Gibraltar’s national interest must come first

By Gemma Arias Vasquez (*)

I have read Nick Cruz’s opinion piece of 1st July with interest. 

It is telling that, even in criticising the Government, he accepts the central point that Gibraltar needs a proper residence framework. He accepts that our public services must be protected. He accepts that abuse must be prevented. He accepts that there is a legitimate need to ensure that those who come to live in Gibraltar make a genuine contribution. Any conversation with our teachers, nurses and doctors tells you that the concern is being felt in the classrooms and hospital wards and not only from the data collected leading up to this decision.  

Government is seeking a balance between our public services and business. Mr Cruz and/or the Opposition is providing no alternative framework.  

What Gibraltar cannot afford is an unmanaged system where residence is granted without clear evidence of contribution. That would not be pro-business. It would not be pro-growth. It would be irresponsible. It is also not what occurs in other jurisdictions.  

Mr Cruz seeks to dress this issue up in the old language and arguments of the 1996 election. But Gibraltar has moved on. The world has moved on. The Treaty negotiations, the post-Brexit reality and the pressures on our public services require serious policy, not reheated political slogans from thirty years ago. 

Mr Cruz knows that. He is an experienced lawyer and businessman. He knows very well that this is not 1996, and that responsible government cannot be conducted by dusting off old political slogans whenever a serious policy decision has to be taken. 

British citizens have made, and will continue to make, an important contribution to Gibraltar. They are welcome here when they come to work, invest, contribute and be part of our community. The message is very clear. We WANT British Citizens to come and work here, and we want them to contribute to the system.   

The suggestion that this Government is somehow anti-British is as lazy as it is wrong. The Government has consulted on these proposed rules with the Convent and the FCDO. At no time has it been suggested by any party that these necessary and proportionate changes are anti-British in any way. They are not. 

The Government of Gibraltar has worked throughout these Treaty negotiations with the United Kingdom Government, the FCDO and the Convent to protect Gibraltar’s British sovereignty, our British way of life and our ability to determine our own future. It is absurd to suggest that a policy designed to protect Gibraltar’s public services and ensure sustainable residence is somehow anti-British.  

But being British cannot, of itself, be the only test for residence in Gibraltar. 

The test must be whether a person’s residence is sustainable for Gibraltar. That means looking at employment, income, accommodation, tax, social insurance, compliance and the wider public interest. 

The question is – what would Mr Cruz’s GSD/PDP (or whoever is the flavour of the day) do? We all know Mr Cruz is very enterprising. What suggestion would he come up with to protect Gibraltar’s public services whilst encouraging business? 

Nor do I need lectures from Mr Cruz on the importance of business. Before entering Government, I was Chair of the GFSB. I know the value of small businesses, entrepreneurs and employers because I have represented them, worked with them and listened to them. But supporting business does not mean surrendering Gibraltar’s right to control residence. 

Mr Cruz also complains about consultation. What he really appears to mean is that the Government did not consult him personally, or did not adopt the position he would have preferred. That is not the same thing as saying there was no consultation. 

There has, in fact, been extensive engagement over many months with relevant stakeholders, including business representative bodies and those with direct knowledge of the housing, employment and residence systems. The policy was also shared with the Leader of the Opposition before publication. No private comments were received from him on the policy at that stage. No feedback given. No views expressed. You would have thought if the objections were genuine, they would have been made vociferously to the Chief Minister BEFORE the policy was published and not by way of press release.  

Indeed, the recent Viewpoint discussion before the official announcement rather proves the point. The themes of the policy, and many of its practical details, were already very well understood and were being debated in public before the formal announcement was made. That does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because there had already been serious engagement and discussion. 

Mr Cruz also suggests that the Government should have negotiated Freedom of Establishment. That may sound attractive if one views the issue only through the prism of certain business interests. But Government has to consider the interests of Gibraltar as a whole. 

This is where Mr Cruz’s argument is most revealing. He presents Freedom of Establishment as though it were a small technical clause which the Government could simply have asked for and obtained. He knows better. 

International negotiations of this nature are not conducted on the back of a business wish list. He also knows that Gibraltar cannot simply pluck one convenient freedom from a wider legal framework without accepting the consequences which come with it. 

Freedom of Establishment would not only have been a convenience for a small number of businesses seeking to recruit in a particular way. It would have created a much wider rights-based regime with significant consequences for Gibraltar. It would have affected our ability to control residence, manage access to public services, protect our labour market and determine who is entitled to establish themselves here. 

That is not a minor matter for Gibraltar. We are a small jurisdiction of around 38,000 people, with limited housing, limited land, one public health service and one public education system. Any arrangement which materially widened enforceable residence or establishment rights by the 450 million EU residents would have had to be considered against those realities. 

Mr Cruz may be prepared to treat those realities as an inconvenience. The Government is not. 

It is easy for Mr Cruz to argue for what may suit his own business interests and the interests of businesses like his. It is much harder, and much more important, to protect the long-term interests of Gibraltar as a whole. That is the responsibility of Government. 

The Government’s duty is not to negotiate what may suit one sector, one employer or one business model. The Government’s duty is to negotiate and legislate in the interests of Gibraltar. 

That is the difference. 

I understand that business wants certainty. I agree with that. That is why the regulations which we will publish are important. They will provide the practical detail needed to ensure that the system works fairly and sensibly. 

The Government has already made clear that there will be flexibility for younger workers, for skills which Gibraltar needs, for genuine economic contribution and for circumstances where it is plainly in Gibraltar’s interests to grant residence. But flexibility does not mean abandoning control. Nor does certainty mean that Gibraltar should give up the right to decide who may reside here and on what basis. 

The £37,500 threshold has also been criticised. It is not an arbitrary figure. It reflects average gross annual earnings in Gibraltar. The purpose is simple, as we have been at pains to repeat. Those who come to live here should be able to sustain themselves and contribute to the public services from which residents benefit. 

Of course, there will be cases where a rigid application of any threshold would not make sense. That is why the framework provides for exceptions. But the starting point must be contribution. 

The same applies to start-ups and new businesses. Gibraltar wants entrepreneurship. Gibraltar wants investment. Gibraltar wants new ideas. But it must also guard against the creation of structures which are used simply to obtain residence without a real, sustainable and compliant economic footprint. Here, there is also a discretion to waive this requirement should it be deemed genuinely unfair.  That is not anti-business. That is protecting reputable business. 

Mr Cruz appears to believe that because a policy does not suit his preferred business model, it must therefore be bad for Gibraltar. That is not a serious national argument. It is a narrow commercial argument dressed up as constitutional concern. 

The Government will continue to engage with the Chamber, the GFSB and other stakeholders. We will listen to practical points. We will refine the operational detail where it is sensible to do so. But we will not apologise for putting Gibraltar first. 

There is a balance to be struck. We must remain open to talent, investment and enterprise. But we must also protect our housing, our schools, our health service, our infrastructure and the integrity of our immigration and residence system. That is the balance the Government is seeking to achieve. 

The difference is simple. The Government needs to protect and strive for the Gibraltar of the future. We need to protect our public services. We need to balance this with the opportunities that will arise from the treaty for business and want to ensure that all who come to live here feel welcome and contribute fairly.  

We are here to see Gibraltar flourish. This is not an issue to try to score political points on. We need to protect the Gibraltar of the future.  

That is what this Government is doing. 

Gemma Arias Vasquez, Minister for Health, Care and Business