http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/ THE KEY PRESS RELEASE en Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:59:06 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss UseBB
The patient was informed that there was a piece of equipment missing which meant that the surgeon could not perform keyhole surgery and instead would have had to use old surgical techniques which involved making a sizable incision.

The Opposition considers that the situation is scandalous. The 39 year old lady is in pain and taking pain-killers and wants to have this ordeal over and done with once and for all. The Government must understand that going in for surgery is a traumatic experience for some people and it is totally unacceptable that the patients should psyche themselves up for it only to be told that the operation has been cancelled.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister for Health Neil Costa said:

“It is bad enough that an operation should be cancelled once because of a lack of equipment. When it has been cancelled five times it is only logical that the patient should be upset and that we should question why this is happening. The Government continues to boast that we have a state of the art hospital. The experiences of patients like this one suggest otherwise.”

This is not the only case which has been brought to the attention of the Opposition of a cancelled operation because of a lack of keyhole surgery equipment.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=302#post302 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=302&quotepost=302 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:02:49 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=302#post302
The issue of Waterport Terraces is a prime example of this. The Government took years to react to the need that existed for this kind of housing. The purchasers have had to endure delay after delay and broken promise after broken promise. It will be recalled that during the general election campaign the Government gave purchasers unrealistic completion dates and dangled the carrot of compensation.

Once the election was over, the completion dates were not met and the purchasers discovered that the compensation for the extra costs incurred in relation to bridging loans was not going to be universal. Mr Caruana and his Government therefore have no moral authority to lecture anyone about Waterport Terraces. The Government, on this and on many other issues, have behaved in singularly dishonourable and unethical manner.

The point made by the Opposition about the service charges is that for many purchasers, against the background of delay and disappointment, this has been like rubbing salt into the wound. It is obvious to anyone who takes a walk around the project that, for the ordinary layman, this is still a building site. People are perfectly entitled to take the view that they should not be charged service charges for living in a building site or that the initial service charges are too high. This is a democracy and freedom of speech means that persons can hold a different opinion to the Government and be able to freely express it.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister for Housing Charles Bruzon said:

“The plain fact is that there is a serious human dimension to the Waterport Terraces issue which the Government does not seem to care about and this worries me. In the light of the delays, there are people who have had to rent accommodation, to move in with relatives and to pay the bridging loan at the same time. Now they have to make provision for service charges as well in the run-up to Christmas. This has created hardship of immeasurable proportions. In addition to this, the Opposition is also very concerned that the delays have affected Albert Risso House for senior citizens, which will be the last one to be completed, although this has been less well publicised.

I do not propose to respond to the unwarranted personal attacks that Mr Caruana has made on me or my colleagues, suffice it to say that he will have to answer to his conscience for his words and his actions. Mr Caruana must realize that he is dealing with real people and not with numbers or statistics. The stress, tension and suffering that he has put these people through is unforgivable.”]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=301#post301 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=301&quotepost=301 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:41:28 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=301#post301
This means that there is a strong smell of wet paint and that patients, staff and others have no choice but to put up with it. It will be noted that the waiting areas at the Primary Care Centre have no windows and the rooms rely on air conditioning units for ventilation and cooling purposes.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister for Health Neil Costa said:

“This painting work is causing considerable inconvenience to many people because it is being carried out at a time when the Primary Care Centre is open to the public. The Opposition cannot understand why the Government has not made arrangements to have the Primary Care Centre repainted after hours which would make more sense as it would avoid this problem.

Given that the health service budget is over £ 1 million a week, they can surely afford to pay that little bit extra and have the work done in a way that does not inconvenience the patients.”]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=300#post300 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=300&quotepost=300 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:41:01 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=300#post300
The Opposition will deal with each of the issues raised by the Government in turn to show that the GSD Government is now simply resorting to lies when attempting to defend the indefensible.

1. Waterport Terraces Management Limited invoices are being handed to purchasers who have not yet taken possession of their homes. This is actually confirmed in the Government statement which shows that service charge invoices are being handed to purchasers on completion. For that reason it is clear that the payment of service charges has to be made before the purchaser has yet been able to set foot in his house and part of the process of the keys being handed over to them. The Government statement to the contrary is the first lie in a pack of lies that make up its press release.

2. The Opposition statement does not anywhere say that these charges are being levied by the Government. The Opposition press release explains that Waterport Terraces Management Limited is a company set up to manage the estate at Waterport Terraces. But it nonetheless is undeniably true that the officers of Waterport Terraces Management Limited are all government officials. Again the failure to accept this on the part of the Government reflects the GSD Government’s fear of the truth and its continued reliance on lies to weave a web of deception designed to mislead the general public in Gibraltar.

3. The truth, therefore, is that even the Government now accepts that service charges at Waterport Terraces are higher per square metre than in an estate like Montagu Gardens which is now almost 20 years old and which clearly therefore requires greater cost in replacement and maintenance of fittings etc.

The purchasers at Waterport Terraces and the people of Gibraltar generally will all want to know why it is that the GSD Government attempts always to lie its way out of the dead ends into which it manoeuvres itself and why it laces its press releases with insults addressed to the personality and professions of the members of the Opposition who are discharging their political obligations in keeping Government actions under scrutiny.

Shadow Minister for Housing Charles Bruzon, commenting on this matter, said:

“Clearly it is disappointing to see the Government not deal with issues and instead address only insults to members of the Opposition. In fact when the Government have addressed some of the detail of our criticism they continue with their tactic of insults designed to avoid telling the people of Gibraltar the truth. Instead, they often come up with explanations that have no grounds in reality.

The purchasers at Waterport Terraces are fed up with the Government’s inaccuracies, whether they relate to the detail of service charges or the dates when their homes will be ready. It is clear that nothing that comes out of 6 Convent Place is reliable, whether it relates to the dates when Waterport Terraces will be handed over to purchasers, their answer to our press release on services charges or many of the other issues on which Mr Caruana and his Government comment.”]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=299#post299 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=299&quotepost=299 Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:09:34 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=299#post299
It is unacceptable that the Government, as Waterport Terraces Management, should now charge purchasers service charges even before the estate has been finished and whilst it is still a building site.

Moreover, the Opposition believes that these service charges are comparatively high especially as they are being levied on families that already have had to suffer the burden of paying for unforeseen bridging loans which have been required as a direct result of the Government's failure to deliver this housing project on time.

