was sufficient.[649]
Obstruction of conventions
412. The 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction,
Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect
of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of
Children came into force in 2002, but does not apply in the EU.
As a convention which has to be ratified both by individual states
and by the EU as a whole, it falls into the category of "mixed
competence" conventions. In the past Spain had blocked ratification
of such conventions by the EU because it believed that designating
the government of Gibraltar as a "competent body" would
amount to a de facto recognition of the status quo, undermining
its sovereignty claim. However, on 8 January 2008, the Foreign
Secretary reported in a written ministerial statement that, "with
the agreement of the government of Gibraltar and in the spirit
of ongoing co-operation", it had now concluded a set of arrangements
with Spain which would allow the EU to move ahead and ratify"
a number of mixed competence conventions by the EU, including
the 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and the
2001 Cape Town Convention on International Interest in Mobile
Equipment and its Protocol on Aircraft.[650]
413. However, in oral evidence the Leader of
the Opposition told us:
only two weeks ago they entered a reservation about
the extension to Gibraltar of legislation to stop international
organised crime. The extension of the UN convention on combating
international organised crime was signed by the United Kingdom
some years ago and extended to Gibraltar last year. The first
thing Spain did was to object to its extension to Gibraltar. You
would have thought the last thing they want is for us to become
a nest of people who organise international crime, unless they
want to be able to point the finger at us because the criminals
are there, because we have not got the convention extended.[651]
414. We welcome the Cordoba
Agreement and the progress being made on cooperation between Gibraltar,
Spain and the UK in the Trilateral Forum. We note that the pensions
settlement which was part of the Agreement was costly for the
UK, but we welcome an end to the "pensions scam" and
the removal of other potential liabilities on the UK. We recommend
that the Government continues making strong representations to
Spain and within NATO at the highest level about the unacceptability
of Spain's continuing restrictions on direct naval, army and airforce
movements or military communications between Spain and Gibraltar.
We further recommend that the Government continues to make strong
representations to Spain about its failure to recognise Gibraltar's
territorial waters and its objections to international conventions
being extended to Gibraltar.
British Indian Ocean Territory
415. Successive Mauritian governments have asserted
a claim to sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory,
arguing that it was illegally separated from Mauritius before
the country gained independence. The UK has repeatedly rejected
these claims, but it has given Mauritius an undertaking that it
will cede the archipelago to Mauritius when it is no longer required
for defence purposes (see Diego Garcia "lease" and renditions
above).[652] In November
2007, the Prime Minister agreed to establish a dialogue between
the Mauritian high commission and FCO officials on issues relating
to the British Indian Ocean Territory.[653]
416. In March 2007, the President of Mauritius
was reported as saying that "ultimately" Mauritius would
be prepared to take its sovereignty claim to the International
Court of Justice and that he would be willing to leave the Commonwealth
to pursue this legal battle.[654]
Mr Gifford, legal representative of the Chagos Refugees Group,
told us that the Mauritian government was "very much wedded
to the idea of sovereignty" explaining:
They take the view that "We was robbed".
They believe that Mauritius was regarded as an inferior, non-independent
country. It was worried about negotiating the terms of its independence
at the time, and it had its arm twisted, so it was in a lower
bargaining position and it was not true consent when it agreed,
in return for £3 million, to cede the islands to Britain.[655]
However, Mr Gifford also pointed out that the International
Court of Justice only had jurisdiction on the basis of consent.[656]
417. Previous Mauritian governments have been
"hostile" to the Chagossians' claim, but the present
government of Mauritius has recently made strong statements in
support of the Islanders' cause.[657]
Mr Gifford told us that the Mauritian Prime Minister had said
that "the interests of the Mauritian people, the Chagossian
people and the Mauritian government were now complementary and
they could march forward together". He also told us that
Mauritius was likely to be "quite helpful and positive"
once it realised the "the commercial benefits that will come
to it from re-establishing the economy of the islands."[658]
418. We asked Mr Bancoult, leader of the Chagos
Refugees Group, whether a resettled Chagossian community would
prefer to be a British Overseas Territory or part of Mauritius.
He told us that islanders were most concerned about getting their
fundamental rights, but said he believed most Chagossians would
prefer to stay British.[659]
419. We will examine Mauritius' sovereignty claim
over the British Indian Ocean Territory further (see para 69 for
details of decision to consider the implications of a resettlement
for the Chagossians in greater detail).
At present,
we conclude that any resolution to the UK's sovereignty dispute
with Mauritius over the British Indian Ocean Territory must take
Chagossians' wishes into account.
Seabed claims
420. Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law
of the Sea defines the continental shelf of a coastal state as
extending in the first instance up to 200 nautical miles from
the shoreline. The Convention further provides that a state's
continental shelf may extend beyond 200 miles, but only if specified
geological conditions can be satisfied. In order to establish
this, states are required under the Convention to submit detailed
information to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf, which then makes recommendations about the establishment
of an extended outer limit. In cases where a dispute exists between
coastal states, the rules of the Commission require it to decline
to examine any submission, until those disputes are resolved.
The best way forward, therefore, would be for any neighbouring
States making a claim to agree on a common approach before submitting
their claims to the Commission.[660]
421. Under the terms of the UN Convention, all
state parties have up to ten years following ratification by which
they have to submit any claims. By further agreement that deadline
was extended to May 2009 for those states, like the UK, which
ratified prior to 1999.
