CON IDENTIAL
6.)..
Mr Jones, NTD
GIBRALTAR:
NATIONALITY BILL
нки
340/1
RECEIVED
13 FEB 1981
DESK OFHCL
INDEX
1. td
I understand that you have been asked to
A
visel
its SEE
Y
(7)
ken
The
on the implications of giving a firm public commitment on Gibraltarians' entry to the UK in order to deflect the Gibraltar Parliamentary lobby attack on the Nationality Bill.
2.
Mr Daunt's submission of 10 February recommends strongly against pleading foreign policy considerations as the reason for not making concessions over the Gibraltar aspect of the Bill; but the FCO should continue to favour uniform treatment for all dependent territories. We need to consider whether these arguments are also valid in the context of a firm commitment which would be given in parliament about Gibraltarians' right of entry to the UK.
11
3. A useful starting point might be to look at the likely form of the firm
} } commitment' It would presumably take the form of a statement to Parliament, perhaps an answer to an arranged PQ, rather than being given legislative form (as the Gibraltarians would like). And it would presumably
reiterate and build upon the statement that the then Commonwealth Secretary made in Gibraltar in May 1968 perhaps by specifing that the present concession would continue in force after the implementation of the Lisbon agreement and for an infinite period. If it was to satisfy the Gibraltar Parliamentary lobby, it would clearly have to go further than the statement by the Secretary of State in the debate on 28 January and by Mr Luce in the Adjournment debate on 10 December which deliberately avoided mentioning any linkage between the administrative concession and the restrictions (Hansard extract attached).
4.
The Gibraltarians would obviously be pleased to obtain such a concession, even though it falls short of the Opposition's objective on the Nationality Bill, and in practical terms they would have gained nothing. On the other hand, the arguments against making a concession on the Nationality Bill (paragraphs 6-10 of Mr Daunt's submission of 10 February) would continue to remain valid though with one important difference - the likely reaction of the Spanish Government.
5. As Mr Daunt points out it would be difficult for the Spanish Government to justify a claim that a concession to the Gibraltarians in the Bill made implementation of the Lisbon agreement difficult, or impossible. However, it would be considerably easier for them to justify their dislike of a Parliamentary statement giving an open-ended commitment to the Gibraltarians and explicitly stating that the concession would remain even after the frontier was reopened. It would enable to claim with some justification, that that statement pre-empted the negotiations which are due to start with the lifting of the restrictions. They could claim that we were caving in to the Gibraltarians' demands at their expense, rather than at the expense of British policy on Nationality.
CODE
18-77
SS R/JA
CONFIDENTIAL
/6.