Jul 08 - Selwyn Figueras Budget Speech
Mr Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise to address this House on the Appropriation Bill for the third time and will be dealing with the following areas of responsibility: Justice, Planning, Transport and Traffic. I’m looking forward to an uninterrupted delivery Mr Speaker, if all Honourable members allow it!
Let me first thank the Honourable the Deputy Chief Minister for agreeing to re-jig the order of speeches as a result of which I will be speaking in reply to the Government’s addresses on Planning, Justice and Transport, leaving only Traffic to come after me. I remain unsighted in that regard and am wary of the possibility that there are likely to be announcements on findings or initiatives stemming from the Sustainable Traffic and Transport Management plan which may be significant and that I will not have the opportunity to address in this debate.
Justice
I deal first with Justice, Mr Speaker.
I take this opportunity to associate myself with the comments of the Hon. Minister in respect of Justices Barrington-Black and Simon Jack – it’s almost as if they’ve done this on purpose to confuse the House.
I thank the Honourable Minister for Justice for his contribution in respect of this portfolio and take this opportunity to acknowledge that despite there being clear blue water between members on either side of this house in relation to a number of issues, I can happily say that my dealings with Hon Member have been nothing but courteous, focused on the issues and generally positive. I am grateful to the Honourable member for affording me that courtesy. It has been a pleasure to work opposite him in relation to the hate crimes legislation and other bills which have come before this house in the past year.
Developments in relation to the Justice portfolios are many and varied, many if not most of which are welcome equally on both sides of the House. The Hon member will recall the exchange earlier this year in relation to Prison occupancy figures as well as my acknowledgement and congratulations in relation to the positive developments in that regard. The passing in this house of the Companies and Insolvency Acts recently is another accomplishment worthy of congratulations.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge and welcome the announcement of the Government’s plans to introduce Proceeds of Crime legislation during this financial year, as well as legislation in respect of data and communications legislation. The threat of terrorism is never far away, in particular in the context of advance of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) terror group and the recently reported increasing number of British men being radicalised and traveling to join the fight in Syria or Iraq, with the consequent risk of those men, brutalised by what they will have seen, returning to Britain to carry out attacks on targets closer to home.
Although there are many areas of common ground between us, there is one issue in respect of which we do not seem to agree and one that I move on to deal with.
The GSLP/Liberal manifesto contains a commitment to increase the limits of qualification for legal aid and assistance and explore other mechanisms to ensure citizens have appropriate legal representation when they need it. It goes on to say: “Although there is a draft bill already, these have not been increased for many years and a lot of people who should be eligible and need legal aid or assistance are not getting the cover.”
The long and the short of it Mr Speaker, is that they have failed to deliver this commitment and, instead, made changes to our legislation which have effectively handed the benefit of gold-plated legal assistance to a handful of defendants in one high profile case, ignoring the plight of all the rest of, as he said it “a lot of people who should be eligible and need legal aid or assistance” but who are not getting the cover.
It’s not like we haven’t made an issue of this either Mr Speaker.
The Hon Leader of the Opposition, when he shadowed this portfolio, raised the issue in questions to the Minister in February 2012 generally about the reform that the Government was contemplating and, specifically, following the publication of the Legal Aid Amendment rules, in June 2012. The minister confirmed that it would affect just that handful of defendants in cases caught within the definition of exceptionally complex cases involving fraud.
In the budget debate that year, the Hon Mrs. IM Ellul-Hammond alluded to the plight of single parents, saying that: "Despite my hon. Friend, Mr Feetham, having prepared Legal Aid reform legislation, waiting to be implemented, it is shocking that this Government has only published new rules to expand Legal Aid that enables defendants, accused of complex fraud crimes, to hire expensive specialist lawyers at public expense. No thought has gone into, or takes into account, the plight of single parents, mainly women, who are not entitled to Legal Aid if they own the family home or a car. This blanket rule penalises lone parents struggling with mortgage payments, and with paying legal fees in order to pursue erring partners in their duty of care as a parent.
The Leader of the Opposition, as Shadow Minister for Justice in 2012 also alluded to it: "Finally, on justice, in relation to Legal Aid, we simply do not agree with the recent legislative changes made by the Government which help a handful of defendants in one fraud case. The Hon. Minister for Justice conceded, in answer to a question I posed barely two months ago, that there were also non-fraud cases that are exceptionally difficult and complex. In the premises, the logic for extending the recent Legal Aid rules to exceptionally difficult and complex non-fraud cases is, in my respectful view, unanswerable. Why the Government has chosen to assist a handful of defendants in a fraud case, only they know, but it is certainly not the right and it is certainly not the fair thing for them to do. We urge the Government to therefore do the right thing and extend those rules."