Commenting on this latest increase in the costs being levied by the Government on purchasers of Waterport Terraces, Shadow Minister for Housing Charles Bruzon said:

"The Government really is not thinking about these purchasers who have been desperate for new homes. It is failing to understand that the cost of moving to Waterport Terraces has been raised so astronomically by its actions and failings in respect of this project that it should be compassionate in its approach to setting of service charges in the first year and whilst the estate is still a building site and not punitive as it appears to be. In fact many purchasers are wondering whether this is Mr Caruana's latest spiteful punishment for their having dared to demonstrate against his Government's failure outside the Parliament. Although it is not possible to do a direct comparison with the service charges at other estates (as service charged fluctuate based on the services provided, the number of flats in each estate etc), the Government should act immediately to reduce the burden of the effect of service charges on purchasers – especially as people have to now furnish their homes whilst paying the bridging loans that the GSD administration has landed them with in the run-up to the Christmas season."]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=298#post298 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=298&quotepost=298 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:43:56 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=298#post298
It is about time that the Government addressed seriously the issue of road safety in that area. It would be very simple to place ramps in both directions just before the bend. This would, without a shadow of doubt, virtually eliminate the spate of accidents which continue to occur.

Government should not wait until there are further accidents or that fatalities occur. It must act now.

It took numerous accidents and several years of lobbying and protests before the Government decided to place ramps on Sir Herbert Miles Road. Residents and users of this stretch of road confirm that, as a result, the area is much safer for all road users.

As a result of the accident last night, access to the east side was closed even to pedestrians. With the continued closure of the Dudley Ward Tunnel this left residents of the area stranded. This again shows the need for Government to move quickly on works to re-open the tunnel. Despite their many promises in this respect over a number of years, those works have still not commenced.

Shadow Minister for Traffic and Transport, Gilbert Licudi, said:

“It is regrettable that Government does not appear to give the issue of road safety the priority it deserves. There is a very simple solution to the problem at the “black spot”. Sleeping policemen or ramps would, to a very large extent, cure the problem as they did on Sir Herbert Miles Road.

There is no excuse for Government’s failure to act. They must recognise that the safety of pedestrians and road users is paramount”.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=297#post297 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=297&quotepost=297 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:43:27 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=297#post297
The public will now be in a better position to understand exactly the meaning of the refusal by the GSD Minister for the Environment, Mr Britto, to confirm or deny in Parliament or to the media whether he had authorised the further killing of apes.

Given that the IPPL had actually found a location for the apes to be transferred to, it is clear that the killings have gone ahead not “as a last resort” as the Minister had told Parliament would be the case. There was clearly an alternative to the killing, namely taking up the IPPL’s offer for the relocation of the apes which also would provide for future ape management solutions. The killings have taken place only because Government would not accept the IPPL’s requirements for the relocation and not as a “last resort”. The statement by Minister Britto in Parliament has therefore clearly had the effect of misleading the Parliament and - in the government's later references to it - the media and the public.

To make matters worse, the killings have not in any way cured the problems being experienced by tenants of areas where the apes are roaming after being attracted by open rubbish dumps. These continue not to be enclosed and the government’s failure to take action as simple as enclosing the rubbish dumps demonstrates that the GSD are just unable to act quickly even in providing simple and necessary solutions to the everyday problems being experienced by people.

In the circumstances the Government’s unprecedented fury in its attack on Ms Thirlway is no more than an attempt to create a smokescreen to hide Mr Britto’s continued killing of mammals that are most closely identified with Gibraltar. This is especially the case when we use the image of the apes to promote Gibraltar as the government did this very weekend at the Lord Mayors Parade in London, whilst secretly killing the apes on the Rock.

Shadow Minister for the Environment, Fabian Picardo, said:

“I find the statement of the Government to be entirely in keeping with the GSD approach to avoid accepting that it has acted in an unacceptable manner as a result of its own inability to put in place a proper ape management programme. As for the suggestion that anything that Helen Thirlway has said might be libellous, that simply is further bluster on the part of the Government. Ms Thirlway is entirely entitled to her opinion as to the manner in which the GSD acts to protect the interest of wealthy property developers and nothing that she has said is in our opinion defamatory or libellous. I am sure that Helen Thirlway will have no difficulty whatsoever defeating any libel action which the Government might foolishly decide to commence against her. Ms Thirlway should nevertheless have little fear of such empty threats from the Government and should continue her sterling work in defence of Gibraltar’s apes. We are committed to working with both our home grown (and world class) experts in their field and with the IPPL in putting in place an effective ape management programme that does away with the need to kill any more apes. Ironically, Mr Britto has issued his press release attempting to intimidate Helen Thirlway into silence in the same week that he has said that – despite twelve and a half years of GSD Government in which to act - Gibraltar’s tourist product needs to be improved. Perhaps Mr Britto should start that work by thinking of alternatives to killing more of our apes which are recognised as our greatest tourist attraction. Until then, this episode will go down in our history as one of the most shameful instances of a government trying to rely on a claim of “national interest” to avoid its own shortcomings.”]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=296#post296 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=296&quotepost=296 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:38:48 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=296#post296
White Rock had two licensed PCCs in Gibraltar - White Rock Insurance (Gibraltar) PCC Ltd. and White Rock Insurance (Europe) PCC Ltd. The latter has reportedly enjoyed a high degree of success and has six active cells writing annual premiums in excess of US$37m and gross assets of over US$58.3m.

Reports appearing in industry journals in the past days reflect that the decision has, at least in part, been motivated by the fact that "…Malta will prove attractive to existing and new clients due to its low net tax costs...". This reasoning has been quoted in the reports of the move in the industry press.

The full reports can be viewed at the following links:

The Insurance Journal:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2008/10/28/95032.htm

Insurance Business Review:

http://www.insurance-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=78C17C52-B7A9-47E7-A898-41D8C81014F8

The Opposition consider that this unfortunately is indicative of the fact that the delay by the GSD government in implementing or announcing a fixed date for the implementation of the 10% Corporation Tax is starting to have a negative effect on finance centre business.

This is clearly not a reflection of the Chief Minister's contradictory statements of last week, but more importantly a reflection of the failure by the government to act in having fixed the low tax rate sooner and the failure to provide certainty on the issue the implementation date for the reviewed 10% Corporation Tax (and the associated changes to rules on deductions etc).

Reacting to this, Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Fabian Picardo MP, said : "I am sure that the professionals who operate in the finance centre will do their level best to ensure that this is an isolated event and that we do not suffer further losses to financial services centres that have got their "low-tax" act together before the Gibraltar government has acted to preserve our competitive edge on corporation tax matters. Indeed, commenting recently on the presence of AON in Gibraltar since 1998, Mr Caruana himself said that this had, in part, been due to Gibraltar's "positive tax regime" *. Although I am sure we will be able to stem the tide, this departure in part reflects the fact that we are not getting it right quickly enough on the corporation tax issue and the "positive tax regime" aspect of our advantage is quickly evaporating. For too long the position has been in the air and we have not seen government be pro-active enough in dealing with the issue. Just the fact that the departure of one of the AON PCC's has been so widely reported is creating unwanted negative publicity in widely available industry journals."

