Minister of Culture Thill gets political pressure around Mudam-Interna

The Mudam affair is not only increasingly political, but also more explosive: MPs Djuna Bernard (Déi Gréng) criticized last week after a meeting of the Chamber Culture Commission, the lack of transparency by Minister of Culture Eric Thill (DP) in the dossier.

Now, according to Djuna Bernard, it turns out that the Minister of Culture did not say the whole truth. This explains the Greens MP in a telephone conversation with the « Luxembourg word ».

The background: Last Wednesday, the opposition asked to receive insights into the apparently detailed letter of withdrawal, which the demoquated president of the Mudam Board of Directors, Patrick Majerus, sent to the Ministry of Culture. Eric Thill replied that Patrick Majerus’ concerns that this document was not made public, since this was a personal letter to the minister.

As Djuna Bernard explains, Patrick Majerus, in turn, contacted her and emphasizes that this as the minister claimed, did not vote. His declaration of withdrawal could be made accessible. The « Luxembourg word » also has an email that testifies to this.

Last week, after a violent discussion, the cultural commission also agreed that at least the conclusions of an additional inventory are made transparent in the Mudam. However, the Chamber Culture Commission has not yet received this document.

In the Chamber plenary session on Tuesday, April 29, Djuna Bernard confronted the minister against this background with his statement and the documents that have not previously been submitted. The MP used the question time to the government and was enough To do this, a corresponding application shortly before the session a.

Bernard referred to the audio recording of the commission meeting a week ago: Three main employees of the ministry – including the central employees Carl Adalstelsson and Gene Kasel – had already received the approval of Majerus on January 30th as part of the legal situation. « Why did you, Mr. Thill, not told the truth in the Chamberber Commission? Why do you hold back documents that the author explicitly shares to share for reasons of transparency? And when do we get the said letter with the appropriate attachments? » Bernard referred to the commission’s control function.

Eric Thill replied, « I stand by what I told you last week. » He received the letter personally and with the trust of Majerus. With Majerus’ reference to confidential, personal, not certain information in the letter, he had noticed not publicly sharing him. However, he wanted to check whether Majerus later communicated it differently to his employees. If this is actually Majerus’ will, he will « pass on the letter of withdrawal » without a problem.

Opposition calls for documents by resolution

What the results of the advisory company Qualia tackled, said Thill that this paper contained personal data. A full or partial publication still has to be clarified. « I do not close myself to the chamber to provide the information that I can pass on. » As soon as an examination of data protection has been completed and the « GO » is there, he « has no problem making the documents available. »

Bernard was not satisfied with the response from the Minister of Culture and, after the question time, submitted a resolution in which she pointed out that the parliament had a control function and « we shouldn’t be danced around on the nose ». There is a duty to transparent and documents requested to chamber.