THE KEY

Ban on Gibraltar�s participation in European Athletics championship opening ceremony is disgraceful says Opposition

thekey — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:29:37 GMT

The Opposition condemn the fact that Gibraltar was unable to participate in the opening ceremony of the European Athletics Championships taking place in Barcelona because of political objections raised by Spain. This shows that Madrid continues to have no hesitation in mixing politics and sport as they have done for many years.

Gibraltar is a full member of the International Amateur Athletics Federation as a country in our own right. This means that we are perfectly entitled to participate in international or European sporting events in the same way as any other member and with no obstacles or restrictions placed upon us. The news that Gibraltar was not allowed to participate in the opening ceremony following an objection raised by Spain is absolutely scandalous. The opening ceremony is one of the main events of the tournament where athletes parade past the audience carrying a banner with the name of their country and bearing the national flag. It is obvious that Spain did not want this to happen and Gibraltar was not allowed to take part.

It will be recalled that Spain�s Consejo Superior de Deportes, which is an organ of the Spanish Government, issued an edit many years ago calling on all Spanish sporting federations to object whenever they were faced with an application for membership from an association from Gibraltar. They have also made life difficult for Gibraltar in a number of sporting tournaments over the years, particularly when an international event in which Gibraltar is entitled to participate takes place in Spain.

The most prominent case of this political discrimination against Gibraltar is the continued exclusion of the Gibraltar Football Association from membership of UEFA. It is well known that under pressure from the Spanish football federation, the rules of the organisation were changed after Gibraltar applied to join. This has been the subject of a number of court cases where the tribunals have consistently found in favour of the GFA but despite this Gibraltar is still not a member.

The continuing objection by Spain to the participation of Gibraltar in sporting events and to our membership of international associations runs counter to the propaganda that we continue to be fed about the new climate that exists in relations between Gibraltar and Madrid. It is absolutely disgraceful that Gibraltar�s sportsmen should continue to be discriminated against for political reasons at the behest of the Spanish Government.

Opposition highlight concerns about Referendum House lifts [July - 28 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:28:55 GMT

The Opposition have received complaints from tenants that one of the two lifts at Referendum House is again out of action. The tenants claim that the faulty lift has not been repaired despite various reports that have been made by them to the housing department in the last few days and they are understandably concerned that many people will be left stranded if the only remaining lift were to break down as well.

The story of the lifts at Referendum House is a long and complicated saga. The Opposition has received many complaints over the years regarding the functioning of these lifts and it is unacceptable that the complaints should continue within weeks of both lifts having been replaced by new ones. Indeed, the Ministry for Housing reporting office, according to data supplied by the Government, has received 90 reports about the lift at Referendum House since 2007. In 2010 up to June there have been 9 reports, 6 of which were made in May and June. The second new lift was installed in May 2010.

In answer to questions at the last meeting of Parliament, the Government said that 30 lifts are included in the contract held by Otis for the repair and maintenance of lifts in Government housing estates. They added that the four lifts at the Tower Blocks were under warranty and therefore not included in the contract as yet. The Government also said that since Otis undertook responsibility for the repair and maintenance of lifts in Government housing estates, the taxpayer has paid �273,345 for this service. When asked by Shadow Housing Minister Charles Bruzon how many times the lifts in Government housing estates required preventive maintenance in each financial year since the contract with Otis commenced, the Government response was that there was no record of the number of times that this has occurred.

The Opposition is concerned at the reports that it continues to receive regarding the lifts at Referendum House. The latest complaint indicates that one lift is out of order and that the other is operating in a bumpy and shaky manner. There are many tenants who will find access to their homes extremely difficult if both lifts were to break down.

Government have politically mishandled Mid Town project from the very outset says Opposition [July - 27 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:27:21 GMT

The decision of the Government to consider becoming a majority shareholder in the development of the first phase of the Mid Town project will only serve to further compound the way in which this development has been politically mishandled from the very outset. It was bad enough that the land for the project was undervalued and undersold five years ago. It now adds insult to injury that the taxpayer, who has been short-changed by this project, should now have to bail out the development because bank finance is unavailable.

The Mid Town project is located on former MOD land in the centre of town which included the two naval grounds and comprised about 7500 square meters of land for the developer. It was not put out to tender and was directly awarded by the Government to a company called Commercial Developments Investments Ltd which was then a consortium of Dutch and local developers. The original plans were for the construction of two buildings, one high-rise, in exchange for which the developer would build a school, a park, a car park for 650 vehicles and a leisure centre inside King�s Bastion. These works were valued at � 10 million.

The Opposition has long maintained that the project was undersold and that the real value of this large prime site of land was more in the region of �20-�25 million. The cost of the leisure centre alone proved to be around � 11 million which was more than double the original estimate which meant that the balance between the original value and the new value were met by the Government. In other words, instead of the developer paying the Government, the Government ended up paying the developer.

There were further changes made to the project which included a reduction in the height and the construction of four towers of offices and luxury apartments instead of two. It was announced at the launch of the project that construction of the first building, Rock Tower, would commence in February 2008 and be completed in April 2010. The intention was that the four buildings would be phased in over 5-6 years in line with market demands. When questioned about the delay in Parliament in 2009 by Shadow Minister for development and planning Dr Joseph Garcia, the Government said that the developers had indicated to them that they expected to commence actual construction before the end of the year. No mention was made at the time of any difficulty in securing bank finance for the project.

The manner in which the Government has dealt with this project has raised a number of serious issues and exposed the shortcomings of their development and planning policy. It has become increasingly obvious that a condition of such awards must include a fixed commencement date failing which the developer would forfeit the deposit and lose the plot of land. It is also clear that the Government cannot possibly have known whether this was the best deal available simply because the project never went out to tender and other potentially interested parties were therefore excluded from the process.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister for development and planning Dr Joseph Garcia said:

�The news that the Government now intends to become a majority shareholder in the development of Mid Town�s first phase means that as well as a share in any hypothetical future profit, they (meaning the taxpayer) are also landed with the majority share of the risk involved. The plain fact is that the lack of office space in Gibraltar is a problem of the Government�s own making. They took the decision to move the hospital into an office block at Europort instead of having constructed a purpose-built hospital elsewhere. They also failed to make provision for any future office space once the decision to move the hospital had been taken. It is totally unacceptable that the tax payers of Gibraltar should now be expected to pay for the mistakes of the Government once again.�

Opposition concerned at sharp increase in cancelled hospital operations caused by lack of beds [July - 26 - 2010]

thekey — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:20:42 GMT

It is regrettable, to say the least, that once again members of the public continue to complain to the Opposition as to cancelled operations. In fact, the Opposition is concerned at the sharp increase in the number of operations that have been cancelled at St Bernard�s Hospital because of bed shortages. The flippant remark by Mr Caruana and Mrs del Agua that operations are cancelled even in the Houston Medical Centre will serve as scant consolation to the many people who continue to be affected by this problem.

The latest figures made available to the Opposition show that for the period from February to May of this year a total of 78 operations were cancelled due to the non-availability of beds. This represents a huge increase from the previous four-month period from October 2009 to January 2010 where the figures supplied to the Opposition show that 10 operations were cancelled for the same reason in that time.

There were a total of 22 operations cancelled due to non-availability of beds in February 2010, 27 in March 2010, 4 in April 2010 and 25 in May 2010.

Given that the Government has had no less than fourteen years to get to grips with this problem, it is totally unacceptable that patients should have to go through the mental trauma of preparing for an operation only to be told, sometimes at the last minute, that this will not happen because there are no beds available. It is a reflection of the polices of this GSD Government and its poor planning capability that this continues to happen at what they like to describe as a �state of the art� facility. It will be recalled that the Opposition warned about this problem when the Government took the policy decision to move the hospital from its old site and put it in an office block at Europort. The problem with lack of beds was simply transferred from one building to another.

In the past the Government have blamed the lack of beds on elderly persons whom they have accused of �bed-blocking�. It will be recalled that an empty ward was recently allocated to the Elderly Care Agency and that a number of elderly patients were decanted into this new ward. It is inexplicable how the shortage of bed space has now deteriorated even further although this new facility has come into existence.

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

�When faced with these criticisms, both Mr Caruana and his Health Minister Mrs del Agua have only offered red herrings and sarcasm. The Government do not seem to understand that this is a problem which is affecting an increasing number of people and one which they have failed to get to grips with over many years. They have had ample time to resolve the matter and they have failed to do so. If they had applied the same energy and resources to this as they have to other things like the construction of a new air terminal building then perhaps people would no longer be affected by this problem. However, they prefer to waste money on grandoise luxuries instead of on real issues that affect real people. The GSD Government�s time is up and they will pay the price with the electorate when an election is called.�

Mayor of La Linea will damage cross-border relations if he persists with his plans says Opposition [July - 22 - 2010]

thekey — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:13:53 GMT

The Mayor of La Linea Alejandro Sanchez has claimed that the measures that he wants to take at the frontier are not aimed against Gibraltar but against the central Government in Madrid. Even though this may be the intention, he must surely understand that the direct effect of the measures will be felt in Gibraltar alone and not in Madrid or anywhere else.

The action involves creating an additional checkpoint for vehicles exiting Gibraltar and the proposed payment of a toll by persons entering Gibraltar by car. The checkpoint, regardless of the legitimacy of the action taken by local police officers of the municipality, is simply designed to increase the length of time that it takes to cross the frontier. The Mayor should realise that there are many Gibraltarians and other residents of Gibraltar who cross into La Linea to spend money there on goods and services. It is obvious that the more difficult the Mayor makes it to cross the frontier, the less residents of Gibraltar will be inclined to spend their money in his city. The actions of the Mayor will therefore do nothing to help La Linea and will have the opposite effect. Indeed, the antipathy and resentment that this will create in Gibraltar is not in the best interests of La Linea or of friendly cross-border relations.

In taking this action, Mr Sanchez is repeating the same mistake made by previous Spanish politicians at a local and national level. There is a tendency in political circles in Spain to believe that the frontier is a chink in Gibraltar�s armour and that they can use their control over the flow of people to put pressure on Gibraltar. The lesson of history is that these actions are completely counterproductive and that the more pressure that is placed on Gibraltar the more determined it makes us to resist it.

The Mayor�s threats and actions are also rather surprising given the comments he made at the time of his election that this would usher in a new era in relations between Gibraltar and La Linea. The Mayor must know that there are many thousands of Spaniards who come in to earn their living in Gibraltar and many others who provide goods and services. There may well be 10,000 unemployed people in La Linea, as he says, but the truth is that if it were not for Gibraltar there would be many thousands more.

Government are incapable of accepting that there was no safety net for young girl says Opposition [July - 21 - 2010]

thekey — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 02:12:44 GMT

It is obvious that this Government lack both the conviction and the arguments with which to defend the policy decisions that they take. Their latest response to the Opposition statement regarding the case of a 14 year old girl who had to spend two nights in prison is a case in point.

The issue is not whether the minor had breached a curfew or not, as the Care Agency says in their press release. The issue is that when the minor was taken to court for breaching the curfew the magistrate did not have anywhere else to send her because according to the Government�s social services department they did not have the resources to deal with the case. The juvenile therefore ended up in prison.

It is obvious from the tone of the Care Agency�s statement and of the interview given by Minister Jaime Netto that the Government are unrepentant and that they believe that they have nothing to apologise for. This is in line with the attitude that Gibraltar has come to expect from a GSD Government who believe that everything they do is always right and that the consequences of their policies cannot be questioned or challenged by anyone.

It is Minister Netto and his Government who have indulged in political point scoring. They should know that the Opposition drew attention to the lack of facilities to deal with these kind of cases last year, well before this incident had taken place. Our comments now are consistent with the views that we expressed at the time.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister with responsibility for social services Neil Costa said:

�The Minister continues to place information surrounding this case into the public domain in a feeble attempt to justify his own political position and explain the shortcomings of the policies of his Government. We understand that this information is not entirely accurate. In any event, even if what the Government has said were to be 100% accurate, it does not detract from the main point at issue. The bottom line is that the Government is completely mistaken in its belief that social services exist to deal with �normal� and �run of the mill� situations. They are incapable of accepting that there was no safety net for this young person in her time of need.�

Government failure to provide berths for small boats creates parking problem at Western Beach [July - 20 - 2010]

thekey — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:19:34 GMT

The failure of the Government to provide berths for small boat owners whose boats are on land at Western Beach has once again created a severe parking problem for beach users in the area. The Opposition drew attention to this matter a year ago and berths have still not been provided for those affected.

There are about 40 small boats hauled up on land in the narrow access road that leads to Western Beach. These occupy a large number of parking spaces in the area. It means that there are many beach users who cannot find a space in which to park or who have to resort to using the pay car park next door. Western Beach is in fact the only beach in Gibraltar were people are expected to pay to park their cars.

In answer to questions from Shadow Minister with responsibility for the Port, Dr Joseph Garcia, the Government said that there were 186 boat owners who are waiting for a berth. This includes owners with boats on land, like those at Western Beach, and others who would like to import a boat but who are unable to do so because they have nowhere to berth it.

This year the problem at Western Beach has been compounded by the mess that the Government has allowed in all the other of Gibraltar�s sandy beaches. The problems at Sandy Bay, Eastern Beach and Catalan Bay means that beach users who want to go to a sandy beach in Gibraltar, as opposed to a pebble beach , have no other option but to go to Western Beach.

Moreover, members of the public have made representations to the Opposition regarding the state of Western Beach itself. The first is that the beach shower which was in place in the past has been removed without word or explanation of any kind It would have been logical to have constructed such a facility in the concrete area where persons enter and exit the beach.

The second issue is that there is no proper flagpole at which the red or yellow flag can be hoisted for the public to see. The flags are presently attached to the lifeguard tower near the back of the beach and this is not as visible as it should be. Indeed, during a recent shark alert last week, many beach goers were not even aware that the red flag had been hoisted because of its peculiar location. It also became obvious as a result of this incident that the lifeguards should be supplied with a loud-hailer (they are even available with a built-in siren) in order to get people out the water quickly when there is an emergency. The present system where they blow a whistle leads to confusion when many small children also have a similar sounding whistles which they play with on the beach.

This year the changing rooms have been moved to an area nearer to the beach itself. However, the toilets are still half way down the long access road. There have been cases of elderly persons and young children who have been unable to wait when they wanted to use the toilet urgently. The plain fact is that the toilets are outside the beach itself and at some distance which is something that does not happen on the same scale at any other of Gibraltar�s beaches.

The main problem is clearly parking. The lack of foresight and planning on the part of the Government first in providing berths for the small boats owners and secondly in not providing adequate parking alternatives is another example of their being more focused on expensive luxury projects rather than on the needs of ordinary people.

Opposition highlight concerns regarding front doors at Cumberland Terraces

thekey — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:31:30 GMT

The Opposition has received more complaints from purchasers at Cumberland Terraces who are understandably upset at a number of different problems affecting the development. The length of time that people have had to wait for their flats even before the collapse of the developer OEM and the subsequent collapse of the contractor Haymills has only served to make matters worse.

The Opposition continue to receive complaints from purchasers regarding the fact that there are restrictors on the windows of the flats which only allow them to open a few centimetres. There are many purchasers who have a serious problem with this and who claim that the restricted opening does not allow them to have proper ventilation of their flats particularly at this time of the year in the heat of summer.

There have now been further complaints made regarding the front doors of the flats at Cumberland Terraces. The Opposition has been informed that the Government have had to replace the front doors in the development because these were deemed not to be good enough. This decision was apparently taken post-inspection and post the completion certificates being awarded which is a very unusual way in which to proceed.

The Government, through its wholly-owned company GRP, have told purchasers that they are not satisfied with the quality of the doors and they have a concern that they may deteriorate too quickly. They have not explained how it was that the front doors were installed before the Government took this view about their quality and decided to remove them. They have also not explained why this was done post-inspection and post the award of the completion certificates. The reality is that the front doors of many flats will now have to be changed with people living in them. Purchasers have been advised that this can be done in a day but it will nonetheless cause considerable inconvenience to many people not least about issues like safety and security.

The Government, in an obvious attempt to place the blame elsewhere, have explained to purchasers that they did not design the development nor did it specify the standards. However, they have declared �that both are satisfactory and fully compliant with applicable Regulations and Standards�.

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

�I have been approached by a number of people who have expressed concern to me about their flats at Cumberland Terraces. These centre on the quality of the finished product and on the differences between their expectations and what has actually happened in reality. It is not acceptable that the Government should wash its hands of the project as if it had nothing to do with them. As I have said before, they have boasted they had closely supervised the quality of the construction, therefore any defects that surface now are clearly a Government responsibility for which they must answer and which they will have to rectify.�

GOVT FUNDING OF 7 DAYS IS TAXPAYER FUNDING OF GSD CAMPAIGN [July - 17 - 2010]

thekey — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:30:35 GMT

The statements by the current Chief Minister, Mr Caruana, on GBC�s Newswatch last Friday attempting to justify the Government�s funding of the �7 Days� are a transparent nonsense peddled in the manner of a snake oil salesman.

Mr Caruana told GBC that the only criteria for placing government advertisement in newspapers was that they should not be �in house� party organs. Mr Caruana has argued for the last 15 years that Government would not advertise in �The New People� on the basis that it was an in house party organ of the GSLP. However, Mr Caruana has been fully aware that for the past 15 years �The New People� has been owned exclusively by Mr Clive Golt (the new Government Media Director) and NOT by the GSLP or any member of the GSLP executive. The �7 Days� is owned by a GSD party supporter.

In any event, this is different to what Mr Caruana has previously told the Parliament when he was trying to justify removing official advertising from VOX, after it had taken an editorial line that was contrary to the GSD. At that time, Mr Caruana argued that official advertising would only be placed in publications that were up to date in their debts to Government. The GSD Government had advertised in Vox � despite the debts that newspaper had to government in PAYE and Social Insurance � until it changed its editorial line to be anti-GSD.

Commenting on the matter, shadow minister for the media, Fabian Picardo, said: �This Government is making a virtue of contradiction. Peter Caruana will now say anything to try to hang onto power and justify his funding of the 7 Days to allow it to publish a GSD manifesto on a weekly basis at taxpayers expense. This is totally contrary to established principles of good governance and illustrates that Mr Caruana is confusing his party interests with those of the State. In effect, taxpayers are now funding a part of the GSD�s campaign with public money. The state funding of what is clearly a party organ like �7 Days� has to be considered when looking at substance and not form. If Mr Caruana is now saying � having changed his position � that if the form is that a newspaper is not owned in-house by a political party it will get state advertising, he is just seeking to carve out an exception to fit the facts as it suits him. As I told Mr Caruana during the course of the Budget debate, he has lost his democratic way on this. Unfortunately, although Mr Caruana speaks to the highest standards of governance, his actions stoop to political skulduggery of the lowest kind. But his excuses no longer wash with the public, who are too clever to allow him to continue to pull the wool over their eyes with transparent excuses. These actions serve to show just how badly a change of government is needed in Gibraltar, and soon!�

Government cannot be allowed to hide their failures in case of 14 year old girl says Opposition [July - 15 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:37:33 GMT

The interview of Minister Jaime Netto on Monday on the case of the 14 year old girl who had spent two nights in prison instead of being looked after by the Care Agency, has raised more questions than it answered. In addition, it is quite incredible, although entirely consistent with the way that the GSD conducts politics, that the Government did not take the opportunity to give a public apology for these turn of events, which most people rightly describe as shocking.

