Budget Speech 2011 - Hon Dr Joseph Garcia

Hon Dr Joseph Garcia
Leader, Liberal Party and

Shadow Minister for Trade, Industry, Tourism and Civil Aviation, Heritage and the Port

  Mr Speaker,

  A general election is just round the corner and this is very apparent from this budget. Whereas in other years social insurance, rates, electricity and water have gone up, this time they have not. This has  taken nobody by surprise. It has also fooled no-one.

  This Government increasingly give the impression as the election draws closer that they are desperate to cling on to power no matter what it takes. This has come across in almost every budget address that has been delivered from that side of the House this year. The reality, Mr Speaker, is that when the electorate are fed up of a Government, they are fed up and there is little that the incumbent administration can do to hold back the tide.

  Before I move on to my parliamentary portfolio, I would like to say a few words on another matter that has reared its head at budget time for the last two years. Mr Speaker, the nature of the incursions by the agencies of the Spanish state into the territorial waters of Gibraltar are now even more serious than when I raised this issue in the budget of 2009. That same year, in December, Civil Guards entered the Port of Gibraltar and landed on our soil. In September last year they removed a suspect from RGP custody in the Bay. They have interfered with military exercises and with calls by naval vessels. In another incident, the Spanish navy ordered a vessel berthed on the east side to move away on the basis that it was in Spanish waters.

  This is totally unacceptable and it cannot be allowed to continue. There are two issues. The first is that we know that the United Kingdom is responsible for the defence of Gibraltar and for maintaining the integrity of British sovereignty. This they must do.

  The second is that these foreign agencies cannot be allowed to exercise jurisdiction inside an area of sea which is not Spanish. Mr Speaker, the Government have said in the past that this is Gibraltar’s responsibility and not that of the UK. Spain’s attempts to exert jurisdiction has happened time and again. The Guardia Civil have stopped persons on pleasure boats and asked for their papers and those of the vessel. They have had no hesitation in clashing with the Royal Gibraltar Police and other agencies in their continuing attempts to assert Spanish jurisdiction in British Gibraltar Territorial Waters. The Opposition fully back and support the actions of the Royal Gibraltar Police and the assistance rendered by the Gibraltar Defence Police, Customs, the Port and the Royal Navy. The RGP, in particular, have been on the front line and faced the Guardia Civil often with inferior resources. It is unacceptable, Mr Speaker, that the upgrading of Gibraltar’s maritime capability, which the Government identified was necessary in 2009 has still not happened in 2011, even though, as I said earlier, the situation is worse now than it was then.

  The Chief Minister has given the impression that his reference to increasing the maritime capability of the Government, made in 2009, was in the context of the planned new Borders and Coastguard Agency. Given that no reference to such an Agency was made in the budget of 2009 or indeed in the budget of 2010 this is very odd, particularly when the comment was made in the context of the maritime resources available to the agencies in existence at that time.

  Encouraged by the cavalier attitude of the Spanish law enforcement agencies, and backed by the policy of the Spanish Government on this matter, we have now also seen other private Spanish citizens take to the sea and harass beachgoers in Camp Bay. Mr Speaker, people are entitled to make use of our beaches without having to endure harassment of this kind. It is obvious that the situation is poised to degenerate further still. The danger now is that what may have started as issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction could evolve into issues of public safety and security as well.


  Mr Speaker, I now move on to tackle some of the issues for which I am responsible in this House. I start with tourism and note that the Chief Minister this year chose to say nothing on the subject.

TOURISM - Statistics

  Mr Speaker, the production of accurate and up to date tourism statistics continues to be an issue. The world has changed. We now live in the age of the internet where people want instant access to information in order to be able to take business decisions. In this context, it is obvious that these tourism statistics, as indeed other figures, need to be reliable and available within a reasonable period of time. This would allow players in the industry to plan ahead, to market and to budget accordingly.

  The latest official figures for Gibraltar which have been tabled in this House are for 2010. We are now half way through 2011. There are places were figures are made available sooner. There are business people out there who want to analyse last month’s statistics as opposed to what happened six to eighteen months ago, which is what we are doing now.

