.
- What were the arguments you put on the table to those responsible for the Island Council and the members of the opposition who moved to Las Palmas?
- In principle, we talked about the fact that the Ministry can give its opinion on matters of legality, but matters of opportunity correspond to the Island Council, which is the promoter and the one that has the competence to decide what tourism model it wants. It is true that this Special Territorial Plan is a relatively simplified Plan because the law has made it so, to have it in a reasonably short time. Time in which none of the territorial plans has been approved but most are pending drafting, as is the case with the Lanzarote Plan. In this context, we reiterate the position of the Ministry regarding legality, that the Plan contains all the parameters and determinations that have to do with tourism on the Island, something that gives coherence to the document. Planning is more perfect the more content it has and gives a more global vision. And in that context we find no legal reason why it should not contain the real solution, not only in a project of territorial implementation of tourist beds but of everything associated with those beds: the tourist offer, the infrastructure, etc. So to the question of whether it is possible for the Plan to contain the complementary tourist offer, we suggest that it is not only possible but, from our point of view, it is convenient. But it is a matter to be assessed by the Island Corporation, therefore, the Ministry has to ensure that the Plan has the minimum content established by law, and the minimum content contains it, whether or not it has that complementary offer. From that point of view, the decision is up to the Island Council.
- Given the differences in the government group of the Lanzarote Island Council, how long is the Government willing to wait for the Plan to become a reality?
- The Government cannot impose planning instruments. The Government has to wait as long as necessary for the Island Institution to put on the table the document it deems appropriate. The effects are what the law says. We do not set a deadline, there are legal deadlines that, in fact, have already been exceeded. But it is good that things reach the greatest possible consensus because it will be the first sign that this is the best document, the one that will be accepted by all. I do not see great differences either, a new issue has arisen now, which requires carrying out the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Plan.
- This new law that you yourself put on the table on Monday, and whose regulations for the Canary Islands have just been approved, how will it affect the approval of the Special Territorial Plan? Wouldn't it further delay its approval if complementary leisure is contemplated?
- The Territorial Plan cannot classify any type of land, because for that it would be necessary to go to modifications of the Island Plan. Regarding the application of this law, which is a basic state law, the Government of the Canary Islands has already approved the regulations for the procedure of planning instruments, and now an impact assessment will have to be carried out, which had not been contemplated in this Territorial Plan. That would require an important period of public information, and it would be desirable to do it at the same time as the normal period of public information, so as not to waste more time.
- And is there no possibility that the PTE does not have to comply with this new procedure?
- There is a possibility in the Law to exempt certain plans that have started their processing and drafting prior to June 21, 2004, but that possibility here is remote. And in that sense, if the Island Council requests it to carry out a fast processing, I would submit it to the General Directorate of Legal Services, but I am skeptical about the chances of success that this may have. The safest and most coherent thing is to do that evaluation, and that will require the period of public information to be not 30 days, but 45 days. It would be delayed somewhat, but it would be a more solid document from a legal point of view.
- Carlos Espino argues that in the meeting they held on Monday, the reasons for including the complementary offer in the Special Territorial Plan were not given. If there are no reasons to include the complementary offer, wouldn't it be more appropriate to develop it in a document, in another specific plan?
- It can be done that way, but the mission of the meeting was not to give reasons or not for the Island Plan to contain the complementary offer, the meeting began by saying that these are assessments that the Island Council itself has to make, that is, that they are matters of opportunity, and I do not pronounce myself on matters of opportunity of other institutions. If they ask me for an opinion, I can give it to them, but we did not give any justification for it to have to be there, we said that legally it can be there, and therefore, there is no problem from a legal point of view for it to contain it, and particularly, to me, as a minister, it seems a much more coherent document the more content it has in relation to the matter that it is planning. There are advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages are that when a planning is done and another one separately on the same topic, the content that gives coherence to the document, the global analysis of what is being planned, is not usually in the same text. It is much more rigorous that the Plan contains all of what is intended to be planned. The same happens with sectoral planning. Another thing is that if that can delay it, the other alternative can also be valid, but that is a matter that the Island Corporation should assess.
