The PS coordinator of the TAP investigative committee said on Friday that there has never been a refusal to hand over documents, arguing that the facts should be established now and political conclusions only later.
This position was put forward by Socialist deputy Bruno Aragão after this morning in parliament Chega, IL, BE, PCP, PAN and Livre criticized the government’s contradictions regarding the possible existence of an opinion that warrants resignation of the executive chairmen and of the Board from TAP’s management, with further clarification from the executive.
In front of journalists, the PS coordinator of the Commission of Inquiry into the management of TAP maintained that so far “there has never been a refusal to hand over documents”.
“The committee asked for a set of documents, the government responded to the committee, the committee understood that this response was not within its understanding and took steps with the government. This was done in the early stages of the committee. so that they could comply with the commission’s requests,” he said.
During the press conference, Bruno Aragão never commented on the issue of the existence of apparent contradictions between the statements of Ministers Ana Catarina Mendes and Mariana Vieira da Silva, on the one hand, and the holder of the Finance portfolio, Fernando Medina, on the other. the other side.
“A commission of inquiry has been set up which must have all the conditions to exercise its mandate, request the documents it understands and listen to the people it understands and respond to this process in complete serenity,” he claimed .
When asked whether the PS has also been misled in this committee of inquiry into the question of the existence of an opinion that would justify the dismissal of the executive chairmen and of the Board of Directors of TAP, Bruno Aragão replied: “The questions are certainly not put like that”.
“The PS voted in favour, asked for a series of documents it does not know – and therefore cannot make a statement on them until it knows them. These documents are requested from a particular entity, be it the government or another, and the PS treatment is exactly the same,” he said.
Bruno Aragão later pointed out that, after the answers given to the different entities, “the Commission of Inquiry analyzes them and, if it disagrees, it must insist to the entity for that”.
The commission of inquiry must take place with the established rules and with the exemption. There is a big difference with a standing parliamentary committee,” he stressed, then remarked: The committee of inquiry “is about what happened and not about what I would like to see happen”.
“As for what happened, we must examine within the framework of what is possible in the light of time and ultimately draw conclusions. Political consequences will then be drawn from these conclusions,” he stressed.
The PS coordinator of the inquiry committee then tried to point out that so far “there has never been a refusal to hand over documents”.
“The committee asked for a set of documents, the government responded to the committee, the committee understood that this response was not within its understanding and took steps with the government. This was done in the early stages of the committee. so that they could comply with the commission’s requests,” he said.
Bruno Aragão tried to emphasize the basic principles he said were defended by the PS: “Total exemption, defined rules, clarity regarding the committee’s procedures”.
“For the citizens there can be no doubt as to what our mandate was and as to the conclusions. We must distinguish between what is the role of the parliamentary group and the deputies on this committee and the role of the government in the response to the between the institutions, be it parliament, government or government agencies, there is a healthy relationship, although sometimes there can be different views,” he added.
On Wednesday, the government justified its refusal to send the legal opinions supporting the resignation of the company’s former executive president to TAP’s Commission of Inquiry on the need to “protect the public interest”.
In a note to the Lusa bureau, the office of Deputy Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Ana Catarina Mendes, claims that “the opinion in question does not fall within the scope of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI)” and “its disclosure carries risks contributes to the defense of the legal position of the State”.
On Thursday, Finance Minister Fernando Medina stated at a parliamentary hearing that there is “no additional advice” to justify the dismissal of TAP’s ‘chairman’ and chairman of the executive committee (CEO), beyond what stems from the report of the General Inspectorate of Finance (IGF).
“There is no opinion, the idea that has arisen that there would be an opinion… there is no additional opinion on what is the basis of the ground for dismissal, which is more than enough for those who read it, with regard to the opinion of the Inspectorate of Finance,” said Fernando Medina.
Source: DN