In answers to questions the Honourable Minister said that they weren’t going to reform Legal aid in a piecemeal fashion, but that is in fact exactly what they did. Their failure to bring Legal Aid reform to this house is all the more mystifying given they have, indeed, managed to conduct consultation, draft, publish and pass legislation in relation to many other areas and yet, somehow, have so far managed to avoid bringing the bill for legal aid reform to this House. They managed to stretch to issuing amended Legal Aid rules, effectively granting one group of defendants in one case in the jurisdiction, unlimited legal aid. So, Mr Speaker, they’ve managed to bring, amongst others initiatives, the Smoke Free Environment Act, the Civil Partnership Act and, even Mr Speaker, the new Companies and Insolvency Acts, but they have not managed to bring before this house a Bill for Legal Aid reform.
The Honourable Minister inherited draft legislation that had been prepared in consultation with the industry, and could have made to that draft bill such changes as circumstances or policy dictate today. What it cannot do, with respect, Mr Speaker, is take the better part of three years in Government reviewing and considering draft legislation, one which the Honourable Mr Licudi told us he had in February 2012, sit on it and fail to bring changes to the system which are needed in this community.
Now, Mr Speaker, in relation to this the Chief Minister will likely say in his reply that it is the height of hypocrisy that we should be demanding such reform after only three years of their Government when the party I proudly form part of was in Government for sixteen years and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition was the Justice Minister for last four.
Mr Speaker, the fact is that the draft legislation was at an advanced stage of readiness and would already be law had we been returned to office in 2015. What the Chief Minister will likely do is to accept that they’ve taken too long on this already but say that that’s ok because the GSD never did it in 16 years Mr Speaker. As is his style, he will validate his acts by reference to the omissions he claims to deplore. What he will be saying Mr Speaker is that they will continue to take their jolly time until such time when circumstances, whatever those may be, permit them to bring the legal aid reform bill to this House, even if it means Mr Speaker that many in this community continue to suffer the unfairness of being unable to challenge estranged partners who refuse to allow them to have contact with their own children, simply because they have a job which helps them to get by but which excludes them from getting legal assistance.
This issue has been brought to fore, not just because general reform is long overdue, but because this Government’s amendment of the rules to, effectively, benefit defendants in just one case, ignoring all other possibilities for reform which they could have introduced, simply brought the spotlight to shine brightly on the Government’s lack of general action in this respect.
They’ve taken one area of legal aid and made a single change by regulations that have been for the benefit of exceptionally complex cases involving fraud, a euphemism, Mr Speaker for one case - one case! They have made one change to a legal aid/assistance regime that requires, by their own admission, wholesale reform. But why, Mr Speaker, why? Why haven’t they extended this to exceptionally difficult cases NOT involving fraud, cases which the Minister has also accepted in this House do exist? In fact, in a reply to a supplementary question asked by Mr Hon and Learned friend Sir Peter Caruana back in October 2012, as to whether they were going to extend this legal aid benefit to complex cases NOT involving fraud, the Hon Minister insisted that his answer was, rather unhelpfully “no, we will do it, because we are considering Legal Aid and Legal Assistance reform generally so we will do it at that time.” That, Mr Speaker, is rather a confusing position to adopt: What will they do? Extend the benefit or merely consider it? I take the opportunity to ask the Minister once more - will this Government be extending the benefit of the legal aid amendment rules of 2012 to exceptionally complex cases not involving fraud? If they’re not, why not?
The CM criticised me for not focusing on figures last year, Mr Speaker. Let me now regale him with just a handful… The spending by this community on legal aid and assistance in the following financial years was as follows:
Year Amount (£)
2010/2011 623,202
2011/2012 1,049,863
2012/2013 2,210,557
2013/2014 2,659,000
I suspect that the staggering amount of £2.7m in forecast outturn this year will probably turn out to be significantly more - the estimate for next year is £1.6m. I wonder whether, given the circumstances of the near conclusion of the case in point, Mr Speaker, we will see a significant reduction in the cost to the taxpayer of this one change of rules to cover one group of defendants.
How many custody or access hearings could be paid for with £2.7m Mr Speaker?
Planning
I am grateful to the Honourable the DCM for his address in respect of this area of his responsibility. Now Mr Speaker, the Opposition benches are often lambasted for the delivery of set piece debates, which do not respond to the speeches delivered by the Ministers, usually before the Opposition members’ replies. Imagine my delight Mr Speaker when, upon hearing the Hon. Minister’s intervention, I found I would have to change nothing about this part of my speech, for the simple reason that the Minister treated us, almost literally, to a re-read of last year’s speech! I was able then, Mr Speaker, to print a copy of the Minister’s speech which I found in the Hansard from last year to confirm that, as a matter of fact, little seems to have happened beyond this point last year worthy of note, except of course, for more meetings of the DPC – the Minister reviewed and amended those figures in his speech.