  This is not to say that there have been no improvements. In the past the Opposition has acknowledged that the increase in the sample of those questioned for the tourism survey, for instance, is a positive development. I also welcomed the principle behind the Minister’s decision to exclude frontier workers from the figure for arrivals by land. This was something that the Opposition had been pointing out for many years. However, we did not quite agree on the merits of the formula that was used in order to achieve this end when this was discussed in this House during question time.

  There continue to be obvious anomalies. The figure for cruise passenger arrivals refers to the number of passengers on board the vessel, as opposed to the number of people who actually disembark from it. More significantly, although an attempt has been made to account for frontier workers, there has been no attempt made to take into account other people who arrive by land and who are neither tourists nor frontier workers.

  For example, the indications are that the number of people who are coming in to purchase two specific products, namely tobacco and petrol, is on the increase. This has coincided with a serious unemployment problem in Spain which is even worse in La Linea. This trend is reflected in the figures for import duty, which although not broken down by item, has shown a huge increase from an actual of £ 61.2 million in 2009/2010 to a forecast outturn of £ 90.8 million in 2010/2011, an increase of nearly £30 million in one year. This is matched by a corresponding increase in the figure for the number of people coming into Gibraltar by land from 9.7 million to 11.1 million. It is surely no coincidence that the surge in import duty is matched by a surge in arrivals by land.

  The  Minister for Tourism asked what shall we do with them? Shall we take them away? Mr Speaker what he has to do is not count them as tourists in a Tourism Survey Report. This is probably why visitor arrivals by land are up.

  The point is, Mr Speaker, that in the same way as frontier workers are not tourists, neither are the people who come through the border to purchase tobacco and petrol. In the case of the former there is room for considerable distortion given that the same person can cross in and out of Gibraltar several times a day and be counted four five times in the arrival figures each day. This is something that needs to be looked into in the interests of having reliable statistics for visitor arrivals by land.

TOURISM: AIR: CIVIL AVIATON

  Mr Speaker, it has long been our policy that Gibraltar Airport should be developed further by encouraging flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom. It is why we have always welcomed any move to establish new routes from such airports. This is something that did not require a new air terminal and that certainly did not require a political agreement, an airport deal, with Spain.

  It is obviously a matter for regret that the Government have taken so long to move in this direction. I remember shortly after I started to shadow tourism that the then Minister came back from a conference saying that he had been in contact with sixteen or seventeen new airlines. However, nothing further was to materialise and the Government stopped attending these conferences completely until a couple of years ago. This change in policy obviously reflected the need to justify the expense of the new air terminal by attracting more business. We will never know what would have happened if this process had been started sooner and independently of the new air terminal. It is likely that Gibraltar would have been in a better position today.

  It was therefore interesting to listen to the Minister responsible for aviation on Newswatch when he said recently that the market for Gibraltar was regional airports in the United Kingdom. He added that the wider European market was very difficult as this depended on commercial viability and could take a while. Mr Speaker, if only they had seen the light sooner and not after fifteen years and tens of millions of pounds!

  It is a fact, Mr Speaker, that for most of their term in office from 1996 there have been less air routes to and from Gibraltar airport than there were when they were first elected into Government. In other words there has been little or no growth in terms of air routes over the last 15 years. Indeed, even now in 2011 there are flights to five destinations Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Manchester and Liverpool. There were also five destinations in 1996. We expect there to be six next summer, in 2010, when flights commence to East Midlands Airport. Mr Speaker, there can be no denying that it has been a slow and painful process and that even now there are still no air links between Gibraltar and Morocco or even between Gibraltar and Spain despite the fanfare that greeted the establishment of the route to Madrid in December 2006. This all seems a very distant memory now, Mr Speaker.

 Moreover, it is also important to bear in mind that air arrivals fell by 30,000 in 2010. This represents an 18% drop from the 2009 figure and is lower than 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004. We clearly need to catch up and any movement forward will initially be in order to stand still.

