Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party

We are the oldest active political party in Gibraltar. You will find in our about us page information of how we came into existence, of our trade union roots, of our involvement in the struggle for self-determination and decolonisation, and of our participation in raising the standard of living of our people.

The defense of Gibraltar and its people and the achievement of a secure political and economic future for our country has been the guiding light of our philosophy throughout our existence.

We hope you will enjoy finding out more about us, about our history, our country and our people.

I extend a warm welcome to all visitors to our site, but especially to fellow socialist the world over and to friends of Gibraltar of all ideological persuasions.

Contact us, and give us your views and ideas on anything to do with Gibraltar or with the way ahead as socialist.

Fraternal Greetings to you all.

Joe Bossano “Party Leader”

The Opposition considers that Gibraltar must be vigilant that a new Guardia Civil sub-aqua unit created recently in Algeciras is not used politically to infringe upon the sovereignty of the territorial waters of Gibraltar. In the present climate of tension and hostility surrounding the waters issue, it would be totally unacceptable for the unit to be utilised as another weapon in Spain’s armoury to advance its claim over the seas that surround the Rock.

The new group of eight divers will be based in Algeciras and is expected to have mainly a search and rescue function. They are equipped with two semi-rigid inflatable launches. It is already known, for instance, that they were involved in the search for the body of a passenger who jumped into the straits from a ferry last week. There are several of these units based in different parts of Spain.

However, the list of six published terms of reference of these units show that their remit is actually wider than it might appear at first sight. The description of their function includes the reconnaissance of the sea-bed, of hulls of ships, of objects or underwater items for security, anti-terrorism or fiscal purposes. This is in order to exercise the powers of a judicial police force in respect of any event which takes place in their specific area of operations.

It has already been pointed out in the Spanish media that this function extends to the protection of any items on the sea-bed in Spanish waters like treasure or ship-wrecks. This obviously includes on-going saga with the Odyssey marine exploration of the wreck believed to be that of the treasure-laden HMS Sussex which lies in waters to the east side of Gibraltar. The wreck is located in between the three mile limit of territorial waters that Gibraltar claims at present and the twelve mile limit that we are entitled to claim as our own. The position in international law is that these are international waters until claimed by Gibraltar. However, the Spanish Government considers that all the waters around Gibraltar belong to Spain, including the international waters beyond our existing three-mile limit.

It will be recalled that patrol boats of the Spanish civil guard constantly harassed the exploration vessels on the basis that they were in Spanish waters and subject to the laws of Spain. Indeed, one such vessel was arrested in international waters and taken to Algeciras. In fact, in its own website the company states that “due to interference by various Spanish entities Odyssey has postponed further work on the project to allow diplomatic issues to be resolved.”

It is obvious that the establishment of the Civil Guard sub-aqua unit near Gibraltar potentially opens a new dimension to this problem, all the more so when part of their remit is to protect the coffers of the Spanish Government. Given that the issue has already been flagged in Spain, it is important that we ensure that the status of our waters and of the international sea that surrounds them is fully safeguarded.

It is obvious that certain Spanish politicians have nothing better to do than to blame Gibraltar for everything under the sun. Partido Popular MP Ignacio Landaluce has again accused Gibraltar’s mobile telephone operators of interference with the signal of Spanish operators in the area around Gibraltar.

Mr Landaluce claims that there are mobile phone users in the vicinity of Gibraltar who have received bills of thousands of euros because their mobiles have been roaming on Gibraltar signals without their knowledge. He has further complained that these are not isolated cases but that it happens very frequently.

The PP MP has raised the issue in the Spanish Parliament and not being satisfied with the reply has now called on the Spanish Government to make a formal protest to the United Kingdom.

It is clear that Mr Landaluce has a bee in his bonnet when it comes to Gibraltar. His statements time and again show a complete ignorance of the facts which is quite incredible for a man in his position.

It is very common for the mobile telephone signals from different countries to overlap in frontier areas. This is not something which happens only at the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain nor is it something which happens only to Spanish mobile telephone users in this area. The reverse is also common. The signals from Spanish operators can also be picked up by users in Gibraltar. Indeed, in Europa Point it is common to pick up also the mobile telephone signals from companies based in Morocco as well!

Mr Landaluce should know that the solution to this problem is really very simple. Practically all mobile telephones these days allow the subscriber to select the telephone company that they want to use to make a call. This can be permanently set and recorded on the mobile so that stronger signals from elsewhere do not replace the signal from the preferred operator. This means that people in the Campo in the vicinity of Gibraltar would then not receive the invoices for roaming charges that they have complained to him about.