So the spending spree continues Mr Speaker. The planning department’s expenditure for the year 2012/2013 was a little over £800k and the estimate for this year was a little over £1m. The fact is that they have spent over £1.5m. Y no habia dinero Mr Speaker, there was apparently, no money left. I shudder to think what the Hon Mr Bossano makes of the profligacy of the many Government Ministers spending like there’s no tomorrow!
Mr Speaker, I acknowledge that, 2 and a half years in, and, from the beginning of their term in office, the GSLP Liberals have indeed opened up the planning process locally in a manner we did not contemplate in the GSD’s own manifesto in 2011. The GSD believed furtively, as it does today, in the value of a planning process, created by the GSD, which allowed objectors to file their objections to projects for consideration by the DPC in closed meetings. Some will recall the demolition of the North Gate of the dockyard under the cover of a long weekend by the previous GSLP administration as an example of how things had been done until 1996.
The development of the process by the Government now includes the expansion of the DPC’s membership and the opening of meetings to public. It now publishes minutes of these meetings (still suffering some delay) and the Government runs projects by the DPC for guidance and advice, but nothing more. This policy has been somewhat hit and miss, Mr Speaker. It was the Honourable the Speaker’s predecessor who presided over the exchange relating to the fiasco with the Grand Battery demolition, which demolition project went before the DPC AFTER the wall had been demolished. A similar and convenient circumvention of rules which, after all, don’t yet apply to Government, was also the order of the day in relation to and the presentation of Charles Bruzon House to a meeting of the DPC... The DCM cited two projects in his address as examples of the success of this policy, the Sunborn and the refurbishment of the Housing Estates. All they prove is that they paid lip service to the DPC and its concerns in relation to the Sunborn but that ultimately, that project was completed, as it was always going to be. The done deal, Mr Speaker.
As far as the Housing Estates are concerned, the Government wants to re-write history, much like the CM tried to do yesterday with the GSD’s legacy, but to no effect. What the Government now calls the start of the public consultation in relation to Laguna, Glacis and Moorish Castle Estates was actually a press release, 455 of 2012, announcing a major refurbishment of housing estates, a statement that set out, as another done deal, that “there will be an additional residential floor added to above each of the buildings in the three housing estates.” It went on Mr Speaker. “This means that the roof problems being experienced by many of these buildings will finally be tackled, once and for all.”
Well, that went well, didn’t it Mr Speaker?
The DCM went on to confirm in that statement that the cabinet had given the ‘green light’ to the proposals and he was pleased that they were moving forward.
No mention of public consultation, Mr Speaker – none – just a reference to the fact that they were putting the project before the Commission, NOT to public consultation.
What they then had to do was to backtrack, not for the last time, when the volume of resistance from the tenants’ associations and in the social media grew too loud to bear, at which point they succumbed to the populist’s approach to any resistance. This, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that they must have, when they announced the projects, been of the agreed view that their plans were going to deal with a specific need in the community or, at the very least, seemed like a good idea at the time on which they will have had the benefit of input from the Government’s own advisers.
I suppose the taxpayer should now be grateful for the near half a million pounds being spent on social media monitoring Mr Speaker – government by social media. It’s like a direct line to Convent Place! No need to write in, no need to have a meeting with anyone in Government – sometimes Mr Speaker, I recommend not raising it in this place because the last thing I want it to become is a party political thing, on which basis it might just get sideline – my advice is often these days ‘put it on Speak Freely or whatever Facebook discussion/ribbing forum forum you prefer.’ The effects are sometimes immediate Mr Speaker – but what a terribly dangerous thing this frankly is.
Returning to planning, their signature manifesto commitment in this area, subjecting Government projects to DPC approval, not just for opinion and guidance, one of the many in the list that could have been made a reality with the stroke of a pen, remains elusive. Why?
Simply because they couldn’t run the risk of coming up against refusal of the DPC in respect of any of their many projects. They say that they will make such projects subject to approval within this term of office and as part of the overhaul of the town planning legislation. We say that the delivery of that manifesto commitment has been conveniently and quite cynically tied up with the other developments in town planning practice and legislation to allow them the excuse and, more importantly, the time to get cracking on with the projects.
Their wish to retain control over the biggest projects, projects with a community-wide impact, is evident in the application by the GFA (technically not a GOG project) in relation to the Europa Point Stadium. Presented to the community at large as another done deal, the Government quickly moved to quell any unrest within the DPC about the impact on Europa Point by stressing that Europa Point is the only plot of land the Government will give the GFA. End of discussion.
Incidentally Mr Speaker, I have to say that my jaw almost fell through the floor when I read GOHNS’ statement in that context, suggesting that they were ok with the idea of this gigantic project, alright with the impact it was going to have on the area, clearly forgetting the issue that they had had with some random shrubbery back in 2011 when the previous administration sought to beautify the area and the Honourable Dr Cortes headed the Society...