  It is obvious, Mr Speaker, that each and every new airline that increases capacity or routes, as well as any new ones that come in, have rehearsed very carefully the line that their expansion is partly or entirely due to the  new air terminal building. The reality of the business world is that they will only come here if they can make money. The primary consideration is the commercial viability of the route and not the size or the scale of the air terminal at the Gibraltar end of that route. Indeed, it was amusing to hear one of these airlines say in November 2010 that their decision to open a new route to Gibraltar had nothing to do with the new air terminal but to change their tune in February 2011 by which time it was described as a great help to their operations. Like I said, Mr Speaker, well rehearsed.

  We need routes that will prove to be solid, reliable and there for the future. Flights to Madrid and Barcelona have already proved to be a commercial non-starter. The Madrid route has now been tried by three different airlines. Even the Manchester route has been discontinued two times since 1996. Therefore when the Government make announcements of new routes and new airlines just before a general election, no doubt in part in order to save their political skin and justify the enormous cost of the new air terminal, we should always bear in mind that such routes should endure the test of time.

 Mr Speaker, people fly to a tourist destination for the product, they do not fly there for the air terminal. In other words, I know of nobody who sits down with a tourism brochure or looks at what a destination has to offer on-line and then decides whether to go there or not on the basis of that country’s air terminals. It is simply unrealistic and self-serving to pretend otherwise. Moreover, it is also a mistake to see the terminal as a gateway for tourism to Gibraltar, although there may be a spin-off effect. The fact is that in 2009 no less than 62% of visitor air arrivals went to Spain. In 2010 this went up to 67%. They did not come into Gibraltar, they did not stay in our hotels and did not contribute to our economy in a sigificant manner. There are no indications that this is going to change and the percentage of visitor arrivals going to Spain continues to go up.

  Indeed, there is a risk that this percentage will increase even further once the building adjacent to the air terminal has been constructed on the Spanish side. This is because we will then make it easier for air passengers to fly to Gibraltar and then by-pass Gibraltar completely. The irony is that the taxpayer will have paid handsomely to the tune of millions and millions of pounds for this to happen. In this context, more flights, more airlines and more routes will only mean more people flying to Gibraltar in order to go straight to Spain.

  Having said all this, the fact is that the air terminal debate has now been overtaken by events to the extent that the building is there and we are now stuck with it whether we like it or not. While it is possible to argue that the old terminal could have done with a facelift, even with an expansion or modernisation, it is a huge leap to go from there to the massive scale and expense of a new terminal at a different location next to the frontier fence.

  It is worth pointing out that there were about 130,000 visitor air arrivals last year in 2010. The air terminal at Jerez, for example, handled 1.05 million passengers in 2010 and yet it is proportionately smaller than Gibraltar’s new terminal. The air terminal renovation works there cost 15.8 million euros and it can handle a maximum of 2.8 million passengers annually. We have a terminal designed to handle a maximum of about a million passengers a year in a project that has cost at least four times more.

  Moreover, a comparison with a regional airport in the United Kingdom serves as further proof that things could have been done differently or for considerably less money. London Southend is a small regional airport in Essex. In 2008 there were about 48,000 passengers travelling through it and the forecast is that about 1 million are expected to fly in and out of it in 2012, coinciding with the London Olympic Games. The airport is owned by the Stobart Group (a trucking firm). They paid £21 million for it in 2008. The Group has just invested £ 60 million on a new control tower, a runway extension and a railway station. The £ 60 million also included, apart from all that I have just read out, the construction of a new air terminal with a capacity to handle AT LEAST 700,000 passengers per year. Mr Speaker, in Gibraltar the £ 60 million has barely bought us the terminal alone.

  Mr Speaker, this issue is indeed a matter of judgement and of spending priorities. The present Government have chosen to spend tens of millions of pounds on the terminal and on associated works and relocations. We would have spent a fraction of this amount to improve the existing facility where needed.

TOURISM: UPPER ROCK

  The basic point, Mr Speaker, is that tourists come to Gibraltar for the product. The centrepiece of that product is the Upper Rock itself. This has suffered from years of neglect and under-investment, with some comparatively recent refurbishment as the election draws closer. It is obvious that for many years the Government has regarded the Upper Rock as little more than a money-making machine. The House knows that in the financial year 2008/2009 only £25,000 was spent as capital expenditure on the Upper Rock when in that same year well over £ 2 million had been raised in revenue. In 2009/2010 £300,000 was spent yet in 2010/2011 the estimate was revised downwards to £100,000. This represented a cut in public expenditure on the Upper Rock of 33%.