This is the second time in barely a month that the provision of social services through the Care Agency has been found by the general public to be wanting. The first was the case of an 83 year old man with dementia or senility who went to prison as GHA management argued that his condition did not entitle him to a hospital bed and the Government, through the Care Agency, refused to help. The second case is that of this 14 year old girl who spent two nights in prison because Minister Netto claimed that the Agency simply did not have the resources to deal with this �rare� case.

Further, these events have done nothing to dispel the notion that the GSD Government are only focused on grandiose luxury schemes and other projects of a questionable nature instead of concentrating on the needs of vulnerable people. It is very telling that the Minister failed to address the real issue, which is to explain why the Care Agency for which he has ultimate political responsibility did not have enough resources to deal with this matter. Further still, Mr Netto took the unusual step of putting personal details of this case into the public domain, which is not only highly unusual, but which the GSD always deploys as an excuse when it does not wish to answer questions in Parliament. The Opposition consider that the Minister should have confined himself to the political implications and the consequences of the policies of his Government.

The Minister also put forward the extraordinary proposition that the Care Agency only deal with �normal� cases. Mr Netto should be aware that the provision of social services and child care exists precisely to deal with cases that cannot be described as �run of the mill situations�. The point is that if the Agency only dealt with �normal� cases (whatever that means) there would be no need for the Agency in the first place.

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

�It is obvious that the Government have tried to justify the unjustifiable through a string of feeble excuses and circular arguments. The plain and inescapable truth is that the GSD cannot hide from what has happened. The Minister, for instance, made the absurd distinction between a minor who has left home and one that has been abandoned, as if this spurious distinction in any way exonerated his Government from responsibility in this case. The plain fact is that a 14 year old minor needed the assistance of the Government and ended up in prison. The Opposition strongly feels that we must be there for those who, for whatever reason, need the help of Government. The GSD must surely realise that whereas many Gibraltarians thankfully have either extended families or financial resources or both to rely upon in such circumstances, there will always be some, however few, that will require the assistance of the state in providing them shelter and other assistance when everything else fails. The actions of the GSD Government are shocking. Therefore, the Opposition entirely rejects Minister Netto�s view that there was a safety net for this minor � if there had been, why did she have to spend even one night in prison?�

Opposition says Spain must recognise British Gibraltar airspace [July - 12 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:36:31 GMT

The Opposition reject the claim by Spanish politicians that a security protocol should be agreed between the UK and Spain, which makes it clear that the airspace over Gibraltar is Spanish. It shows that there are people in posts of responsibility in Spain whose views in this respect are more extreme even than those of General Franco.

This follows a call made by Spanish PP MP Jose Ignacio Landaluce and another colleague that the matter should be resolved through a security protocol which enshrines the Spanish claim to Gibraltar�s airspace. The irony is that even in the days of the dictatorship there was recognition that the Bay was divided into two parts when marker buoys were placed at the centre. The clear implication is that the airspace above it was also divided which is why aircraft approaching or taking-off from the Bay side have to perform a sharp turn in order to avoid the Spanish side. That Spanish politicians should seek to use this issue to advance their claim to Gibraltar in this day and age is unbelievable.

The on-going dispute between Spanish air traffic controllers and their employers has placed in the public domain a number of aviation issues which were not publicly known before. These centre on the way in which Gibraltar airport communicates with Seville. The air traffic controllers have complained that there is no formal letter of understanding between the two airports and have called for such an agreement to be concluded and for the airspace of Gibraltar to be recognised. They have claimed that the present situation has serious repercussions of a safety and security nature for air traffic in the area.

Indeed, the head of supervision for the southern Iberian peninsular in a recent internal document which was leaked to the media declared that in May there were five such incidents, when the monthly average was one or two. According to the leaked document, on 20th May a British Airways aircraft came head to head at a distance of only two miles with an air ambulance helicopter just before the former proceeded to land at Gibraltar airport. The memo adds that the BA plane accelerated and ascended in order to avoid a collision.

The document also explains that the landing approach manouvres into Gibraltar pass very close to the path of the new heliport in Algeciras. Although some of this has been played down locally, it is important to note that the employer of the air traffic controllers, AENA, itself has acknowledged that communication between Seville and Gibraltar forces air traffic controllers to operate in a different way and that in some cases this implies that the security of air operations are difficult to guarantee.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister responsible for Civil Aviation Dr Joseph Garcia said:

�Spain�s national air security agency AESA is on record as having said in April that the present position is difficult to correct because of the political situation surrounding the airport at Gibraltar. This means that, in the final analysis, the position surrounding communications between Seville and Gibraltar and air communications between Gibraltar and Spain in general are far from normal because of the Spanish sovereignty claim.

It will be recalled that two civilian aircraft bound for London were delayed recently as a result of the industrial action taken by air traffic controllers. Nobody has claimed that this action affected Gibraltar airport only, however, it is undeniable that the air traffic controllers would not have picked this issue to try and advance their grievances if the matter had been addressed years ago before any agreement on air travel to and from Spain was entered into. There must surely be recognition that at one point an aircraft is leaving Spanish airspace and entering British Gibraltar airspace in order to make an agreement possible.�

Opposition deplores that girl is sent to Prison due to lack of resources in social services [July - 8 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:17:14 GMT

The case of a 14 year old girl who has had to spend two nights in Prison because there was nowhere for her to go has drawn attention to the lack of facilities and resources available in Gibraltar to deal with this kind of situation. It is also a very poor reflection of the spending priorities of the present GSD Government that clearly prefers to pour public funds into projects which they consider to be glitzy like the Theatre Royal, the air terminal and now the Mid-Town development instead of on the basic needs of ordinary people.

The Opposition will not comment on the details of this case as there are obviously issues which are sub-judice. However, we must be free to comment on its political implications and on what it says about the policy of the Government in this regard.

The Government has just presented to Parliament last week a budget where they praised the state of the economy and of public finances in general. In this context it is deplorable that a young girl has had to spend even one night in Prison because social services claimed that it did not have the resources to deal with the case. There is no excuse of this kind of situation and the Government have a lot to answer for.

The Opposition has pressed the Government on the need to provide a safety net for vulnerable persons who find themselves in this kind of situation in the past. Shadow Minister for Social Services Neil Costa drew attention to a similar case last year where a woman with Gibraltar connections who was a criminal defendant could not be granted bail by the Magistrates� Court because she had no alternative accommodation. Mr Costa said at the time that this case brought into sharp focus the serious deficiencies which existed in the system.

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

�It was shocking then and it is shocking now that the liberty of an individual, let alone a 14 year old minor, should be restricted in this way. I have said before that it should not be for those who fall through the cracks of the system to have to seek out assistance, it should be the people entrusted with their care who should do whatever is in their power to provide them with the basic needs of any human being and ensure their dignity. The Government must understand that there are people out there who have no support at all and who rely on the state as the final safety net. The GSD must show more compassion and humanity in these kind of cases and it is pathetic that the Minister responsible Jaime Netto should blame the lack of resources. It is not enough for the Government to wash their hands of the problem in such a cold and uncaring manner while they spend millions of pounds of taxpayers� money on other projects of questionable value to the community.�

Buena Vista tender: Government planning policy not led by the social needs of Gibraltar says Opposition [July - 7 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:16:04 GMT

The decision of the Government to put out to tender the site at Buena Vista will serve as a reminder of the fiasco that ensued the last time that the tender for the area was awarded to OEM. The Government�s declared preference for small luxury houses with gardens suggests that they have learnt nothing from past mistakes given that ordinary Gibraltarian families will be unable to afford them.

It is therefore obvious that the Government�s development and planning policy is not led by the social needs of Gibraltar or the wider requirements of the community. The main consideration seems to be to allow commercial entities to make as much money as possible through development projects of this kind by selling the properties at high prices and making a fortune for themselves in the process.

It will be recalled that the site at Buena Vista, together with North Gorge, was put out to tender following the 2003 general election. In June 2005, the Government announced that a company called OEM (International) Ltd was to be the preferred bidder for the project. They described OEM as being owned by �leading UK property developer with total assets valued over �200 million� and claimed that the project confirmed �the high level of confidence that major international developers have for investment of this magnitude in Gibraltar.�

The project under discussion at that time included 500 so-called �affordable homes� in North Gorge, an aparthotel and what was described as �other housing�. In October 2005, following the conclusion of the negotiations, it was revealed that the �other housing� was to be up to 100 high value properties which OEM would be permitted to develop at Buena Vista. The stone block would be converted into an apart-hotel. The public was also advised at that time that sites at Cumberland Terraces, Nelson�s View and Bayview would also be included in this project even though they were not part of the original tender for North Gorge and Buena Vista. This raised eyebrows at the time. A premium of �15 million was payable by OEM which included a donation of �1 million to a social project.

The manner in which the Government has dealt with the site at Buena Vista in the past raises a number of concerns now that the same tender has been issued again. The site was made available then for residential development on the basis of expensive properties which ordinary people could not afford and the Government has just signalled to developers that it would like to see the same kind of project now. This is a prime site in Gibraltar and its use should reflect the social needs of Gibraltar. The indications given by the Government of a preference for properties with gardens is remarkably similar to what was agreed with OEM in 2005 for up to 100 luxury properties including villas and town houses. It is reasonable to conclude, from what has been said, that the Government is set to make the same mistake again.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister responsible for development and planning Dr Joseph Garcia said:

�The tender for Buena Vista closes on 24th September 2010 and developers are obviously free to come up with residential projects of different kinds. However, the indications given by the Government that there is demand in the market for housing which is not necessarily apartments like houses with little gardens will no doubt influence prospective tenderers when they make their bids. The Government is both the landlord of the site and it controls the planning process.

Moreover, unfolding events proved that the Government showed a complete lack of judgement in awarding the tender to OEM last time round. It will be recalled that there were strong rumours surrounding OEM at the time of the last general elections. Once the elections were over, the Government announced that it was taking the different sites back from OEM and stepping in as developer of the housing projects. The Government should learn from their mistakes because the taxpayer is the one that has to foot the bill in the end.�

APPOINTMENT OF CLIVE GOLT AS MEDIA DIRECTOR [July - 6 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:14:51 GMT

The Opposition notes the appointment announced today of Mr Clive Golt as the Government�s new Media Director. Commenting on the appointment, Shadow Minister for the Media, Fabian Picardo, said:

�We wish Mr Golt well in his new appointment and very much look forward to working with him after the next election if the people of Gibraltar entrust us with Government. Gibraltar must harness all its talents in the defence and exploitation of our common interests, irrespective of party political differences between us. It has therefore been a pity to see Clive Golt ostracised for the better part of fifteen years. In fact, I have raised this specific issue with Mr Caruana in Parliament in the past. Clive is a journalist of considerable experience and it has been a waste of his talent that he has not been able to fully and effectively discharging his profession for the past fifteen years.�

Spanish refusal to grant permission for Tornado training exercise is an unfriendly act says Opposition [July - 6 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:13:59 GMT

The decision of the Spanish Government to refuse permission for six RAF Tornados to train in Spanish controlled airspace in the northern half of the Alboran training area last week does not come as a surprise. It is in line with the policy of successive Spanish Governments to make life as difficult as possible for the UK armed forces when they travel to and from Gibraltar.

The RAF exercise �Southern Flame� came to an end last week despite the attempt by Spain to disrupt it. It took place to the east of Gibraltar beyond Alboran Island in an area which is traditionally used by the Royal Navy and the RAF for such purposes. The northern part of the airspace is controlled by Spain and the southern part is controlled by Morocco.

The Opposition understand that the MOD sought permission from both countries for the use of the airspace above the training area. Whereas Morocco granted permission for the exercise to take place in Moroccan airspace, the Spanish authorities refused permission. It is also worth noting that Spain sent four military aircraft of its own into the Alboran area on one of the days that the exercise was taking place.

It will be recalled that Spain continues to operate restrictions against the over-flight of Spanish territory by British military jets if their destination or point of origin is Gibraltar. These restrictions which were imposed by General Franco and maintained by the democratic Governments which followed are completely out of place in this day and age when Britain and Spain are supposed to be allies in NATO and partners in the European Union.

The latest incident with the RAF exercise follows a number of tense encounters between the Royal Navy and the Spanish paramilitary Guardia Civil in the territorial waters of Gibraltar. A few weeks ago the Guardia Civil sparked a major alert when one of their patrol boats headed at speed towards a Royal Navy warship and refused to identify itself when called upon to do so. The present state of affairs can best be described as an accident waiting to happen.

The Spanish Government has clearly upped the stakes in the continuing conflict over the sovereignty of the waters and the airspace around Gibraltar. The refusal of permission to the RAF to use the northern half of the Alboran training area is an unfriendly act which shows the lengths to which Madrid is prepared to go in order to make a point given that the RAF were using Gibraltar as their base. The continuing incidents at sea between the Royal Navy and the agencies of the Spanish state are also a very serious matter given the provocative and reckless attitude which the latter continue to display.

FABIAN PICARDO BUDGET SPEECH 2010 [July - 2 - 2010]

thekey — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:40:56 GMT

Mr Speaker

Last year I begun my budget address lamenting that this House would not have the benefit of the analysis of the estimates that Mr Bossano has presented consistently for 37 years before.

I want to start today, Mr Speaker, by emphasizing my great pleasure in seeing Mr Bossano back on these benches and having once again delivered an excellent alternative analysis of the economy to that presented by the Leader of the House.

As with every year, Mr Speaker, the presentation of the Estimates of Expenditure and the debate on the Appropriation Bill is a moment to reflect on the position in which our community finds itself one year on. This year will be no different in allowing each member to consider �The State of the Nation� and of revenue and spending in respect of each area of ministerial responsibility.

Let me start, Mr Speaker, by saying that from these benches there is absolutely no desire to see anything other than prosperity in our community � whoever may currently hold the purse strings.

It is wrong for the honourable members on the government benches to think the opposite.

In fact, our political position is that Gibraltar could be doing much better in terms of growth and that expenditure needs to be better calibrated.

For those of us outside the ever decreasing circle of the sycophantic fan base of members opposite, for those of us on this side of the House who see homeless, unemployed and destitute people, the rosy picture of the economy painted by the honourable members is therefore just that, a picture. It is not reality. It is not the reality of the Gibraltarian who has to live every night in a squat because there is no home for him; it is not the reality of the Gibraltarian who sees his job taken by cheap imported labour that the honourable members opposite laugh off; it is not the reality of the majority of working class Gibraltarians who still have to count the pennies to get to the end of the week.

Undoubtedly there are many in our community who, in my view thanks to the impetus the GSLP gave to the economy in the late 80s and early 90s, and the development of our economy since then, have prospered. I am delighted that should be the case. Aspiration is a positive thing and that members of our community should aspire to prosper is no shame. It is not �panzismo� in the negative lexicon of Gibraltar politics; it is an ambition to improve the lot of all our families.

But we in politics also have a responsibility to those who are less well off. We have a responsibility to listen, to understand and to act when our help is required.

And there, Mr Speaker, is where we believe this government�s greatest failures lie.

Of course we would all want to help a fellow Gibraltarian or resident of Gibraltar who is in need of assistance in a moment of need. As a Government, however, the responsibility is greater even than that. It is to ensure that when planning expenditure the balance is struck in order to deliver fairly so that we are also providing for those less well off. If that balance is struck right, then less people will fall through the cracks and need urgent help.

It is my humble opinion Mr Speaker that the balance is not right.

It is my humble opinion Mr Speaker that too much largesse is being visited on the prosperous, well connected few and too little on those who need our help.

It is my humble opinion Mr Speaker that this will be one of the undoings of this Government.

What does the Gibraltarian who has no home get from this government in this budget? If he or she is lucky, they get given a letter telling them that they will get a home in a year or so. Well, that has been the modus operandi of the party opposite since 2007, when they gave �homes� to people by cynical pre-election letter. All that the majority of those people have to show for it today are still just �letters�. In 2003 it was Mr Caruana saying in his electoral broadcast that the affordable homes would be ready for occupation �within 2 years�. In fact they have been substantially completed this year, 2010; seven years later and five years after the date the Hon Leader of the House had indicated. That is more than just �a delay� Mr Speaker. That is an indictment.

What does the favoured millionaire developer get under the GSD? Consultancies and payments of millions of pounds.

One needs a roof over his head and the other needs for nothing.

Under the GSD, only the rich man gets richer.

Consultants generally have already �9m from the �46m spent on airport related works. Nice work if you can get it.

And on this and all other issues we have raised, let the Honourable Gentleman not think that we don�t look forward to his reply on which I will say more later; that tissue of insults and skewed logic designed to prove him right only in circumstances where it cannot be replied to because the rules give him the last word. It is that poisonous, personalised and polarizing venom that he cannot control that so shines through in those replies that will stand as a glorious monument to the arrogance that people now associate with him as his enduring political style.

THE ENVIRONMENT

I turn now to my shadow responsibilities for the Environment.

It is with deep regret Mr Speaker that I note this year is one where we have received confirmation from the European Commission that there are problems with the quality of the air that we breathe.

It is equally to be regretted that the Government has only now published a draft of its Air Quality Action Plan for public consultation, at the same time as it is filing a Time Extension Notification in respect of compliance with the EU standards. In this respect Mr Speaker, I think it is important to highlight that the exceedances of PM10 and NO2 in the air in Gibraltar have been very considerable indeed and that all the talk about improving air quality has to date yielded little. We therefore certainly hope that the draft Air Quality Action Plan is finalised as quickly as possible and that we see action instead of words in giving effect to it.

I have little hope for the Environment Action and Management Plan; but I look forward to considering it when it is published.

There is an Environmental Charter, Mr Speaker, but that appears to simply be gathering dust (or �particulate matter� or �Saharan sand�). What respect for the Charter, for example, has led to the complete destruction of the old tree by Ragged Staff Gates? This tree appears to have been destroyed as it attracted apes. The same effect could have been achieved by a severe pruning, short of destruction. But I guess that is just evidence that the Honourable members opposite have as yet been unable to deliver any solution for the attraction of the apes into the town area beyond the use of a barrel of a gun. In the past year we have seen the problem of apes in populated areas increase; but no new initiative by the government to deal with this, despite estimated expenditure in Ape Management Expenses, Healthcare & Food, under Head 4 A, sub-head 3(g) of �126,000 again this year, which is the forecast outturn for last year.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, when we say that we doubt the commitment of the members opposite to the environment it is because we believe we can see their failings in this respect. And if ever this is an obvious, visible and damning indictment of this government�s preference of developments for the rich over the environment, it is their for all to see every day. Clifftop House is the indictment. Clifftop House is the evidence. Clifftop House is the conviction. And unfortunately for our people that Clifftop House is the sentence. Clifftop House is evidence of a GSD controlled Development and Planning process. Clifftop House is the legacy of the GSD at the very entrance to the Nature Reserve. They just have no mealy words to get them out of that one. No spin to try to persuade with. That Carbuncle on the side of our Rock speaks reality of??? their commitment to the environment every single day of the year.

