News & Updates

The Government and the Minister for Heritage, Mr Cortes, should be less patronising and show greater humility in acknowledging the embarrassing state of our World War 2 defence structures.

The Government’s description of its newly announced inventory of military assets as “a first step” implies that a comprehensive assessment and maintenance programme has not been in place to date. This leads to the legitimate conclusion that they have been abandoned for years and Mr Cortes should at least be acknowledging that and stop being so defensive.

The Government should not be referring to the 9.2-inch gun move as a virtue but admit mismanagement in this connection also. They have not “rescued” this prime military gem – what they have done is move it from a scrap yard to an exposed area where it lies abandoned and rusting away in full view of everyone.  This epitomises the general neglect and is in stark contrast to Mr Cortes’ delusional protestations that never has so much been done for heritage.

Instead of going on the attack, the Government should also be explaining why the taxpayer is spending £1.4M, on an annual basis, on a contract with a private company when the sites it manages such as Parsons Lodge and Stay Behind Cave are underutilised for residents and visitors to enjoy. These, like the WW2 defence structures, are sites which have huge heritage and touristic potential but are being ignored despite the significant annual expenditure.

The Government should now also provide details of the key terms agreed with the various private contractors including any revenue-sharing arrangements linked to tourist receipts,
which could amount to many millions of pounds. It should also provide a detailed breakdown of the arrangements under which an estimated £6M is expected to be paid in 2025/2026 to “Sites Management Systems” in connection with Upper Rock entry fees.

Damon Bossino said: “As with the move of Government depTs to privately owned properties these further Government-private commercial arrangements raise legitimate questions which impact on our public finances and ought to be the subject of full transparency and accountability.”

The GSD will be setting out its views on the draft Bill separately. Have GSLP Learned Nothing on Conflicts from Openshaw Report?

It beggars belief in the context of the Openshaw findings on perceptions that the draft conflicts of interests law which is the direct result of a McGrail Inquiry recommendation has been drafted by a person who has a long-standing professional relationship with the Government and Hassans.

Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi, said: “Of all the thousands of law-drafting people in the world is the
Government seriously saying that the only person who could do the job of drafting this crucial law which came about because of conflicts of interests between the GSLP and Hassans is a person with previous professional links to the GSLP Government and Hassans? Given the very extreme circumstances of this case and what Sir Peter Openshaw said about appearances it was important for Government to have chosen a draftsperson – there are many – without previous professional links to those at the heart of the conflicts issues. It is what people would have expected.”

The core issue that led to the most serious findings of the Openshaw Report was the inability of the Chief Minister to navigate conflicts of interests and his relationship with the senior partner of Hassans.

Sir Peter Openshaw found that on several occasions Mr Picardo behaved in a grossly improper way and attempted to interfere in a live criminal investigation. That police investigation was into circumstances that had arisen when a company (36 North) in which Hassans (and through them the Chief Minister) had ultimate beneficial interests had vied for a lucrative public service/national security contract.

Sir Peter Openshaw recommended that conflicts of interests legislation be introduced to guard against issues he had found and that the Canadian conflicts of interests law be used as a model. Anyone therefore would have thought that the person asked to draft such a law would not have a previous professional relationship with the Government or Hassans.

This is especially relevant given that Sir Peter Openshaw observed that the evidence of conflicts of interests “…strongly suggests that the existence of these connections, and the influence they may have on the consideration of public affairs, is not always understood. Still less are these connections identified, acknowledged or addressed. Further, just as importantly, the appearance of these connections is often not considered at all.” When he recommended that a conflicts of interests law be introduced Sir Peter Openshaw said it should require disclosure of interests which “might influence or might appear to influence, the consideration of official public business.”

In stark contradiction to the spirit of that comment the person asked by Government to draft the conflicts of interests law (Daniel Greenberg) has a long-standing professional business relationship with Hassans and the Government going back 15 years from the start of this GSLP/Libs administration. So much is clear from his personal website that also lists the legislation that he has drafted for the Government during the period 2012 to date. Mr Greenberg also confirmed this in a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Justice Minister where he also confirmed his long- standing professional relationship with Hassans in the context of some of those Government drafting projects.