  It is now impossible to tell what the exact estimate for Upper Rock investment is going to be in the financial year 2011/2012 because the sub-head has been merged. In the financial year 2010/2011 the relevant sub-head which was then called “Upper Rock Tourist Sites” was merged with Head 101 Departmental, subhead 1(l)(ii) called “Other Sites”. This still allowed the Opposition and others to deduce how much was being spent on the Upper Rock. However, from 2011/2012, in the estimates now laid before this House, the merged heading “Other Sites” has itself been included in Head 101 subhead 1(d) called ”Other Departments, Agencies and Authorities”. The end result is that it is no longer clear, at a glance, to deduce how much, or how little, the Government plan to spend from the Improvement and Development Fund as capital investment in the Upper Rock.

  Mr Speaker, in 2005 the Government trumpeted a £2 million three year improvement programme for the Upper Rock. The figures show that the House voted £1.8 million in that time, of which only £710,000 was spent. This is just over one third.

  The consequences of this lack of investment has been highlighted by others too. It is not only us, not only the Opposition who are saying it. A Chamber of Commerce annual report complained precisely about this and added that our tourist product looked increasingly tired and reflected a lack of innovation in product development. It went on to say that “tourism requires a higher rung in the priority ladder of the Government.” A survey organised by the Federation of Small Businesses expressed similar sentiments. It said that “Gibraltar must start to take our Tourism product seriously”, it pointed to “a lack of significant investment” and it declared that “some of our best products look tired at best and third world at worst.” In March of this year, photographs of the Upper Rock which were taken at that time showed an abandoned car which had been stripped down and dumped, metres of wire fencing rolled up and abandoned there, World War 2 structures filled with rubble, falling to bits and used as a latrine and no regular road maintenance. The plaque where Her Majesty once stood in 1954 was dilapidated and the ornamental stone framework so overgrown that it could hardly be made out. These pictures were taken in March 2011, Mr Speaker, they speak for themselves.

 Mr Speaker, the Government have already confirmed that they see the creation of an Upper Rock Authority as the way forward. They have also said that an Upper Rock Holistic Management Plan is being produced. It has taken them fifteen years to arrive at this conclusion. This is not good enough.

TOURISM: HOTELS

  I now move on now to hotels. Mr Speaker, 2010 was a bad year for the hotel industry. The official figures are, in certain categories, the worst that I have seen in the twelve years that I have been shadowing tourism. Arrivals at hotels in 2010 are the lowest since 2005 and down by 6000 on the 2009 figure. The number of tourist arrivals in 2010 were 37,500. This is the lowest since the year 2000 and down from 44,500 in 2009. Tourist sleeper occupancy is the lowest since 1996 at 24% and overall sleeper occupancy is the lowest since 1997 when it stood at 42.8%.

  In his contribution the Minister for Tourism gave a list of reasons in order to explain the drop in arrivals none of which were obviously connected to his Government or to their policies. He mentioned the volcano in Iceland, the economic crisis, the airline strikes, the poor UK weather and issues with airline capacity. The point is that these same issues must surely have affected other places as well and yet they still performed better than us.

  Mr Speaker, it is relevant to note that at a time when Gibraltar’s hotels enjoyed 49.5% occupancy (27% tourists) in August 2010, hotels in nearby Spain were doing much better. In what is traditionally a peak month, Tarifa enjoyed 94% occupancy, Algeciras 82% and La Linea 81%. Gibraltar enjoyed 49.5%. Therefore it is not possible to claim that international trends are responsible for this situation given that other places nearby did much better.

  It was quite incredible, Mr Speaker, that against this background the Government chose to pay 180,000 euros for a cruise liner to host 340 athletes and others in 200 cabins during an international sporting event that took place in Gibraltar. There should have been better planning and coordination with the hotels who ended up with an average of 237 free rooms when that event took place. It is clear that event-led tourism has assumed even greater importance in attracting visitors to stay in our hotels and occupy beds and rooms. The success of the annual international chess tournament hosted by the Caleta Hotel is a case in point. This is an example of how things should be done.