The Europa Point Stadium project might as well be a Government one because, for all the openness of the discussions about it and the televised meetings, interesting though it was to watch the pitch, the Government is saying it will only, essentially, allow the building of the stadium at that site and the DPC will, probably, on that basis, find itself with no choice but to “allow” the project to go ahead. To do otherwise could be, given the Government’s stance, to say no to a CAT 4 stadium in Gibraltar. Frankly, if it is the CM’s view that the stadium should be built at Europa Point, then he is entitled to it, as he should be entitled to steer and, sometimes, even direct that projects should happen in a particular way or in a particular place. That is as much his right as it is his obligation as the political leader of this community. The CM however, wants to be able to have it both ways.
He appoints the Town Planner as the Chairman of the DPC but his own projects aren’t subject to his and the DPC’s approval. He relinquishes control over most applications, but keeps it over the most important projects until he’s done starting them. He is at once the generous leader, but ‘cuando conviene’ he can push a project through quickly, as was the case with Charles Bruzon House and, although it’s not strictly a Government project, as I am sure he also hopes will be the case with the Europa Point Stadium.
Another of the policies of this Government are that the Town Planner should Chair the DPC. The Town Planner is therefore charged with the responsibility of making decisions which, although well-qualified to make, he (or she, because this is not about the person of the Town Planner, whoever that may be from time to time, it is about the office of the Town Planner itself) is not politically accountable for making. An example of the difficulty this raises is found planning application for 2,000 square metres of office space, which was rejected back in 2012 on the basis that a member of the Commission had taken issue with the idea of demolition in principle. Notwithstanding the conversation which was held highlighting that the building that would replace the demolished one would be built for purpose and that the building to be demolished was of little, if any, heritage value, the project was refused on the basis of an in-principle problem with demolition generally. It’s not to say Mr Speaker, that had the Town Planner not been the Chairman that the project would have been given the green light, but it would have been down to a political decision taking into account the needs of the community, the impact of the project and the very urgent need for office space.
We would certainly, as was GSD policy in 2011, continue to publish minutes of the meetings of the DPC. We would, further, as previewed by our statement on enhanced democracy last week seek to involve the Opposition in the DPC.
Our policy in respect of leadership of the DPC however, remains firmly that of returning Chairmanship of the DPC to the Minister with, from time to time, responsibility for Planning. The GSD’s policy in relation to the issue of Government projects requiring approval of the DPC also remains that Government projects should not be made subject to the approval of the DPC, though we will, as the GSD Government did at the time, take the opinion and advice from the DPC, as this Government does now.
There can be no denying Mr Speaker that certain changes to the planning process in Gibraltar have been welcomed by the public, in particular, the public meetings of the DPC. On that basis Mr Speaker, this party would not seek to turn the clocks back in this respect and would, in recognition of the new expectation in relation to the public holding of meetings of the DPC, continue with this policy when returned to office in 2015 because you see Mr Speaker, we are not in politics to rule supreme or to leave only our mark on this community.
In the same way as we wouldn’t, if returned to office, take to Commonwealth Park with a bulldozer and some tarmac as our first act of Government, for the sake of tearing down any GSLP legacy projects, we will continue to hold meetings of the DPC in public. The Chief Minister and the Minister for the Environment should rest assured - there really is no need for a Commonwealth Park Act as they have proposed - they may be imputing to members on this side of the house their own bad faith but I can assure them that the gimmick that is the proposed Commonwealth Park legislation is as necessary as it would be effective.
Although I don’t shadow Environment any more Mr Speaker, my Honourable friend Mr JJ Netto doing such sterling work in this regard, I will deal with Commonwealth Park this morning in response to comments made by the Minister yesterday for a couple of reasons – mainly because I shadowed the Minister’s portfolio for a while and, secondly, because this is a good opportunity to correct some of the misrepresentations which the Minister has made about the GSD’s position in relation to the park.
Mr Speaker, the GSD doesn’t take and never has taken issue with the idea of the park. Members opposite have always misrepresented this, probably because they cannot fathom the possibility of the GSD not knocking a project per se, or because they prefer to do what they can to ensure that the electorate is unable to make out the nuance of our issues with the park.
You see the point is Mr Speaker that we have only ever taken, and continue to take, issue with the fact that they were and continue to be dishonest with the electorate. ‘No habia dinero,’ Mr Speaker, there was nothing left in the kitty and yet, despite their own play on how many important social and infrastructural issues had been ignored for as long as they claimed, and the CM’s own address to the nation citing the doomsday memo Mr Speaker, nothing got in the way of commencement of works on the park – a vanity project if ever there was one Mr Speaker, one that I have to say looks very good and one that I will visit soon on one of my many walks with my family, walks which I enjoy, because I Mr Speaker, actually enjoy walking.