The Public Service (Standards and Conflict of Interests) Bill 2026.Sir Peter Openshaw made clear that there should be distance between those in power and those tasked to do key roles. Here in the most crucial area of drafting conflicts rules that stem from obvious failures by the GSLP Government o navigate its conflicts with Hassans someone previously professionally engaged by both is asked to draft the law. We do not suggest that Mr Greenberg is anything but an unimpeachable professional but could another individual who has not previously worked for Government or with Hassans not been chosen? This is also about those appearances and perceptions that Sir Peter Openshaw spoke about.

The GSD will be setting out its views on the draft Bill separately.

Government’s response on the closure of the Office for Immigration and Home Affairs weak and completely misses the point

The Government’s response on the closure of the offices of the Office for Immigration and Home Affairs for one full day is weak and completely misses the point.
The basic fact is that the Gibraltar taxpayer is having to foot the bill, by way of many thousands and in some cases millions of pounds in rental of Govt depts which are being moved from properties currently owned by the Government to private properties. It is this essential point that fails to make sense from a value for money perspective, which the Government is refusing to answer.

In respect of the Immigration Office we are paying an annual sum of £217,680 (as at February 2025) and it is ironic that within 8/9 months after moving from offices which it was claimed were not fit for purpose, in part because they suffered from water ingress, the services to the public had to be stopped for one full day precisely because of severe and significant water ingress in the new property.

It is noteworthy that Technical Services, which is moving from Sir Joshua Hassan House to the to be refurbished property (also at taxpayers’ expense) at the Dockyard building, on grounds that the current Government-owned premises, where it is currently housed, are not fit for purpose, is itself going to be used to house another Government service, namely the mental health facility. On what basis can the Government defend a relocation to premises which were found to be not good enough for Technical Services but have been deemed good enough for
the mental health facility?

Damon Bossino said: “These issues are all the more pertinent when the Chief Minister appears to be heralding a period of belt-tightening when discussing salaries citing world-wide economic pressures. Perhaps he should be looking closer to home as the reason for the public- finance squeeze which he is concerned about.”

The Government’s positioning and policy in this area simply do not make sense.

GSD seeks Government clarification following Immigration and Home Affairs Office closure 

The Government is asked to explain in greater detail what provoked the recent closure of the 

Immigration and Home Affairs Office beyond simply that there was “significant flooding”. 

It should be recalled that this is another Government office which has been moved into 

privately owned premises and for which the taxpayer is paying an annual rental fee, as at 

February of last year, of £217, 680 on a 9-year lease. This amount represents a monthly charge 

to the Government of £18,140. 

Damon Bossino said: “Quite apart from the obvious value for money considerations which 

arise in the context of the housing of this particular department and which the GSD has also 

been highlighting in relation to the old Dockyard building, legitimate questions are being 

raised about how it is possible that the operation of such a Department – responsible for 

registrations of births, deaths, residency, marriages etc., – should be compromised for a full 

day after a mere 8/9 months since the move was effected to what were described as modern 

offices.” 

The GSD reminds the Government that the Chief Minister, in defending the policy of moving 

Government offices to private properties referred to their maintenance to modern standards as 

being “someone else’s responsibility”. The Government therefore needs to also state what 

measures, if any, it will be taking against the landlord. The taxpayer deserves nothing less. 

The Dockyard building deal makes no financial sense

On any honest and objective analysis, the sale of a huge warehouse building at the Dockyard
site at 80a Queensway by the Government to then rent it back on a 21 year lease from the same
private group to house Government departments simply does not make financial sense.

The Government has now admitted that the construction phase has taken long. What its
response discloses is evidence of mismanagement which needs to be added on to the GSD’s
questions regarding the value for money aspects of the deal. To admit that the need to have
basic, modern office requirements such as, for example, air conditioning or parking spaces as
the reason for delay shows that these obvious features were not considered when the
Government decided it was a good idea to start paying a monthly rent at close to £90,000,
before occupation takes place. This bad deal would have perhaps been more palatable if the
rental cost did not kick in until at least until occupation started.

