Do you agree with the intervention of IdD – Portugal Defense in this process?
There is no justification for making this expense on the IdD. Not only is it unnecessary, but there are other priorities in the Armed Forces that deserve our attention.
It seems that the government has no confidence in its armed forces to acquire its resources.
It seems that the government has no confidence in its armed forces to acquire its resources. If there is anyone who knows the human and material resources of the Armies, it is the Armies!
On top of that, you are duplicating and wasting resources. He then forms a working group with representatives from different bodies of the Ministry of Defense, such as the General Directorate of National Defense Resources, the Minister’s Office, etc., to which is also added the IdD?? A public company to which you will pay more than €5 million? Why? Logic?? Of course not. It’s not nice.
Because it’s not cool?
This Resolution of the Council of Ministers which authorizes this contract violates the Military Programming Law, the Organic Law n° articles 2 and 3, the powers of execution of this law to the central services of the Ministry of National Defense (MDN), and the powers of control of its execution to the Assembly of the Republic.
However, according to the organic law of the MDN, in particular in its article 4, paragraph 2, the central services of the MDN are: the General Secretariat, the General Inspectorate of National Defense, the General Directorate of National Defense, the DGRDN, the National Defense Institute and the Military Judicial Police.
As the IdD, which is part of the state affairs sector, is not on this list, it does not have the authority to execute contracts under the military programming law.
Therefore, since the IdD, which is part of the state business sector, is not on this list, it does not have contract enforcement authority under the military programming law. Nor for its control, competence attributed exclusively to the Assembly of the Republic.
Nor can it be said that they could be exercised by simple delegation of powers, because this possibility is not provided for by the LPM, as required by the rules of delegation of powers provided for by the code of administrative procedure.
On the other hand, it is also important to note that the IdD statutes are illegal precisely in the part where this LPM jurisdiction is provided.
The LPM, as I said, is a law of reinforced value which can only be changed in the AR by a law of equal value.
Therefore, this expenditure is not supported by an enabling legal norm, it is therefore illegal and cannot be paid, taking into account the rules provided for by the Budget Law, Law No. Article 52, which stipulates that no expenditure may be authorized without, cumulatively, “(…) The event giving rise to the obligation complies with the applicable legal standards (…)”.
These expenses are illegal and serve to illegally finance this public company.
These expenditures are illegal, as has been said, and are used to illegally fund this public enterprise.
But, in addition to the obvious illegality, and at a time when the armies are encountering significant difficulties in their operation, without means, spending €5 million on the purchase of services to accompany the contracting of military equipment is above all to make fun of of our armed forces.
What risks do you identify in this process?
More than the illegality of outsourcing these services to the IdD? More than the waste of 5M€?
Our Armed Forces face chronic difficulties, lack of human and material resources. NPOs are an essential resource for the Navy to fulfill its mission, which is highly compromised due to the lack of resources.
Neither the Navy nor the Army and Air Force can wait any longer.
Delivery of the first NPO is scheduled for 2023. At this stage, can this deadline only be met with direct adjustments? It is acceptable?
I have serious doubts about their ability to deliver the first NPO in 2023, given the already verified deadlines.
If we look, for example, at the last execution report of the LPM, sent to Parliament in April this year, the average percentage of execution is only 54%!
I do not believe that this is the best way to improve the levels of execution of a fundamental law for the accomplishment of the missions of the armed forces, which need this law for the acquisition of equipment and weapons military.