Which brings me on to another point. I may not be an environmentalist Mr Speaker but I do enjoy a casual and leisurely walk or cycle ride, here or across the way in Spain… I get around on my bicycle or, when it gets a little too warm for comfort in summer, on my moped Mr Speaker, and not in my car – so although I’m not an environmentalist Mr Speaker, I would never want to be considered such either, it may be that other members present and members of the public would be pleasantly surprised and do well, and probably feel a whole lot better for it, for making just some of the decisions I make on a daily basis because, as I have discovered Mr Speaker, the green way is often the fun and healthy way too!
Returning to conclude what I want to say in relation to the park Mr Speaker, there is no cynicism here other than that on the Government benches. It was them Mr Speaker who knew all along that they would not provide two floors of parking under the park and dealt with it by just adding the proviso in relation to the geotechnical survey which, Mr Speaker, they didn’t even carry out. They have since been manically playing around with the jigsaw that is Gibraltar to find space for ‘double the number of car parking spaces as there had been in Commonwealth Parade.’ Wherever a flat plot of land has appeared in the area, down has gone the tarmac and paint to create temporary car parking facilities – in fact, work seems to be starting on the Marriott which will give rise to a new shortage which they will now have to re-provide somewhere else.
And if by hounding, Mr Speaker, the Minister means the questioning and holding to account of ministers in this House, then he can rest assured that we will continue to hound him as he throws the taxpayers’ money around, as if it grows on trees Mr Speaker, on parks and plants and trees and anything else he fancies on a given day.
Finally in relation to the Park Mr Speaker, and in reply to the Minister’s comments yesterday relating to his involvement with Wildlife Gibraltar Limited, I am grateful that he confirmed that we were asking only pertinent questions and that there had been no suggestion of impropriety Mr Speaker. We have noted that he has never taken fees for directorship of the company Mr Speaker and are left only with two questions in this regard which perhaps the Chief Minister can cover in his reply. There has been no mention of dividends from shareholding in the company or indeed, the mechanism by which he divested himself of the shares Mr Speaker. You see, I recognise in the Minister the need to make sure that there can be no misunderstanding, no innuendo and no suggestion about his interest in the company Mr Speaker and, as I can see it, the couple of matters I’ve just alluded to are the only two points on which there may remain doubt which, when dealt with, will leave this House in no doubt of the propriety in that respect of the Minister’s relationship to Wildlife.
I say “in that respect’ because it would not, however, satisfy the Opposition that the award of the contract to Wildlife is, despite the clarifications, beyond concern. You see Mr Speaker, to focus only on the Minister’s direct pecuniary interest in the company which takes care of the Alameda Gardens and has now taken the benefit of the not unsubstantial contract of over £160k per year for the maintenance of the new park is to miss another point entirely, namely that of the potential for a simple conflict of interest. No innuendo. No suggestion Mr Speaker – I am only raising what I’m sure all Honourable Members would agree would, in any other context, raise at least the risk of a potential conflict of interest. Despite the fact that the Minister is not directly involved with the company Mr Speaker, his wife is, and our concern is based on the following scenario: who will enforce the contract and any of its terms if the maintenance of the park is found wanting? What if the Garden is not maintained to the Minister’s own, lofty standards? If what my Honourable friend Mr Jaime Netto is saying in relation to the poor condition of the Alameda Gardens is anything to go by, the scenario is not really that very far-fetched at all. Would the Minister issue proceedings against Wildlife if, for example, the green, green grass brought from nurseries in Surrey (if what the CM said last year remains accurate), goes brown or burns out for lack of watering or other maintenance? That, Mr Speaker, is the issue that remains despite the Minister’s statement during his brief intervention yesterday
Transport
I turn now to my Shadow responsibilities for Transport. I continue to enjoy a positive discourse with my Honourable Friend, the Minister for Transport and I turn first to our buses.
I am grateful for the announcement that the new buses will be with us in short order as, like we have discussed, the current fleet has provided the community with a bus service to be proud of and, despite the servicing needs of an ageing fleet, the service is still one we can mostly be proud of.
In talking about the buses, a quick review of passenger numbers is quite apropos and the news is that there has been a decline in the number of bus passengers generally Mr Speaker, in the order of about 13% year on year between 2012 and 2013.
I think we would all hope to see the number of bus users increasing, rather than going the other way, not least because of the positive environmental impact of having more people share our buses. There may be a variety of factors other than the buses suffering from a general lack of appeal. One could speculate that the number of passengers on our buses might be detrimentally affected by the issues we have been experiencing since our neighbours to the North started applying additional pressure at the border. A review of bus passenger numbers suggests Mr Speaker that, if there has indeed been such an effect on the numbers, it was a beneficial one. Bus passenger numbers were, for the period of time between January and July of 2013 down on the same period in 2012. In fact, in July 2012 the number of passengers on the buses was 238k and in the month of July 2013, a comparatively few 190k used the buses. A decrease in the order of 50,000 passengers in the same month, year on year, or 20% less. In August however, one can observe how the numbers year on year equalise and how, from September to November, passenger numbers are up for 2013 on 2012. I suspect this had a lot to do with cross-frontier workers and tourists alike leaving their cars in La Linea to avoid the worst of the queueing following the commencement of works on the artificial reef, which I note is forecast to have cost us in the region of £241k this year yet there’s only a token figure of £1,000 provision in respect of for next year. I suppose this will now have to grow somewhat to pay for the replacement of the block that appears to have been removed by our friends across the way.
