Cristina Herrero is concerned about the repercussions that the open war with José Luis Escrivá could have for AIReF. Because of the attacks that she has received from her former boss and Minister of Social Security, and because of the doubts that she has wanted to raise about the work of the Independent Authority for Fiscal Responsibility. And that is why it has decided that it should not only respond to Escrivá’s words, as it did last week after presenting the report on the Minimum Vital Income (IMV), but that yesterday it should go further and intensify the confrontation that is based on four big disagreements. Four Gordian knots, starting with what she sees as a blatant lack of loyalty on the part of the former president.
In his speech during the seminar that the Association of Economic Information Journalists (APIE) organizes annually in Santander, Herrero clearly pointed out that Escrivá is putting AIReF’s work “into question”. He was referring to the fact that, as soon as he presented the opinion on the IMV, Social Security issued a statement in which he stated that “some of the data included in the report and the analyzes that depend on them suffer from poor quality and lack of foundation, which which calls into question their conclusions. According to AIReF, the benefit barely reaches half of the households estimated by the Ministry, and that made Escrivá very angry. If we add to this that, already in March, the body also failed the pension reform, the result is that the minister did not hesitate to attack the institution that he himself created and made grow. An attack, in the opinion of the current director, unacceptable. It is a question of principles and loyalty, they emphasize from the Tax Authority.
Closely linked to the previous point. Herrero considers that Escrivá’s words are disrespectful. That doubts can be expressed about the work that he is developing at the head of AIReF or be against the conclusions of a certain work, but without disqualifying. «There may be differences and discrepancies, but always supported by rigorous technical data. What cannot be expected is a disqualification,” Herrero said first. «Discrepancy in data and rigorous technical arguments, all. Disqualifications, never. And that disqualification cannot be justified, “he insisted a second time. “The discrepancy is good, the differences are good, but there are limits of respect,” he insisted for the third time.
Herrero, who was very clear that yesterday he was going to respond harshly to Escrivá, has also been very annoyed that the Ministry has denounced an absolute lack of dialogue. “The opinion has been prepared without dialogue with the area of the Ministry that directs this policy,” said Social Security in its criticism of the IMV. Already that same day, the president of AIReF stated that it was not true, but this Thursday she was even more specific. “We had six or seven dialogues beforehand, and another three dialogues once the draft” of the opinion was set, she said. From the Tax Authority they remember that they are obliged to send the opinion to the corresponding body at least 10 days in advance, and that they did so.
I had it saved for three years. Until now, he had not wanted to reveal it, but Herrero did not like at all that Escrivá decided to go from AIReF to the Government. From auditor to auditee. «It is not good to go from AIReF to the Government, and impossible to go from the Government to AIReF. It is not good for the institution », he said already at the beginning of his speech yesterday. They were very revealing words of what he thinks of Escrivá’s movement and the attitude that the minister, as a whole, is having towards the Fiscal Authority. Already in the afternoon, the former president himself was questioned about these words and, far from trying to calm the situation, he lashed out at Herrero. From Paris, and in statements collected by EFE, he accused what was his number 2 of having “a very narrow vision of what independence is.” Preventing this type of movement would be, in his opinion, “stealing the possibility of something as high as the highest level public function in a Government from people with this experience.” And he ended up comparing his case with Mario Draghi or Christine Lagarde, who have alternated positions in the governments of Italy and France with their presidencies of organizations as relevant as the European Central Bank (ECB) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).