José Luis Ábalos registered this Monday 23 written questions to the Government on the Koldo case and verification carried out by the Ministry of Transport. The deputy now of the Mixed Group also requests that the Executive detail the economic cost of the report commissioned by Óscar Puente.
The one who was Minister of Transport between 2018 and 2021 also highlights the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Interior, the head of department and the detained second lieutenant in the management of the masks that were subcontracted to the company Soluciones de Gestión.
Point like this the responsibility of Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska and wonders what was the final destination of the masks managed by the Interior. Also inquire about the records of these face masks and what was the final number of units kept by this ministry.
Ábalos cites in his writings the exclusives published by EL ESPAÑOL on how the second lieutenant introduced businessmen to the Ministry of Transport and how Marlaska protected this civil guard despite the multiple complaints of abuse of power filed by unions and workers.
The Valencian MP also asks Óscar Puente whether it will request an audit for the order of 1.2 million masks manufactured in 2022 by the minister at the time, Raquel Sánchez.
The former minister indicates how it is possible that these irregularities documented in the audit were only known four years later and why no decision was taken against the Director General and the General Directorate of Organization and Inspection, administratively responsible for the reception and shipment of the masks.
He also calls for an investigation into the failure of the head of the department and the security sector to control access and record visits, with a focus on the special pass that the commissioner Víctor de Aldama had to access the ministry premises.
Ábalos’ 23 questions to the government:
1.- In the context of the actions carried out to prepare the “audit”, what were the criteria according to which a partial selection of the interviewees was carried out and the testimonies of all the people involved in the formation of the audit were not included in the files or carried out? interviews with all the people involved in the subject of the report, such as the main people responsible for the management of the ministry during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis?
2.- How do the officials who participated in the preparation of the “audit” know the overall demand that was necessary and the reasons for the political decision to buy more masks as a “strategic reserve”?
3.- Based on what criteria and his knowledge of the emergency situation, does the author of the audit report make assessments and value judgments on the appropriate and necessary quantity of masks to deal with a health emergency situation and therefore what principles and criteria does the preparation of the audit call into question exclusive political decisions in an administrative file?
4.- When did you become aware of the lack of masks at the Ministry of Transport?
5.- When did we learn that there were no records or delivery notes for the deposit and shipment of masks from the Ministry of Transport?
6.- Was the absence of delivery notes known before the Court of Auditors’ audit? If so, why was this absence not reported?
7.- If the knowledge was the result of the “audit”, which bodies/units of the Ministry of Transport were responsible for detecting the absence of minutes and delivery notes and why did they not do so? In this case, which bodies and mechanisms failed during these four years?
8.- What type of administrative responsibilities will the Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility demand from the heads of administrative bodies (High Office, General Directorate of Organization and Inspection, etc.) responsible for receiving and issuing orders for TMA masks? /263/2020 and TMA/292/2020 who should have exercised proper control over the execution of contracts as they have now denounced in the “audit” of the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, after four years?
9.- Knowing that there are 500,000 FFP2 masks in an Adif warehouse in Madrid, from an order for 1.2 million units placed in 2022, during the term of Minister Raquel Sánchez, does the current Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility think that she will also order an “audit” to determine both the appropriate need for the purchase of these masks and their management two years after the files related to the execution of Orders TMA/263/2020 of March 20 and TMA/292/2020?
10.- How do you explain that during these four years you have not detected the “irregularities” that you now report in your “audit”, nor checked the proper compliance with the execution of the contracts, nor guaranteed the chain of traceability of the masks, nor the functions of the personnel responsible for drawing up the reports and issuing these masks, such as the Prefecture and/or the General Directorate of Organization and Inspection?
11.- Why, in the case of Mr. Aldama, does the audit report not investigate the failure of the Director General and the Security Zone to comply with their responsibilities of adequate control and recording of access to the Ministry, not having reported until four years later to the higher authorities these irregularities as now if they are included in said audit report?
12.- Why, in the case of the Civil Guard second lieutenant arrested for the “Delorme affair”, does the “audit” not investigate the “unregistered visits” of the businessmen he introduced to the Ministry and whose facts were reported by the MITMA security team, as reported in the EL ESPAÑOL article of June 7 referenced in the “Explanation of reasons”?
13.- Is there any documentation from the security zone on Mr. Aldama’s access records and the “unregistered visits” of the Civil Guard sub-lieutenant that allows us to know exactly the number of times they accessed during the years 2020 and 2021? What do the corresponding protocols of the Ministry indicate?
14.- Why did the office of the senior officer allow access to the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard (personnel not linked to MITMA and who was the one who managed the masks of the Ministry of the Interior, according to his own confession) to a unit where the masks of the Ministry of Transport, Sustainable Mobility and Urban Agenda were kept, as shown in a recording published on September 13 by the digital newspaper EL ESPAÑOL with the title “Marlaska protected the Civil Guard from the ‘Koldo case’ despite complaints in Transport.”, article previously referenced in the “Explanation of reasons”?
15.- Is there any evidence that during these four years, the Prefecture has issued any kind of formal report or communication regarding the existence of the deposit and shipment/destination of these masks in the offices of the Ministry of Transport, authorized by the Ministry itself? has it provided some keys, in the event of a break in the chain of possession of the masks?
16.- Which superior authorized the senior officer to give the Civil Guard second lieutenant the key to the unit where the masks from the Ministry of Transport were kept?
17.- If there is authorization, what documentation justifies such a delegation of administrative powers to the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard?
18.- How many masks from this warehouse went to other agencies of other ministries and specifically how many were brought to the Ministry of the Interior and which agencies of said Ministry?
19.- Was there any record of the sending of these masks to the Ministry of the Interior?
20.- What documentation is there that documents the masks that the Civil Guard sub-lieutenant brought to the Ministry of the Interior, as reported in the aforementioned article from El Español and which says that the sub-lieutenant acknowledges having managed these masks for the Ministry of the Interior?
21.- To which destination within the Ministry of the Interior were these masks transported?
22.- Has the Ministry of the Interior paid the amount corresponding to these masks?
23.- What was the economic cost of this “audit” which did not result in the demand for any responsibility on the part of those responsible for the irregularities detected?