The above notwithstanding, the number of bus users overall is down 13% between 2012 and 2013 and in the period from January to May, passenger numbers are down by over 20% year on year between 2012 and 2013 and the figures for the same period this year show that the picture has only marginally improved.
I am hopeful that with the introduction of the new buses which the Hon. Member has indicated could start as early as September this year, we might see an increase in appetite for the use of public transport because, frankly Mr Speaker, the more people we have in buses, walking or cycling, the less people we will have in their cars and that will accrue to the benefit of all of us.
As far as the expenditure on public transport is concerned, I would like, at this stage, to raise a point about the treatment of the contribution to the Gibraltar Bus Company at head 44 of the estimates book. Mr Speaker, historically, i.e., until this year, we’ve always been provided with a breakdown of which company has received what by way of contribution out of the consolidated fund. As an example, we know from last year’s budget book that of the £17.7m that Government contributed to its own companies, £2.7m went to the Gibraltar Bus Company for the 2013/2014 financial year and that £3.7m went to Gibraltar Car parks and so on. All we know this year is that the forecast outturn for this entire head for this financial year (head 44) is 20 million pounds and that the estimate for the current financial year is £25m, but we have no analysis of where that has gone or will be going. Another point I would make Mr Speaker is that the expenditure of the Government owned companies is nowhere to be found and would add that to see this information or, at the very least, the breakdown, would be very helpful indeed.
I note, Mr Speaker that the GDC complement for the Public Transport and Commercial Affairs Ministry is set to grow by 6, from 4 to 10 and I wonder whether the CM would be able to explain why it is that this growth in the complement is required. I would also be grateful Mr Speaker if the CM could provide details of the marketing promotions and conferences that the Department has incurred costs of £20,000 for at head 28, subhead 2 (3).
Having dealt with the buses Mr Speaker, I turn to talk about cycling generally and the GibiBikes scheme specifically. Financial cover for this project is to be found at Subhead 5 (zq) within the Improvement & Development fund, on a list of disappearing heads. There was no provision for this last year and it is disappointing to see its departure from the estimates book for next year. You see Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister for Transport, a Minister with whom, as I have already said, I enjoy a positive relationship and in whom I have discovered a politician genuinely willing to work with his counterpart in Opposition (there are some others too), and I, have been at loggerheads on this issue since the very beginning of this Parliament. I have appreciated and continue to appreciate that he is happy to keep me informed of developments in a variety of matters without the need for matters to come before this house on a monthly basis but we do disagree, I think, on the importance of an urban bicycle rental scheme like Gibibikes was.
You see Mr Speaker - it is patently obvious to me and the rest of my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the house that part of the political strategy of this Government has been to dismantle those parts of the GSD legacy which could, in their view, reasonably be dismantled in addition to the other strategic elements of knocking what they couldn’t and blaming us for all that may have gone wrong during their term of office.
This is clearly not an indictment on the Minister himself, but on the policy that he has adopted, ostensibly in consultation with the cabinet, in relation to the Gibibikes. Mr Speaker, I’ll concede that the scheme as created in 2011 became problematic soon after it’s launch, difficulties both practical and contractual which made it difficult for the scheme to succeed notwithstanding its popularity and the growing membership it enjoyed despite quickly becoming a sub-standard facility.
I bemoaned and continue to bemoan its demise, mostly because I am of the view that had there been genuine political will to either keep it alive or to provide an alternative not beset by the problems of the original, it could have been so. It would not have been without its cost Mr Speaker. If one were to speculate, given the cost of the original scheme, that a new one might have set us back between £300k and £400k, would it not have been a valuable and worthy investment, particularly in light of the many other projects where this Government is spending so much more?
As a solution designed to get people out of their cars and on to an eco-friendly alternative for getting around, GibiBikes was ticking all the boxes and, if they were willing to spend £3m on Commonwealth Park, £23m on a small boat berth marina and we’re looking at spending in the order of a few million for new buses, why then could they not justify the expense?
I suspect that there may have been some concern for the Honourable the father of house’s health had he been approached for approval of an expense of that order, for the survival or replacement of a GSD legacy project and that, occupied enough as he must have been with the projects actually in their own manifesto, the Minister for Transport was certainly not going to allow himself to be distracted further by something of our own making. I understand all that Mr Speaker, but it would have been the right thing and I would have done nothing but congratulate him and his government for investing in that. it is unfortunate that i am standing here today and Gibraltar has effectively taken a step back when such an important step forward was taken in 2011.