422. We asked the FCO for details of the submissions
which the UK was considering making in respect of Overseas Territories.[661]
It told us that it was currently "researching" a submission
in respect of the continental shelf around the Falkland Islands
and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands but that plans
had "not been finalised". The FCO added that it had
"no doubts about its sovereignty" over the Territories,
nor "its right to submit a claim to extend the continental
shelf", but that it had "already had useful contacts
on the issue with technical and legal experts from the Argentine
MFA with a view to making a joint submission without prejudice
to rival sovereignty claims", including meetings in 2001
and 2004.[662]
423. The Falkland Islands Legislative Council
argued that it was important for the UK to submit continental
shelf extension proposals in good time "for the protection
of the UK's sovereignty", although it did not believe these
proposals had short/medium oil term exploration implications.
Councillor Summers told us that he was "satisfied" that
the FCO was preparing the claim[663]
and that it was unlikely to provoke any clash with Argentina.[664]
424. The FCO also told us that it was considering
a submission to the Commission in respect of the continental shelf
around Ascension Island, but that it had not yet taken any decisions
on this.[665] On 9
May the FCO made a formal bid with regard to the seabed around
the Territory. The UN Commission for the Limits of the Continental
Shelf will review the claim in August.[666]
425. With regard to the British Antarctic Territory,
the FCO said that it had not yet made any decisions on its approach.
It strongly denied press reports that this was a "land grab"
and stated that the UK remained -
fully committed to upholding the provisions of the
Antarctic Treaty including the Protocol on Environmental Protection
and its clear prohibition on minerals related activity.[667]
Councillor Summers told us that any claim from the
UK in respect of the Antarctic claim could cause problems with
Chile and Argentina,[668]
both of which also claim sovereignty over the British Antarctic
Territory.
426. Although no rights accrue in respect of
the water column or fishery reserves beyond 200 nautical miles,
any continental shelf gives the coastal State sovereign rights
over the seabed and the subsoil, including the nature and scope
of any activities proposed to take place there. Seabed areas not
falling under any national jurisdiction will be designated as
being for the "benefit of mankind", and be regulated
by the International Seabed Authority. The FCO told us that therefore
it was "in the long-term interests of the UK to secure its
sovereign rights to the continental shelf at this time".[669]
We agree.
427. We conclude that the Government
was right to submit a claim to the UN Commission for the Limits
of the Continental Shelf for the seabed around Ascension Island.
We recommend that the Government should submit a similar claim
for the continental shelf around the Falkland Islands and South
Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. We also recommend that
the Government should in its response to this Report state its
current policy on seabed claims in relation to the continental
shelf around the British Antarctic Territory.
600 www.fco.gov.uk Back
601
Q 322 Back
602
Q 33 Back
603
Q 59 Back
604
Q 39 Back
605
Ev 85 Back
606
HC Deb, 29 February 2008, col 2023W Back
607
"Argentina to protest over Falklands oil exploration",
Financial Times, 1 May 2008 Back
608
Ev 237 Back
609
Q 60 Back
610
LAN Airlines' service from Chile is protected by the 1999 UK-Argentina
agreement, but during our visit some Islanders also expressed
concern that Argentina could put pressure on LAN to cancel this
route. Back
611
Q 322 Back
612
Qq 320- 321 Back
613
Foreign Affairs Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2002-03,
Gibraltar, HC 1024, paras 12 and 22 Back
614
www.fco.gov.uk Back
615
Ev 296 and Q 256 [Murphy] Back
616
"Miliband to join Caruana and Moratinos in 'Revitalising'
Trilateral Process", Gibraltar Gazette, 25 April 2008 Back
617
Q 179 Back
618
Q 256 Back
619
Q 253 Back
620
Q 256 Back
621
Q 257 Back
622
HC Deb, 16 April 2002, col 453 Back
623
GSLP/Liberals press release, 26 September 2006 Back
624
Ev 296 Back
625
Ev 362 Back
626
Q 186 Back
627
Ev 362 Back
628
HC Deb, 31 October 2002, col 891 W Back
629
Q 215 Back
630
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Response from the Secretary
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Eleventh
Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Cm 5954, September
2003, p 5 Back
631
Q 215 Back
632
Q 259 Back
633
"US sub visit tangled in Spain's controls on military movements
at border", Gibraltar Gazette, 9 May 2008 Back
634
Q 259 Back
635
Ev 362 Back
636
Q 180 Back
637
Q 180 Back
638
Q 213 Back
639
Ev 362 Back
640
Ev 68 Back
641
Ev 77 Back
642
Communiqué of Forum of Dialogue on Gibraltar, Castellar
de la Frontera, 5 and 6 November 2007 Back
643
See also following section on seabed claims. Back
644
Ev 322 Back
645
Ev 77 Back
646
Qq 182-183 Back
647
Ev 256 Back
648
Q 218 Back
649
Ev 77 Back
650
HC Deb, 8 January 2008, col 6WS Back
651
Q 203 Back
652
Ev 144 Back
653
HC Deb, 27 February 2008, col 1701W Back
654
"Mauritius says may leave Commonwealth in Chagos row",
Reuters, 7 March 2007 Back
655
Q 168 Back
656
Q 168 Back
657
Q 169 [Mr Gifford] Back
658
Q 169 Back
659
Qq 170-172 Back
660
Ev 238 Back
661
With regard to itself, the UK made a joint submission to the Commission
with France, Ireland and Spain in respect of the Bay of Biscay
in 2005 and is currently negotiating with Ireland, Iceland and
the Faroe Islands in respect of the Hatton-Rockall basin. (Ev
238) Back
662
Ev 238 Back
663
Q 36 Back
664
Q 38 Back
665
Ev 238 Back
666
www.un.org Back
667
Ev 238; See Part Two for further details of the Antarctic Treaty. Back
668
Q 38 Back
669
Ev 238 Back