At least Mr Speaker, that building is in much better condition than most of the upper town � which despite repeated promises and provision made in the estimates has seen precious little progress in the regeneration promised for the area. �100m of investment was announced for this project. About a million has been spent. So are we to assume that the project is going to take 100 years? Well, not according to the GSD manifesto of 2000, which provided:

�It is vital to arrest and reverse the urban degeneration and depopulation of our upper town. This is not just because it is home to thousands of people, but also because it is a vital part of our heritage which we have an obligation to future generations to preserve. By virtue of its sheer scale this project will be implemented over several years. The following is the programme for the next four years:

Street Refurbishment & Beautification

The refurbishment and beautification of Castle Street, Lower Castle Steps, Abecasis Passage, Benzimra�s Alley, Boschetti�s Steps, Chicardo�s Passage, Governor�s Street, Hospital Ramp, Hospital Steps, New Passage, New Street, Pezzi�s Steps, Castle Road, Benoliel�s Passage, Library Ramp, Prince Edwards Road, Gavino�s Court, Frazer�s Ramp, Johnston�s Passage, Shakery�s Passage and Lopez�s Ramp. The necessary preparatory work for this has already been done and work will begin immediately. Other upper town areas will be planned and phased thereafter.

Buildings Refurbishment

The project includes not just refurbishment and beautification of the streets but also refurbishment and beautification of all pre and post-war government-owned buildings and private buildings. The latter will be effected in a centralised, co-ordinated partnership between government and the owners.�

And all this under a photograph of the honourable lady opposite. Although I am tempted to repeat the description she reminded us of yesterday which had been used outside this House, I will resist.

Nonetheless, I thank the honourable lady for reminding me of the very apposite political description of her that was carried at the last election � when she made the remarkable statement that �everything that was right [they] have put wrong.�

But, at least, Mr Speaker, it is clear that we are getting closer and closer to an election; even though this was clearly no pre-election Budget give-away � that will no doubt come at this time next year.

The long delayed refurbishment of the Europa area has now begun. But, listen to this; the honourable and gallant Mr Britto was talking about works being essential at Europa as far back as 1995. He was making headlines in the Chronicle on just this issue.

It has only taken them 14 full years in government to start the work; and only then when shamed into doing so by their own out-of-date signage.

Well, by GSD standards a delay of 14 years in starting the works at Europa is not so bad.

It is certainly better than the dismal and admitted failure to the manifesto commitment of the honourable members opposite to achieve a target of producing 12% of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2010. As the honourable member admitted at the last question time in this House, this manifesto commitment is now incapable of being completed.

Or the now impossible closure of the existing power stations at Waterport, OESCO and the MOD station at the Dockyard by 2010. Also a commitment in the manifesto which they have failed to deliver.

It is all there on page 33 of the comic they called their manifesto.

To tell you the truth, Mr Speaker, I don�t think that anyone believed those commitments anyway.

But they are failed GSD promises of this Parliament.

And more worrying Mr Speaker perhaps, is the proposal that the Eastside may now be opened up for use for bunkering operations. I understand that the matter is to go out to consultation and is not yet decided.

But Mr Speaker, how can this even be happening?

Even the proposal flies in the face of another commitment in the honourable members� present manifesto that said this:

�Ship Bunkering

The GSD Government is working on schemes to relocate ship bunkers storage facilities ashore, so as to be able to eliminate the use of storage in tanker ships in the Bay.�

So Mr Speaker, that commitment is not only not likely to now be kept, it as actually going to be �doubled breached�. In other words, the GSD Government is not only not going to be in a position to relocate the present shop bunkering operations in the bay with storage facilities ashore to eliminate the use of storage tankers in the Bay of Gibraltar, they are actually going to potentially going to propagate ship to ship bunkering operations on the Eastside. A double breach of a manifesto commitment! Now that�s style Mr Speaker. What hubris!

In fact, Mr Speaker, the ESG has rightly been highlighting that, any bunkering operations should be carried out with the use of Vapour Recovery Systems so that the noxious fumes that often affect parts of Gibraltar should be reduced or eliminated. This is a sensible proposal which deserves investigation in the use of best available technology to ameliorate the effects of industry on citizens. Instead, government is now looking at proposals to allow more of this activity without the Vapour Recovery Systems.

Mr Speaker, perhaps in his reply the Honourable Gentleman could tell us whether he is in favour of such Vapour Recovery Systems being employed by Bunker Operators, whether or not they are onshore or in the Bay or � if allowed in future � of the Eastside.

Mr Speaker, we will carefully monitor the consultation process which the government had announced in this area. We have already heard the views � forcefully and eloquently put by the ESG on this issue and will look forward to more information being put in the public domain so that the whole community can understand what is proposed; but we will look at this sceptically � as the environmental danger is evident; especially to our already blighted beaches.

And what of the Eastside generally, Mr Speaker? Well, we have seen no progress whatsoever in respect of this project again this year, Mr Speaker.

Interestingly, this is what the honourable member�s party opposite said in their manifesto for the 1996 election; I am tempted to call it �Genesis� given that they enjoy going back to that year so much � what were they saying then?

�We will stop further loss of natural coastline and maximise peoples� access to it. Furthermore there is an urgent need to beautify large areas of our eastern shoreline which have been damaged. The unplanned dumping on our Eastside has produced an eyesore and hazard to residents and tourists alike.

We will take steps to contain and complete the Eastside reclamation to avoid the spillage of debris and waste onto adjoining beaches. The area will then be resurfaced and landscaped and, pending longer terms development, will be used to provide recreation, leisure and parking facilities.�

Well, the honourable members opposite were re-elected, they will say, despite failing to deliver on these broken promises. What a pity that they do not deliver a list of promises with dates on them as we have the political courage to do. It would make the electorates� job of seeing their failures and perhaps some of their successes so much easier! The reality, as the unfortunately now deceased and much misused Hon Joshua Gabay once said from these benches, �The fact is that this Government are more concerned with image than with substance, more concerned with ostentation than achievement and keener on impact than on fact.� I hope we can all appreciate at least the elegance of Joshua�s turn of phrase.

I will end this part of my address Mr Speaker by welcoming at last the reduction of import duty on hybrid cars and four stroke engines and the raising of duties in respect of two stroke engines.

That is one of the many steps that need to be taken in the direction of reducing carbon emissions. I will look forward to seeing more.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Mr Speaker it is always a delight to see the progress that has been made by Gibtel and GibNynex in their now joint endeavour Gibtelecom. We have been and remain committed to keeping 50% of the shares of that company in the hands of the Government of Gibraltar and we will strongly oppose any attempts to sell it off.

It is a particular pleasure, Mr Speaker, to see Gibtelecom not only doing well but prospering; now with new international partners.

What is particularly positive is the progress that Gibtelecom is making in establishing resilience beyond the traditional sources of connectivity.

We have seen references in the press to a new Connectivity Cable which will land in Gibraltar. The establishment of that link is a further positive for that company and for those who were responsible for it being such a successful project for Gibtelecom. I will say no more on this Mr Speaker, other than to welcome it.

But we must remember Mr Speaker that Gibraltar now enjoys three providers of internet and telephony services. CTS continues to operate despite the untimely passing of one of the leading lights in that entity and Sapphire Networks is providing bandwidth to many companies established in doing international business from Gibraltar.

Competition is no doubt healthy and the sector is the better for it.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, undoubtedly, the home consumer in Gibraltar will want to see charges coming down for the provision of ADSL services which in Gibraltar remain less competitive that in order European jurisdictions. On this we remain vigilant and would call on the relevant providers of these services to keep their charges under review. And I will look forward to hearing what the Honourable Minister with responsibility for telecommunications has to say and I turn now to my responsibilities in respect of financial services.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

Mr Speaker practitioners in the financial services industry are pleased to see that the government has finally published a draft of a bill that will � among other things � reform the law on corporate taxation.

This draft has been a long time coming, Mr Speaker. A very long time indeed.

In fact, it is now almost a decade since it became clear that the European Commission would require the disappearance of the Exempt Company regime.

Moreover, it has been clear to many for even longer than that the zero tax regime was not going to be around for very long.

The Honourable gentleman likes to tell this House that he had made the decision to take Gibraltar �on shore� many years ago. But that just does not tally with the facts. Your see Mr Speaker, if that had been the case, then we would not have spent a large part of the first decade of this new millennium seeking approval for a new corporation tax that lowered rates to zero.

So it cannot be true that the �plan� of the Honourable members opposite was to take the finance centre �on shore�; as they only started to talk about a low rate of tax when the Commission rejected their plan for a zero rate of tax. And with a zero rate of tax � even if it is across the board and without discriminating in favour of non-residents � there is no question of us ever seriously having been considered to be �on shore� as we would not have complied with OECD criteria.

So all the fanfare we are seeing surrounding the announcement of this new draft bill, insofar as it refers to this great plan to take Gibraltar �on shore� has to be seen in light of these objective facts which show such claims of prescience to be total �nonsense�.

In fact, Mr Speaker, the publication of this draft bill comes at the very least a number of years late.

So, a decade of delay, dithering and indecision, which will result in a lead � in time of less than 4 or 5 months for the finance centre to be ready for the implementation of the new regime.

Mr Speaker, I told the honourable gentleman at the recent Question Time this session that I would not go behind his assurance that he was intent on seeking publication of the new legislation earlier.

Certainly, Mr speaker, all the feedback we have had from across the sectors of the financial services industry has been that they would have wished to see publication sooner if it had been possible.

The Honourable Leader of the House told me that he had received representations from some sectors that publication should have been delayed. We have not received any such representations � but I take it that, from his remarks at question time about having wanted to publish earlier if possible, that the government did not share that view.

In any event, Mr Speaker, we now have a draft of the Bill and we will soon have a chance to debate the merits and demerits of the new draft after the consultation process comes to a conclusion.

And therefore Mr Speaker, we will monitor keenly with the Government how the new tax rates affect the revenue side of these estimates.

I would say this also Mr Speaker, although there is a complete agreement across this House that the appeal filed by Spain against the decision of the European Court is doomed to fail; and given its terms is a most unfriendly act. But it has not yet failed and I am sure we will all look forward to that case being disposed of to our common advantage.

As for the Tax Information Exchange Agreements which have recently been concluded, I think the whole financial services industry is waiting to see how these will actually operate in practice as requests for information start to trickle through. This remains an area to monitor � but it is clear to the whole House, I believe, that exchange of information is a required part of the way in which reputable financial services jurisdictions do business.

We have, Mr Speaker, heard little in the past months of the potential TIEA with the Kingdom of Spain and the potential for a double taxation agreement with our neighbour. Perhaps in his reply the honourable gentleman could inform the House of the state of progress in that respect.

Mr Speaker, for many years the absence of double taxation agreements has been flagged up as a positive and a negative for our finance centre. Now the tide seems to be more firmly in favour of the conclusion of such double taxation agreements. Perhaps that is also an area on which the honourable gentleman can give us the benefit of his views in his reply; although I note the manner in which the issues which may arise for the gaming industry in this respect appear to have been dealt with on a legislative basis.

It says much for the reputational strength of the professionals who operate in our financial services sector that the issues affecting one local financial services entity have not caused the expected infection; and that Gibraltar professionals continue to prosper by dint of their hard work, integrity and imagination.

Mr Speaker, we have also received representations from finance centre professionals relating to the increases in licensing fees charged in this sector.

I am aware, Mr Speaker, as will be other members of the House, that the government allowed 14 days of consultation to the industry in respect of the proposed fee increases.

The House may not be aware, Mr Speaker, that the new fees have become punitive to some of the smaller operators in the sector.

Fees do not presently discriminate between the size of the operators being licensed.

The issue of course Mr Speaker, is not an easy one � as the issue of the size of a licensee is not an easy one to make.

An operation with only four employees may have a large book of business and a huge turnover � so we understand that fees cannot be fixed lower simply because of the number of employees in a licensed company.

Similarly, a larger number of employees may usually denote a higher turnover � but it is not necessarily an indicator of greater profit.

But Mr Speaker, these are difficulties that need to be considered in detail in order to identify a solution so that the very licensing fee does not cause such hardship to any reputable operator that they are squeezed out of the sector or into consolidation.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, although the success of our finance centre requires � and will do so increasingly under the proposed new corporate tax regime � the continued influx of businesses from outside our shores, the government must not turn its back on the small reputable Gibraltarian operator that provides financial services to our community.

And in this respect Mr Speaker, I must highlight my continued concern that the continued small increases in allowances for tax payers investing in life and other savings products.

In fact, Mr Speaker, a regime which does not reward saving in this way is an encouragement for people to spend and not make provision for the future � something which may rebound on the Gibraltar government in the future.

Mr Speaker, that is a convenient place for me to turn to my responsibilities for the media.

THE MEDIA

Mr Speaker, the problems identified in the review of GBC must be tackled quickly. As you know Mr Speaker we have not seen the whole Report of Mr King and we are committed to its publication upon our election. I acknowledge that the government has set itself an ambitious target date for the implementation of its review of GBC.

We have now had Mr King appointed as CEO and, although we have disagreed with the manner of his appointment at the direction of the government, we will monitor how the proposed renewal of GBC progresses.

For many years, Mr Speaker, GBC was the pride of Gibraltar. We were the only part of this area of geography that boasted a television station.

Television stations in this area have now proliferated. GBC is no longer a distinction.

In fact, with a much greater budget, we can now see the Spanish regional channel already is testing transmissions in high definition digital format.

I remember that when I was first elected to this House, some almost seven years ago, we were told that GBC would meet the 2010 EU deadline for the �analogue� switch off.

Well, Mr Speaker, 2010 has come but has not yet gone.

Despite that we have not yet even seen test transmissions of digital, let alone high definition.

I am sure that the whole community will look forward to the new standards of transmissions and the heralded improved quality of programming.

But at this rate, Mr Speaker, with government having as yet not even decided on the premises to which GBC is to be relocated, and having only in the last months created a steering committee; it does not seem likely that the renewal of GBC will become a reality on our television screens this year.

But GBC is only one part of the media.

In the print media, we have this year seen the disappearance of one newspaper and one other newspaper, the Gibraltar Chronicle, apparently threatened with disappearance due to apparent insolvency.

Mr Speaker, if this were not dramatic enough, we have continued to see one particular publication receive thousands of pounds a month from the government as its apparent sole source of advertising revenue.

Mr Speaker, one of the arguments that have been put by the honourable Leader of the House when he has resisted the claims of the New People for advertising has been that even when the GSLP were in office the New People did not receive any official advertising.

Well, what is it that has gone wrong with the honourable gentleman�s democratic compass to entice him to fund � USING TAXPAYERS� MONEY � a weekly publication that is transparently their�s � the GSD�s � in-house party organ.

Mr Speaker, there is a lot wrong here. This smacks of having confused the interests of the party with the interests of the state.

The Honourable Leader of the House is allowing state expenditure � tax payers� money �for party benefit.

Mr Speaker, this is a dangerous and slippery slope.

The honourable member opposite may as well send a cheque from the Government General Account to whatever printer they choose to publish their next manifesto.

Mr Speaker, whatever the reaction may be on the benches opposite � the Honourable Leader of the House is not somebody I have ever described as stupid or ignorant of the law � although he liberally refers to me in such terms.

Mr Speaker, he knows that the funding of 7 Days by his administration to publish what are thinly veiled weekly manifestos is wrong and against all principles of a Westminster based Parliamentary Democracy.

Lest we forget, Mr Speaker, I cannot emphasise enough how out of hand the funding of 7 Days has got, how improper it clearly is and how contrary to established criteria for the proper application of public funds. We are talking over well over a hundred thousand pounds; well over.

So Mr Speaker, this year I will say that the independence of the media and of journalists in Gibraltar is not assured and that there is a serious, on-going, mis-application of public funds to fund certain government supporting organs.

The independence of the media in Gibraltar therefore now has, in many areas, a huge question mark over it.

And what greater question mark over the state of the media in Gibraltar than the disgraceful way in which Clive Golt has suffered at the honourable gentleman�s hands since 1996 for having had the temerity to stand for election against him 15 years ago.

Mr Speaker, I am left to wonder how the Leader of this House looks himself in the mirror every morning knowing what he has done with Clive Golt and what he is doing with the financing of 7 Days.

I genuinely believe that the member opposite is just in denial on these issues; that the Faustian pacts he has had to do on these issues is forever haunting him and denial is the only way to deal with it.

STYLE OF GOVERNMENT

And so I turn now Mr Speaker to issues that relate more generally to the style of government that has been adopted by the GSD and by the Honourable Leader of the House in particular in the past year.

Let us start, Mr Speaker, from the premise that we all have experience of that the honourable gentleman believes himself always to be in the right; and that any honourable members who contradict him are wrong.

Look at what happens when the honourable gentleman says that he thinks � subjectively � that anyone of us on this side of the House has got a word wrong. For example, if one of us might, hypothetically have used the wrong word � as far as he is concerned � in asking a question. Well, look at the exchanges on question 440 of 2010 on extermination of Barbary Macqaques. The Honourable gentleman took exception at my using the word extermination on the basis that he believed that word could only mean the total extermination of that species. The Honourable gentleman told the house that my arguments were not merely wrong or incorrect, but that they were ridiculous. Moreover, he said he would bring a motion to argue the point. Well a motion brought by the government against an opposition member is a motion that is going to succeed whether it is right or wrong. But the very thought that a chief minister of Gibraltar might have time to consider bringing such a motion; with a housing waiting list growing, Gibraltarians registered as homeless, the traffic at a standstill and yet the honourable gentleman has time to even think about bringing a motion against me on the definition of �exterminate�. Well, we are clearly getting to him. We are clearly doing him political damage.

But all of this is designed to pretend to show the public, or at least those who listen, that Picardo has got a word wrong and deflect from the things that they have got wrong.

So let�s get away from the hyperbole of the attempts to deflect attention from the honourable gentleman�s failures. Let�s actually knuckle down and look at what happens when he actually makes a mistake:

Well, �5,000,000 on the Theatre Royal �mistake�;

A housing waiting list soaring to eight times what it was when the world commenced in 1996, yes eight times the housing waiting list;

Reports of water ingress at Waterport Terraces and windows and shutters having to be replaced in the Cumberland developments;

Hundreds of Gibraltarian families stuck with having lost hundreds if not thousands of pounds on expensive bridging loans as a result of unconscionable delays on the works at Waterport Terraces;

A contractor sacked from one government co-ownership scheme leaving hundreds of thousands of pounds outstanding on PAYE and social security;

Parts of our heritage, the Rosia Tanks, lost for ever;

The Eastside reclamation project completely frozen, one of our greatest property lungs now stuck with a developer that is doing nothing with it despite manifesto promises by the party opposite to the contrary;

Major planning mistakes giving us the horrendous Clifftop House;

Slum conditions in some government estates in the Upper Town;

Criticisms from the Principal Auditor (in paragraph 2.8.6 of his report) that there are weaknesses in the control and management of certain capital projects resulting in delays which are generally resulting in increasing costs to Government.

