Former Minister of Transport José Luis Ábalos presented to Congress, as a member of the Joint Group, a document in which he launches a series of questions to the government on the internal audit ordered by the current Minister Óscar Puente regarding the contracting of the company Management Solutions, which is being investigated before the National Court.
The audit concluded that “it seems clear that the requirements of these files have not been fully met,” which has called into question the management of his predecessor in power, the socialist Ábalos.
The former minister defends himself in his writing presented to Congress and considers the conclusions of the audit as “deficient and biased”, while expressing surprise that said audit was in charge of aspects on which neither the Court of Auditors nor the General Intervention of the State Administration (IGAE) focused. Ábalos poses the following questions to the government regarding said audit:
-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 constitution of the files were not taken into account and interviews with them were not carried out? all those involved in the subject of the report, such as the main officials responsible for the management of the ministry during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis?
– How do the officials who participated in the preparation of the “audit” know the overall demand that was needed and the reasons for the political decision to buy more masks as a “strategic reserve”?
– Based on what criteria and 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 according to what principles and criteria of preparation? of the “audit”, a question in an administrative file of decisions exclusive to the political sphere?
-When did you become aware of the lack of masks at the Ministry of Transport?
– When did we learn that there were no records or delivery notes for the deposit and shipment of masks from the Ministry of Transport?
– Was the absence of delivery notes known before the Court of Auditors’ audit? If so, why was this absence not reported?
– If the knowledge is 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 were failing four years ago?8. What type of administrative responsibilities will the Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility demand from the heads of administrative bodies (senior civil servants, General Directorate of Organization and Inspection, etc.) in charge of receiving and issuing masks under the TMA/ ? 263/2020 and TMA/292/2020 decrees who should have exercised proper control over the execution of the contracts as they themselves have now denounced in the “audit” of the Ministry of Transport and Sustainable Mobility, after four years?
– 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, is the current Minister of Transport and Sustainable Mobility also ordering 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 and TMA/292/2020?
– 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 traceability chain of the masks, nor the functions of the personnel responsible for drawing up the reports and the deliveries of these masks, such as the Prefecture and/or the General Directorate of Organization and Inspection?
– Why, in the case of Mr. Aldama, does the audit report not investigate the failure of the head of the department and the security sector to comply with their responsibilities for proper control and registration of access to the Ministry, having only reported these irregularities to higher authorities four years later, as is now reflected 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 brought to the Ministry and whose actions were reported by the MITMA security team, as reported in the article in “El Español” of June 7 referenced in “Explanation of Reasons”?
– 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, as they mark the corresponding ministerial protocols?
– 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 were kept? , Mobility and Urban Agenda, 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.” mentioned in the “Explanation of reasons”?
– Is there evidence that during these four years, the Office of the Chief of Service 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 Chief of Service Officer himself? and that for its custody he allowed and left, in a clear delegation of administrative responsibilities of his powers, free access to said material to people outside MITMA, such as the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard and to whom he provided some keys, assuming a loss of the chain of custody of the masks? Which hierarchical superior authorized the senior officer to give the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard the key to the unit where the masks of the Ministry of Transport were kept?
– If there is authorization, what documents justify such a delegation of administrative powers to the second lieutenant of the Civil Guard?
– 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?
– Was there any record of these masks being sent to the Ministry of the Interior?
– 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?
– Where within the Ministry of the Interior were these masks sent?