I also note from the Hon Minister’s intervention last year that the Bus Company had created a website, a Facebook page and a mobile-optimised version of the website. Whilst I congratulate the Hon Minister and the Bus Company on the Facebook page, I regret to say that the website, certainly from a mobile perspective (when it would be most useful) leaves a lot to be desired. From the fact that the information it contains is cumbersome and unhelpful to the fact that the mobile optimisation has clearly been done using a freely/cheaply available online converter, it leaves much to be desired. In fact, a cursory review of it by the Minister, even now, will help him to see how third party advertising, lumped in with the use of such free mobile conversion tools online, is present on the page and, frankly, does Gibraltar’s image and that of our Bus Company, no favours whatsoever.
In relation to the issue of taxi Drivers and the quality of the taxi service, I have been having a number of meetings with a variety of organisation, stakeholders all of them, in the successful delivery to Gibraltar of an integrated public transport infrastructure in which we all work together to deliver the best solution for Gibraltar plc as part of the Opposition’s outreach programme. I share the Government’s wish that the initiatives they have set upon in consultation with the industry prove successful. As part of our continuing outreach programme I will continue to meet with representatives from all sectors affected by matters of public transport and will, clearly, keep a watchful eye on developments in this area and raise such issues as I may consider worthy of note either directly with the minister or in this house. One thing is clear Mr Speaker - it does this community no favours for the political representatives in this regard to be unnecessarily at loggerheads and I believe that working to assist rather than to hinder efforts in this area can help bring benefits to the community at large.
Traffic
On Traffic Mr Speaker, there really is very little of note to speak of other than in relation to the Sustainable Traffic and Transport Management plan. The STTMP has been heralded as the answer to all the traffic questions this community may have but it seems that only the Government and a few other select people actually know what’s contained within it! As an example of the lack of activity, there’s provision of £155k in the Improvement & Development Fund for this year for traffic enhancements yet only £10k has been spent? Why the lack of spending? Everyone else was doing it, Mr Speaker!
I also note that nothing has been spent on Motorcycle Safety campaigning Mr Speaker, which, given the implementation the Driver Licensing directive, potentially allowing individuals access to large, powerful bikes without the EU-required level of experience, would be even more important. I am neither persuaded nor satisfied that the implementation of the third driver licensing directive, a matter which I have raised in this House on a number of occasions. It is also a matter which I will seek to have reviewed when the GSD is returned to office in 2015.
The Sustainable Traffic and Transport management plan is a matter of some mystery and intrigue when it should really be something that we are all aware of as an exercise that they claimed would be conducted in public. All that was done in public was to stop people by the roadside at peak travel times for a few weeks last year and nothing else has been heard about. I said it last year in my address to this house and I will say it again - this is clearly about the GSLP Liberal Government applying taxpayers’ money to the purchase of some inspiration for the Traffic section of their 2015 manifesto. They have nothing left to give Mr Speaker, hence the search for ideas. On that basis, and until such time as we have sight of the initiatives that stem from the study, we will only be able to assess the value of this expense, standing at around £340,000 when we know what impact we will observe in the daily traffic difficulties most in the community experience.
I will certainly congratulate the Government for the construction and delivery of the multi-story car park at Eastern beach which, from personal experience, is a welcome addition in the area. The development of that site, prompting the construction of the parking, is certainly something for which many will be grateful - just one cautionary note. Given the Government’s stance on all things Spanish, it might do well to procure English language printed parking tickets for the facility!
Conclusion
Mr Speaker this is the third occasion on which I have the honour and the privilege of addressing this House on the Appropriation Bill, an opportunity to speak to the electorate in a manner which enables the Opposition to express its view on all aspects of Government activity and, where appropriate and indicated, to provide the electorate with a glimpse of what they can expect from their Opposition should they seek to entrust us with Government office in little more than a year’s time.
The CM, in his budget address as Leader of the Opposition in 2011 accused his predecessor of being concerned with nothing but the election. He said “It is just plain and simple, plain and cynical: election, election, election - using taxpayers’ money to buy taxpayers' votes.”
He made that charge just three years ago, from these Opposition benches and yet the last two and half years, their whole term of office, have been characterised by a spending bonanza, Mr Speaker - buying votes from the off, y eso que no habia dinero, when apparently we were broke Mr Speaker.
I suppose it’s a case of easy come, easy go Mr Speaker because everybody knows that this Government inherited a community with solid public finances and an economy growing steadily in difficult global conditions - so of course, he embarked on his spending spree, exhibiting all of the hallmarks of the original GSLP administration - with a vision for re-election and nothing else…The Honourable the father of the House must be beside himself with anger at the loss of control over the public finances. It pains me to say it but, at least in this respect Gibraltar might have been in safer hands had he been able to hang on to the purse strings Mr Speaker. It’s almost as if the fox has been put in charge of the hen-house!
