The Plenary of the Canary Islands Parliament has approved the report from the investigation committee on the health contracts during the pandemic, which points to former president Ángel Víctor Torres. PSOE, NC-BC, and ASG walked out of the debate and presented a dissenting vote.
The Canary Islands Parliament approved this Thursday the report from the investigation committee regarding the health contracts from the previous legislature. The text attributes “particularly intense” political responsibility to former president Ángel Víctor Torres, the former director of the Canary Health Service, Antonio Olivera, and other officials from the health sector. The session highlighted a deep fracture between the groups that supported the previous government and the current partners of Fernando Clavijo's Executive.
Mass Walkout and Dissenting Vote
The parliamentary groups of PSOE, Nueva Canarias-Bloque Canarista (NC-BC), and the Agrupación Socialista Gomera (ASG) left the debate before the vote. They presented a dissenting vote, arguing that the conclusions of the report are not based on “verified facts.” ASG's position was crucial: as part of the previous coalition government, the Gomera party aligned with the socialists, denying any responsibility and labelling the investigation as political persecution.
ASG deputy, Jesús Ramos, defended the complexity of the moment: “One cannot analyse what happened in the early months of the crisis with the calmness of 2026.” Ramos recalled that decisions were made “within hours” due to international competition for health materials. He emphasised that it is not legitimate to generalise administrative failures over a total of nearly 1,400 contracts.
“Political Circus” vs. “Direct Intervention”
The president of the socialist group, Nira Fierro, described the committee as a “political circus.” She denounced that the procedure “was born with a pre-written verdict” to undermine Torres. According to Fierro, the more than 70 testimonies given dismantle the opposition's narrative, and she reminded that the Canary Islands had one of the lowest mortality rates during the pandemic.
In the same vein, NC-BC deputy, Esther González, criticised the report as an attempt to build a “narrative with pre-identified culprits.” She particularly questioned the attribution of blame to former councillor Teresa Cruz, who “only held the position for 14 days” at the head of the health department at the onset of the pandemic. González warned that the recommendations from the report could lead to an excess of “reports, authorisations, and bureaucracy” that would hinder future emergencies.
In contrast, Coalición Canaria defended the validity of the committee. Deputy Vidina Espino stated that the report “dismantles the narrative” that the awards were merely technical. She asserted that there was “direct political intervention” in cases such as Soluciones de Gestión, Eurofins Megalab, or RR7. In the latter case, “four million euros” were paid to a company that did not deliver the contracted materials.
Proposals to Avoid Opacities
Raúl Acosta (AHI), president of the committee, defended the neutrality of the work and highlighted the twenty proposals that emerged to prevent “opaque situations” from recurring. He acknowledged the existence of a “legal wall” that hindered access to documentation but insisted that the goal was to improve public oversight. “The Canarians have paid millions of euros” without it being clear who proposed or authorised certain awards under the emergency framework, he noted.
The controversy leaves a polarised political landscape. For CC and PP, the report is a necessary tool to reinforce transparency. For the groups of the previous Executive, it is a political cause based on the exceptional nature of a tragedy. The division ensures that health contracts will continue to dominate parliamentary discussions in the coming months, with the management of the pandemic becoming a permanent weapon of contention.
You may also like