* Note to editors: the statements by Mr Caruana quoted by Mr Picardo can be seen in the latest issue of the B2B Magazine of the Chamber of Commerce and at : http://www.gibraltar.gov.uk/int/Today/chronicle.asp?fld_ID=8033]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=295#post295 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=295&quotepost=295 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:49:13 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=295#post295
The Opposition maintain that there is a general perception in Gibraltar that, in political and protest situations of which the Government disapproves, the Police has acted as if it were doing so at the whim of Mr Caruana. This is obviously not a criticism of the RGP but primarily a criticism of Mr Caruana, who is known to be a control freak who likes to have a finger in every pie. It is simply a reflection of the political reality in Gibraltar that many people believe that the RGP, like every other institution, on more than one occasion does what it is told to do.

This perception has been reinforced by at least five specific incidents where the Police has become embroiled in political controversy. The five instances are:

(1) In December 2006 a solitary protestor with a placard was not allowed to demonstrate on the day when the Spanish Minister of State visited Gibraltar.

(2) In the general election campaign for the October 2007 general election, the Police issued a statement denying a rumour that a Minister was being investigated.

(3) Before the SDGG National Day rally at Casemates last month, the Police issued a statement saying that they did not have the resources to police the rally. Mr Caruana publicly admitted at the time that there had been a “touching of base” with the RGP in relation to the Casemates rally.

(4) After the SDGG National Day rally at Casemates the Police gave a figure of attendance which was ridiculously low as was obvious from photographic and video evidence of the event.

(5) Last week, in relation to the Waterport Terraces demonstration, the organisers claimed to have been told by the Police that booing, shouting, the use of whistles and the use of megaphones was not allowed.

The Opposition has not suggested that the RGP is being manipulated by the Gibraltar Government. What we have said is that there is a perception that in politically relevant circumstances, for instance when there have been protests against the Government by homeowners, trade-unionists and others, the way in which the Police has dealt with the issue is a reflection of the way in which the Gibraltar Government would like to see it handled.

In curtailing the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of these individuals or groups, the RGP have adopted a new and more forceful approach which was not there before. Moreover, when in the past protests have been supported by the Gibraltar Government and have been directed against the Ministry of Defence or against the UK Government, protestors have been allowed to shout, to boo, to use whistles or to hoot their car horns.

The very odd decision that the RGP took in the middle of a general election campaign, acting to deny a rumour that a particular Minister was being investigated says it all. The normal thing is that Police are never willing to comment on whether they are carrying out an investigation or not, nor do they react to rumours. This is not an operational matter. It was a political matter and a deliberate intervention during a general election campaign at a time when the governing party was on the back foot.

The Opposition are not saying that the RGP get told to arrest different people because they oppose the Government. What we are saying is that they are reflecting in their conduct during political situations the values and the views of the Government of the day. Clearly, if they do not want to be seen as getting involved in politics they should not meddle in politics and issue press releases at sensitive political moments.

The RGP has always had the full support of the Opposition in carrying out their constitutional duty to maintain law and order and prevent crime. The Opposition prefer that they should not be drawn into areas of political controversy or trade union action which we do not think is good for them or for the community.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=294#post294 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=294&quotepost=294 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:37:07 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=294#post294
The Agency, in a transparent attempt to reduce the importance of the allegations, has said that some of these “alleged situations” occurred between 5-8 years ago. They are either deliberately distorting the truth or have shown they cannot count. It is a fact that a number of these incidents happened as recently as 2005, which is only 3 years ago and that therefore they did not happen as far back as the Government has tried to make out. In any case, the timescale is irrelevant in the sense that the point must surely be that they should never have happened at all.

Gibraltar owes a debt of gratitude to the former Manager of the Home Joanna Hernandez for having had the courage to come forward and make public what was then happening at the Home behind closed doors. The Government can rest assured that there is no “intense frustration” on the part of the Opposition at the outcome of the tribunal hearing. How can there be when Ms Hernandez has been found to be unfairly dismissed and the Government at the 11th hour admitted that they could not meet the burden of proof?

It will be recalled that the Government went to extraordinary lengths and expense in order to prevent the allegations from being heard during the Joanna Hernandez industrial tribunal hearing. The case was delayed by the Government for years using the ridiculous argument that a working week had to start on a Sunday not on a Monday to be counted and that on this basis the tribunal had no jurisdiction. This point was lost in the tribunal and all the way up to the Court of Appeal. However, the delay to Ms Hernandez and the expense to the taxpayer was considerable.

Once the Government run out of obstructive technical arguments, many months later, they suddenly decided to settle the case rather than have it heard, presumably on the expectation that the serious allegations about what had happened in the Home would be kept under wraps.

The tactics of the Government throughout the tribunal hearing were unworthy of a Chief Minister and unworthy of a Government of Gibraltar particularly when the allegations affected some of the most vulnerable members of our community and the Government have since admitted that some of these allegations were true.

This was confirmed in the last question-time in Parliament in answer to questions from Shadow Minister for Social Services Neil Costa.

- Government confirmed that a child was made to stand facing the wall with quite heavy books in both arms because it was claimed the child had misbehaved and a senior member of staff had confirmed that this was a suitable form of punishment.

- Government confirmed that a past Deputy Manager of Home had attempted, while drunk, to administer excessive doses of Ritalin (Class A drug) to a child because “he was so drunk he couldn’t even read the drug sheet”.

- Government confirmed that in 2005 the Social Services Agency refused to provide details to the sister of a service user of statements given to the Police in which it had been alleged that this particular service-user had been mentally and sexually abused.

- Government confirmed that following the mental and sexual abuse complaint in 2005 which led to the Police being called, the Agency also conducted its own investigation of the matter.

- Government confirmed that in 2005 a carer of the Social Services Agency told the CEO and the Minister that “the Dr Giraldi Home was a time bomb”.

- Government confirmed that there was an investigation into an incident in which a bottle of diazepam is said to have disappeared from a locked medicine cabinet the Dr Giraldi Home in 2005.

The Opposition is therefore not disputing that procedures in the Dr Giraldi Home may now be different from what they were at the time that these incidents occurred. What we are saying is that nobody has yet taken political responsibility for what happened in the past when in other countries heads would have rolled for less.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=293#post293 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=293&quotepost=293 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:36:35 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=293#post293
The central issue is that all Government Ministers were in their seats at the time that the Speaker decided to recess the House and that Mr Caruana only turned up when the demonstrators had been moved from the piazza to the pavement across the road half an hour later. He has failed to explain why it is that he thinks he would have had any difficulty in accessing Parliament when none of the other Members of Parliament, including his own Ministers, had any difficulty and were indeed in their seats waiting for him to turn up and for the meeting to start.