It is not the role of the Opposition in Gibraltar to give practical advice to the citizens of the Spanish hinterland in order to reduce their telephone bills. However, the fact is that Mr Landaluce, in his continuing obsession with Gibraltar, appears to be more concerned with attacking Gibraltar than in solving the problem that he has complained about.

The main victims of the continuing row between the Government and Bruesa are undoubtedly those prospective home-owners whose patience has now been more than exhausted in the long delays that the project has suffered and in the many completion dates that have not been delivered. The developer is 100% Government-owned and therefore there is no way that the Government can escape having 100% of the responsibility for delivering as promised to the purchasers.

The Opposition is certainly not in the business of participating in any orchestrated campaign to get the Government to use taxpayer’s money to pay Spanish and other contractors. Indeed, if anything, what the Opposition has been critical of consistently has been the vast sums of money that the Government has been happy and willing to pay to Spanish and other contractors without them being subject to any pressure or orchestrated campaign. In many of these cases the final cost of the project has been vastly more than the original budgeted amount.

If the Government, at this late stage, is suddenly going to question the reliability of the Spanish contractors, or the problems resulting from frontier workers who claim that they have not been paid the wages due to them, they have only themselves to blame. The Government have consistently defended the use of this contractor and of course frontier labour and refused to accept any responsibility over the many months that people have been holding demonstrations on this site claiming that the wages due to them have not been paid.

In June of last year there was a stoppage of workers at the site who claimed that a sub-contractor had not paid them for five months. The sub-contractor declared at the time that they had not in turn been paid by Bruesa, the main contractor. The Opposition raised this issue in Parliament over a year ago and pressed the Government, over and above the normal machinery for administering the law on employment registration, tax and social insurance, to ensure, given that public funds were being spent, that all workers on the site were legally employed and paying their taxes, which of course could only happen if they were receiving their wages in the first place.

In March 2009, in answer to a follow-up question, the Government stated that steps had been taken to ensure compliance with all requirements, that surveillance had been carried out on numerous occasions, that employment records of contractors and sub-contractors were checked and that all the sub-contractors were effecting payment of their PAYE and Social Insurance liabilities. Clearly, if the steps taken in March as a result of the questions put the previous December had been continued on a regular basis, the protests of the workers would not have materialised since it is not possible for people to say they are not being paid while their employer is providing the Government with the deductions from those same wages.

The protests by workers claiming that they have not been paid and the delays to the project have been on-going for many months. Waterport Terraces should have been finished by July 2007. It is quite incredible, given this experience, that the Government has not acted sooner.

The plain fact is that the Government must take the political responsibility for the delay in the completion of Waterport Terraces, for the broken promises made to the purchasers, and for their repeated errors of judgment in relation to this project. The Government have now indicated that they intend to remove Bruesa from a second housing project, that at Rooke. The fact is that Bruesa has apparently already walked out and removed themselves from the project. The Opposition stated earlier this month that this was likely to happen sooner rather than later. What is clear is that the Government was wrong to award the contract to Bruesa in the first place.

Waterport Terraces

The Government have increased admission fees to the Upper Rock without giving any firm guarantee that the money generated by the Upper Rock will be channeled back to fund improvements to the area. In the past the Government have promised to at least use the additional income from increases on the Upper Rock for this purpose and then failed to do so.

At the time of the last budget, the Government announced a series of increases in Upper Rock admission fees and stated that these would come into effect on 1st October 2009. The Opposition condemned the planned increases and argued at the time that it did not make sense to increase fees at that point in the year, a view which was also held by many in the industry. In a legal notice published in the Gazette last month, the Government enacted the new fee structure by regulation stating that it would come into operation on 1 January 2010 instead.

There is a clear policy difference between the Government and the Opposition on this issue. The Opposition have long maintained that money raised by the Upper Rock should be spent on the Upper Rock for environmental and other purposes. The Government, however, have traditionally used Upper Rock income, which is about £ 3 million a year, as general revenue to cover expenditure which may have nothing to do with the Upper Rock or indeed even with the environment as a whole.

Upper Rock fees were also increased on 1 April 2005. Prior to that increase the Government, through the Tourist Board, circulated a letter to those in the industry setting out the new Upper Rock tariff structure. The letter declared that “the additional income which will be generated by the increase in admission fees will be directly invested in the Upper Rock tourist product” and “radical improvements” were promised.

The Government failed to live up to the expectations that had been generated. Figures supplied in Parliament following questions from Shadow Tourism Minister Dr Joseph Garcia show that from the financial year 2005/2006 until 2008/2009 as a whole even the additional income generated by that increase in fees was not all spent on the Upper Rock, let alone the entire level of revenue raised.