Another major contractor going into liquidation with additional massive amounts outstanding also in respect of PAYE and social security when contracted to the government on a number of projects;

�241k on the case lost against a lesbian couple;

The many thousands of pounds no doubt now being incurred in costs in respect of the case before the Supreme Court on the age of consent

The hundreds of thousands of pounds lost in the Industrial Tribunal cases fought tooth and nail and lost since 1996;

The hundreds of thousands of pounds now paid to 7 Days to publish their manifesto in weekly instalments;

The hundreds of thousands paid to each tenant of the Rosia Cottages, after the were repeatedly told they were wrong in their right to light case and threatened by the honourable gentleman himself, as well as a new property free for each of them worth also hundreds of thousands of pounds.

I do not actually think I was wrong to use the word �exterminate� instead of �cull� or �kill�; I think it was a useful word to highlight the issue.

And lets be clear: I agree that the issue of apes coming into town and into hotels must be dealt with; we just believe that it is possible to manage the ape population and to thereby remove the problem in many ways that are more much more sensitive than killing.

But anyway, I asked in a question about this �extermination� and the question got passed from the minister for the environment to the Leader of the House. And then, again, one was called every name under the sun which was a negative take on �illiterate�.

Well, if I was wrong, the consequence may be about 4 minutes of this House�s valuable time wasted and the Honourable Gentleman opposite clearly relished what he and his salaried cheerleaders thought was a �mauling�. To tell you the truth it felt more like a tickle than a maulling; but let them think what they like.

But let�s add up the cost and effect of the mistakes � some of which he admits and some of which he does not � of the Honourable Gentleman only some of which I have just taken the House through.

The consequences of the honourable gentleman�s mistakes of the past 15 years, well those have cost irreparable hardship to thousands of Gibraltarians, loses of millions of pounds wasted to our exchequer. Now I understand why the honourable gentleman can never admit he is wrong: if he were to do so, he would in effect have to admit responsibility for such massive failures, such costly losses to our community that he would be forgiven for simply asking us all forgiveness as a community and quietly present his resignation and leaving politics completely. The sooner the better, Mr Speaker.

You see Mr Speaker, when put under serious scrutiny the Honourable gentleman�s reputation goes from being that of an apparently tough and effective political machine to a cheap version of Baldrick, whose cunning plans are the equivalent of the Honourable Gentleman�s recurring visions that never come true.

But what a negative record. So much money lost to incompetence.

To lose one million might have been careless, but to lose tens of millions in delayed and abandoned projects and lost legal cases. Well, Mr Speaker, that is probably best described by some of the adjectives that he usually reserves for his political opinion of me.

INTERPRETATION & GENERAL CLAUSES ACT

The fact is Mr Speaker that we need to reflect on the expectation gap that exists in the politics of the honourable members opposite. We see it when they say one thing and do another. We have seen how that is reflected in the failure to deliver on manifesto commitments which relate to the environment. Let us now look at one example in particular which related to the transposition of EU legislation.

This year we have seen a large number of EU pieces of law passed by the mechanism of regulations made under Section 23(g)(ii) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. In April this year in particular we were treated to a deluge of them. Some amended existing legislation and others brought wholesale measures into effect in that way.

Well, Mr Speaker, there may be nothing wrong with that � and in fact it was a mechanism sometimes used by the Honourable Leader of House when he was Chief Minister to make legislative changes which were required urgently.

But Mr Speaker, the expectation gap is in what the Honourable Leader of the House used to say about that mechanism and what he does now.

In a debate on the 23rd November 1992, when amendments were being considered to the Interpretation and General Clauses Act itself, the honourable member said that Section 23(g)(ii) of that Act would allow the government to �repeal�, vary, amend or add to any Ordinance by regulation.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition said in the committee stage that the GSD �� do not accept that the House should be excluded altogether from the process of implementing into the laws of Gibraltar the requirements of community treaties or directives.� He went on to refer to the latitude which some community instruments such as Directives allow Member States in the transportation into national laws of community obligations and he added that such �latitude is latitude which [he thought] should be exercised by the legislative and not by the executive in the medium of regulations�. And he proposed that a resolution of the House should be required before any regulation passed in this way should have effect.

Well, Mr Speaker, having become the Leader of the executive branch, the honourable gentleman seems to have changed his mind.

What I would ask him for in his reply on this second reading is whether he will now at least accept that in those early days at least he got something wrong and that the than Chief Minister, Mr Bossano, was right to proceed as he did then and as he, Mr Caruana, has done now.

In case the honourable members are interested, the Hansard references are at pages 27 to 45 for the dates that I have quoted.

Mr Speaker, apart from all that, the honourable gentleman has told us in the first question time this year that he was bringing in a �new politics� � but not a positive new politics. It is a new politics which we would discern from the answers provided that showed:

(i) That the GSD government is now doing less work for tenants in their homes. In fact, for some time the govt even stopped doing works for elderly pensioners who were government tenants; but I understand this has now been reversed;

(ii) The government has presided over an 8 fold increase in the housing waiting list since the world begun in 1996;

(iii) The government has presided over a massive increase in the number of jobs pending at buildings and works;

(iv) And then there are the new �lines in the sand�, which the Honourable Gentleman referred us to at that first meeting of the House in answer to supplementary questions earlier this year, new lines in the sand as to whether or not questions will be answered. That perhaps serves to answer the points made by the honourable lady as to a failure to provide answers in this House. It is so unfortunate that the honourable lady can never pass a can of worms without reaching for the tin opener! You see, Mr Speaker, she should have left well enough alone in terms of governments answering questions. Or is it that she is asleep at question time when the government of which she forms a part refuses to answer questions. Does she not know that she is sitting with a party that refuses to tell the House the cost of killing apes; or the numbers of apes killed; or the amount of revenue received from tobacco duty; or to table the accounts of Community Care as they used to be tabled; a government that refuses to publish reports paid for by the tax payer into even non-sensitive areas like the King Report into the future of GBC. And that is just a taster of their obfuscation. So as far as the failure to answer questions and provide information, Mr Speaker; the Hon lady needs to look closer to home before she starts casting aspersions.

But anyway, Mr Speaker, it is not the new found lines in the sand that are the problem; the problem is that the sand is reaching the honourable members� necks and they are sinking in it.

Their political position is as quicksand and they are sinking fast. Why, Mr Speaker, because whatever the honourable members may say in this House, people live the reality of their administration of our affairs.

And what a joke that old GSD excuse, �its not our fault when things go wrong, its just that the GSLP are at fault for what they did when they were in power almost 15 years ago�. Of course that might have been fair the year after they first won an election in 1996; but their undoubted success in winning 4 elections is a double edged sword, as it does now deprive them of the excuse that today�s problems are really the fault or making of previous administrations. Now that they have been in power for over 14 years, they are factually deprived the luxury of the argument put, for example, by Minister Vinet in the Chronicle of 18th February of this year, when he said, talking of water ingress problems at Keightley House in Moorish Castle Estate when he said:

�I would certainly like all repairs to government flats to be undertaken as quickly and as efficiently as possible, but there are inescapable facts to consider. Previous administrations had neglected government estates and there was little in the way of proper refurbishments.�.

Of course, what Mr Vinet could not reconcile was the fact that the complaints referred to in the article in question related to a family who had been awarded the flat only three years earlier and the problems they were complaining about had arisen only two years later. Even more so, the problem also reported � in that case by Action for Housing � of an elderly gentleman whose leaking flat had first been reported only six months previously and not dealt with. These are therefore �GSD administration� issues. There is nowhere for the Honourable members left to hide. So whilst accepting, of course, the extraordinarily wet winter we have had, this does so effectively illustrate the fact that the GSD excuses are wearing thinner and thinner on the ground and the present has now caught up with them.

And so it is that the lack of investment in so many areas is now the fault not of �previous administrations� but of the GSD administration.

Mr Speaker, I do not believe we should be calling each other names in this House, although our debate should be robust and tough. If someone cannot stand the heat they should not get into politics. I confess that I was nonetheless surprised when I was first elected to this House with the amount of meaningless insults that the honourable gentleman hurled at members on this side of the house during the course of his reply on this annual debate. I did not see the value of the endless invective hurled at us whilst the substance of the arguments we raised on policy issues went unanswered. Perhaps that is a good place to quote just one more of the gems left to us by Joshua Gabay who, when referring to the Chief Minister�s repeated rubbishing of the Opposition�s political contributions, said that �Regrettably the technique institutionalised in this House by the Chief Minister and pandered to by some but not all of his Ministers, is to substitute logic by denigration and clarity by vilification.�

But I have now seen the light. I acknowledge the error of my ways. I have joined the political dots and I see what the Honourable gentleman is doing and the exact nature of his political style. The current Chief Minister clearly is a believer in the principle that attack is the best form of defence� He actually told the Hon Mr Bruzon that to survive in politics you need �mala leche�. Well, that may be what he needed to survive in public school and he is simply exporting the principle to our politics. So I owe the honourable member an apology. I now understand what I have not understood before about his politics. Every time he hurls an insult he is attacking only to defend. Therefore, as attack for him is the best form of defence, we must see such insults as he hurls, attacking us in reply to our contributions, as recognition that we have pushed him into having to defend himself. So, having been the butt of a massive attack in his reply in this debate in the past seven years, it dawns on me that I should not have been bored by the lack of substance, but mightily flattered at the Honourable gentleman�s extreme compliment. Each insult, each sideswipe and each attempted denigration is a massive recognition of political punches soundly landed on the honourable gentleman�s political torso. Each apparently disrespectful, sneering, jeering remark purportedly ridiculing our contributions is a massive badge of political honour.

And then, perhaps even more apparent, is the fact that when the honourable gentleman hurls an apparent compliment across the floor, what he is doing is actually tell us that we have failed to land a punch. So, let me apologise to the Parliament and to all those who diligently tune in to hear our debates on these estimates. I should never have decried the Honourable gentleman�s replies for being full of insults, invective and failing to address the substance of the arguments we present. I should actually have recognised earlier that every insult is a back-handed compliment and every compliment is pithy ridicule and an indication of failure. So foul and fair a discourse I have not heard before. But that is the GSD way, always �say the opposite of what you mean�. And therefore Mr Speaker, I want to formally thank the Honourable gentleman for what at first appeared to be a character assassination of us that he has undertaken in this debate of us at least in each of the years that I have been in the House. I am truly grateful for the recognition inherent in each insult, in each distortion and in each twisted reflection of my contribution to each years� debate. I had not realised just how hard our rhetoric had hit. Thank you. The attempted �hatchet jobs� of years past were no more and no less than a political doffing of the hat for a job well done, and I was not astute enough to see through the bluster and recognise it. I am so sorry. I shall very much look forward to at least the same level of recogntion and the same number of inverted, back-handed compliments again this year disguised as insults and accusations of ignorance. So please, Mr Speaker, I pray the honourable gentleman does not in his reply feel he can address the substance of our interventions, lest we are left to feel that we have not raised issues sufficiently serious that he might not need to avoid them. I really had not realised that the honourable gentleman�s mind was quite this complex; but I have seen the light, and I sincerely am now looking forward to the insults, not out of some misplaced masochistic glee, but out of genuine political realisation : the harder he insults, the more damage he has suffered and the more he and his satellites needs to obscure through insult and distortion. What sophistry on the part of the honourable gentleman.

Anyway, I know that the honourable gentleman is hubristically, how is it that the Chronicle put it, �fighting for the survival of the GSD�, and not really involved in trying to win the next election; but how pathetic that everything we have heard from the honourable members opposite are comparisons with 1996.

It�s just like the repeated and repeated alleged mantra that the GSD is the tax cutting party.

Well � if they are the tax cutting party, they must also be the social insurance raising party.

Mr Speaker, social insurance contributions were said by the Honourable the Leader of the House to be a tax in 1995.

Once again, on top of increasing commercial electricity fees, the social insurance bill for businesses has gone up and small businesses and employees across the board will feel the pinch. So much for his boast in his manifesto for 2000 that he had only put social insurance contributions up once in four years.

So a small drop in tax rates and an increase in the minimum wage is balanced by this increase in social insurance, which in his 1995 analysis was an increase in tax � although we do not share that analysis. Just taking the increases this year employees are going to be �73.84 worse off. In his budget address of 1995, it was the honourable gentleman himself who said of social insurance �This is just hidden taxation, that is just a disguised increase in taxation.� Was he right then or is he right now? He cannot have it both ways, however much of his legendry sophistry he may try. In fact, lets look at what the Honourable Leader of the House described as tax has been increased in the past 3 years, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the effect it has had on an employee�s wage in that period.

In his 2008 address the honourable gentleman said:

�Social insurance contributions were last increased in January 2005, that is, three and a half years ago. It is the policy of the Government, and it is reflected in the fact that we have increased social insurance contributions usually at least once in every term, that the funding of the Social Insurance Scheme should at least keep up its inflation adjusted value. Accordingly, with effect from 1st July 2008, the maximum cap under the new Social Insurance system for both employers and employee contributions, will increase by ten per cent as follows. Employer by �2.62 a week from �26.20 to �28.82; employee by �2.08 a week from �20.75 to �22.83 per week.�

So in 2008 an employee�s contributions increased by �2.08 a week or 10%. This is to say, �108.16 a year, an increase which in his 1995 analysis was akin to a tax increase. And I should add Mr Speaker, that after 1996 the honourable members opposite add minimum and maximum bands.

In 2009 in his budget address the idea of only increasing social insurance at least once a term held true, and it therefore went up again; this time by 4%. That meant that the employee contribution � still subject of course to minima and maxima went up by 91p. That is to say, a further �47.32 year of charges which in his analysis � which we do not share � amounted to a tax.

And now, Mr Speaker, the coup de grace that the honourable gentleman has delivered has been a further increase of 6% by up to �1.42. That is to say, a further increase of �73.84 a year.

Mr Speaker, taking these three consecutive years of rises in social insurance together, the employees� contribution alone has increased by �229.32 over the past three financial years alone! And that is in respect of what he � but not we � called a �tax�.

Mr Speaker, the words that the honourable gentleman himself deployed in 1995 were these. �This is just hidden taxation, that is just a disguised increase in taxation.� [Hansard, budget debate 1995, p.90, right column, lines 3 to 4]. Let�s be clear, these are his words. On HIS analysis (which we do not share) what he is giving with one hand he is taking with the other.

When looked at since 2005, the position is graver still. In that year employee Social Insurance contributions were increased by 10%, that is to say �1.88 per week, or a total increase of �97.76 per employee per year.

Mr Speaker; in total, over the past five years the amount the Honourable Gentleman has added to the cost of Social Insurance for an employee is now in excess of �327.08 a year.

And that is just the employees� contributions.

For the employer the position is worse still.

In this Budget an increase of 10% or almost �3 (rounded up from the �2.997 which a 10% increase produces when applied to the current rate of �29.97) per week has been applied. That produces an annual increase of �156.00 extra per employee per year. In 2008 the increase in the employers contribution was 10%, up by �2.62 a week or �136.24 a year. In 2009 it was 4%, or �1.15 per week, namely per �59.80 year.

In just those three years employers have been left �352.04 worse off per employee. That is a massive hike by any standard Mr Speaker of what the Honourable Leader of the House used to call a tax when he sat here; although we do not share his analysis on the nature of those payments.

In total, Mr Speaker, between employees and employers, the government is now receiving a contribution per employed person which has been increased by �581.36 and that is in the past three years alone.

When one adds the figures for the increases in the Budget for 2005, the Social Insurance contribution for employers has risen even more. In the 2005 Budget, Mr Caruana increased the employers� contributions by 10% also, namely by �2.38 per week; amounting to �123.76 per year.

Mr Speaker, when added to the three year consecutive rises that have amounted to �581.36, the total increase in employer�s contribution to Social Insurance has been a whopping �705.12 PER EMPLOYEE in the five years since the Budget of 2005. And according to his analysis in 1995, that is an increase in tax of that amount.

Mr Speaker the conclusion of that analysis is that in the past five years the total amount of the increases in contributions by an employer (�705.12) and an employee (�327.0 (at the maximum rate of the bands) together is now an even more whopping �1,032.20 of increases in what he called a �tax�.

Yes Mr Speaker, the Hon Gentleman has INCREASED by �1,032.20 the amount the government takes from employers and employees in respect of each employee at the top of the bands in respect of what he called a tax. And that is just the increase.

The total contribution now per employee amounts to:

(a) approximately �1,308.32 per employee in employees� contribution alone per year; and

(b) approximately �1,714.44 per employee in employers� contribution alone per year,

in respect of the top level of contributio

Mr Speaker, that amounts to a staggering total of �3,022.76 PER EMPLOYEE PER YEAR when the employee and the employer contributions are added together.

That revenue to the government, Mr Speaker, is in the nature of what the honourable gentleman called a tax; an analysis that we do not necessarily share.

But, Mr Speaker if we have more employees in the economy than ever before; if we are running surpluses, if we are in such good shape as the Honourable Gentleman says we are, perhaps he could, in his reply, tell us why it is that we need to further increase the costs of doing business by increases in electricity, rates discount reductions, etc., by quite such margins in this period to �balance the books�. I very much look forward to his answer. I know that he is likely to simply refer back to the same argument he used in 1995, but Mr Speaker, people are not interested in a better yesterday. They are interested in a better tomorrow. So the Hon Leader of the House should stop looking back to 1996 to find excuses and absolution for every political sin of which he is accused.

And as for the suggestion that increasing commercial electricity charges is justified by the reduction in corporation tax to come in January 2011, well, we cannot share the analysis for this reason.

First of all, no exemption has been reflected in the honourable member�s speech for sole traders not trading as companies or partnerships.

Secondly Mr Speaker, the increases have been announced today; but the date of implementation of these raised tariffs has not been confirmed (he did not say �from midnight tonight�). If the increases are to take effect from this month � that will mean that the increases will come into effect 6 months before the tax decreases which they purport to rebalance.

I would ask the honourable gentleman in his reply to confirm on what dates the increases in commercial electricity tariffs and the reduction in the rates discount will be effective.

Finally Mr Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank all the public officers of Gibraltar who are employed in the departments which I shadow � my criticisms are, as ever, of the political government and not of them.

I want to add a special thank you of course to your staff here, Mr Speaker, to Melvyn, Frances and Kevin � and to Audrey who has left us during the course of the year, who assist all members so diligently and graciously throughout the year.

This is a state of the nation debate. So what is the state of the nation? Mr Speaker, the nation is fed-up of this government. Mr Speaker, the nation is disillusioned by the broken promises of 15 years of this government. Mr Speaker, the nation is ready for a change of government.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, unfortunately, the Hon Leader of the House looks like he is going to try to hang on for a little longer yet, and Gibraltar cannot be without an Appropriation and we will therefore be supporting the expenditure proposed in the Bill and its Schedules on the terms already identified by the Leader of the Opposition.

