Opposition parties in the Cortes (PSPV and Compromís) announced yesterday that they will demand Generalitat Vice-President and Culture Minister Vicente Barrera appear on trial to “give explanations as to why he is breaking the law”. By maintaining the management of seven companies, incompatibilities were resolved.
PP and Vox, the party to which this member of Consell belonged, argued that for their part there was a two-month deadline for the relevant procedure to be carried out, emphasizing the “honesty” of this government.
Rebeca Torró, the socialist board of trustees, touched upon the information that many companies took part in the boards of directors yesterday, one and a half months after Vicente Barrera was appointed to the regional management after the Board of Trustees.
“We will ask him for clarifications and we will ask him to come forward, and we will ask him all questions and parliamentary initiatives as to why he violated the law. Currently, the vice president is breaking that rule as it is inappropriate to hold his position by being registered as director of seven companies,” Torró said.
Similarly, Compromís spokesperson Joan Baldoví also spoke, suggesting that she would ask the vice-president of her own formation to explain in Parliament whether she was exposed to a “clear mismatch”. That’s why Compromís asked the Conflict of Interest Bureau if there was evidence that this had happened, he said.
Baldoví noted that Barrera had time to put the situation in order. “He was the first to know that he would be vice-president, that he would become a minister. I knew this two months ago. “August was skilled at recording the market and therefore had time.”
Vox’s board of trustees, Ana Vega, stated that “there is a legal period of two months to submit the asset statement and take all necessary action”. Miguel Barrachina, also spokesperson for the PP, evaluated Barrerá’s “still on time” and argued that “the people’s government always follows the law”.
Consell spokesperson Ruth Merino also advocated waiting for deadlines to be met, noting that “vendor non-compliance is determined by law, not press headlines.”