SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE, June 10. (EUROPE PRESS) –
The president of the Parliament of the Canary Islands, Gustavo Matos, said this Friday that the change of the 89 armchairs –seats– of the Plenary Hall of the Chamber –for a total cost of 1,157 euros each and just over 100,000 euros in total– it is not a “whim” and is motivated by technical criteria of the maintenance service.
In an interview with ‘Cope Canarias’ collected by Europa Press, he has indicated that the change is made to change the current ones, with more than 30 years of use, the Canarian Parliament being the only one in all of Spain that has not undertaken a modification of these characteristics .
Matos has criticized the “salseo” and the “demagoguery” around this contract that is based on a technical report that points out that the current armchairs are “unsustainable” and “are obsolete”, because every time they break pieces have to be made by hand, apart from the fact that they are fireproof and break the law.
With the technical report in hand, he indicated, another report was requested from the General Directorate of Heritage of the Government of the Canary Islands to define which is the most appropriate model of chair given that the chamber headquarters is of Cultural Interest (BIC).
From there, he pointed out that the Parliament’s technicians prepared the contract specifications and the bases of the competition and the companies presented themselves, stressing that in the end “it came out quite well” in price because at the beginning of the legislature, for example, two new seats as a result of the increase in the number of deputies and a craftsman from La Orotava made them for more than 1,600 euros each, with which the reduction is approximately 20%.
Matos has ironized that they could have put “Ikea or Leroy Merlin armchairs” since the Parliamentary Table has no interest in one model or another, but it cannot be done due to technical aspects derived from the BIC condition of the building.
In fact, he has indicated that no politician has participated in the preparation of the file, only the technicians of the Chamber.
REGRET THE NEGATIVE IMAGE ON THE CAMERA
The president has lamented that an attempt has been made to “cast” a negative image on the institution and in a “tortuous” way to give an “appearance” that the deputies are “despicable gentlemen” who only think of “luxury and comfort” and do not have “no respect” for public money.
Likewise, he has said that he is “saddened” by the statements of some public officials who could “have been more rigorous” and “at least have called” members of the Bureau to have some explanation about a file that is “posted on the website of the Parliament from minute 1”.
He has claimed that “the fairest market price and least burdensome for the public coffers” has been achieved and understands that any comparison with an eviction case makes an expense of this type “showy and unfair”.
The president has commented that the seats that are going to be replaced will be tried to reuse them in other dependencies of the Chamber if possible and indicated that “privately” many deputies support the initiative because there are “permanent complaints”.