TOURISM: MARKETING

  The reality, Mr Speaker, is that in order to make our tourist industry work we need to have the marketing right. The Government have spent about £ 12 million on tourism marketing alone since 1997/98. There is plenty of room for improvement.

 It is obvious that the tourism world has changed since they came into office in 1996. There are more and more people who choose where they go on holiday on-line and it is important that Gibraltar’s marketing focus also moves in this direction. When I typed in the words “hotels in Gibraltar” into the internet search engine “Google”, some time ago there was no GTB listing coming up in the first page. The website Bookings.com showed seven hotels none of which were actually in Gibraltar and Tripadvisor.com showed ten hotels, only two of which were in Gibraltar. The rest were in the Campo de Gibraltar or as far afield as Algeciras. Indeed, some time ago someone sent me a similar search on Expedia which showed 21 hotels only 3 of which were in Gibraltar.

  It is clear that our marketing has to evolve along with customer trends. Given that more business comes on-line than from trade fairs, it would make sense to reassess the way in which Gibraltar markets itself directly to its customers.

  We have often said that the marketing of Gibraltar over the years has been haphazard and inconsistent. For example, in 2003 the Government spent £72,000 attending the World Travel Market. The following year they decided not to have a stand at the exhibition at all on the basis that the new location in Excel in Docklands, outside the centre of London, was not suitable. The Minister still travelled for pre-planned meetings but there was no stand. This remained the position in 2004, 2005 and 2006. However, in 2007 the Government changed their mind and decided to have a stand once more even though the reasons that had been given for not having had one for the previous three years were still valid. This is symptomatic of the way in which the marketing of Gibraltar has been handled.

  The basic point is that the marketing has been inconsistent and haphazard. Its effects have not been monitored. In addition to this, value for money does not appear to have been a consideration.

TOURISM: Cruise calls: Port issues

  Mr Speaker, the effect on cruise calls in the wake of the explosion in a sullage plant next to a cruise ship that rocked the North Mole at the end of May remains to be seen. The Opposition certainly hopes that it will have no effect and that cruise liners will continue to call here into the future as they have done in the past.

  However, the incident has served to throw the spotlight on many aspects of Government policy, not least the mixed use of that section of the North Mole for both cruise passenger calls and for industrial activity. It has emerged in the aftermath of the fire that the operators of the sullage plant had already secured planning approval from the Government to dramatically increase its capability. Reports point to the fact that plans were well advanced to expand the facility from 7000 cubic metres to 12,000 cubic metres of tank storage. This had planning permission and was waiting for building control approval.

  Mr Speaker, the Government have announced, at the same time, the expansion of the cruise liner terminal in the North Mole. The Minister told a cruise conference recently that plans had already been drawn up to expand and refurbish the Cruise Terminal. He also said then that these plans would now take into account the Government’s longer term goal to turn the Western Arm into a dedicated cruise facility.

  The conflicting demands of these two types of business could not have been brought into sharper focus than by the explosion and fire in May. It is also very odd that in his capacity as Chairman of the Development and Planning Commission the Minister approved the granting of planning permission for an extended sullage operation at the North Mole in December and then, wearing his hat as Minister for Transport including cruises, plans have also been advanced to expand and refurbish the Cruise Terminal as well. The Government is on record as having said that they will use all the powers at their disposal to prevent the commencement of operations by the operators of the sullage plant. It is already peculiar enough that there should be an apparent contradiction in Government policy with regard to this matter. It is beyond belief that at the heart of these conflicting decisions is not only the same Government, but incredibly the same person who as the Chairman of the Development and Planning Commission approved the expansion of the sullage plant, as the Minister for Transport took the policy decision to expand the cruise terminal and as Minister for the Port presided over the presence of the sullage plant and the cruise terminal in the same place.

  Mr Speaker, regardless of what may happen with cruise liner calls in the future as a consequence of this incident, an analysis must also be conducted of what has occurred in the recent past. The Government will continue with their well-worn mantra to the effect that Gibraltar is the best cruise Port in the Mediterranean, if not the world. The reality is that there is plenty of room for improvement.