NEIL COSTA BUDGET SPEECH 2010 [July - 2 - 2010]

thekey — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:37:39 GMT

Mr Speaker, as always in preparing my Budget Speech, I paused to consider the contributions made by the Honourable Members opposite in last year�s Budget Debate and the various Government Press Statements, television interviews and occasional press conferences. In preparing my third Budget contribution, I recalled my opening remarks last year when I said that it was obvious to any reasonable and objective political observer that the GSD are consummate experts in the political art of announcement and re-announcement. This House will recall that I provided various instances on the last occasion and on the back of this unfortunate reality something further emerges with eminent clarity: and that is, Mr Speaker, that some individual Ministers appear to drown in ankle deep water in respect of their areas of responsibility and this inability to get to grips with their own departments does have a direct and negative effect on Gibraltarians. And as always Mr Speaker I will furnish this House with illustrations.

As the House will have by now become accustomed, (notwithstanding my fifteen minutes in politics, magnanimously raised to thirty minutes last year), I begin my address by focusing on the reply of the Hon the Chief Minister, which can be best politely described as Castroesque in length and manner. The Hon the Chief Minister Mr Speaker seems intent every year to lecture us on this side of the House, it would appear, in the hope, that a lengthy political discourse will finally convert us to his political cause � or indeed make us succumb to his torture, as he accused one of my Hon friends during the last Question and Answer session of the House. However, I can assure Hon Members opposite that nothing could be less likely, Mr Speaker. As usual I relish the opportunity to rebut the various points the Hon CM made in relation to my contribution in respect of the provision of health and social services.

As I pause to consider the length of the replies of the Hon the Chief Minister on behalf of all of his Ministerial colleagues over the last two years, it also occurs to me that there is an unmistakable yet serious political psychosis deeply rooted in the collective psychological makeup of the GSD parliamentary party in general and its leader in particular. A leader, by the way Mr Speaker, who views himself as infallible in his arguments � one only has to observe his outbursts on behalf of his own Ministers when he does not even let them reply to our supplementary questions or at times even questions of their own areas of responsibility. And this uninterrupted pathology is further evidenced in the seeming inability of the GSD to refrain from replying to any statement whatsoever the Opposition makes whether they accept the facts or otherwise. And the pathology Mr Speaker lies in an inexorable political reflex to wish at all costs and at whatever cost to control public opinion. (Whereas I could demonstrate the nervousness exhibited by the Ministers opposite when a weakness is exposed in any area of government, I will only relate my examples to the areas in respect of which I have been entrusted by the Hon the Leader of the Opposition.) This obsessive compulsive disorder to reply to every pronouncement of the Opposition Mr Speaker throws into sharp focus that the GSD is losing its grip not just on its erstwhile political stranglehold of Gibraltar�s public opinion but on reality itself. Surely Mr Speaker it is a cardinal political rule, not to keep a political issue alive that does not favour you and which you cannot but accept as true; but so clinically anxious have the GSD become Mr Speaker that their fear of losing government overcomes them and gets the better of them spouting out diatribe from all angles in the hope that their legendary and notorious mud-slinging will obscure and bury the truth. But the truth will always out Mr Speaker and we here on these Benches will continue to remind the electorate.

What is worse Mr Speaker and as I have always maintained, the GSD does our democratic traditions, our public debate and our Parliamentary dignity no good at all to continue their personal attacks on the Opposition. (It is small wonder Mr Speaker that there are not more people willing to throw their hat into the ring.) It is one thing to attack our policy statements and quite another to go for the jugular against an Opposition member personally. The pattern is clear Mr Speaker and for everyone to see � the Opposition issues a Press Release on any given policy issues and the expected GSD reply comes in like a toxic bomb in its usual heavy handed manner, trying to personally eviscerate the spokesperson even if, and this is the killer, when the GSD have to accept what the Opposition has said. The litany of insults, the disrespectful and poisonous tone and tenor of all of the press releases as it relates to Opposition members is a method of conducting politics that Gibraltar wants to be shot of and is not something that we will perpetuate once we sit where they sit Mr Speaker, which thankfully will be very soon. But I have said so before Mr Speaker and I will continue to say it for as long as the personal attacks keep flying from their side that if a rebuttal concentrates on the critic rather than on the criticism it is because the substantive points raised cannot be properly countered.

I further warned the members opposite on the last occasion that their repeated mantras and politically expedient statements to try to counteract our public pronouncements would cease to be of any effect on Gibraltarians and that they would wake up one day to find that their political gimmicks are no longer of any effect. And as I anticipated last year Mr Speaker it was in the damp smell of newsprint Mr Speaker and in the crackle of the radio this Government woke up not on one, but on two ordinary mornings to read in two separate opinion polls what we on these benches knew well before, that people have had enough of their pernicious political manner. I have little doubt that the Hon the CM now wishes that he had not been quite so flippant in some of his remarks in this House when it came to the concerns of our citizens or quite so very sarcastic as to the number of people who complain to us about them � armies of people, he once said. Maybe not full armies, Mr Speaker, but certainly, it would appear, a majority of those armies.

In his reply last year, the Hon the CM took exceptional umbrage that I should have advised the GSD to stop replying to criticisms of their current policies and the way they govern Gibraltar by saying that it was better than it was in 1996. Well of course that all successive administrations build on past ones Mr Speaker; it would be a remarkable state of affairs if the GSD were to demolish the good work done by a pervious administration. But that, as I have said before and as I say again and will continue to say in spite of the refutations of the Hon the CM, does not answer the criticisms of the Government of the day. When I question the Hon Minister for Health or for Social Services about any particular decision I am asking for an explanation as to the current state of affairs � casting their mind back to 1996 when the Minister was obviously not even in Government simply does not cut any ice. I, as well as the rest of my colleagues hold the government into account as to present decisions; we want to know about what happens today, how the management of Gibraltar affects Gibraltarians today, how the wasteful expenditure of our public finances in particular in the wholly unnecessary construction of an airport impacts on our economy today, how political mismanagement in our public affairs from the decrepit state of the cemetery, the snail like pace of governmental decisions, the cancellation of speech therapy classes for our children, to the inexcusable delay in an elderly residential home prejudices Gibraltarians today, today, Mr Speaker � not in 1996, 1988 or any other year.

So no Mr Speaker, I do not accept any of the reasons given by the Hon the CM as to why it is important to hark back to 1996 in order to explain their shortcomings today � it is, simply put, sheer nonsense. And much more importantly Mr Speaker neither do the people of Gibraltar think that 1996 is relevant any longer. In an age of i-pods, i-pads, instant news coverage the electorate is concerned, rightly concerned, with how their government is performing on the day, Therefore, I do not accept the Hon the CM�s charge against me that it is a problem to possess a memory that just goes back thirty minutes because I need not know what happened in 1996 to know that young Gibraltarians are still waiting for affordable homes under his successive administrations, that he has wasted millions of our money on a theatre project that has never materialised, that our cemetery has fallen into an utter state of disrepair clearly not caring that ordinarily the cemetery is visited by elderly widows and widowers who require its upkeep at the very minimum for their own safety, I do not need a memory that spans beyond thirty minutes to know that under the Hon the CM�s stewardship our roads are daily in insufferable and endlessly frustrating gridlock, that there is clearly very little forward planning in traffic and other areas, that operations continue to be cancelled as a result of something as straightforward as lack of beds, that women still wait months for appointment for breast screening and then months for their results, that a new residential home for the elderly has yet not been built leading to a bottle neck of beds at the hospital for our elderly who require care but not hospitalisation leading, by their very own admission to operation being cancellations, that there are homeless people waiting for homes notwithstanding empty government flats that could be used if the necessary works were carried out, the lack of a half-way home for men and for women who are left with no place to go. You see how 30 minutes is sufficient Mr Speaker.

And when one considers the way that this Government has conducts our affairs, it is clear that they have lost all real concern for how their policies affect Gibraltarians. If people really mattered to them, then, instead of spending money on say a VIP lounge at Gatwick or Heathrow or unnecessary trips and conferences, that money could be allocated for the speedy refurbishment of government housing so that not one single Gibraltarian is out of a home, so that not one elderly person feels a burden to society, so that young people can feel proud in being able to buy a home or live independently in government housing. How did we in Gibraltar slip so far Mr Speaker that even one person has to live in a car? How in a population of almost only thirty-thousand people with ten ministers can we not resolve homelessness.

And do not let the Hon Members opposite think that for a second that I begrudge them their trips and VIP lounges, but before they go out to spend our money let�s invest it in getting our house in order first. Once that is sorted, then they can all fly around the world to their heart�s content.

Fourteen years is certainly a long time to have got on with things and got them done Mr Speaker!

There are other matters that the Hon the CM raised, which I address at this point. This next issue, which is inextricably linked to the way that Government explains itself, that is to say with obfuscation and distortion is his accusation that I had said in my last speech that I was accusing the panellists of the complaints process as lacking independence. The Hon the CM knows full well that I absolutely said nothing of the sort but because it suited his political purposes he nonetheless went ahead and said so.

Last year I simply noted my suggestion to the Hon Lady opposite that if the Honourable Members want to eliminate the public criticism levelled at the current complaints system by various sections of the community, the review panel should be appointed by the Ombudsman rather than merely being selected by the Ombudsman from an existing list already compiled by the Hon Lady. I further explained that the moment that a politician decides who to place on such a list, the system exposes itself, whether unfairly or otherwise, to the criticism of political interference or political bias, whether there is any such interference or not, whether there is or is not any bias and whether a panellist is independent or not. As the Hon the CM knows, in the same way that justice must be seen to be done, it is equally as important that independence be seen to exist � no one has ever suggested that any particular panellist is not independent. Given the creation of the office of an independent Ombudsman let us show trust in that institution and let his office deal with all complaints that go beyond the initial investigation by the GHA. It makes sense.

Then Mr Speaker, completely ignoring what I had said the Hon the CM tells me that only unusual doctors could complain to me about the complaints procedures because doctors ��hate the complaints procedure because it takes a huge amount of their time.� And that Mr Speaker was exactly what I had said � that doctors had complained to me that if the department was properly resourced their workload in that respect would be minimal; did the Hon the CM think I would not review my speech and his reply. I explained to the Hon the CM precisely that one of the problems expressed by patients and some doctors is that there is only 1 Patient Complaints Co-ordinator employed and that resources are therefore limited in this area that this leads to junior doctors having to deal with complaints in addition to their already extensive duties. If the department were properly resourced the doctors input into the process would be just the necessary and not as it is today as a result of the GSD continuing to employ simply 1 complaints co-ordinator. Something which I see from the Estimates will continue into the next financial year.

Be that as it may Mr Speaker and having said all of the above, at least the Hon the CM agrees with me that it is �right and helpful� that I should highlight any shortcomings that emerge and I note that he does not resent me pointing out such instances and that this is constructive politics. And in that constructive spirit I turn to of my specific areas of responsibility Health and Social Services.

As always, I preface my contribution on our health services by saying that it is only right that our health system should be funded by the state. But in the same way that the Hon Lady and the Hon the CM concede that the system is not prefect, it is my obligation, as the Hon the CM agrees, to highlight those aspects of the system that require reviewing and improvement. It is my continued view that we on these benches best serve Gibraltar�s interest by considering Government�s policies and their implementation and identifying their shortcomings so that the system is always self-renewing and improving. It is the Opposition�s very function, as I have always said, which, in my view ensures that any government of whatever persuasion gives thorough consideration to the implementation of any government program and which all Honourable Members must agree contributes directly to the quality of the services provided in the public sector.

The Hon Lady opposite presides over the biggest state budget, which reflects the importance once again that Gibraltar, as a community, attaches to the free provision of health care to its citizens. We on these benches therefore need to be watchful on how tax payers� money is spent, we need to ensure that there is sound investment that does not result in government waste, that the amounts of money spent correspond directly with the quality of services provided and we need to ask whether the services provided are cost-effective.

During this financial year 2010/2011, the Government estimates a total forecast outturn of �74,127,000. In respect of the financial year ending March 2010, that is to say, the last financial year, the Government�s forecast outturn is �73,473,000. The estimate in respect of 2009/2010 was �68,076,000. Approximately an additional five million pounds therefore has been spent in the last financial year than the estimate provided.

Given the millions spent Mr Speaker it is undoubtedly our duty to once again raise the question as to why some of the same old problems recur annually. It is a fact that the Hon the CM dislikes that I should remind them of the perennial issues and in his wish to turn the tables accuses us of regurgitating the same speeches; to turn on the tapes, he says. In the first place Mr Speaker I write my Budget contributions afresh every year but it is certainly not my fault that the same issues should continue to arise if they fail to remedy these. As I told the Hon Members on the last occasion I will have no difficulty whatsoever in not raising the same issues so long as they are no longer a problem; but for so long as the same problems exist and for so long as I represent the interests of Gibraltarians, I will continue to monitor and highlight these matters to the Hon members opposite.

Mr Speaker, I now move to some of the issues, that I mentioned a few moments ago.

Pensioners, Bed Shortages, Cancelled Operations & Other Problems

In reply to my criticism of the Government for the high level of cancelled operations the Hon the CM tried partly to explain away his government�s failure by telling me that there is a difference between bed shortages and bed blockages. The Hon the CM went to great lengths to lecture me on the fact that I should label things correctly. The Hon the CM seemed to have forgotten however that it was his own government by way of the Hon Lady opposite who had acknowledged the problem on 29 April 2009 by saying that the interim residential care facilities for the elderly will alleviate the acute bed shortage that was been experienced at the Hospital. You see Mr Speaker it is not just I that calls it a bed shortage, it is also the Hon the CM�s colleague who calls it a bed shortage. The Hon Lady went even further accepting that the bed shortage resulted in the need to postpone some scheduled surgical operations. It would seem that just a three minute memory span is enough Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker the Hon the CM may therefore call it bed absences, bed unavailability, bed disappearances or whatever else he chooses to call it; but by whatever name he chooses to describe the problem, the problem is still a problem and one that needs to be resolved certainly after fourteen years of this uncaring administration or by my thirty minute memory span in politics.

The press have already extensively catalogued the various instances of inconvenience of those who have decided to go public when their operation is cancelled. What truly irks me as a servant of the public and what disgruntles the people who listen to this debate or read the papers, is the very cavalier disregard exhibited not just by the Hon the CM but also by the Hon Lady opposite. When during the last Question and Answer session of this House, I put it to the Hon Lady opposite that to have a scheduled operation cancelled can be more than merely a trifling inconvenience to the affected patient, the Hon Lady opposite in effect shrugged her shoulders to say that it was not as bad as I was making it out to be and said, like the Hon CM said in his last Budget address that operations are cancelled even in the Houston Medical Centre.

Mr Speaker what a remarkably cavalier and flippant statement! How does the Hon Lady know what preparations a person has had to make for the operation � the time off work, family arrangements, the psychological preparation before an operation, the pain that a person may be suffering as a result of the illness that requires the surgical operation? She cannot know Mr Speaker and if the Hon Lady cared about people she would rise in this House to apologise and explain how the government is trying to remedy the situation. Let me remind her that Gibraltar is still waiting for a second home for senior citizens in the old St Bernard�s Hospital.

I really need say little else on this matter Mr Speaker as the facts do truly speak for themselves.

Elderly

As I and belatedly the Hon Lady Opposite have already said Mr Speaker related to the question of bed blockages, are the health-related questions in connection with the elderly. In the last Question and Answer session the Hon Mr Netto told us that there were 514 persons waiting for a place in Mount Alvernia and that of those 29 were occupying a bed at John Cochrane Ward and 41 at St Bernard�s Hospital. In answer to Question 369 of 2009 the total number of elderly citizens occupying a bed at St Bernard�s Hospital as at 2 June 2009 was 41. The figures I have just quoted and as I anticipated in the last Budget represent a reflection of a growing trend. I therefore repeat that this government grasp the nettle on an issue that truly is important to the residents of Gibraltar. Let us see the Government acting expeditiously on a vital community matter � the way we treat those who have contributed to our society so much says a lot about who we are as a people and our values.

Mammography Service

Mr Speaker, the public will be aware of the ongoing debate in and out of this Parliament in respect of the Mammography Service. As this House knows, the Opposition continue to receive complaints of women who have to wait months before being screened for breast cancer and then have to wait months for a result. The Hon Lady Opposite in the last Question and Answer session of this House in an answer to a supplementary question agreed that the current screening program was not working as well as it should and that is why they were in throes of starting the routine mammography breast screening service. Whereas I sincerely hope that this program starts soonest and functions efficiently and effectively, as always, we on this side of the House will have to reserve our position and monitor the situation.

In respect of the current system, the Honourable Members opposite know of the dissatisfaction expressed by some women, some of which have written directly to daily organs to record in public the amount of time it has taken them to be screened and waited for their result.

All medical professionals agree that prevention is better than cure and for some patients, having to wait any number of months may be too long in that an non-noticed symptoms may become very much worse in that period of time.

And then Mr Speaker, as the House knows, there is the question of the routine mammography service, which we on this side of the House have continually pressed the Government to implement soonest.

The House and indeed the public will recall that that the commencement of this service has been subject to considerable delay. The delays had been of an equipment and of a staffing nature. It was a central plank of the Government�s that a third radiologist had to be recruited before the service could start. In fact, in answer to questions in September 2008, December 2008, June 2009, October 2009 and February 2010 it was made clear that having a third radiologist in post was part and parcel of the service, as advised by the Hon Lady opposite herself.

Given the answers in Parliament by the Hon Lady, the Opposition recently raised its concern publicly about the commencement of the routine, structured mammography services given the dismissal of one radiologist and the suspension of another. Among the usual barrage of insults, the Hon Minister suddenly shifted the government�s position and announced that it is possible to continue as planned with the structured service without the need for a radiologist by using Teleradiology.

Whereas I was happy to hear this for the women of Gibraltar, the question that immediately arose in my mind as well as in the minds of the people who had followed the debate was the obvious one: why did the Government not go down this route earlier given the difficulties that had been experienced with the recruitment of the third radiologist. Teleradiology would have saved a considerable amount of time and trouble and the service could have started as soon as it was announced as a commitment. In addition, it was very telling that when I questioned the Hon Lady in February of this year she said nothing about the Government�s intention to explore Teleradiology and simply informed the public that the last piece of the puzzle was finally in place as a third radiologist had been employed on an initial locum basis for two months.

Mr Speaker, the fact is that it is the Hon Lady that has not done her homework in this area as she so frequently but unjustifiably accuses me. She has done herself no favours by indicating three years down the line that that there was indeed another option open to them other than appointing a third radiologist. In the meantime the women of Gibraltar have been made to wait for years and years and now in 2010 the service is still not operational.

And if the above were not serious enough Mr Speaker in their usual desire to politically tarnish all the valid points that we raise, the Hon Lady accused me of lending covert support to the dismissed and suspended radiologist. As absurd as that statement was and as much as I expect political distortion and an attempt to manipulate public opinion, I could not believe that accusation � that was a low blow, even by their standards. I had never and have never commented on the employment situation of any of the relevant radiologists and the public are fully aware of this.