Mr Caruana has given the impression that his decision to stay away until the area was clear was because of some great respect that he has towards the ruling of a past Speaker. This is not very convincing. Anyone who knows him well will consider it far more likely that it is in his character to stay away and only appear when the protestors had been moved away and then only under a show of force by the Police.

It is true that the ruling which prohibits demonstrations in designated areas around the Parliament was decreed by a previous Speaker at a time when Mr Bossano was in Government. The then Speaker Sir Robert Peliza did this by extending the precincts of the House to include designated areas around it. However, this was Sir Robert’s own initiative and without any political involvement by the Government of the day.

Mr Netto as District Officer of the TGWU did blame the GSLP for this decision and complained that the physical limitation as to where people could protest, in relation to the precincts of the Parliament, was undemocratic. Clearly, Mr Netto might not have known, but the GSD should know, that the Speaker is independent in his decision making, he was then and he presumably is now. This is why Mr Bossano did nothing to change the mind of Sir Bob Peliza on this ruling just as the GSD has done nothing to change the mind of successive Speakers after him. Mr Caruana should know that it is not for the Chief Minister to interfere with the Speaker in this way.

In any case, all this has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed ban on shouting, jeering, whistles and megaphones outside the designated area which the organisers of the Waterport Terraces protest claimed they had been told existed by the Police.

The Opposition rejects the accusation that we are undermining institutions by expressing a political opinion about them. This accusation is a bit rich coming from none other than Mr Caruana who himself has a long history of undermining institutions for his own political ends. The most recent occasion of this was his decision to demote the office of Chief Justice of Gibraltar in order to leap-frog over him in the list giving the order of importance for people in Gibraltar.

It also says much as to the way in which Mr Caruana operates that on the same day as the Waterport Terraces demonstration, completion notices were sent out to purchasers in Phase 1 in an attempt to diffuse and undermine the demonstration. However, when purchasers wanted to take the matter further and complete, they were advised by their lawyers that they could not do so because the Certificate of Fitness had not yet been issued and this was required before completion.

This kind of underhand tactic serves as a stark illustration of the way in which Mr Caruana works.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=292#post292 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=292&quotepost=292 Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:36:01 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=292#post292
Mr Caruana gives the Opposition too much credit if he thinks that we are responsible for all the perceptions, all the rumours, all the discontent and all the demonstrations that take place in Gibraltar.

However, it must be said that some perceptions have turned out to be true in the past. It will be recalled that there was a perception that Mr Caruana wanted to demote the status of the Chief Justice in order to be the second most important person in Gibraltar after the Governor. This perception was given effect recently when a new protocol list was published which showed Mr Caruana as the number two in the order of precedence after the Governor, instead of the number three after the Chief Justice as he had been until then.

In this latest incident, the Government was replying to the Opposition statement which had expressed concern at the “perception” that on a number of specified occasions the Police seemed to be acting at the whim of the Chief Minister. These occasions were spelt out in detail.

They were that in December 2006 a solitary protestor with a placard was not allowed to demonstrate on the day that the Spanish Minister of State visited Gibraltar. The statement made by the Police that they did not have the resources to man the SDGG National Day rally last month. The count by the Police of the number who attended the rally at Casemates. The fourth incident were the conditions reportedly laid down to the organisers of the Waterport Terraces demonstration that they could not shout, boo, use whistles or megaphones during their protest. The Government, who presumably was not represented at the meeting between the protestors and the Police is hardly in a position to lecture anyone about what went on.

Mr Caruana’s statement conveniently ignores all the incidents and he replies with a broad-brush approach because it is politically convenient to him to do so. However, there are more. People will also recall the peculiar statement issued by the Police in the middle of the general election campaign, reacting to a rumour, that a particular Minister was not being investigated. This is the first time in living memory that they have reacted to a rumour in this way.

It is undeniable that the beneficiary of all these actions, intended or otherwise, has been none other than the Government and the policies of Mr Caruana himself. It is also significant to note that Mr Caruana has lashed out like a spoilt child who has been caught out doing something naughty which will no doubt add further credibility to the perception that already exists.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=291#post291 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=291&quotepost=291 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:28:15 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=291#post291
In answer to questions on the Social Services Agency by Shadow Minister Neil Costa regarding allegations made in respect of the treatment of persons with disabilities, it was admitted that an investigation had occurred when a medication disappeared and was not found to be in the appropriate drugs cupboard under lock and key.

A search by members of staff failed to locate its whereabouts and sometime later it was “found” and “produced” by the acting flat senior. The approach of the Government in the answer given implies that as long as the missing medicine eventually materialized everything was all right.

This is not an isolated incident, there have been many allegations about inadequate controls over medication, mistake in doses given to persons with disabilities and lack of properly qualified staff to handle the administration to residents, of prescribed drugs.

These allegations have never been denied or properly investigated.

A disabled person resident in one of the homes run by the Agency is entitled to the same safety standards in the administration of medication as any patient that is given the equivalent medication in the Health Service.

To provide an inferior level of protection and thus fail to ensure an adequate procedure in the administration of medicines is tantamount to discrimination, against those with disabilities, which is prohibited by law.

In the UK there is a legal requirement for homes that have persons in their care, whether with disability or otherwise, to adhere to specified standards in the procedures followed for providing medication.

In the GHA there have always been clear guidelines as to the level of qualification and the grade of staff entrusted with the responsibility for administrating drugs to patients and for the security of the storage and disposal of prescription drugs.

This does not appear to be the case in the homes run by the Agency and this means that vulnerable persons with disabilities, who may be in no position to question whether the medication they receive is correct, are being put at serious risk and no action has been taken over the alleged incidents that have occurred in the past. The Opposition consider that these are very serious issues and there has been no indication that anything has been done to put in place measures to prevent a repetition.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=290#post290 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=290&quotepost=290 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:27:41 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=290#post290
The Opposition was nonetheless very surprised by this recess yesterday, given that 14 of the 17 MPs, Government and Opposition, were already in their seats at the time that the announcement was made. The only notable absence on the Government side was Mr Caruana (Mr Montiel did not attend the session at all).

Knowing Mr Caruana and the way he thinks, the Opposition would not be in the least surprised if he let it be known that he would not attend Parliament until the protestors had moved to the pavement across the road. Indeed, nobody has explained why Mr Caruana should have had this apparent difficulty passing between the demonstrators, which no other MP, including members of his own Government, appeared to have encountered.

In fact, by some remarkable coincidence, it was not until after the demonstrators had been moved to the pavement opposite the House that Mr Caruana then put in an appearance in the presence of many police officers and accompanied by his own personal bodyguard.