  There has been a drop of 26% in the number of cruise ships that called at Gibraltar in 2010, when compared to 2009. In other words, while there were 238 cruise calls in 2009, this dropped to 175 last year. The number of tourists coming to Gibraltar on a cruise liner also suffered a corresponding drop of 12.5%. This fell from about 348,000 in 2009 to about 304,000 in 2010.

 This negative performance, however, is not part of a wider trend which is affecting different ports in the region. While Gibraltar lost 63 cruise calls, Malaga gained 20 ships and stood at 321 in 2010. Passenger numbers in Malaga went up by 35%. A similar picture was reported in the Port of Cadiz whose cruise calls went up 33% and where cruise passenger numbers went up by 42%.

  So at the same time as Gibraltar went down, Malaga and Cadiz both went up. The tragedy is that ports like Malaga and Cadiz started years ago well behind Gibraltar in this respect and that we have now been overtaken and outperformed. The Opposition want Gibraltar to do better and to attract more cruise ships and passengers. These are high spending tourists who then contribute to our economy. Sadly, the picture in 2010 was not one of growth. The Government has pointed with optimism to the figures for cruise bookings for 2011-12. They know as well as I do that what matters are not the bookings but the actual calls that materialise.

  In relation to yacht arrivals, Mr Speaker, I do not want to say much other than there was a significant drop of 233 in 2010 when compared to 2009. The 2010 figure of 3189 yachts is the second lowest number of yachts calling at Gibraltar since 1996. I wish to take the opportunity to draw attention to the comments made in the Report of the Principal Auditor regarding yachts. Mr Speaker, the Principal Auditor has said that there is no system to allow the Port Department to verify the accuracy of returns submitted by the marinas on the number of berths. The abolition of the yacht reporting berth in 2005 has meant that the Port cannot check on arrivals independently and that this function now lies entirely in the hands of the marinas. This was a measure that the Opposition voted against at the time and the Principal Auditor has now also reflected the concern that exists on this matter.

  In relation to the Port, Mr Speaker, it does not make any sense that most of the staff in the administration office were sent on a paint-ball shooting excursion in Spain at a time when there were three cruise liners in Gibraltar. The Minister has described this as “team building”. It is obvious that if the Government wanted to pick a day for staff bonding in the Port Authority, then they clearly picked the wrong day. There are complaints from Port operators at the short notice that they were given of this closure which the Minister has confirmed was done “by word of mouth”.

  Mr Speaker, in the light of the explosion and fire at the Port only a couple of weeks later, with a cruise liner alongside, it was obviously not a good idea to close down the offices when there were three cruise liners in Port. The Opposition understands that there were two liners alongside and one was using tenders to ferry people to and from the mole. The Port Advice List of shipping movements for 13th May 2011 shows that the Grandeur of the Seas left at 6.00pm, the Star Princess left at 4.00pm and the Saga Ruby at 7.00pm. The Port office closed at 1.00pm on that day. This was not a wise move and it does raise serious safety and security issues.

  It was unfortunate that following on so closely from the accident that affected the Independence of the Seas, a passenger on another Royal Caribbean vessel, the Grandeur of the Seas, suffered an accident in the area of the Cruise Terminal. It has been reported that this person leaned on a crash barrier to recover her balance causing it to topple over and injure herself. The barrier was free-standing and not linked together forming a chain.

  Mr Speaker, it is obvious that a health and safety assessment could have spotted this and saved considerable time and trouble in the process. However, the end result is that Gibraltar’s Port received negative international publicity for the second time in a month.

TOURISM: Expenditure

  Mr Speaker, as the House knows, the tourism arrival figures by land, air and sea are transposed into the tourism expenditure figures and from there into a whole host of economic data for Gibraltar. The Tourism Expenditure Survey reflects this situation drawing on the information provided by the sample of tourists who are questioned.

  The reason why we want tourists to come to Gibraltar is because of the money that they spend in our shops, restaurants and other services. It was mentioned that the Tourism expenditure figure has grown to a record £286 million in this last year 2010. In 1996, Mr Speaker, the year in which the GSD came into office, this expenditure stood at £181 million. This means that there has been a growth of 58% in the amount spent by tourists in Gibraltar during their time in office.