Hospital Car Park

Then Mr Speaker I turn to another example of how the Government really does not prioritise the concerns of resident Gibraltarians. In this particular case I refer to the decision of the Government to finally open the car park at Europlaza for hospital users. The delay is yet another reflection of the poor planning that has surrounded the multi-million pound conversion of an office block into a hospital that the provision of car parking spaces for members of the public was not adequately catered for when the hospital opened, notwithstanding the fact that adequate parking was given as one of the reasons for the move from the old St Bernard�s site.

Let�s quickly recap:

The Government told Parliament in 2004 that they had agreed to purchase a floor from the developers of Europlaza to use as car parking space for the hospital at a cost of �650,000. When the hospital opened this did not materialise. For a considerable period of time, therefore, there had been no hospital parking spaces available for visitors. Once again this has caused considerable inconvenience to many people � see Mr Speaker how the concerns of people are not prioritised; see how thirty minutes is enough; see how individual Minister cannot get their act together.

The problem became so acute that in June of 2005 the Government announced that they had reached agreement with Morrison�s supermarket for the allocation of 25 car parking spaces to hospital users free of charge for one hour. The arrangement entailed the allocation of temporary passes from the car park attendant on first come first served basis. Even though the Government described the arrangements as �an open agreement with no time constraints�, it came to an end without warning and there were hospital users whose vehicles were clamped in Morrison�s car park as a consequence of this facility coming unexpectedly to an end. You see Mr Speaker rushed solution; no forward planning.

On the other hand, we on these benches have constantly pressed the Government in Parliament over many years to provide adequate car parking spaces for hospital users. The delays in providing this facility, once Europlaza had been constructed, were inexcusable. When I asked in Parliament in April 2008, I was told that the Government was implementing a policy to operate Government owned car parks through a Government-owned company and this was in the process of being housed, staffed and activated. The House was told that �this is not something that is technically under review, which means nothing is happening. Let me explain that, when the words are used �under review� or �pigeon-holed meaning nothing is happening.� The Government added that this was not one of those cases and that it should happen soon.

At six meetings of Parliament that spanned 2008, 2009 and 2010 since that answer was given, we continued to push the Government on the issue. The indications were that nothing was happening, despite the answer to the contrary given in April 2008, since it has taken a further two years for the car park to open its doors. In September 2008 the Government said that the new arrangements would become operational by Christmas of that year. This did not happen. In March of 2009 the Government said that the car park would open �quite soon� but it did not happen either. Parliament was told that the Government were now considering their own policy on transport and car parks generally and that the one for hospital users in Europlaza was being considered in that wider context. The Government also confirmed in June 2009 not only that there were no staffing problems as such, but that the car park was in a fit state to be operational at that time. This was then expected to happen �very, very shortly�. It then transpired since that �very, very shortly� actually meant eight months more to wait!

The Government could have saved motorists and hospital visitors a considerable degree of inconvenience had they made provision for public car parking spaces when they decided to convert the office-block at Europort into a hospital. Having failed to do that, it was totally unacceptable that people were made to wait while the Government made up its minds on how to operate and staff the car park, even though the building was ready and the spaces were available for use.

But Mr Speaker the delays affecting the opening of the car park is a perfect illustration of my opening statement that individual Ministers cannot get their act together. What could have been simpler Mr Speaker than the Minister for Transport to arrange for parking facilities?

Heartless

In a separate matter, the House will know that we brought to the public�s attention a case where the GHA had refused medical attention to the children of a Gibraltarian family on the technicality that they did not have identity cards. This, Mr Speaker, even though the most cursory examination would have shown that it was a case of genuine hardship and of people were genuinely in need of the support of the state.

At the time we on these benches were dealing with the case of a couple with four children two of whom, as well as the mother, are Gibraltarian. The father and the other two children are also British. The family had lived for a time in the United Kingdom until about a year ago. The six of them lived in Gibraltar in one room, the monthly rent of which was �550. The father, who is the breadwinner, earned about �930 a month. This meant that the family, with four children, had financial difficulty in making ends meet. The family had to live in Gibraltar accommodation in order to be able to register with the GHA.

Initially, the GHA had refused to register the family for medical treatment on the basis that they did not have a local address and were therefore unable to obtain the necessary ID documentation in order to be able to register. After the family obtained a local address, they were told that they needed to pay �5 per ID card. This was an amount that a family in such circumstances simply could not afford.

In addition, and this is the reason why I mention it in my budget address, one of the children suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and requires constant medication, which is expensive and which the family simply did not have the money to pay.

Given the real financial hardship I immediately contacted the Hon Lady opposite so that the GHA could facilitate the registration of the children so that the child suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder received immediate medical attention. The question was not, as the GSD tried to make out, that the Minister was being asked to waive the requirements imposed in the law but that she should exercise some common sense in relation to these bureaucratic issues in exceptional cases of real and genuine hardship. Given that the Gibraltar identity card is simply there to provide proof of identity, if there is a requirement for the GHA to establish this in order to ensure the entitlement to register for healthcare, then it should be possible to do so by reference to other official documents like passports and birth certificates. The response from the Minister�s office to the family directly was that the GHA is not the Government and there was nothing that they could do.

Again Mr Speaker I would ask that we pause here to consider that statement � because it is very easy in the cut and thrust of politics not to properly consider an issue. It is remarkable, to put it mildly for the Government to have said that the GHA is not the Government. Everyone knows that the Minister for Health is also the Chairperson of the GHA and that it is the Government that funds and lays down the policies for the GHA. The case I have described was a real and genuine case of serious financial hardship where the Government could have simply waived any administrative impediments to the registration of these children so that they could have received medical treatment, whilst they regularised their position.

And of course Mr Speaker, as I referred at the outset, the Government�s Press Release detonated like a bomb of personal invectives, save that like with all anticipated attacks, we were well prepared. Moreover, the reaction was nothing if not hysterical and betrayed once again that they see themselves as being infallible and above criticism. I will be somewhat sympathetic though Mr Speaker as the evident hypersensitivity must be due to the dawning realisation that their time is up.

Their Press Statement also made clear that the Government are simply averse to people approaching the Opposition with their problems, still less when at the request of the affected party the issues are made public. The Government must understand that in a democratic society members of the public are free to approach their Members of Parliament with their concerns and the Opposition are perfectly entitled to raise the issue in public if it is of public interest on behalf of their constituents. In this particular case, the Opposition had even written to the Minister for Health Yvette del Agua before taking this step. After all Mr Speaker we are not issuing a personal attack on a Minister or commenting on their personal lives but simply highlighting a real concern and it is childish and immature for the Hon Ministers to take such umbrage that the only response they have left is to insult.

And the plain fact remained Mr Speaker that while the Government imputed my motives and questioned my personal integrity and even my professional ability, there was 9 year old Gibraltarian with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder who required immediate medical attention. I still maintain the view that the Minister and the GSD should have shown more compassion and humanity in this case because we were concerned with children who required our help and we failed them.

Speech Therapy

Unfortunately Mr Speaker, the above is not the only instance of the Government not prioritizing people or unfortunately children.

As this House will be aware, the Opposition received representations from members of the public who complained that the frequency of sessions offered to children with speech therapists had been reduced. At the time we highlighted that in one of these cases, a mother of two young children enrolled them about two years ago to take speech therapy lessons as a result of developmental delay. These children made use of the speech therapy service provided by the GHA once a week after school for one hour. The children also attended during the summer months, albeit with a different and reduced timetable.

However in December of last year, the mother was advised that due to an increase in the number of children requiring speech therapy, her children would only be able to avail themselves of speech therapy sessions on alternate terms, instead of during the full year.
In practice this meant that a child having contact with a speech therapist in December would not see the therapist again until April. This was confirmed by the Hon Lady opposite in the last Question and Answer session, but not without the usual attempt first at obfuscation. Understandably, the parents who saw me were extremely upset by the reduction and could not understand why the GHA could not devote more resources to tackle the increased demand instead of responding to the problem by reducing the service available to the children.

Once again Mr Speaker, the toxic reply arrived.

In their statement the Government confirmed that there had been increased referrals to the department. This was the point we made. The Government also confirmed that as a result of the increased referrals there had been cuts in the services offered (which they choose to describe as a �rearrangement�). This was also the point we made. Given that the reduction in service was and is a reality, the GSD should have had the good grace to keep quiet instead of automatically switching to knee-jerk mode and publicly attacking us while at the same time confirming the very criticism that has been made against them. You see Mr Speaker how the present Government are incapable of replying to criticism without insulting their critics, imputing their motives and distorting the basis of the original complaint.

Mr Speaker as shadow spokesperson for Health I am perfectly entitled to air the Opposition�s disapproval of the manner in which the Government decided to spend, or in this case, not spend the monies voted in Parliament for health care as it relates to the Speech and Language Therapy Department.

Regardless of their insults, I will continue to monitor how taxpayer�s money is spent and to hold the GSD to account. It was therefore simply a false premise for the Government to say in their Press Release that it is contradictory for the Opposition to criticise the Government for a reduction in service and also for how it spends taxpayer�s money. It is indeed possible for the GSD to reduce a valid and valuable service and at the same time squander our money, as is patently obvious by the way it spends our money. Could not the Minister have prioritised this matter? Can she not swim in ankle deep water?

More importantly Mr Speaker the GSD Government really needs to prioritise how it spends our money and must put people first � that services for our children should be reduced is just unacceptable and is further unequivocal proof that this Government could not care less how their spending plans affect the most vulnerable and in need.

Mental Health

I will give Mr Speaker yet another example.

The GSD has accepted that mental health services needs to be further resourced and yet they have not made sufficient investment in the new purpose built facility that is a core plank of their policy. Mr Speaker it is symptomatic of the GSD that whilst projects of dubious benefit at present, like the air terminal and related schemes, should forge ahead, the real needs of the community are put to one side

In their last political manifesto the GSD promised a purpose-built mental health facility, which we, on this side of the House support and have done so since 2003. Indeed, in January of this year, the Hon Lady said that �By far, the greatest improvement to our mental health services will be the new, purpose built facility at the Aerial Farm Site��. We have since discovered that the Government is still considering different sites and that no decision has been made on where to establish the new purpose-built facility.

In addition Mr Speaker, I also make once again this year particular reference to one of the most vulnerable group of persons, which we continue to believe are not being properly cared for by this administration: and this relates to sufferers of dementia and Alzheimers. In particular I refer the Hon Lady once again to two letters written in the Chronicle. In one of the letters it is said that a family gave up trying to receive assistance of Social Services for their relative suffering from Alzheimers and in another there is a grave problem of an elderly lady who is not in receipt of physiotherapy attention. We therefore once again urge the Government to urgently consider the needs of this group of persons and to immediately allocate funds to either provide a respite home for those in need or to implement the full range of measure for those hospitalised, in addition to introducing mechanisms for early diagnosis so that the provision of resources can be anticipated.

The Care Agency

Mr Speaker, I am afraid that when it comes to Social Services I have to reiterate what I said previously in spite of the fact that the Hon the CM does not like this. As a first step there needs to be urgent allocation of more funds to Social Services, in particular, to employ more qualified social workers and counsellors to assist and expedite the works of the family courts especially in the preparation of welfare reports � we also need to employ more probation officers and community service officers to expedite the business of the criminal courts. Whilst I note that there has been a small increase in the complement of qualified social workers as a result of the implementation of the Children Act, there still need to be far more resourcing of the Care Agency in particular in the recruitment of more qualifies staff. Mr Speaker it is not at all an adequate explanation for the Hon the CM to reiterate to me that he has increased spending since 1996 when professionals or service-users can detect the deficiencies of the system today.

And as I said last year Mr Speaker, it is not for those who fall through the cracks of the system to have to seek out assistance, it should be the people entrusted with their care who should do whatever is in their power to provide them with the basic needs of any human being and ensure their dignity.

For instance, in answer to Question 391 of 2009 in respect of the construction of a half-way house for men, the Government had still not even identified a site, this although there is homelessness and an urgent need.

In conclusion Mr Speaker, what we have seen is a Government on its last legs and desperately clutching at straws. Gibraltar needs a Government who prioritises people as well as projects; we need a Government that is run by strong independent members that work together but who can boldly tackle their own areas of responsibility. we need a Government to get on with things properly and expeditiously � what Gibraltar needs is a change in the way that politics is conducted, a coherent forward plan and to take Gibraltar out of stagnation and into a new dynamism.

Budget Speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition [July - 1 - 2010]

thekey — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:01:36 GMT

Mr Speaker, as the House is well aware, I have been regularly asking for a breakdown of the figures produced by the Government in the Employment Survey Reports. There has never been any problem in providing the information I have requested until this year.

The reaction of the Honourable Member opposite, who answers for employment statistics, as he does for most other areas of Government, was to introduce 2 new policies this year. One, that no information would be given if things were in progress or not yet published in the final form, for example in the case of the results of the surveys. This meant that when I asked in February this year how many survey forms had been sent out in October last year or whether the survey had already been closed, the information was refused. Why? Because it seems that what had been considered reasonable requests for information until 2009 seems not to be so in 2010.

Clearly the Government is free to provide whatever information it wants or to provide it when it wants, but it is difficult to understand why it has chosen to stop providing this year what it has been willing to provide in the previous 12 years.

The other reason given for not providing the information on labour statistics appears to be, given the manner in which the honourable members expressed it, that his perception of my requests is that number crunching is a hobby of mine which he is prepared to indulge me in if it paralyses the statistics office for one day, but that the increase in the number of questions means the statistics office would be paralysed for a week and this is going too far.

I have not been able to persuade him to provide the information in the last 2 meetings at question time and although I acknowledge that the report for October 09, of which I was given an advance copy yesterday, does include some of the answers not yet asked, in respect of the questions I would have been putting for the October 2009 statistics, but not the ones I asked about October 2008.

I feel I need to show him and the House that the details that I seek are important and relevant to our understanding of what is taking place in the labour market and not some pet hobby of mine that I want to indulge in and as a by-product bring the machinery of the Government to a standstill or even worse that I do it precisely to bring about this standstill and not because I am interested in the information. I really have difficulty in understanding how disclosing figures which are inputted into excel files, which is all that the Survey Report consists of, can involve such onerous increase in the workload of a department, especially after the huge increase in computing power that the Government tells us they have introduced in the last 12 years and which we have voted funds for in Parliament.

Employment Survey

Last year the Government had the Employment Survey Report for October 2008 and was able to quote from it in the Budget debate. The Opposition still had to rely on the October 2007 and did not get a copy of the 2008 Report, which had been completed in March, until the start of the budget session in June, too late to use it. There seems to be no purpose in holding back this information other than to make it impossible to challenge the interpretation the Government puts on the most recent survey results, until a year later at the next Budget. This is what I propose to do now.

The 2008 Report showed an increase of 813 jobs between 2007 and 2008, quoted by the Hon Member opposite last year. Of these 749 were full-time. This 749 is the net effect of a drop of 60 Gibraltarians in full-time employment, from 8629 to 8569, and an increase of 809 non-Gibraltarians in this category.

Last year the House was told that the Employment Survey Report of 2008 showed that 36 extra Gibraltarians were in employment. Not so Mr Speaker. The figure of 36 comes from Table 1. It is the net result of a drop of 60 full-time jobs and an increase of 96 part-time jobs also shown in that Table. The part-time jobs do not necessarily imply more people working as is well known, since it is the jobs not the persons that are being counted and in this case the number of part-time Community Officers employed by Community Care increased by 80 as compared to the figure included in the Employment Survey Report of October 2007, as a result of the Government requesting the charity to offer part-time employment to males over 60, employed already but earning under �20,000 per annum.

These 80 were therefore not extra Gibraltarians in employment and therefore the increase of 36 was not an increase of Gibraltarians in employment. At best the 36 converts into a decrease of 44.This is made up of 60 full-time jobs less and 16 part-time jobs more, giving a net effect of 44 jobs held by Gibraltarians down, compared to October the previous year. Of course the Government argues when the statistics show less Gibraltarians in employment that this can be because they are misclassified as non-Gibraltarian British citizens, but when the figure goes up as appeared to be the case last year, this the misclassification theory is dropped hence the explanation last year of an increase of 36 more Gibraltarians in 2008 compared to 2007.

The position between 2007 and 2008 was that less Gibraltarians held these jobs, despite more jobs being in the economy. Almost every year since 1996 the Government�s view has been that unemployment was non-existent or that the kind of jobs available was not wanted by Gibraltarians.

The reality is that in recent times there have been a number of occasions with unemployment levels higher than the 330 of May 1996 which the Government since has often described as the level which amounts to full employment. Clearly there will always be a certain number of people in between jobs and this is the short-term unemployment that the system is designed to cater for.

However unemployment reached 363 in October 2008 and 443 in October 2009.

Employment

One factor in the competition for jobs is the trend in the numbers and proportions of frontier workers which has been a feature of the Employment Surveys, every year, with year to year increases. This was again reflected in the 2008 Report. Prior to 2008 we have been monitoring this in terms of the breakdowns provided in answer to questions as to the composition of the public sector entities and wholly owned companies that were included in the private sector until 2007.

The effect of the figures as published until 2007 was to show a picture of a lower level of dependence on frontier workers by the private sector than was really the case, since the ratio of residents in employment was higher in the entities that had been reclassified as private on being converted from Government departments to agencies etc .

On the basis of the classification introduced in 2008 we can see that in 2007 full-time employees in the private sector as defined until then was 13,021 made up to 8,597 males and 4,424 females. Comparing the relevant tables on the presence of frontier workers, this showed that they amounted to 5,377 made up of 3,322 males and 2,055 females. The relationship between the two figures, that is the total employment and the frontier workers, shows frontier workers at 39% of males and 46% of females. In the new definition which excludes public sector entities the private sector in 2008 shows 12,940 full-time employees of which males are 8,571 and females 4,369. In spite of a reduction in the numbers by the removal of the public sector entities the frontier workers increased and now account for 5,778, 3,699 of which are males now representing a 43% ratio compared to the total, and 2,099 females which now amount to 47%.

This is simply one further step in the increasing share of the private sector jobs which has been going on since 1996 and we are now only a couple of years away on this basis from a situation where frontier workers will outnumber resident workers in the private sector as a whole.

We know that the Government and we have different views on this and we know that the honourable member last year said he was delighted that we provide so many jobs to frontier workers, which he believed was even higher than the official figures showed. Nothing that I say in this budget Mr Speaker is going to change his mind in this or any other issue since he made clear a year ago that he considers that I contribute nothing to our annual debate and that it matters little whether I am here or not to express my views. I am sure he feels the same way about the views of any of my colleagues or anyone else that disagrees with him on any other matter, so I know he is not discriminating against me, he just treats my views with the same royal disdain that he treats everyone else�s.

The frontier worker influx which is now an avalanche does worry many people who feel that the competition for jobs makes it very difficult to secure employment. Recently, for the first time the Government appeared to have recognised the need to do more for local people, in some of their statements.

The presence of frontier workers in ever increasing numbers is taking place in almost every industry in the private sector and not just in the traditional area of new construction.

The construction sector has to have an element of imported and frontier workers in order to meet peak demands which will come down when projects are completed. This has always been the case even in the days of the closed frontier. However the present situation is that Gibraltarians are hugely outnumbered in almost every building project, to a degree that they feel as if they are the immigrant workers and that they often get sacked first and outsiders are kept or are taken on in their place.

