89% of the subsidies from the Cabildo de Gran Canaria are direct and triple those of Tenerife

These figures and various objections to the behavior of the island government, such as the absence of inspection reports or the “reiteration” of nominal aid “to the same beneficiaries for similar objects in consecutive years”, are collected by the Hearing of Canary Islands Accounts in its Inspection report on the legality of the subsidies granted by the island councils, financial year 2019published on June 6 and which is raised this Friday to the first Ordinary Plenary Session of the Gran Canaria corporation in this mandate.

Although the deficiencies detected by the Hearing of Accounts are common in most of the councils, the subsidies granted without competitive competition, commonly known as “a finger”, are by far higher in Gran Canaria than in the other six islands.

In Tenerife, the most comparable to Gran Canaria in population and budget, its Cabildo granted 346 subsidies during that year, less than half, for a total amount of 34.99 million, almost three times less. Among the so-called smaller islands, the Town hall of La Palma It was the one that used the subsidy system the most to spend its annual budget, 370 allocations worth 28.20 million. They are followed by El Hierro with 259 (7.06 million), Fuerteventura with 147 (8.85 million), Lanzarote with 109 (28.15 million) and La Gomera with 32 (2.27 million).

In the analysis of Gran Canaria, the report indicates that only nine of the 24 entities that the Cabildo includes granted subsidies in 2019. The island government itself granted most of them, 653, of which 68 were by competitive competition (10, 33 million) and 555 by direct concession (56.46 million). It was followed by the Insular Sports Institute, with eight grants in an open call (2.09 million) and 68 directly (6.54 million).

The other entities were the Institute of Social and Socio-sanitary Care, seven direct subsidies; the Tourist Board, 25 direct; Fedac, two by concurrence and 12 direct; the Housing Consortium, three by concurrence and two direct; the Single Transport Authority, 17 direct; the Insular Water Council, one of each; and the Insular Energy Council, one in competitiveness of the applicants.

The report recalls that the Plenary of the Cabildo approved the 2019 Strategic Subsidies Plan (PES) in mid-December of the previous year, “where the strategic objectives and lines of action are detailed for each area of ​​the entity.”

However, the auditors affirm, “there is no report on the fulfillment of the objectives that the 2019 PES pursues nor does it refer to the results of the evaluation of the previous plans.” This analysis, they add, “makes it possible to measure the impact or quantify the achievement of the proposed objectives, and serves as an instrument not only for planning but also for monitoring and controlling the results of the development activity and the convenience or otherwise of its implementation.” maintenance or suppression.

Likewise, the document emphasizes that “during the 2019 financial year it is observed that budgetary and PES modifications were approved for the inclusion of registered subsidies” and that “in the justification of said modifications, the concurrence of exceptional or urgent events that motivate the need to grant direct subsidies”, therefore “this procedure could undermine the planning nature of both instruments”.

Regarding one of the 53 files analyzed at random, number 15, he says that «the choice of the direct award procedure is confusing between direct registered grants and those that are processed for reasons of public, social or economic interest. Since the Cabildo considered that the principles of publicity, transparency, competition, objectivity and non-discrimination required in competitive competition were met, it points out that “therefore it could have been processed as such”.