The Opposition consider it quite incredible that the business of the House should have been delayed in this way because Mr Caruana, unlike his colleagues, could not bring himself to walk through a crowd of peaceful protestors.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=289#post289 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=289&quotepost=289 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:13:08 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=289#post289
In December 2006 a single protestor with a placard was not allowed to demonstrate on the day that the Spanish Minister of State visited Gibraltar. More recently, the public statements made by the Police last month in relation to the Casemates rally organised by the SDGG raised many eyebrows at the time. This included the comment before the event that the rally could not be policed because there were not enough resources, and the subsequent count of participants which placed the attendance figure at a ridiculously low number which was shown to be widely off the mark by pictures of the event.

The impression has been given that there is one criteria as to what demonstrators can do when a demonstration is against the Government, or not supported by the Government, and another criteria when it is against another entity. The Opposition takes a very serious view of this. People will recall, for example, the demonstrations that have taken place against Ministry of Defence policy over the years which involved booing, shouting, placards and whistles. On these occasions the law was not interpreted in a way which prevented these peaceful actions which are normal forms of protest in any democratic society.

A spokesman for the Police is quoted as saying that the meeting with the organisers of the Waterport Terraces demonstration was a normal meeting that they hold before such protests. The spokesman said that the legal position and the position in relation to Parliament where specific restrictions apply as set out by the Speaker were pointed out.

This gives the impression that the prohibition of shouting, booing, whistles or megaphones is somehow linked to the location of the demonstration or to restrictions set out by the Speaker when in fact they have nothing to do with it.

In 1993 a past Speaker re-designated the precincts of the House of Assembly to include the lobby of the House, the pavement on the western side of Main Street, in front of the House, and the whole of the area of the Piazza and the public highway on its three sides. In other words, this was a physical restriction on the area where a demonstration could take place but not a restriction on what a protestor could or could not do.

This restriction was put in place in order to allow Members of Parliament access in and out of the building when a demonstration was taking place. It says nothing whatsoever about booing, shouting, the use of placards, whistles or megaphones while standing on the pavement opposite the Parliament.

It should nonetheless be recalled that in the past, even after 1993, Members of Parliament often received welcoming or hostile remarks from members of the public standing outside the House and the Police has never seen it fit to interpret the law and the Speaker’s ruling in the restrictive manner that they have done now.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=288#post288 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=288&quotepost=288 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:14:02 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=288#post288
The organisers claim that to have been told by the Police that there are four things they cannot do:


(1) No obstructing pedestrian traffic;

(2) No shouting, whistles, air horns or megaphones;

(3) No banners that insult the Government or the Chief Minister and no swearing;

(4) No booing or jeering at the Ministers or Chief Minister as they arrive at the House of Parliament.

There have been innumerable demonstrations outside the Parliament over the years and the Opposition has never heard of some of the restrictions that have reportedly been laid down for this one.

It goes without saying that when people demonstrate they should exercise restraint in how they vent their feelings and they must do so within the law. However, the law has only been interpreted in this restrictive way since Mr Caruana came into power, and anyone who knows him will not doubt for one moment that his own personal attitude to this will have influenced the actions and the behaviour of the Police who never previously interpreted the law in this way.

This disturbing tendency to curtail the civil rights of protestors extends to placing restrictions on whether they can blow whistles, hoot the horns of their vehicles or on what they say on their placards. People will recall that a single protestor was prevented by the Police from displaying a placard on the day that the Spanish Minister of State for Foreign Affairs visited Gibraltar in December 2006.

While what demonstrators cannot do is provoke a breach of the peace, if they protest it is because they are unhappy about something and they can hardly be expected to do so in melodious terms or in complete silence.

Being booed in politics is something that you risk when you stand for election. People have historically always been perfectly entitled to boo or shout if they so wished, so long as they did not insult or slander anyone. It is incredible that citizens are free to boo Gordon Brown and boo George Bush but that they cannot now boo Mr Caruana if they so wish. This is unheard of in any democratic society.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=287#post287 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=287&quotepost=287 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:34:43 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=287#post287
This is an announcement of an apparently competitive (subject to sight of the detail of the reforms) rate of low tax for all companies doing business in Gibraltar (whether nationally or internationally) that is long overdue and which the Opposition has been calling for in successive budget sessions. The Opposition's policy was for a final rate of 8% by 2011.


The failure to make the announcement earlier has previously been blamed by Mr Caruana on the fact that the European Court of Justice had not yet decided the case the government has brought against the EU Commission. In fact, the government had previously stated that it would not reduce corporation tax before the decision of the European Court of Justice on the State Aid challenge, and that the Opposition was wrong to suggest the contrary.

As usual, this is another case of Mr Caruana relying on arguments when they are to his momentary advantage and of discarding them when they are not; given that the government is now set to act to reform corporate tax despite the judgement of the EU Court still not having been delivered.

The announcement is also contrary to the announcement made by Mr Caruana in the course of his budget contribution of June 2008, in which he announced that the move to the rate of between 10% and 12% would be from 2010, the year by which even existing Exempt Companies had to disappear.

Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Hon Fabian Picardo, MP, said: “The government has really been found wanting in dealing with the State Aid issue affecting corporation tax, but Mr Caruana’s latest U-turn and decision to adopt our policy on this issue (of implementing the low tax model even prior to a decision from the ECJ) is to be welcome. The initial decision by Mr Caruana to go for a zero rate of corporation tax was unwelcome to most of the financial services industry and the government took too long to come round to the low tax model that it now trumpets as its own. The financial services industry has been unable to market a home-grown company product for some years now, given the phasing out of exempt companies, and has been crying out for certainty. The GSD have been unable to provide that certainty, changing the corporate tax goal-posts year on year in a haphazard manner that is the antithesis of the certainty that financial services professionals look for in structuring their tax models and implementing an interim system of "Tax rulings" from the Commissioner of Income Tax that was highly unsatisifactory on its own. As a result, the industry will welcome this move, but it will remember that - despite the usual fanfare and spin - Mr Caruana and the GSD has been unable to provide clear leadership on this issue previously, having waited until the Gibraltar finance centre has been pushed against the wall by the Commission timetable to phase out Exempt Companies.”]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=286#post286 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=286&quotepost=286 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:33:46 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=286#post286
Reports confirm that many Member States of the EU have indicated to the Commission that they will up their national schemes straight away to 100,000 euros. The Commission has also reportedly said that its statistics show that lifting the minimum guarantee to 50,000 euros would cover 80 percent of deposits within the EU, rising to 90 percent with a guarantee of 100,000 euros.

A further apparent proposal by the Commission appears to be that the maximum amount of time for payouts if a bank fails should be massively reduced to three days instead of the three to nine months waiting period at present.