The Government may not believe this or may not wish to believe it. I have heard the same story from far too many people not to believe it myself Mr Speaker. I cannot give details of how dependent on frontier workers the construction industry is, from the published statistics but it is evident from simply seeing the evidence of what has been the composition on Government financed projects in the recent redundancies. The tables in the report do not provide a breakdown by industry for resident or frontier workers, but they do provide a nationality breakdown and this puts the number of Gibraltarian workers at 387 out of 2,289, or just under 17%.

In April 1996, a date with which members opposite like making such comparisons, the industry was much smaller, 997 male construction jobs out of which 531 were Gibraltarians, over 53%. It might be acceptable to argue that if the stable level of the industry is around 1,000 then we should import workers in the peak period when we need 2,000 or 3,000, but the policy objective should be to have as many as possible of the permanent 1,000 jobs held by our own people. What cannot be considered acceptable is that less Gibraltarians should be employed in the industry now when there are more jobs in 2008 than there were in 1996.

Of course if the view of the Government is that it doesn�t matter or that Gibraltarians do not want to work in this industry or that they are all working for more money elsewhere, then clearly nothing I say is going to have any effect and we shall see a continuation of this trend.

Another example quoted by the Honourable Member last year was the growth in the wholesale and retail trade which he described as a very important part of our economy.

Indeed, until 2007 it was the largest industry in terms of employment, but in 2008 it was overtaken by the construction industry. The wholesale and retail sector was traditionally a large area of Gibraltarian employment and the decline over the years has been explained away by the Government as evidence that Gibraltarians now do not want to work in this industry because they can get better paid jobs elsewhere.

An explanation that we do not believe is the reason for the decline in Gibraltarian employment in the area, even though if may be true of some individual cases.

If we look at what the Honourable Member told the House last year he said that the sector had been able to increase employment levels by 62 jobs to 2878. This information is in column 3 of Tables 1 of the 2007 and 2008 Reports.

However when we look at Table 12 which provides the nationality and gender breakdown we see that male employment increased by 9 to 1551 from 1542, whilst the number of male Gibraltarians employed fell by 23 compared to 2007 falling from 720 to 697. The female Gibraltarian employees increased by 21 leaving a net loss of Gibraltarian employment in this very important part of our economy. The figure for 2008 of 697 male Gibraltarian employees out of 1551, and 652 females out of 1327, compares with 734 out of 1542, and 697 out of 1125 females in the wholesale and retail industry in 2002 according to the October Survey Report of that year.

This means that in 6 years employment in the industry grew by 279 and the number of Gibraltarians employed in the industry fell by 102. The share of jobs held by Gibraltarians in the wholesale and industry has now dropped in just 6 years from over 56% to 48%. Another industry, where our people are now the minority.

The 2 largest industries in the private sector now provide more jobs for non-Gibraltarians than for Gibraltarians and other local residents, who are in a minority and declining.

Another area which we have previously highlighted is the Social Insurance, now the Statutory Benefits, Fund.

The position of the Statutory Benefits Fund does not feature either in the level of reserves of the Consolidated Fund, the formula for adjusting gross to net debt or the concept of cash reserves but it undoubtedly constitutes a contingent liability. The view that has always been taken was that in the event of there being insufficient resources to pay social insurance benefits the shortfall was to be met by advances from the Consolidated Fund.

The effect of the Statutory Benefits Fund on this year�s budget is that the contribution is being reduced by �1 million compared to last year, namely �7.5 million instead of �8.5 million. The balance in the fund given in answer to question 631/2010 is that the reserves stand at almost �18.5 million.

The decision of the Government to reduce the contribution presumably is on the basis that they expect this year�s deficit to be �7.5 million and that the estimated reserves in March 2011 will still be �18.5 million.

The Government�s original plan for the Social Insurance Fund was to increase its reserves. It then argued some years later that it had always been a �pay as you go fund�, which in fact was not correct. It had always, since 1955, been operated on the premise that the fund would run a recurrent surplus, build up reserves and pay benefits by a combination of investment income and insurance contribution receipts.

It will be recalled that between 1988 and 1996, continuing the policy of the previous government up to 1988, the reserves went up from over �18 million to some �36 million. They are now therefore in cash terms, at the 1988 level, which when one considers that the statutory fund now has to meet the cost of industrial injuries and insolvency payments, represents in fact a lower ratio of reserves to payments that 22 years ago.

In the audited accounts for 2007/2008 the reserves of the four Social Insurance Funds increased from �17.9 million to �18 million after a �10 million Consolidated Fund contribution with �23.9 million in payments from the Fund. If we adjust the 2008/2009 audited accounts of the Statutory Benefits Fund to leave out the �2.2 million insolvency fund transferred in order to compare like with like, the annual accounts show payments of �25.1 million and reserves at �18.5 million. On this basis we are now talking about the reserves being equal to some 9 months of expenditure as opposed to some 30 months in 1988.

A comparable level of cover would now require reserves in excess of �60m.

In our view, it is not possible to secure its long-term future as it is presently structured. If we take current year, as was also the case last year, the reduction in the contribution from the Consolidated Fund is made possible by a combination of increasing contribution rates and increasing numbers of contributors.

If the balance of the Fund was being brought about by increasing contributions by a higher percentage than the percentage increase in benefits and if that were the policy that the Government was following, without having spelled it out, then this would only work in the long run if there was a stable ratio between contributors, i.e., the working population and beneficiaries, that is the pensioners. This however is not the case. At present the numbers of both beneficiaries and contributors is increasing every year.

The pensioner figure for March 2010 was 8289, according to the answer to question 630/2010 compared to 7923 in March 2009 according to the answer to question 386/2009. At the same time the number of workers has been increasing, this is especially so in the construction sector which in the first 5 months of the year accordingly to the employment service records went up from 2529 to 2883. However these trends could and almost certainly will change in the future.

Each contributor is potentially a future beneficiary. If we consider the ratio of beneficiaries to contributors using as guidance employment surveys full time employees, since we have no information on insurance contribution records, the picture is as follows. The pensioner/worker ratio in October 2008 was the following, pensioners 7866, full-time employees 17437, that is 2.2 workers per pensioner.

As well as the issue of the long-term survival of the Fund or the solvency of the Fund, the overlapping criteria used for the different non-contributory payments has in our view created a situation where there are anomalies as to what is considered the level of non-contributory income support that residents should be provided with and this will also have to be addressed sooner or later.

Community Care

Mr Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Honourable Member criticised me because I had said that the Government had allowed Gibraltar Community Care to run out of money.

He then revealed, for the first time, that the fact that the private charity has no money left is no accident, not a question of benign neglect, not an oversight, but the result of a 15 year policy not to provide funds to the charity so that when their reserves which they had built up before 1996, run dry, as they were bound to, as the charity started using up new capital to pay beneficiaries, the Government would replace the support that the charity had been providing to our pensioners since 1989 with alternative arrangements.

I have to say that I cannot see how the Honourable Member can expect me or anyone else in Gibraltar to know that such a secret plan existed or that he had intended to replace the support given by the charity with other arrangements which he has stated will be financed from the Government�s Consolidated Fund, when he has made no previous mention of any such policy.

Well the estimates give no indication of any such plan. Moreover, if the plan was to put other arrangements in place I presume the Honourable Member must have informed Community Care Trustees at some stage especially after he announced in a previous Budget that he had asked them to extend the employment of part-time Community Officers to persons aged 60 to 65 even though they had already full-time employment (get quote of what was said at the Budget). A new obligation which the charity took on which in effect was bound to increase the use of their much depleted reserves, which resulted in an increase in the numbers paid as part-timers of 80 in October 2008 and a further 196 in October 2009.

If the Government had a plan to deliberate run down the reserves of Community Care in order to replace it with different arrangements, why on earth did they take the decision to withdraw �5million from the Social Insurance Fund in 2001/02, and transfer it to the Social Assistance Fund? At the time it was stated that this was done to facilitate the transfer out of the Social Assistance Fund in order to make a grant of �5m to Community Care.

Still, if the Government has come to the conclusion that there is a risk of Spanish pensioners claiming Community Care payments as he said in his new year message and has had a plan and an alternative to Community Care which will be more advantageous to pensioners, then the sooner he does it the better. We shall judge whether, and if so how advantageous it is, when we see it. If he has had something better than Community Care for 15 years, then it�s certainly a mystery why he has not done it before.

What he said in his New Year message was that current Spanish workers might eventually decide to mount an EU challenge and claim Community Care.

He then added:

�Whatever we may think of the merits of any such claim, it represents a financial time bomb ticking under our children and grandchildren in the future, for which they cannot have recourse to the UK. I am not willing to bequeath this potentially lethal legacy of a massive and unaffordable backdated claim to our future generations, and so, this year the Government will, as I said at Budget time, introduce significant reforms to protect Gibraltar from this possibility. This reform will not result in financial loss to our pensioners or recipients of Community Care.�

As far as we are concerned the support that Community Care has been giving since 1989 is no way linked to social security benefits, is not covered by Community Law and moreover, it was never compensation for frozen pensions resulting from the decision of the United Kingdom Government to first freeze and then unfreeze the pensions of pre-1969 frontier workers as has been proved since when the pensions were unfrozen and the household cost allowance continued to be paid by the charity. In the New Year message the member said he had mentioned the reforms he had in mind in his 2009 budget speech and I would be grateful if the Honourable Member would refer to what he said last year as I have not been able to identify it in Hansard.

Public Sector Employment

Mr Speaker, the public sector we were told last year was not getting bigger or more expensive by any economically literate relevant measure of these 2 things.

In no debate on the budget has this side of the House made a statement to the effect that the public sector was getting bigger or more expensive. The ones that do so regularly are the leaders of the business community in Gibraltar and therefore on this occasion the evaluation of being economically illiterate must have been addressed at them as it followed a quote from the Chamber of Commerce that the public sector was �bloated�. We share the view expressed by the Government that the services delivered by the public sector are not necessarily more expensive than the services that have been contracted out to the private sector.

Having agreed that whether the public sector is too big or bloated is a matter of opinion, I have to say that I cannot agree that the selective statistics quoted by the honourable member proves anything at all. He argued that in April 1988 the Government accounted for 31% of all employment with 4028 jobs out of 12,995. That in 1996 the public sector provided 2,118 out of 12,975 coming in at 21% and that in October 2008 the Government accounted for 3,998 jobs out of 20,509, representing 19.5%.

Presumably what he was trying to prove was that his administration is the least bloated of all the Governments of the last 21 years.

I am afraid this does not seem to me to be a particularly economically literate way of defining the level of employment in the public sector. If tomorrow the number of construction workers in the private sector declines and thereby the percentage of jobs held by the public sector rises, that in our view it will not be evidence that it is getting big, bigger or bloated. If we take his example of 31% for April 1988 on the basis of the number employed in the Government and the numbers in the total economy, then the same number of Government employees would have fallen to 26.6% of the total in October 1991 simply because of an influx of construction workers in the private sector developments in that year.

The public sector has to employ the number of people it requires to deliver the range of services that the Government of the day decides should be delivered and that this Parliament decides to fund by approving the necessary public expenditure. There is no magic number that indicates the ratio between private and public that is correct.

Having said that we find it strange that, the 2008 figure quoted last year for the numbers employed in the public sector was not the public sector figure given in Table 1 which showed 4,286 out of 20,509, namely 21%, which would have given the same ratio as in 1996, but a figure of 3,998. We have assumed that this is taken from Table 11B, by adding up columns 2 and 3, but excluding column 4, which covers the wholly owned Government companies including Community Projects Ltd. and which adds up to 3,998. Of course even this figure is suspect because in the absence of a breakdown between full-time and part-time employees, one of the questions the Government has refused to answer this year, the more accurate ratios cannot be calculated.

An approximate estimate can be obtained by using the Public Sector data in Table 3, 712, and Table 4, 3120, and which comes to 3,832 and assuming that the 288 employees in column 3 of Table 11B are all full-time giving us 3,544 full-time jobs out of a total of 17,437, not counting the wholly owned companies, using the same comparison as the Government has done which produces a ratio of just over 20%.

Of course the whole purpose of these calculations in last year�s budget appears to have been in order to claim that in October 2008 the level of employment accounted for by the Government was the lowest it had ever been, ever Mr Speaker apparently in our entire history.

Not content with this claim to fame of the lowest ever public sector, he then went on to ram the point home, Mr Speaker. He said that this was in spite of the fact that many funded jobs in private trusts like Dr Giraldi and Mount Alvernia which were Government funded labour posts were included since 1996 in the private sector and not in the public sector. Well it is not true that this was the case since 1996 for the ones mentioned, they were always in the private sector but in any event, if it had been since 1996, it would have the Honourable Member opposite who would have put them there.

If these jobs were shown for the first time in October 2008 as public sector, then he should have said last year that since 1996 the GSD Government had converted previous Government departments into agencies, put them in the private sector and taken them out of the public sector.

Mr Speaker, one of the few breakdowns that the Honourable Member was kind enough to provide, in answer to my questions about the 2008 Employment Survey Report, was the answer to question 45/2010.

Of the 6 wholly owned Government companies which up to 2007 had been shown as part of the private sector, namely Europa Incinerator Co Ltd, Gibraltar Bus Co Ltd, Gibraltar Community Projects Ltd, Gibraltar Industrial Cleaners Ltd, GJBS Ltd and GRP Investments Co Ltd, only 2 were included and had employees before 1996, all the rest joined the private sector subsequently.

Of the 10 statutory authorities and agencies, namely, Elderly Care Agency, Gibraltar Development Corporation, Gibraltar Electricity Authority, Gibraltar Health Authority, Gibraltar Police Authority, Gibraltar Regulatory Authority, Office of the Public Services Ombudsman, Port Authority, Social Services Agency and Sports and Leisure Authority, only 1, the Gibraltar Health Authority, was included in the private sector before 1996 and indeed since its creation in 1987 and the other 9 were put un-transparently in the private sector after 1996 only to be removed transparently and put in the public sector in 2008, as we learnt last year.

So if a change in the 2008 October Employment Survey Report was, as the Honourable Member described it, transparently bringing them back into the public sector, by his logic between 1996 and 2007 the Government was un-transparently taking them out of the public sector and showing them as part of the private sector. If the Hon. member were to limit himself to stating the facts instead of trying to spin everything as evidence of some great achievement there would be no need to point any of this out to put the record straight, let me remind the House that in asking for the breakdowns in 2007 and previous years I have never once accused anyone of lack of transparency, or seeking to distort the employment levels in the private sector or of having any other ulterior motive.

Let me hasten to add that though we have never felt this was an issue of transparency we agree that the 2008 classification provides a more accurate definition of the size and structure of the private sector of the economy, at least as regards to employment.

So what was all this manipulation of misinformation in aid of? Was it just to be able to boast that the Government sector was in October 2008, at the lowest percentage proportion of the working population that it had ever been?

It would seem so, since not content with this, in case anyone disagreed with the analysis, which we all know is not permitted any more in Gibraltar, he went on to order commentators, presumably in the media, to note that the public sector measured as he had just measured it which was the one way, that is the only permitted way, that it was measured by economists, was not getting bigger, it was getting smaller. One imagines that the purpose of this contribution to the debate on the state of the nation was to produce headlines saying �public sector getting smaller�.

As far as we are concerned the analysis was unnecessary and proves nothing. We are voting the funds required to pay for the services and employ the people that are needed to deliver them, in the judgement of the Government, a judgement which they have been elected to exercise, whether the ratio of public sector jobs happens to be 21%, or 19.5% of the total jobs in the economy.

In fact the jobs directly dependent on the money in last year�s Appropriation Bill or in the 2008/2009 spend which generated the jobs recorded in the October 2008 Employment Survey Report was in our view considerably more than the figures and the percentages quoted in last year�s Budget would suggest, but that is not a matter with which we take issue.

The only area that the Government appears to think is too expensive in terms of the size and cost of the public service is the civil service pension scheme which the Government had previously said in answer to a question, it was not their policy to end as such and that all they were engaged in was a discussion with the staff representatives on the future of the scheme as part of a wider reform of the civil service. More recently they have been more specific describing the provisions as a millstone round the neck of future generations unless it is brought to a close by not offering it to new entrants.

It is true that the cost of a final salary pension scheme, such as the civil service has is expensive. It is also true that many changes have been made to the scheme since 1996 by the present Government, which has made it more expensive than it was before that date. It seems a contradiction to have a policy of increasing the cost of what was already there if the view is that it was already too expensive as it stood.

The Government�s most recent statement is that public servants in the agencies that have replaced the departments are now on the Provident Fund which provides a lump sum payment and not a guaranteed pension on retirement that they already number some 800, and that this is the system which applies to new entrants to such agencies and should also apply to new entrants to the civil service. The Government has confirmed that this would not apply to anyone that has been employed prior to such an agreement being entered into with the Unions to terminate the final salary pension rights from a given date and would only apply to people commencing work after such a date.

I doubt very much Mr Speaker whether any such agreement will be achieved by the Government so I think the whole issue is academic and will not happen, therefore, from our perspective, the final salary civil servant�s pension scheme is here to stay and it�s a question of ensuring that the resources are available to meet the obligations to retiring civil servants in the future. But if the Government attaches so much importance to this policy and they have already applied it in respect of persons recruited in the agencies who replace those who leave and were previously from the civil service and on the final salaries team, why does the Government continue to give contract employees a 25% tax free payment as compensation for not enjoying a final salary scheme when others are being recruited at the same time and being offered a Provident Fund which cost the agencies 10%?

The most recent example of this is the recruitment of a Press Officer from outside the civil service on a salary of �1000 a week and a tax free payment of �250 a week in lieu of a pension. When recently questioned on the status of the person, and this is not a criticism of the individual involved or any reflection on his abilities, the Honourable Member announced, strangely enough that he had personally made the appointment in accordance with the established practice for this post. Well it has only happened once before and it was not an established practice when it happened in 1996 but an innovation introduced at the time by him.

Before 1996 the Government Press Officer was an employee of the Crown, was part of the civil service and was a post filled from within the existing members of the civil service. We do not support the arrangements that have been introduced by the Government since 1996 nor do we see the justification for this 25% tax free gratuity which in fact I understand is now paid to everybody on such contract terms on a monthly basis making it in practical terms more expensive for the Government since it is no longer paid at the end of the 3 year contract as used to be the case.

This 25% gratuity at the end of the contract of 3 years which was introduced in the House shortly after I joined it in 1972 and has been in place ever since, was on the basis that it was to give expatriates on short-term contracts the equivalent value to the estimated cost to the Government of the civil service final salary pension and this payment at the end of the contract term was always on the basis that it was subject to the satisfactory completion of the contract. If my understanding of the present arrangements is correct and it is now paid on a monthly basis, then in terms of what it has become it is really no more now than an extra, tax free bonus, on top of a handsome salary.

