The Deputy Chief Minister, Dr Joseph Garcia, delivered a wide-ranging address in Parliament, contextualising the Government’s response to the Principal Auditor’s 2018/2019 Report. He reinforced that the Government’s position is based on facts, evidence and detailed explanations already placed on the public record.

Dr Garcia emphasised that the subject matter of the Report is familiar and has appeared in successive audits for decades.

The difference, he argued, lies not in what the Report contains, but in:

1. The Opposition’s approach,
2. The way the Report was treated in the press,
3. The amplification of criticism through social media, and
4. The particular language and presentation style adopted in parts of the

These contextual factors, he said, explain the heightened public reaction and fully justify the

Government’s decision to respond by Motion in Parliament.

Government Has Provided Extensive Explanations

Dr Garcia recalled that over the summer the Government issued numerous press releases addressing, in detail, the very matters that later appeared in the Report—ranging from procurement issues to refuse collection reform, GHA accounts, overtime controls, EMIS, and the housing allocation in question. He stressed that nobody can credibly claim that the Government failed to supply information.

Northern Defences - Transparency and Positive Transformation

Speaking also as the Minister formerly responsible for the Northern Defences, Dr Garcia reiterated that the Expression of Interest process was public, transparent, and professionally evaluated by an eight-member expert panel.

He noted:

• Only one proposal met the required
• The chosen scheme is funded by private investment and tourists, not the
• The Government retains ownership of the
• The Procurement Office’s non-involvement was appropriate because this was an EOI, not a tender.
• The VEAT issue raised in the Report was a technical point, never raised in three previous EOIs over a decade.

He described criticism of the project as unfair and based on an overly technical interpretation of procurement rules that does not reflect the nature of heritage-led Expressions of Interest.

The Motion Is Not Unconstitutional, but Part of Democratic Oversight

Dr Garcia rejected Opposition claims that the Government’s Motion constituted an “assault on democracy”.

He argued:

• The Report was laid in Parliament; therefore, Parliament is the correct place for the Government to respond.

• Robust disagreement with an audit is normal in all democracies, he cited examples including the UK, Australia, and the EU.

• Audits themselves must be open to
• The constitutional arbiters of parliamentary procedure are not elected

Value for Money Audits are Conducted Without Statutory Power

The Deputy Chief Minister highlighted that the Auditor himself acknowledged having no specific statutory authority to conduct VFM audits, yet these are precisely the parts of the Report that have caused the greatest controversy. He pointed out that the Government has nonetheless facilitated these audits since 1992, including in the preparation of the present Report.

Many Issues Criticised Today Were Also Criticised When the Opposition Was in Office

Dr Garcia provided extensive historical examples from 2001 to 2011 demonstrating:

• Non-responsiveness to requests for information,
• Procurement shortcomings,
• Contract management deficiencies,
• Sick leave control failures,
• Weaknesses in rent arrears enforcement, all appeared in Reports during the Opposition’s own time in Government.

He argued this continuity makes it clear that the issues are systemic and longstanding, not political or unique to the current administration.

Social Media Has Fuelled Misunderstanding and Populist Narratives

He warned that the reduction of complex issues into short online soundbites has created fertile ground for misinformation, populism, and distortions of fact.

Key Takeaways Dr Garcia summarised the essential points:

• Audits are meant to identify deficiencies, not to provide a political
• Much of the Report is uncontroversial and accepted by the
• The Government had already implemented improvements before
• The Government has provided extensive data and
• A parliamentary Motion is a legitimate part of democratic
• The true risk to Gibraltar’s constitutional fabric comes not from the Motion, but from the Opposition’s polarising discourse, which he argues undermines public trust in Gibraltar’s

Conclusion

Dr Garcia concluded by stating that all governments make mistakes and must learn from them, but the Opposition’s approach has been “negative”, “destructive”, and “divisive”. He urged a more responsible tone, warning that the Opposition’s rhetoric risks fuelling distrust and damaging the institutions Gibraltar has relied upon since 1964.

The full text of the Deputy Chief Minister's speech is available here.