This is a summary provided by the Government of the Chief Minister’s address to Parliament earlier today regarding the Motion on the former Principal Auditor’s 2018/19 Report:

Introduction 

The Chief Minister continued his address today by further explaining why the Government considered the former Principal Auditor’s report to be procedurally flawed, legally unsound, and substantively misleading in key areas. 

He explained that these failings were particularly evident in three areas of the report, those dealing with: Wildlife (Gibraltar) Limited, Housing Allocations, and Gibraltar Industrial Cleaners Limited. 

Wildlife (Gibraltar) Limited 

The Government rejected the criticisms concerning Wildlife (Gibraltar) Limited, which manages Alameda Gardens, Commonwealth Park, Campion Park, the Upper Rock, and gull control. 

The report suggested impropriety due to the family connection between the company’s director and the Minister for the Environment, Professor John Cortes. 

The Government’s position was clear: 

• Unfair process – The Auditor issued a memorandum late on 30 May 2025, his final working day, and finalised the report the next day. This gave the Department no realistic chance to respond. The Government described this as a breach of fairness that undermined the reliability of the entire section.
• Continuity and expertise – Wildlife had been awarded the original contract in 1990–91. Due to the company’s unique expertise and strong performance, the Department lawfully relied on procurement regulations that permit continuity of service where re-tendering would cause disproportionate disruption.
• No personal gain – On entering Parliament, Professor Cortes transferred his shares. His wife retained a minority holding for symbolic reasons but had no role in the company and received no financial benefit. The Government said to imply corruption in these circumstances was unfounded and defamatory.
• Omitted explanations – The Department had previously provided clarifications and documentation, which were ignored in the report. The Chief Minister said this selective presentation amounted to a misleading portrayal.

• Independent legal advice – Mr Fisher KC advised that the Auditor’s criticisms were legally flawed, failed to consider relevant procurement exemptions, and omitted key factual context. He concluded that the Wildlife section should be withdrawn. 

The Government therefore confirmed it would propose that Parliament formally reject this part of the report. 

Housing Allocations 

The Government also rejected the criticisms made in the report regarding housing allocations. The Auditor reviewed 25 allocations and alleged irregularities, including: absence of documented policies, 18 allocations made to applicants not first on the waiting list, direct interventions by the Chief Minister in seven cases, discrepancies between committee minutes and outcome letters, and one case involving a previous homeowner. 

The report concluded that such interventions may have been unlawful, citing the absence of Gazette designation and a lack of transparency, and recommended the creation of a formal written policy. 

The Chief Minister said these conclusions misrepresented both the legal framework and long- standing ministerial practice. He reminded Parliament that: 

• Statutory framework – The Housing Act 2007 defines the Housing Authority as the Minister responsible, or any person designated by Government. This has long included the Chief Minister, who holds all ministerial portfolios. Successive Chief Ministers have dealt directly with housing cases for decades.
• Ministerial discretion – The Government stressed that discretion has always formed part of housing allocations, particularly in urgent or exceptional circumstances. This is supported by case law, including Rodriguez v Minister of Housing [2009] UKPC 52, where the Privy Council confirmed that authorities cannot fetter discretion by rigidly following waiting-list order.
• Lawful humanitarian interventions – Of the 18 allocations outside list order, the majority were supported by documented urgent needs such as domestic violence, threats to life, overcrowding, or child safeguarding. In five of the seven cases cited, supporting documentation existed; in the remaining two, the circumstances were confirmed by agencies such as the Care Agency and Royal Gibraltar Police. The Government said these were lawful, compassionate decisions, not political favours.
• Confidentiality obligations – Sensitive information was not always included in public records to protect applicants’ privacy. The report, the Government said, failed to acknowledge this duty of confidentiality and therefore drew misleading conclusions about “missing” documentation.
• Clerical errors, not impropriety – Minor discrepancies between committee minutes and outcome letters were attributed to clerical mistakes and have since been corrected through staff training. These did not amount to unlawful allocations.
• Selective narrative – The Government highlighted that discretionary interventions in housing have also been used under previous administrations. The failure of the report to recognise this historical precedent, the Chief Minister said, resulted in a skewed and politically prejudicial account. 

Independent legal advice obtained by the Government confirmed that the Auditor’s interpretation of section 2 of the Housing Act was flawed and ignored established constitutional practice. It also warned that portraying confidential but lawful decisions as irregularities risked unfairly damaging the reputations of public officials. 

For these reasons, the Government stated that this section of the report should also be withdrawn. 

Gibraltar Industrial Cleaners Limited 

The Government also strongly contested the findings in the report relating to Gibraltar Industrial Cleaners (GIC). The Auditor’s criticisms centred on alleged excessive overtime, outdated working practices, inefficiencies, and cost implications in refuse collection services. The report described a “finish and go” culture, 74-hour working weeks, and claimed that reforms had not been implemented. 

The Chief Minister explained that these findings were misleading, incomplete, and unfair for several reasons: 

• Unfair process – The Auditor’s letter raising concerns was delivered only eight days before the report was finalised, giving GIC management and the Department of the Environment insufficient time to respond. The Government said this breached principles of procedural fairness.
• Inherited practices – The criticised pay and overtime structures were embedded in contracts stretching back more than 20 years and inherited from previous administrations. They could not be unilaterally changed without risking industrial action, legal disputes, or disruption to public health services.
• Major reforms already in place – Before the report was published, the Government had signed a new collective agreement with Unite the Union in March 2025. This agreement abolished the Manager’s overtime, restructured staffing, reduced collection routes, introduced evening collections, and eliminated five public holidays as working days. It also introduced a new allowance system. Projected annual savings of £685,000 were identified. None of these reforms were acknowledged in the Auditor’s report.
• Out-of-scope references – Despite being limited to 2018/19, the report selectively referred to events and costs from as late as 2025, while failing to acknowledge the corrective actions taken in that same year. The Government said this omission distorted the picture and strayed beyond the Auditor’s remit.
  The Chief Minister noted that internationally recognised audit standards, including the NAO Code of Audit Practice, require reports to be fair, balanced, and evidence-based. By presenting outdated practices as if they were current, and omitting reference to the collective agreement, the Auditor had failed to meet these standards.

Independent legal advice from Mr Fisher KC supported this view. He concluded that the omission of corrective actions rendered the report incomplete and misleading, that the selective use of post-2019 information without reference to reforms exceeded the Auditor’s statutory remit, and that the failure to present a balanced account risked reputational harm to public bodies and was professionally deficient. On that basis, Mr Fisher KC advised that the GIC section of the report should be withdrawn. 

Conclusion 

On the basis of all of the above, The Chief Minister confirmed that the motion before the House would be amended to include all aforementioned considerations.