Fabian Picardo said: “We also note that a spokes person for the Internal Market and Services Commissioner, Commissioner Charles McCreevy, has said that EU finance ministers and the European Parliament, which has the final say, are committed to a speedy adoption of the measures and that, once adopted, it would be applied retroactively from Oct. 15, 2008 so the 100,000 euro guarantee would come into force by the end of 2009 (and may even be retroactive to 15 October 200. I note that Mr Caruana is presently traveling to observe the Royal Gibraltar Regiment’s exercise in Marrakesh (which we do not criticise), but given this further proposed measure to again increase the sums guaranteed under the depositor guarantee scheme, the sooner that we hear from Government that it is moving to increase the present protection to at least 100,000 euros, the better. We remain committed to assisting the Government to ensure that any necessary legislation is passed as a matter of urgency. We must ensure that we are not the last part of the EU with a scheme providing a cover for only 20,000 euros."

Notes to Editors:

(1) The relevant press communique from the EU Commission is available at (you may have to copy/paste the link onto your browsers address bar): http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1508&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

(2) FAQs prepared by the EU Commission on this matter are available at (you may have to copy/paste the link onto your browsers address bar): http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/622&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

(3) A memorandum providing the background to the proposal is available at (you may have to copy/paste the link onto your browsers address bar): http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/guarantee/index_en.htm

(4) See the report on this matter on Reuters at (you may have to copy/paste the link onto your browsers address bar): http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKLF10191820081015]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=285#post285 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=285&quotepost=285 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:09:31 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=285#post285
This is unrelated to the problem caused by the recent storm damage. Indeed, the supply of salt water to the Estate has been reconnected this morning and the Opposition has been told that Cathay House still has no water.

The Opposition understands that a water pipe which serves the block was damaged and that the contractors do not want to carry out the repair without the necessary authorization from the relevant Government department.

In the meantime, while this administrative problem is resolved, the lack of salt water is causing real difficulty and hardship to tenants of Cathay House, many of whom are elderly. They are forced to use drinking water to flush their toilets by filling and pouring in heavy buckets of water, which some of them who are infirm can only do with considerable difficulty, quite apart from the obvious expense.

The tenants have become so desperate that signatures were collected over the weekend for a petition which was handed in to the Housing department this Monday calling for action.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister for Housing, Elderly Care and the Family Charles Bruzon said:

“These people are the victims of an administrative problem between the Government and their contractors and the situation is totally unacceptable. The Government should show some humanity and act forthwith to resolve this matter.”]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=284#post284 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=284&quotepost=284 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:08:49 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=284#post284
The true position has been made public this afternoon by one of the organisers who told GBC radio that Mr Louis Bruzon and the GSLP had nothing to do with it and that the protest is led by home-owners waiting for their flats to be finished and those who support them. The spokesperson for the organisers also placed Mr Bruzon’s contributions in Facebook in their proper context.

It will be recalled that at the last meeting of Parliament, Mr Caruana was asked by Shadow Housing Minister Charles Bruzon to apologise to the purchasers in Waterport Terraces for the delays in completion and he refused to do so. What Mr Caruana should do now is apologise to the organisers of the protest for imputing motives to them which are false.

The central issue is that purchasers in this development are completely fed up at both the delays to the project and at the manner in which the issue is being handled. This is the thrust of the criticisms of the GSD Government that appear on Facebook over the past few months. The Government raised expectations about the delivery date of these properties as a vote-catching exercise before the elections just like they promised people in the rental development at Rooke that there would be a ballot to allocate their non-existent flat before the end of last year.

The additional cost that people have incurred in the delay they have suffered and the fact that they have had to pay for their new home and their existing home has meant that many purchasers are justifiably angered and now feel cheated and let down.

The decision to hold a demonstration in order to vent their frustration and put pressure on the Government into taking some action clearly comes from the purchasers themselves and is not “politically orchestrated” in any way. Indeed, one would think that the composition of purchasers is a matter totally independent of their political affiliation and if it were biased it would hardly be in favour of those who support the Opposition parties.

The Government must understand that freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Gibraltar. Their warning that purchasers “should be aware of the party political involvement in this demonstration” can only been seen as an attempt to mislead the public and scare people away so that they do not take part. This is a repeat exercise of what they tried to do with the SDGG National Day rally at Casemates.

It is deeply regrettable that ordinary citizens should be subjected to this kind of treatment and it is even more regrettable that Mr Caruana should now seek to censor the internet, as well as everything else, when he does not agree with what is being said about him and his Government.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=283#post283 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=283&quotepost=283 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:10:33 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=283#post283
The Opposition notes the ratification by the European Commission of the recommendation by ECOFIN to increase deposit guarantee schemes throughout the EU to EURO 50,000 or the equivalent for an initial period of at least one year. It should be noted that the Commission will not be proposing to amend Directive 94/19/EC and will remain as an “accord” based on “an informal political agreement” which has come about as a result of the turmoil affecting the banking industry worldwide and the unprecedented unilateral action being taken by some Member States to re-assure depositors (and which has resulted in different amounts being “guaranteed” in different States).

In that context, the Opposition notes and welcomes the statement by Mr Caruana on Friday to the effect that the Government is already in consultation with the entities that are members of the Gibraltar Depositor Guarantee Scheme (“the Gibraltar Scheme”) about increasing the amounts of the guarantee in place for depositors in banks which are covered by the Gibraltar Scheme.

Given that the banking industry worldwide remains subject to dramatic fluctuations, the Opposition urges the Government to act to amend the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Act 1997 as soon as possible to increase the sum guaranteed by the Scheme at least in keeping with the EU recommendations.

Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Hon Fabian Picardo MP, has written to Mr Caruana today to that end and to tell him that the view of the Opposition is that it would support increasing the amounts guaranteed under the Scheme at least to the levels recommended by the European Commission. Mr Picardo has also told Mr Caruana that the Opposition is of the view that, given the continued turmoil in the banking sector (which is now affecting some entities which have local presence and which are not covered by schemes elsewhere) any changes to the Act to increase the amounts guaranteed under the Scheme should be implemented as soon as possible. For that reason, Mr Picardo has informed Mr Caruana that the Opposition would agree to a certification by him under Section 35(3) of the Constitution of any legislation to amend the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Act 1997 as being too urgent to wait the six weeks of publication required before it can be passed by the Parliament and agreeing to Parliament being recalled before the 22nd October (the date to which it is presently adjourned).

Mr Picardo said:

“As the effective nationalisation in the United Kingdom of high street banking names this morning reflects, the issues affecting the banking industry are far from resolved. We have now started to see names associated with banking in Gibraltar being brought into public ownership with the UK Government acting to ensure their stability.”