The effect of the timelines now announced by the Government is that the cost to the taxpayer
for an empty or part empty building will come to about £2.3M – and almost 3 to 4 years in
from when the 21 year term of lease started.

The fact is that the lease was entered into in September 2023 and the Government should have
had the foresight to have had all these issues factored in before signing off on it.

Damon Bossino said: “Furthermore and given that the Government has now confirmed that a
contractor has been appointed, it now needs to state what the conversion from a big warehouse
store to “fit-for-purpose” offices will cost the taxpayer. This figure now needs to be added on
to the £87,000 monthly or in excess of £1M annual expense.

No one in the private sector, using their own money, would proceed in the way this
Government has.”

Hope for the Future – May Day Message from the Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi

For workers and for business this is a Government that says one thing and then does another. It was rich to see Mr Picardo sitting close to Ms Arias Vasquez (as his heir apparent) in Barcelona lecture the world on how to deal with the cost-of-living crisis when Mr Picardo’s colleagues have agreed that the taxpayer should pay for his own expensive private legal challenge against the Openshaw Report findings. Gibraltar does not need lessons on tightening the belt from a Government that asks you to underwrite the Chief Minister’s private legal expenses!

Businesses who complain about lack of preparedness or information in the face of the Treaty are now told by the Minister for Business, Ms Arias-Vasquez, that the Guidance on Treaty related administrative arrangements for business will be published on 1 June. This is proof positive that the Government was not ready to have properly implemented and guided affected businesses on 10 April. Certainly the repeated calls for information from an increasingly frustrated business sector hardly suggests that they were.

As we celebrate May Day and the role of workers and businesses as job-creation and wealth centres in our economy it is clear that a more strategic approach to our economy and public spending is needed.
One that plans better. After all the Government said they were 0.01% away from a Treaty deal in September 2023 (when it asked you to support them at the last election). If that was not a con they should have planned better because at least by then they must have had 99.99% of the detail on their own logic. Or at least planned better from June 2025 (almost 11 months ago) when it announced that a political deal had been struck. Or at least done so from December 2025 – five months ago – when the legal negotiations had closed. Why has it not been possible to prepare the proper information that businesses or citizens are clamouring for in all that time? Why is Gibraltar having to put up with this broken approach to planning for the serious economic impact of this new Treaty? And that broken approach to strategic planning is just one of a number of examples.
We also need an approach that spends better. That makes sure that waste and abuse are cut and acted against. Because that cheats the taxpayer, means that there is less money for investment in public services or less money for pay rises, business assistance or job creation. The various and successive reports of the Principal Auditor have shown the tip of this mammoth financial governance iceberg which can only be tackled with a change of Government. The GSLP/Libs are so wedded to their creed of opacity with your money that things will not really change till they leave office. It was for that reason that instead of undertaking real reforms they turned on the Principal Auditor for grassing them up with these inconvenient truths.

You are working very hard to be let down so badly in this way.

At some point in the next year we will be treated to the charade of the passing of the GSLP baton. But it will be only that. A charade. There will be no change. The new leader (whoever that is) has backed Mr Picardo remaining in office despite findings that he acted in a grossly improper way and attempted to interfere in a criminal investigation. The new leader (whoever that is) also ganged up shamelessly on the principal auditor. The baton will pass but to a person who represents the current way of doing things lock, stock and barrel.

Change when it comes at the ballot box will be a tide of fresh air sweeping through Gibraltar. So we can truly tackle all those issues that affect you and your families. On behalf of myself and my colleagues I wish you all an enjoyable and happy May Day with your families.

Does 80a Queensway still lie empty after £2M spend on rent?

The GSD asks the Government to state how the works to fit-out the premises at 80a Queensway are progressing. The information reaching the GSD is that little to no advance has been made in the works which need to be carried out to convert what is a large warehouse at the Dockyard into office space for various Government departments.