The Government therefore has created a situation in which there are 4 kinds of arrangements for people in the public service, there are those on the civil service final salary scheme which is according to the Government the most expensive option and consequently it must follow the most valuable one for the employee. Then there are those on short-term contracts with a 25% tax free payment. Then there are those on a Provident Fund to which they have to contribute 5% in order to get the Government to pay 10% and then there are those who are not on any of these, are not permanent and pensionable and are just on an open contract as non-pensionable officers. This doesn�t seem to be a very satisfactory way of having uniformity and equal treatment in terms of the conditions of employment and I would put it to the Government that unless this is addressed the inevitable consequence is that sooner or later people will start putting claims in, in order to try and get better arrangements than the ones that they enjoy.

One final point I wish to make in relation to the Press Officer appointment is the statements made by the honourable member in answer to questions earlier in this House as to what is a civil servant and what is not a civil servant and the contrast with what he says now and what he said in 2008.

In answer to a recent question the Honourable Member opposite said, �The term civil servant does not actually exist in law as such. You are a public officer if you are an employee of the Crown. You are an employee of the Crown whether you are employed on permanent and pensionable terms or whether you are employed on contract terms. This person therefore together with all other civil servant, just to use his phrase, but subject to the explanation that I have just given, like all other Government contract officers is regarded as a civil servant in that he is an employee of the Crown.� Having said that, he was not clear who was the other contracting party, employing the Press Officer, and was not able to state it. However, in 2008 he explained the position of Civil Servants as follows, �Employment of Government agencies, Government authorities or for that matter Government owned companies, are not Civil Servants, are not employees of the Government, are not subject to the authority directly of the Chief Secretary as Civil Servants are. They are not subject to General Orders as Government employees are. They are not transferable around the Civil Service as Government employees are. They are not appointed by the Crown acting through the Governor as Government employees are. They are not subject to the same recruitment methods or entry requirements as Government employees are. They are not covered by the Pensions Act that pay occupational pensions as Government Employees are.�

So which of the two is it, is the Press Officer a civil servant or is he not?

09/10 Forecast Outturn

Coming now to the finances of the government, we note that, last year the Government was projecting a recurrent revenue surplus in the Consolidated Fund of �19 million with expenditure at just under �230 million and revenue just over �249. The results in the forecast outturn are expenditure �9 million above the estimate at �239 million and revenue �15.5 million higher at �264.5. The recurrent surplus therefore rises by �6.5 to just under �25.5 million. Since the Government told us that the estimates of revenue were calculated on conservative assumptions, the increased yield is not unexpected and has been clear during the year from the answers to the questions we have put on the main revenue streams, in particular PAYE.

The estimated increase in income tax yield from �109.5 million to �112 million, a �2.5 million increase, has been exceeded by �3.0 million to reach �115 million. The increased yield is now therefore forecast to have been �5.5 million, an increase of 5%.

If we compare the 2009/20010 performance with the 2008/09 results we see that in the previous financial year 2008/2009 the estimated increase in tax yield was put at �3.4 million, a 3.3% increase and eventually came in at �7.1 million at 6.9%.

Coming to this year we have an estimated yield up by �6 million, an increase of 5.2% which in fact is closer to the outcome for last year than to the original estimated increase and probably based on the recent level of collections. However, unless we see much higher levels of earnings or employment in the current year it may not be exceeded to the same degree as in the last 2 financial years 2008/2009 & 2009/2010. Since we are working with October 2008 figures for employment and earnings having only recently been given the 2009 report it is not possible to draw any conclusions on the higher original estimate in this year�s Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure.

On company taxes we have had over the 2 previous financial years much less difference between the original estimates and the forecast outturn or final result. In 2008/2009 it was �25.9 million compared to an original estimate of �24 million, a difference of �1.9 million. In 2009/2010, the year just ended, the original estimate of �26 million has been revised to a forecast of �28.5.

The figure estimated for the current year is for �10 million less at �18 million, this one assumes is the result of the move to 10% from January next year. What is less clear is, to what extent the increase from previously tax exempt companies has offset the reduced yield from local companies as a result of a uniform rate or the additional effect on tax collected from the move to current year as the tax base compared to the previous year profits, in assessments for company tax which was the case before and whether all these factors are fully taken into account in the estimates.

Given that the briefing paper on the tax that has been circulated inviting comments from the business community by 23rd July and that the Bill for the Tax Act is due to be published in August after taking into account any of the comments received, we will reserve our position until we see the final shape of the legislation.

The latest answers to questions on company tax show that the company tax arrears for a numbers of previous years no longer feature in the statistics and that the gap between tax payable and collections has tended to close. We shall monitor the receipts of company tax on a monthly basis at question time and see whether during the course of the year the estimates before the House appear to be realistic of not.

One point in respect of receipts that the Government was not able to provide in answer to questions , was where the revenue from the contracted out upper rock facility of the World War II tunnels was credited and was the amount, and I would be grateful if it could be provided, in respect of the last financial year.

As regards the performance of the economy, to which the Government refers in the ratios it produces for public spending, public debt and so forth, the latest available detailed figure that we have had until today was �804 million for 2007/2008 GDP. Very close to the estimate we made in 2007 which assumed a result for that financial year of �800 million GDP.

In 2009 the Government gave a tentative figure of �850 during the budget, as an early estimate of the result for 2008/2009.

Throughout the last 12 months the Government has not been prepared to provide at question time any further information.

Indeed in the question time in this meeting the member did not even answer a question, of which I had given notice, which asked whether the 19% grossing up figure used to calculate company tax for GDP purposes in 2006/2007 and 2007/2008, had also been used in respect of 2008/2009 and told me to wait for his budget speech today. Clearly what he has said today will be analysed when we have had an opportunity to do so and will be addressed in due course.

Guardia Civil have stepped up a gear in their acts of defiance at sea says Opposition [June - 30 - 2010]

thekey — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:57:31 GMT

The latest incident between a Guardia Civil patrol boat and an RGP launch suggests that the maritime capability of the police needs to be upgraded if the Government is serious about tackling the continuing incursions.

The Opposition has received eyewitness reports of another incident which took place recently in the afternoon of Thursday 17th June in the early evening . A large Guardia Civil patrol boat was observed moving along the new mole in La Linea and it then entered the area of Western Beach. It turned around to go out again and was met by an RGP launch when it reached the end of the runway. The Guardia Civil patrol boat, which was much larger than the RGP launch, then proceeded to accelerate directly towards the RGP and it turned sharply on approach creating a large wave which could have affected the stability of the RGP vessel. The Civil Guard then proceeded to speed towards Spanish waters followed by the RGP launch which gave up the chase after a few minutes.

The Opposition consider that there are a number of very serious issues related to both sovereignty and safety that arise from this latest incident. The first is that the Guardia Civil have no right to enter the waters in the area of Western Beach or any other part of Gibraltar�s territorial sea because these waters belong to Gibraltar and not to Spain. The second point is that the behaviour of the Spanish officers poses a threat to the safety of other sea users including in this case the RGP itself.

It is clear from the latest series of incidents that the Guardia Civil have stepped up a gear in their challenge to Gibraltar�s jurisdiction over the waters that surround the Rock. Whereas before they were content to pass or patrol through our waters, now they are engaging in dangerous and hostile manouvres against the maritime assets of both the Royal Navy and the Royal Gibraltar Police.

The Opposition considers that the blatant acts of defiance and provocation that the RGP is being subjected to on a daily basis are totally unacceptable. The time has come for the Government to live up to the commitment that it made a year ago to increase the capability of Gibraltar�s maritime resources in order to meet the on-going threat from Spain to our sovereignty, our safety and our security at sea.

Opposition highlight problems with Cumberland Terraces windows [June - 24 - 2010]

thekey — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:09:21 GMT

The Opposition has received representations from purchasers at Cumberland Terraces who are far from satisfied with a number of issues relating to their flats. This does not come as a surprise to the Opposition given the history of that development and the negative reports regarding this project that have been made public.

There are purchasers who are seriously concerned at the fact that the windows of their flats do not open fully. The windows at Cumberland Terraces are outward-opening, side-hung windows with an integrated restrictor which locks automatically when the window is opened. This means that they will only open to about 20cm and in some cases, after the snagging, they open even less.

The Government, through its property company, have informed the purchasers who have complained that the restrictors are in place in order to prevent the window from swinging backwards and forwards and slamming shut. The other reason given is that it acts as a safety device to protect children.

The purchasers who have approached the Opposition are not convinced. They claim that the restrictors were adjusted further after the snagging had been carried out and that there was no consultation with them.

The Opposition considers that a number of serious questions arise from the information that has been made available to us, including whether this type of windows are appropriate for this kind of development. In many other buildings, there are windows which open inwards, which slide to the side or which tilt and turn. These have been installed in other developments. It is not known why the Government sanctioned the use of these outward-opening windows in the first place and why restrictors then had to be installed in all of them so late in the day.

The history of the construction of Cumberland Terraces was problematic from the very start. The Government showed very poor judgment in awarding the tender to a company called OEM that had no track record of this kind of development in Gibraltar. It also raised eyebrows at the time that a tender for sites at North Gorge and Buena Vista only suddenly came to include other sites at Cumberland Terraces, Bayview and Nelson�s View as well. The developer had financial difficulties and the Government repossessed the OEM sites shortly after the 2007 general election. They were followed a couple of years later by the contractor Haymills, which also closed down owing the Gibraltar Government hundreds of thousands of pounds in respect of the employees who worked on the site. It was never properly explained how the company was allowed to run up such a massive debt.

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

�The end result is that there are purchasers at Cumberland Terraces who have been the victims of the poor judgment of the Government and its failure adequately to supervise the project. I have met a number of very angry people who have raised a number of concerns with me of which the problem with the windows is only one. Having boasted that they had closely supervised the quality of the construction, any defects that surface are now clearly a Government responsibility for which they must answer and which they will have to rectify.�

Sovereignty issues are at the core of Spanish air controllers dispute says Opposition [June - 29 - 2010]

thekey — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:07:23 GMT

It is important to remember that the industrial action by Seville air traffic controllers which delayed the departure of two aircraft from Gibraltar airport on Sunday stems directly from the political position of the Spanish Government that Gibraltar has no sovereign airspace. It is therefore misleading to suggest that that this was simply the result of an industrial dispute since the political problem with Spain lies at the heart of the issue.

It will be recalled that Spanish air traffic controllers highlighted a number of problems last month which showed the extent to which Madrid�s sovereignty claim is interfering with normal air communications in the region. They claimed that air safety and security were being compromised in the skies around Gibraltar because of the Spanish position that Gibraltar does not have any sovereign airspace.

The lack of recognition by Madrid of our territorial waters and our sovereign airspace is the fundamental reason why there continue to be serious incidents both in the air and at sea. Therefore the industrial action taken by the air traffic controllers in Seville stems precisely from this political problem which centres on the sovereignty of the air above the Rock and our waters. In other words, the air traffic controllers may indeed be using Gibraltar as leverage against their employer AENA, but their actions have drawn attention to the matter and exposed the serious sovereignty undertones surrounding this issue which remain anyway whether there is an industrial dispute or not.

It is well known that AENA has itself complained in the past about the absence of standardised procedures and agreements with Gibraltar. Indeed, when the Director of AENA floated the possibility of establishing Air Traffic Flow Managament (ATM) coordination with Gibraltar last year, he was told that the matter had to be channeled through the Spanish Foreign Ministry first. The Spanish air traffic controllers have been calling for a formal letter of agreement between Gibraltar and Seville in order to standardise procedures for flights in and out of Gibraltar airport, and for Gibraltar to be assigned airspace. However, because of the position of the Spanish Government in Madrid that we have no airspace, none of this has happened. It is obvious that even matters of a technical nature are being subjected to political considerations.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister with responsibility for Civil Aviation Dr Joseph Garcia said:

�Against this highly charged political background which has sovereignty at the core, it is quite extraordinary that the Gibraltar Government should choose to be critical of the UK through the office of the Governor instead of being critical of the Spanish Government in Madrid. What they should have done is secure normality in air communications between Gibraltar and Spain through Spanish recognition of Gibraltar�s airspace. Instead we are spending millions of pounds of taxpayer�s money building an air terminal located next to the frontier fence for political reasons which is far in excess of Gibraltar�s requirements. The Gibraltar Government seems more concerned in acting as an apologist for Spain than in standing up for our rights.�

Capacity figures for new air terminal is proof that Government policy is misguided says Opposition [June - 23 - 2010]

thekey — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:36:09 GMT

The Government has confirmed through information supplied in Parliament that the scale of the new air terminal building is disproportionate to the use that is going to be made of it. This is further evidence that the decision to spend millions of pounds in constructing a new air terminal and relocating it next to the frontier fence was based on political and not economic considerations.

In answer to questions from Shadow Minister for Civil Aviation Dr Joseph Garcia, the Chief Minister told Parliament that the new air terminal is designed to accommodate a design peak hour capacity of four aircraft movements per hour which translates into approximately 500 passengers per hour on the basis of three flights out and one flight in (or vice versa). The number of passengers per year amounted to 980,000. He added that operating for 12 hours a day, the number of daily movements would be 24 corresponding with 2688 passengers per day.

The latest figures supplied by the Government as to the capacity of the new air terminal building serves to further expose a completely misguided policy on the matter. The new air terminal has been designed to cater for nearly one million passengers per year, when the latest figures show that Gibraltar only received 160,000 in 2009. Indeed, this in itself represented a decline in air arrivals of 2.6% when compared to the previous year 2008. The latest figures available to the Opposition for January and February 2010 show a further drop in 4000 passengers when compared to the same period in 2009.

It is clear that for the terminal to operate at design capacity it would require a growth of about 516% in the number of passengers that arrive at Gibraltar by air. It is na�ve to argue that the construction of a new air terminal is in itself going to attract new airlines and open new air routes. This is an argument that the Government have put forward relatively recently, when it became clear that their airport deal would not lead to the boom in flights and in the aviation industry that had been so confidently predicted.

The plain fact is that the main motivation driving airlines to open new routes is if the route is going to profitable and if there is demand to maintain load factors on its aircraft. The size, condition or location of the air terminal building is itself a secondary consideration.

The problem with overcrowding at peak times in the present air terminal has got more to do with the slots that have been allocated to the airlines than with the actual size of the building. It is well known that there are days when all three planes arriving at Gibraltar from London do so within an hour, and two of them are even scheduled to arrive at exactly the same time. This is what causes the congestion in the present air terminal, which then remains empty for most of the day before and after that peak time.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Civil Aviation Minister Dr Joseph Garcia said:

�The Government�s suggestion that the new air terminal would somehow pay for itself on the back of increased usage is nothing more than a dream on the present showing. Their claim that civil aviation would become an industry to rival offshore gaming is also nothing more than a dream. The problem is that for the taxpayers of Gibraltar, who are the people who have to pay for it, this project has fast become a very real and a very expensive nightmare. The new air terminal is not about planning for the future nor is it based on economic considerations. It has been built and located next to the frontier at huge public expense as a sop to Spain for political reasons.�

Civil Guard is wreckless and irresponsible says Opposition following latest incident at sea [21 June 2010]

thekey — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 07:23:27 GMT

The Spanish Guardia Civil are being wreckless and irresponsible in their latest clashes with the Royal Navy in British or international waters around Gibraltar. The Navy have very precise rules of engagement and the Civil Guard patrol boats risk being blown out of the water if they continue to behave in this cavalier fashion.

The incident of 1 June, the details of which have only emerged now, involved a Civil Guard launch which sped towards two Royal Navy vessels that were on exercise in international waters. The Civil Guard approached the frigate HMS Somerset and the patrol boat HMS Sabre at high speed and refused to identify itself by radio when called upon to do so by the Royal Navy. It was only when the Civil Guard launch was recognised by the Gibraltar-based personnel on HMS Sabre that the situation was defused. The fear of attacks on naval vessels perpetrated by high speed launches became a reality after a United States ship was attacked some years ago. It was believed that terrorists were studying the use of the same tactics on shipping crossing the Straits of Gibraltar. In such circumstances, and against this background, the Spanish Civil Guard should have known better.

This latest incident took place in international waters, outside Gibraltar�s territorial waters. The Spanish Government do not recognise Gibraltar�s waters nor the international sea around them, and claims that all the waters belong to Spain. This position has no basis in international law. The United Kingdom is entitled to claim twelve miles of territorial sea around Gibraltar, where this is geographically possible. These waters, outside our present three mile limit, remain international waters until the UK decides to claim them. The Guardia Civil are simply acting in accordance with the policy of their Government in Madrid.

The Opposition understands that there was yet another incident last week when the Navy ordered another Spanish patrol boat to leave Gibraltar waters after the Civil Guard were questioning the occupants of a small boat inside British waters. This time the Civil Guard left the area after being approached by the Royal Navy.

Quite apart from the serious issues relating to sovereignty, it is obvious that the actions of the agencies of the Spanish state are becoming increasingly dangerous and that sooner or later somebody is going to get hurt. The Spanish Government should instruct their agents that they have authority only on Spanish waters. They have no authority whatsoever in British Gibraltar Territorial Waters or in the international sea that surrounds them.

Video Of Joe Bossano And Fabian Picardo At New York, Addressing The Committee of 24 [June - 15 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:29:28 GMT

The Leader of the Opposition Joe Bossano left Gibraltar yesterday address the United Nations Committee of 24 in New York. Mr Bossano, who is accompanied by Opposition Member Fabian Picardo. The Committee of 24 address this year will build on what transpired at the recent New Caledonia Seminar and expand on some of the arguments put there, by relating Gibraltar�s case to the relevant UN Resolution which Spain accepts applied to us.

Income Tax Amendment is Long Overdue [June - 17 - 2010]

thekey — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:24:24 GMT

The GSLP / Liberal Opposition considers that the publication by the GSD government of the consultation documents for a reform of the Income Tax Act is long overdue.

The publication by Government of the documents comes after the setting down of a further question in Parliament by the Shadow Minister for Financial Services, Mr Picardo asking Mr Caruana when the government was finally going to publish the legislation.

The Government had been promising the financial services industry that it would publish the very long over due legislation by last September. That date slipped and Mr Caruana then told Parliament that publication would occur before the end of 2009. When pressed further at the last meeting of the Parliament, Mr Caruana said that the legislation would be published before the end of this tax year, which is now just two weeks away.

Mr Picardo said: �Its about time that this Reform document should have been published. This Reform is something we are having to do for EU reasons and not the Government�s choice or policy and it is disengenious for Mr Caruana to now try to spin the reform in this way. The initial policy of the Government to reform the tax legislation was to choose a 0% of corporate tax, which was totally contrary to the suggestion now made by the present Chief Minister that this is part of a carefully crafted plan designed to re-position Gibraltar as a �financial services centre� as opposed to an �offshore tax haven�. The financial services sector will nonetheless be disappointed that this draft Bill and the Consultation Document has not been published earlier. With the new corporate tax rate coming into effect for all companies from 1st January and already in place for new companies since last June, professionals who have to advise on the detail of tax structuring would have benefited from a longer period to study the proposed new legislation. It would also, no doubt, have been useful for financial services professionals to have had a longer lead in period before the implementation of the new measures for the purposes of marketing the new product.