Mr Picardo added: “It will help to retain confidence in institutions governed by the Gibraltar Scheme that it should now be increased to at least the levels recommended by the EU Commission. That would, for example, help to prevent a movement of capital to banks also in Gibraltar or elsewhere presently covered by the UK Scheme or to banks covered by more generous schemes in other EU Member States. As this change would require changes to primary legislation, namely the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Act 1997, it will be necessary for Parliament, which is presently set to meet again on the 22nd of October, to approve the changes. This is not an issue of partisan division and from the Opposition I have written to Mr Caruana to say that we would agree that any legislation to increase the amount guaranteed under the Gibraltar Scheme should be certified by him under Section 35(3) of the Constitution as being too urgent to wait the six weeks of publication required before it can be passed by the Parliament. We would therefore support such certification by the Chief Minister of a Bill to amend the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Act. Moreover, if the Government is able to produce the legislation for consideration before the 22nd October, we would also agree to Parliament being recalled for this purpose before that date.”

NOTES TO EDITORS:

1. Section 12(2)(b) and Schedule 2, paragraph 1(2) of the Act both include a reference to the present rate of the compensation payable and will likely require amendments which can only be made by primary legislation passed by the Parliament.

2. Section 35(3) of the Constitution provides:

(3) Every bill shall be published in the Gazette, and the Parliament shall not proceed upon any bill until the expiration of six weeks after the date on which the bill was so published, unless the Chief Minister certifies by writing under his hand that consideration of the bill is too urgent to permit such a delay.

The right to certify legislation as urgent under Section 35(3) of the Constitution does not require consultation with or the agreement of the Opposition. In the debate of the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2007 Mr Caruana stated that he expected to act by consensus on such certifications whenever possible given that the power to certify “is a power that where possible, should be used consensually”. [HANSARD, 5th Dec 2007 (and adjournments thereof) p17].]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=282#post282 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=282&quotepost=282 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:03:05 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=282#post282
The Opposition would like to make it clear that we did not intend that the speech should hurt Mr Caruana’s feelings, given the increasing frequency of his outbursts he is obviously going through a very sensitive phase in life.

However, Mr Caruana must understand that in a democracy people are entitled to hold a different opinion to him and are entitled to freely express that opinion, be it at Casemates Square, at the United Nations or anywhere else.

Given that the view of the Opposition is not the same as the view of the Government, Mr Bossano has a duty and an obligation to make that distinction clear. Mr Caruana may well be the present Chief Minister of the present GSD Government, but he does not have a monopoly on freedom of expression or freedom of political thought.

Mr Caruana may not be aware, for instance, that there were a total of 70 petitioners in addition to one from Gibraltar before the 4th Committee of the UN General Assembly this time round. This included four on the subject of Guam and no less than 62 on the question of Western Sahara. Clearly, neither the 4th Committee nor anyone else seems to have a problem with different views being expressed by different speakers and nobody else sought to exercise censorship on the basis that it may or may not embarrass the Government of the respective territory.

Mr Caruana’s objection to Mr Bossano’s use of the term “territorial Government” defies all logic. He should know that this is UN terminology and it is the term that the UN itself uses to describe the Governments of the remaining 16 Non-self-governing territories of which Gibraltar is one. However, the Opposition would like to make clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that Mr Bossano’s use of this term was not intended to downgrade Mr Caruana or to undermine his status or his sense of self-importance. Nothing could have been further from Mr Bossano’s mind.

It is also rather odd that Mr Caruana should equate his own political interests and the partisan interests of the GSD Government with the interests of Gibraltar as if both were the same thing. The interests of Gibraltar and the interests of the GSD are not the same thing. Indeed, in the view of the Opposition it was precisely in the interests of Gibraltar that Mr Bossano should attend and put across our point of view.

Given all the above, the Opposition regret that Mr Caruana was so upset but are nonetheless happy to note that at least on this occasion he was not moved to tears!]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=281#post281 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=281&quotepost=281 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:37:20 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=281#post281

FULL TEXT OF AN ADDRESS BY THE

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Hon. J. J. BOSSANO, MP

TO

THE UNITED NATIONS

FOURTH COMMITTEE

7TH OCTOBER 2008

Your Excellencies

In addressing you this year, I wish to update you on the position as regards our country’s decolonization and identify where we share the position of the territorial Government and where we differ.

In doing so, I am conscious that the Government considers that it alone has the right to speak for Gibraltarians on this question. The Opposition does not share this view. Not only did the 2007 Elections yield a result where a shift of some 300 voters would have produced a different Government, as I informed you last year, but perhaps even more important, not everyone who can vote and indeed stand for Parliament in Gibraltar has a say in its decolonization.

The Territorial Government has decided not to attend regional seminars and not to appear before the C.24. It has stated it considers Gibraltar’s decolonization is now complete and no longer a matter for the UN. In its view, as expressed in Gibraltar, it appears before this Committee to refute the Spanish sovereignty claim, not to pursue Gibraltar’s decolonization.

We do not share its interpretation that this Committee is here to consider Spain’s sovereignty claim. As far as we are concerned, the agenda item on the floor is the question of decolonization and this Committee has no jurisdiction in settling territorial sovereignty disputes between UN Members.

However, we agree that Spain’s claim should be refuted whenever and wherever it is made.

The applicable principles for all 16 territories, fully explained in Resolution 2625(xxv), are clear.

The territory of a colony, like Gibraltar, has a separate status which shall exist under the Charter until the people of the Colony have exercised their right of self-determination.

The exercise of this right is not intended to encourage any act to dismember the territorial integrity of a sovereign state which represents the whole of the people.

Spain is not such a sovereign state, and does not represent the people of Gibraltar.

The provisions of 2625(xxv) in 1970, deal with the future, not the past.

The modern Spanish state, that today upholds the principle of equal rights, first emerged 200 years ago, following the Spanish War of Independence. 104 years after Gibraltar had broken away from Spain.

The state that existed 304 years ago, was not a state that conducted itself in compliance with equal rights and without discrimination as to race, as required by 2625.

On the contrary, by article 12 of the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, by which Spain gave up Gibraltar in perpetuity, the Spanish Crown authorized the transportation of slaves from the west coast of Africa to the Americas.

So much, for the supposed legitimacy of the Spanish territorial claim.

In any event, the UK Government has made clear that it has never accepted Spain’s argument on territorial integrity, as in any way relevant to Gibraltar’s decolonization. In Gibraltar we all agree with this view.

In spite of the UK’s position, it is being party to the consensus decision before you. In seeking to reconcile what appear contradictory views, the UK has also made clear that it supports the consensus decision on the basis that it will not discuss Gibraltar’s sovereignty with Spain, unless Gibraltar wants such discussions to be held.

Since there is nothing to suggest that Gibraltar wants this, we believe the UK should stop supporting the consensus decision altogether. It is clear to us that the decision before you is for such discussions to be held so as to bring about our decolonization, something which the UK maintains has already happened in Gibraltar, and the other 9 British Overseas Territories, and that your criteria, which would apply to any decolonization process involving the UN, are out of date,

The Territorial Government shares the UK’s view that the UN’s criteria for decolonization are archaic and outdated and that it is up to the administering power to decide, together with the Territorial Government, when a territory has achieved a full measure of self-government.