The public will recall that this was a Government building that had been sold to a private entity for £7.5M only for the Government to agree to lease it back to the same entity at an overall cost of more than £22M over 21 years. The deal entered into by the Government means that the taxpayer is paying approximately £87,000 per month in rent for a property which, bizarrely, the Government previously owned only to then house 5 Government departments. For allthese reasons, we criticised the deal as not being a good one for the Gibraltar taxpayer.

Damon Bossino said: “Over the last 2 years the taxpayer has paid in excess of £2m in rent in circumstances where, it has been reported to the GSD, not one department has as yet moved in to the promised ‘modern, fit-for-purpose office accommodation’.

The Government have a lot of explaining to do in relation to this bad deal which is made worseby the continued failure to occupy the property.

Themes of Broken Systems in Mental Health Services Still There

Seven years after a critical 2019 Report on Mental Health Services conducted by NHS England it is clear that similar themes of broken systems, unclear policies and protocols continue to affect the delivery of mental health services. Worse still and 5 years after the Government, with much fanfare, published its 2021-26 Mental Health Strategy it is obvious that some of the promises made then have still not been carried out.

This is why despite some welcome improvements noted in the 2025 Gibraltar Mental Health Board’s Annual Inspection Report fundamental issues continue to impact the effectiveness of service delivery and the lives of individuals and families who rely on the provision of mental health services.

Amongst those concerns, the continued lack of a Code of Practice under the Mental Health Act 2016 stands out. This was promised in 2021 and its absence means that mental health professionals are left with uncertainty as to what is considered best practice and the safeguards for service users aren’t clear or robust.

Shadow Heath Minister Joelle Ladislaus said: “A lack of clinical guidelines, standardised policies and protocols appears to be an issue across the GHA, which we have raised in Parliament, and will continue to raise. It was a theme of the 2019 NHS England Report on Mental Health that leads to the 2021-26 strategy. The Code is an essential part of ensuring accountability under the Mental Health Act and the Government should publish it without further delay.”

It is clear from a reading of the 2025 MHB Report that, just as in other areas within the GHA, there is still an overreliance on temporary staff within mental health services, where continuity of care is critical for patient wellbeing and outcomes. For example, the Report specifically notes that “…two bank staff members have been working in OVH [Ocean Views Hospital] for more than four years. This highlights the continued use of long-term temporary staff in core service areas and may warrant review in terms of recruitment strategy, workforce stability and opportunities for permanent appointment where appropriate.”

Another key topic emphasised within the 2025 Report is the relocation of the Community Mental Health Team (“the CMHT”) to Sir Joshua Hassan House, and the commencement of a new model of care under the Mental Health Hub. Again, these are long-standing themes where little progress appears to be made. There have been grandiose announcements made by the Minister for Health subsequently abandoned and lack of consultation with Mental Health professionals. A glaring example of which was the now abandoned intended relocation of the acute ward from Ocean Views Hospital to the Hub, which was only brought to the attention of the CMHT Development Group overseeing the strategic direction and key decisions relating to the CMHT move 9 months after the Government announced the plans relating to the Mental Health Hub.

Ms Ladislaus added: “Listening to the experts should not be a tick box exercise, it should be a given, more so when it involves the care of mental health patients. The issues outlined are not the only ones emphasised within the Report, but they are issues which demonstrate themes across the GHA that the Opposition have been raising for some years.

Theories aren’t action. What looks great on paper but doesn’t function in the real world isn’t a success. Big changes need careful thought and the right infrastructure to succeed. Service users continue to experience issues that are avoidable with the introduction of simpler measures, like a transition to digital reporting systems, the strengthening of formal mechanisms for staff consultation and communication and the provision of an on-site GP at CMHT, and not just the announcement of hugely complex projects which take years to come to fruition and leave vulnerable service users in limbo in the meantime.

It is clear from the Report that the Government need to get the basics right before moving to a totally new model of care like the Mental Health Hub, and implementation of roles/processes can’t be delayed until that new model of care is established, there must be a transition period, during which services are also improved.”