In the financial year 2008/2009 only £25,000 was spent on the Upper Rock even though about £3 million was raised in fees. Despite the increase in entrance fees and the fact that the Government is once more projecting £ 3 million in revenue, only about 10% of that sum is earmarked to be spent on the Upper Rock during this financial year. It remains to be seen how much is actually spent given that there has been a tendency in the past to spend less than is allocated.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Tourism Minister Dr Joseph Garcia said:
“The Upper Rock is Gibraltar’s greatest tourist asset. It is why many people come to visit Gibraltar and spend money here. It is important that the money raised by the Upper Rock should be spent on the Upper Rock in order to improve the quality of life of people who live there, of those who work there and of those who come to visit.”

Dr Joseph Garcia

The Opposition has received representations drawing attention to the presence of a large, elongated bump in front of Grand Ocean Plaza in Glacis Road on the basis that it is an accident waiting to happen. It poses a danger to pedestrians, particularly the elderly at night and it should be removed as a matter of urgency.

The area in question was covered by hoardings while it was a building site. Once the hoardings around the front of the building adjacent to Glacis Road have been removed, a large bump in the ground beside a fire hydrant came into view. In fact its size is such that it could be mistaken for a speed bump were it not on the pedestrian paved area as opposed to on the actual road itself.

It appears that this large bump has no function and that it was not part of the original design of the development. All the indications are that this has come about as a result of a miscalculation in the works associated with that part of the project.

It is difficult to understand how the Government has allowed the hoardings to be removed to expose this dangerous bump without insisting that the developers, or whoever is responsible, first repairs the area by flattening it back to street level. Indeed, it is quite incredible that the bump has been tiled over and presented as part of the finished project.

The Opposition considers that it is totally unacceptable that this issue was not addressed before the hoardings were removed. The Government has a duty to ensure that works have been carried out according to the approved plans and specifications. This is not the first time that the Opposition has highlighted issues of this nature. In 2007 we drew attention to the encroachment into the public highway of a building in King Street which also became visible once the hoardings around the building site had been removed.

Commenting on the matter, Shadow Minister responsible for development and planning Dr Joseph Garcia said:
“The Government must ensure that they maintain adequate staff and resources in order to be able to promptly spot and act upon this kind of situation before the development in question has been completed. In this way, considerable time and trouble will be saved for all concerned in the process of putting things right. In the meantime, however, this latest incident will only serve to add to the existing perception that when it comes to large, multi-million pound developments the people responsible can do what they like and get away with it.”

Dr Joseph Garcia

The Opposition reject the continuous references made in Spain to the “north terminal” and to “La Linea airport” and takes a very serious view of these developments. The airport is Gibraltar airport and it is built on British soil and we should not allow anything further to be said or done which undermines this fundamental principle.

It is obvious that Spanish politicians are under the impression that what has been described here as expanded use of Gibraltar airport is actually some form of joint use. The new Mayor of La Linea told a Spanish Radio station that he intends to develop the production of tomatoes and other vegetables in the municipality in order to export them to London and elsewhere through “the North terminal of the La Linea airport”. It has been reported that he has also participated in discussions with the Spanish Foreign Ministry and the Spanish airport operator AENA in relation to the development of the land in Spain next to where the Gibraltar terminal is being constructed. AENA stands for “Aeropuertos Espanoles y Navegacion Area”.

It would be totally unacceptable to have a building on the Spanish side which is called the “north terminal” or worse still “La Linea airport”. This would give the completely wrong impression to everyone including residents, passengers, tourists and other visitors to the area. The problem would be compounded if this proposed building is the one through which passengers can then access the new Gibraltar terminal itself.

The Opposition understands that this land is currently owned by the municipality of La Linea and that there are plans to develop some kind of building on the Spanish side of the border, adjacent to the Gibraltar terminal, which would include shops, restaurants and other services. Quite apart from the political concerns which arise from the statements made by the Mayor, there have also been logical concerns expressed of a commercial nature at the consequences of this to traders in the new Gibraltar terminal who would have to compete directly with traders on the Spanish side for the same business.

The construction of a new Gibraltar terminal and its relocation to an area next to the frontier with Spain has made it easier for Spanish politicians to suggest that there are two terminals, north and south, serving what is clearly for them the Campo de Gibraltar Airport. The relocation of the air terminal is something which the Opposition has never supported. It would never have happened had the existing air terminal building been expanded or refurbished instead on its present location something which would have also been more prudent economically. It is well known that Iberia started offering flights between Madrid and the what they called “Campo de Gibraltar” airports on their website when they commenced on the route. The last thing we need now are references to a “north terminal” or to “La Linea airport” as well.