The president of the Cabildo of La Palma, Sergio Rodríguez, condemns that the socialists have vetoed amendments to protect those affected by the Tajogaite volcano and the island's economy.
The president of the Cabildo of La Palma, Sergio Rodríguez, has lashed out at the Socialist Group in the Canary Parliament for their vote against the amendments presented to safeguard the island's economy. In a statement released this Thursday, the leader of Coalición Canaria stated that "the PSOE will have to explain why it votes against La Palma in the Canary Parliament," at a time he considers crucial for recovery following the eruption of the Tajogaite volcano in 2021.
Rodríguez expressed his "deep rejection" and "displeasure" at the socialists' stance, accusing them of prioritising "the interests of their party and their colours" over those of the affected citizens of the island and the Valle de Aridane. The criticism arises from Wednesday's vote on the amendment of the Sustainable Management of Tourist Housing Law, where PSOE and Nueva Canarias voted against the proposed amendments.
From the island's Cabildo, with the support of the other parliamentary groups, it was requested to "safeguard the rights of the affected families and the island's economic model above the 'political war'". The aim was to prevent the new regional regulations from harming the rights of those affected by the eruption or hindering the socioeconomic development of La Palma.
The island president explained that the Cabildo sent a letter to all parliamentary groups requesting that they debate the proposed amendments "in voce". However, the regulations require unanimity for this, and the PSOE and NC veto prevented the amendments from being included in the modified law that was approved. "They cut off the possibility of the law having already included them yesterday," lamented Rodríguez.
One of the key amendments proposes to "explicitly safeguard the rights of families who lost their properties under the flows of Tajogaite, not only to rebuild their homes but to maintain the use of vacation housing that they had been exercising and which was officially registered with the Government of the Canary Islands." The general regional regulations impose a minimum age of five years for tourist marketing, which, according to Rodríguez, "represents a temporal filter that limits the full right to reconstruction and commercial exploitation of the affected."
The island president recalled that this intention "is already supported by the spirit and the literal wording of the Volcan Law itself and by the recovery decrees issued by the Government of the Canary Islands." The second amendment seeks to safeguard the Territorial Planning Law for Tourist Activity in El Hierro, La Gomera, and La Palma, known as the OTAT Law, to adapt it to the specificities of these islands.
Rodríguez emphasised that there are "fundamental issues that must be transversal to party discrepancies" and called for the interests of La Palma to be placed above political confrontation. The controversy comes at a time when the island is still immersed in its reconstruction process following the volcanic eruption, with thousands of affected individuals still awaiting housing and economic solutions.
The Cabildo of La Palma insists that the modification of the tourism law must take into account the particularities of the island, where vacation rentals are an essential source of income for many families who lost their homes and businesses. The PSOE's stance, according to Rodríguez, contradicts the spirit of the laws specifically approved for the recovery of La Palma.
No official response has yet been issued from the socialist group in the Canary Parliament to Rodríguez's accusations. This week's vote highlights the political tension surrounding the management of the reconstruction, where the Cabildo, governed by CC, and the regional government, led by the socialist Ángel Víctor Torres, have disagreements over the pace and priorities of the aid.
Rodríguez concluded his remarks by warning that "the people of La Palma do not deserve their future to be played with" and demanded that the PSOE "show their face and explain why they voted against the interests of La Palma." The island continues to await the new tourism law to include the amendments that guarantee the protection of the affected and the island's economic development.
You may also like
