  |
Statement by the leader of the Opposition the Hon Joe Bossano
|
Notwithstanding the fact that Mr Caruana, with the benefit of being in Government was able to deliver a half an hour television broadcast as his New Year Message, and that my New Year message was limited to the eight minutes available as a GSLP party political broadcast, he has now chosen to launch an attack on me because of the views on the pensions reflected in my New Year message. These views have been defended by us in the Opposition in the past.
Mr Caruana chooses to accuse me of engaging in a cynical ploy because in my judgement the offer by the UK to pre-1969 Spanish pensioners is in breach of EU law on the grounds of discrimination between the affected groups and all other pensioners who would receive inferior treatment. This is the same argument the UK used in 1988 to insist that everybody?s pension had to be frozen to have equal treatment with the affected group.
It seems there is no limit to the lengths that Mr Caruana will go to and the insulting language, questioning people?s integrity, that he will resort to, when he wants to suppress views that does not coincide with his own.
Since I have no wish to convert this serious and important issue into a slinging match with him, I will simply point out that a number of statements made by Mr Caruana in his attack on me are not true. Unlike him, I will assume that he has made mistakes and not that he is engaged in a cynical ploy to mislead pensioners.
People can judge for themselves whether what I am saying is false as Mr Caruana claims, or whether I am right and he is wrong.
(1) Mr Caruana says ?Contrary to what Mr Bossano says the UK has not admitted that what they did (freezing pensions) was wrong?.
?There was a wrong that needed to be put right? said Mr Hoon. This is how the UK Minister for Europe explained the deal to pay pre-1969 pensioners a lump sum and revalued pensions when talking to the UK press on 18 September 2006.
On 24 September 2006 I wrote to Mr Hoon quoting this and told him that the biggest wrong, which was not being put right, had been perpetrated against post-1969 contributors who had paid much higher social insurance stamps. I also spelt out then the grounds on which I believe the proposals were discriminatory and contrary to EU law.
(2) Mr Caruana says ?It is extraordinary for Mr Bossano to now assert that the pensions deal at Cordoba has nothing to do with Community Care. Everyone in Gibraltar knows that Community Care is the cause of the whole Spanish pensions challenge and dispute.
In 2002 the Gibraltar Government told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the Complaint before the EU Commission since 2001 was concerned with the freeze on pensions and was not about the existence or otherwise of the payment of the Household Cost Allowance by Community Care Limited.
In 2003 Mr Caruana told the Foreign Affairs Committee, quote ?the Committee should be aware that Spanish pensioners do not claim HCA payments or the modification of the HCA Scheme. They claim an entitlement under EC Law to receive regular uprates of their statutory pensions, which have been frozen by decision of HMG, since 1988. Even if HCA were modified as UK suggests or even disappear altogether, the claim of the Spanish pensioners, being as explained, would remain. Since HMG is liable for the payment of Spanish pensions it is also liable for any arrears (rising as time passes) of any entitlement of Spanish pensioners to pension uprates, which may exist in EU Law?.
(3) Mr Caruana claims, quote ?the EU Commission has argued that Community Care may be illegal because it discriminates against ex workers who are residents of Spain and who have not been entitled to receive Community Care payments, as Gibraltar pensioners have done since 1990. If that challenge were to be taken successfully to its conclusion, the UK (as the Member State) would be liable?.
In 2001 the Gibraltar Government proposed to UK that it should increase the rates on the basis of the Cost of Living increases since 1988 and that it would do likewise for Gibraltar residents. Clearly, had this policy been accept by UK, it would have resulted in revalued pensions six years ago and the continued payment of Household Cost Allowance, as has been the case for Gibraltar residents.
In the last two years there have been statements to the effect that the European rules applicable to the coordination of Social Security could not be applied to payments made by Community Care. This indeed has been the position defended by all Gibraltar Governments since Community Care payments started and is reflected in all the correspondence between Gibraltar and UK and the statements made publicly. However, should the Commisson decide otherwise at some future date, that decision would not be affected or influenced one way or the other by whether someone receives revalued pensions and Community Care payments or not.
If indeed the fact that a person received both revalued Social Security pensions and Community Care payments were to be a factor, then of course that argument would apply not just to persons receiving these from March 2007 backwards but also to those receiving them from April 2007 forwards. Mr Caruana is trying to make people believe that getting both before in March 2007 or earlier does have an effect, but getting it from April 2007 and after does not. There is no basis for this either in logic or in law.
This is why we argue that the receipt of Community Care payments is not a relevant factor and should form no part of this debate. We would say that Mr Caruana by arguing the opposite now is contradicting everything he has said before.
|
|
|
|