On another note, Mr Speaker, you will recall that in my address to this House last year, Mr Speaker, I took the opportunity of raising a number of issues in respect of which I then offered this party’s view of how they should and could be dealt with. I was, last year, the only member of this House to be interrupted, on a number of occasions, during my intervention, which interruptions, Mr Speaker with respect, you rightfully declared inappropriate given the Opposition’s decorum during interventions by all the other Ministers last year and generally in this House. The CM then took it upon himself to launch into a personal attack on me for having had the temerity to suggest that not everything about Gibraltar under a GSLP/Liberals rule is as perfect as they’d like for us to believe it is. He prefaced his attack by saying how he had still retained some affection for me, Mr Speaker. It's probably for the better that he retained some affection for his erstwhile friend - I shudder to think how much more he might have embarrassed himself if he hadn’t.
The Chief Minister makes a point of misinterpreting my light-hearted approach to all but the most serious of the issues we deal with in this House, as a lack of seriousness or respect for the work of this place. I suspect he is the only one to misinterpret it.
It was somewhat surprising if I’m honest Mr Speaker, to observe how personally he had taken what I had carefully constructed to be as balanced and positive an intervention as I could muster without being accused of laying the ground work for crossing the floor.
His reply last year was in stark contrast with when the Honourable CM was sat on this side of the House he yearned for things to be done differently - he’d say things like “Would that we could do that [have this debate on the state of the nation] without having to watch the Leader of the House in his reply perform the spectacle of hurling insults to those of us assembled on these benches and not answering the substance of any of the points raised."
Funny then how just last week on Wednesday afternoon, in relation to supplementaries being asked in respect of, I think, the first question of the day, the CM said, from a sedentary position, ‘deja que los coja,’ or in English, ‘wait until I get them.’ Just this morning he was heard to say, from a sedentary position ‘me voy a hartar con ellos,’ I’m going to have my fill with them later Mr Speaker!
I mean really Mr Speaker, what was that even about? A threat? Of what exactly? A tongue lashing? Who does the Chief Minister actually think he is? He is a man Mr Speaker, no more. One who happens to lead this community of 30,000, by virtue of which position he owes everyone in this chamber and the rest of the community at large the duty of directing the community’s affairs for the benefit of everyone in it. But to hear him utter those words last week Mr Speaker, as if they might strike fear in our hearts and dissuade us from our line of questioning, it was a sad indictment of what he appears to have become. Relishing the opportunity he would soon have to show everyone who’s boss…
The thing is Mr Speaker that his reply last year, his general demeanour and approach to business conducted here, exemplified by his throwaway comments last week only confirmed that in his brief term of office so far, the CM has been consumed by the office which he holds, acting like he’d been in that chair for most of his professional life and not, as is the case, a little over two years.
The CM has readily, on a number of occasions, sought to justify his venom in this House by saying that his predecessor sought to ruin him and that Sir Peter had charged him with being unfit to be Chief Minister. Well Mr Speaker that was only ever in response to precisely the same charge he leveled at Sir Peter Caruana, quoting De Gaulle and saying that he had all the spite but none of the statesmanship of the man.
Mr Speaker, I wonder whether he considers his reply in the budget debate last as statesmanlike?
In reply to the Hon Member’s charge, The Honourable Sir Peter Caruana explained that, "both by a combination of the ignorance he displays and the deceit to which he sees fit to resort, he is unfit to be Chief Minister of Gibraltar.”
If I have learnt one thing in the short time that I have had the honour of serving this community in this House, in particular during the hon Member’s reply in the budget debate last year, is that separating personal from political is something that the CM is unable or unwilling to do. What’s more Mr Speaker, I have learnt that the Honourable and Learned Sir Peter Caruana’s judgment of the current incumbent at 6 Convent Place may have been, but by reason of his venom and unflinching determination to eliminate anyone who may speak out against his politics, and frankly to my disappointment, entirely spot on.
If last year’s reply by the Chief Minister was personal Mr Speaker, this year, I expect nothing less from the Hon Member. Being, potentially, the last budget before an election year, I would have thought that he will want to denigrate, insult and attempt to humiliate us even more. Judging by the reaction to last year’s diatribe, he should feel free to go ahead and do his worst; each insult and every poisonous remark helps us to show the rest of the electorate the serious problem that afflicts our community at the heart of Government!
The Chief Minister might recognise some of those last few words Mr Speaker - he himself wrote and delivered the same words as part of his address in this House in 2011, on the eve of the last election. How fortuitous then Mr Speaker, that already we can use the Hon member’s own words against him…
That, Mr Speaker, seems to be the measure of the man.