The position in international law seems clear enough and does not support such views.

The requirement to submit annual reports under Art.73(e) remains for all 10 territories and the UK accepts it has to comply. On the other hand, the UK does not accept that it should also comply with the guidelines governing the long established procedures needed, for the reporting requirement to cease.

This smells to us like cherry-picking, selecting which of its UN obligations it will meet, a conduct, we submit, unbecoming a state that has been one of the UN’s key founder members.

The guidance for assessing the status of a territory are in our view neither archaic nor onerous and were adopted on the recommendation of this Committee. They were not opposed at the time by UK and they have been observed in other cases of emergence from colonial status.

In addition, we believe the UK’s approach is ill-conceived and unmanageable. What happens if you accept the UK proposal for its 10 territories? Would you have to reconsider the territorial status every time there is a change of Government in the UK or in any of its 10 overseas territories, should the subjective judgement of the incoming Government, as to the nature of the constitutional relationship, differ from that of its predecessor? Surely, this is why the guidelines exist to ensure consistency of treatment in respect of all the territories.

In the years I have participated at the UN, I have always said Gibraltar should be treated by the same rules as the other territories.

When I addressed you for the first time I also brought to your notice the Self Determination Group, National Day, Casemates Rally of 1993. This was massively supported by our people and attended by Spanish parties and politicians, who subscribed to the Casemates Declaration asserting our right to self-determination, showing the strength of the true feelings of our people and the sympathy and understanding of some of our neighbours.

This year we again celebrated our National Day Casemates Political Rally, in defence of our self-determination and in pursuance of our decolonization. Since I have only 8 or so minutes and a picture speaks louder than 1,000 words, I have provided you with a picture of the event in the written text of my statement.

The fundamental message and purpose of our National Day political rally is the very same message that has made it possible for one third of Your Excellencies to exercise your self-determination and achieve a full measure of self government in your own countries’ emergence from colonial rule.

It is that spirit, which 60 years ago, was enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights and provided for the UN Chapter XI Territories, such as yours were, and ours still is, the relevant decolonization criteria.

In our case the message is, as it has to be, an outright rejection of the Spanish claim to our sovereignty, a claim that attempts against our country’s 300 year old territorial integrity, in fundamental breach of the Charter.

Ours is a simple, clear message. No Gibraltar Government will ever be willing to discuss with Spain, nor allow the UK to discuss with Spain, the transfer of any part of our sovereignty.

Spain claims the whole of it; we will give Spain not one single grain of sand of our homeland.

The annual consensus before you, which you have repeated in much the same terms for over 40 years, is an utter and complete waste of time.

The process of negotiation between UK and Spain to decolonize our country and decide the future of our people, envisaged by this consensus, will never happen, because we, the Gibraltarians, will never, ever permit it!

Mr Chairman, Your Excellencies, thank you for listening, I will now be happy to answer any questions you may wish to put to me.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=280#post280 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=280&quotepost=280 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:50:49 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=280#post280
The 4th Committee is one of the six main committees of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Its full title is Special Political and Decolonisation Committee and it deals with a variety of political subjects and specifically with decolonisation. The Committee of 24, which is the Special Committee on decolonisation, reports and answers to the 4th Committee.

In a press release issued by the Committee itself yesterday Thursday 2nd October, the 4th Committee announced that it would be considering the issues relating to the implementation of the decolonisation declaration as from Monday 6th October. In the course of these meetings the Committee will look at the position regarding decolonisation in each of the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories which includes Gibraltar.

The question of Gibraltar is expected to be considered on Tuesday afternoon and the usual consensus decision jointly drafted by London and Madrid is likely to be presented by the Chairman once again this year. This urges the United Kingdom and Spain to resolve the decolonisation of Gibraltar in the spirit of the Brussels agreement.

Mr Bossano will be addressing this issue in his submission as a petitioner on behalf of the Opposition.

The Opposition Leader returns to Gibraltar on Wednesday. During his absence from Gibraltar Dr Joseph Garcia will act as Leader of the Opposition.]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=279#post279 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=279&quotepost=279 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:35:55 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=279#post279
These tax breaks, known as Development Aid would, in normal circumstances, have been lost because the company did not apply to renew them within the stipulated time period. The actions of the Government have set a precedent which opens the door for other developers to question this favourable treatment and seek it for themselves in the future.

Development Aid is a mechanism which delivers substantial tax relief to developers, in the case of Ocean Village 50%, and it also makes it possible for shareholders to receive dividends from such companies tax free. However, the license stipulates a date for the completion of the project which must be met in order to be able to enjoy these tax advantages.

It was the practice in the past for developers, if the project was not going to be ready on time, to apply for an amendment to the completion date and in this way gain more time. They would sometimes apply for this extension of time even after the stipulated completion date had expired.

The Government described this process as an abuse of our existing mechanisms and, with Opposition support, the law was changed last year. The effect of the change was to make sure that any developer who applied for an extension to his license after the stipulated completion date of the project, would lose the tax benefits of Development Aid.

In the case of Ocean Village, the date for completion stipulated in their Development Aid license was 31 March 2007. They did not apply for an extension to this date before this deadline expired. This means that under the new law which was passed by Parliament on 29 March (and which came into effect on 26 April), Ocean Village would have lost its tax benefits.

When questioned in Parliament by Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry Dr Joseph Garcia, the Minister responsible Joe Holliday said that these were “exceptional circumstances” and that Ocean Village was allowed to submit a new application for the remaining completion period of the project. This was on the basis of the “genuine possibility” that the company could have been unaware of the change in the law and the fact that they had applied for an extension the day after the new law came into effect.

The Opposition had warned soon after the amendments to the Development Aid Act were adopted last year that they did not go far enough and that there was still a loophole in the law. It remained possible for an existing license to be cancelled and a new one issued with a different completion date which would have the same effect as applying for, and receiving, an extension out of time.

This is what has happened in the case of Ocean Village. The developer will continue to enjoy substantial tax relief even though the law was changed, even though they applied after the deadline had expired and only because the Government decided as a matter of policy to issue a new license with a new extended completion date.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister for Trade and Industry Dr Joseph Garcia said:

“This makes a mockery of the claim made by the Minister that the changes made last year were to ‘tighten up the regime’ and to ‘stem the possible abuse of the Development Aid system’.

The irony is that the Development Aid system has now been abused with the connivance of the Government itself. It is precisely the loophole in the law that the Opposition identified last year that the Government have used to issue a new license to Ocean Village so that they can continue to enjoy the considerable tax benefits that flow from it.”]]> http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=278#post278 http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/post.php?topic=278&quotepost=278 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:21:01 GMT http://www.gibconnect.com/~thekey/press/topic.php?post=278#post278