  However, in 1988, Tourism expenditure stood at £43.3 million. As I have just said, in 1996 the figure was £181 million and the House should note that this was also a record in its day. This means that the growth in expenditure terms from 1988 to 1996 was 319%. It was nearly six times greater under the previous administration than what it has been under the present GSD Government, even though millions and millions of pounds have been spent on marketing Gibraltar since they came into office. It is worth highlighting the point that even the Minister for Tourism has said that the monetary contribution made by tourists to the economy is what counts.

HERITAGE

  Mr Speaker, I move on now to heritage matters. The Opposition continues to be critical of the planning policy of the Government and the way in which they have conducted the allocation of former MOD lands and buildings. Both an inadequate planning policy and a failure to tighten the tender conditions have put at risk a number of former MOD properties at the same time as others have been razed to the ground. This is an issue that the Opposition has complained about many times in the past, both inside and outside this House and it is inexcusable that the procedure has not been tightened up. These buildings are part of the heritage and character of Gibraltar and we cannot afford to lose them in this way.

  This year, Mr Speaker, I would like to move the focus to the fortifications of Gibraltar. These are the walls, the bastions, the batteries and other defences which are located all over the Rock. There has already been concern expressed in the media and by the Heritage Trust and others at the degree of vandalism which has taken place in some of these areas. It is clear that in many cases access to the sites has been made easier by the absence of an adequate perimeter wall or fence. In other words, the Government have failed either to make the site secure or to ensure that any defects in security are promptly addressed.

  In a recent newsletter, the Heritage Trust echoed concern at the state of the Devil’s Gap area and in particular the battery itself. They said that this site has been subjected to vandalism and graffiti and that they intended to restore it. The Trust asked the Tourist Board for assistance in making it secure so that the refurbishment works could go ahead in a secure site.

  The Northern Defences have also been vandalised after persons obtained access through a hole in the fence. Indeed, the Trust pointed out that it seemed that some kind of rave or party had taken place there with hundreds of bottles strewn all over the place and an enormous amount of rubbish. Again the Trust asked the Government to clean up and secure the site.

  The Minister referred to problems with vandalism at Forbes Quarry and Stay Behind Cave which are now going to be protected. It is obvious that this protection should be extended to other areas as well.

 However, not all problems are caused by vandalism. There is a complete river of mud inside some of the tunnels in the area of Hanover Gallery and Star Chamber which are linked to each other. The mud is pouring down due to lack of maintenance and neglect and when it rains, the accumulated rubbish is washed in.

  The Opposition understands that there are parts of the defensive network which have been eroded by rain. The lower communication tunnels are full of cables and rubbish. This is an area that is steeped in history and which is neglected and lying to waste. Some tunnel walls have been broken by tree roots and this can actually be seen inside the tunnels where the roots poke out of walls and ceilings. There are packets of crisps, empty drink cans and chocolate wrappers everywhere.

  The House will recall that a group of Spanish tourists actually broke into the old prison located in the Moorish Castle complex. They took extensive footage of the area and placed it in “Youtube” for the world to see. This is another breach of security in an area of high historical value.

  Mr Speaker, we have a duty to preserve and protect our heritage and pass it on from generation to generation. It is totally unacceptable that so many of our fortifications find themselves in such a state of decay and disrepair.

 CONCLUSION

  In conclusion, Mr Speaker, let me say that there remains much more to be done.

  The Government, in a transparent and desperate attempt to cling on to power, have unleashed a bonanza of goodies on the electorate. The reality is that many people can now see through this. The indications, Mr Speaker, are that no matter what they say and no matter what they do, their time is up. The way it looks, people will say thank you very much, take what they have been given, and then throw them out. It happens to all Governments.

  I would like to take this opportunity to associate myself with the comments made earlier by my Hon Friend the Leader of the Opposition regarding the retirement of the Hon Mr Britto. It has been a pleasure to work with him (or in this case against him!) and in many ways he has set an example of what a Parliamentarian should be.

  I also take this opportunity to thank you Mr Speaker, as well as the clerk and the staff of the Parliament for the assistance that they have provided over the year.