The government hides from Congress the role that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero could have played, to save Plus Ultra since the last legislature, using the secrecy that applies to financial aid files.
This informative bolt before the legislature acts … at least since 2022, when the party chaired by Alberto Núñez Feijóo sent the Executive a series of written questions that the lawyers of the Lower House consulted by ABC They doubt whether they can be covered by the administrative reserve.
And the people simply asked if the Government appointed Rodríguez Zapatero as interlocutor with Plus Ultra, Whether the former president participated in meetings between the two men and, if so, in what capacity and where they took place.
These four questions were very simple to answer. Especially if Rodríguez Zapatero had played no role in the rescue. However, The executive categorically refused to provide the data.
“There are legal reasons for not providing the information requested in these parliamentary initiatives,” responded on March 15, 2022, the Secretary of State for Relations with the Cortes, already in charge of Rafael Simancas.
These reasons essentially boiled down to one: the confidential nature of the files of the Fund to Support the Solvency of Strategic Enterprises (FASEE). “All information and documentation corresponding to the files processed and/or authorized under the FASEE It is of a reserved nature, as provided for in the aforementioned Royal Decree-Law 25/2020.“, he stressed.
To extend this administrative secrecy over the figure of the former president, Moncloa reused a two and a half page response that it had already given on October 19, 2021 to another battery of questions recorded by the PP on Plus Ultra without naming Rodríguez Zapatero.
This response is dedicated to explaining what FASEE is, what its regulatory framework is, the confidentiality of its files, and cites Supreme Court rulings which refuse access to them. In its 2022 response, copying that of 2021, the government does not include the name of Rodríguez Zapatero nor does it give an affirmative or negative answer regarding his role.
“The data, documents and information held by the Management Council and the SEPI by virtue of the functions entrusted to them by this Royal Decree-Law will be reserved and, except for exceptions provided for by the regulations in force, may not be disclosed to any person or authority, nor used for purposes other than those for which they were obtained,” cites the Government’s response. “This confidential nature will cease from the moment those interested make public the facts to which the data, documents and information refer,” he adds.
But the lawyers of the Lower House consulted by ABC doubt its applicability in this case because, although the Supreme Court confirmed that the Executive does not provide a copy of the complete file of financial aid operations, they put on the table that the authors of the questions, Elena Castillo López and Javier Merino Martínez, did not demand secret administrative information.
The lawyers of the Lower House believe that the PP was not demanding secret administrative information but political facts
“The government responds with absolute silence on what was requested, which are political facts while the authors did not demand a copy of files, internal documents, technical reports or confidential economic data, but rather to know if Rodríguez Zapatero was appointed interlocutor by the government, attended meetings, in what capacity and where they took place. This is information that does not affect the contents of the file, does not reveal business data, or compromise technical decisions. Decree-Law 25/2020 on which the Government relies protects data, documents, information in the file but does not protect political appointments, informal dialogues or the participation of third parties external to FASEE,” they explain.
For this reason, they believe that the government “has unduly extended the scope of secrecy” and wonder if Moncloa’s response has “all its legal relevance”. “This is at least partly contrary to the Rules of Congress. The Executive is obliged to answer the content of the question and instead uses a regulatory curtain that prevents political control,” they add.
The questions on Plus Ultra of 2021 which were also considered reserved had been recorded by the popular deputy Belén Hoyo and sought to know the record of the operations of Plus Ultra which justified its rescue, the control and surveillance mechanism in the execution of the resources assigned to this airline, and the explanation of the consideration of a “strategic” company for the Spanish productive fabric given the decline in its traffic.
Informative blocking has since then been the government’s strategy in the face of written questions coming from the Congress not only from the PP but also from Vox regarding Rodríguez Zapatero and his possible intermediation work not only with Plus Ultra, with the dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro, with the Chinese regime or with Huawei.
“The government does not carry out evaluations on journalistic information,” Moncloa responded to Vox regarding the meeting between Zapatero and Ábalos recognized by the latter.
For example, on July 24, Vox MP Alberto Rodríguez Almeida questioned the government about the meeting between Rodríguez Zapatero and the former Minister of Transport, José Luis Ábalos, confirmed by the latter. The data he claimed concerned when this meeting took place, what the agenda was, whether the government knew about it and approved it, and what agreements were reached. The Secretary of State for Communication responded on October 1 by limiting himself to indicating that “the government does not carry out evaluations on journalistic information.”
On June 19, Rodríguez Almeida had already asked questions, without success, about the government’s control, regulation or supervision mechanisms to prevent possible conflicts of interest, and about its knowledge of the international activities of the former president. The Executive responded on September 24, declaring only that “out of institutional respect, it does not give opinions and does not value the actions of former government presidents.”
La Moncloa opted for a similar solution on May 13 after PP deputy Carlos Floriano asked him in writing on March 27 if “the government was aware of possible conflicts of interest arising from the private activities of former President Zapatero in China and his influence on government decisions.”
The response in this case was the following: “the government does not comment on the private activities of Spanish citizens and, therefore, those carried out by the former president of the government, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero”.
La Moncloa only answered with clarity one question relating to Rodríguez Zapatero, out of the 69 it has received so far this season. This was recorded by the UPN deputy, Alberto Catalán, to find out how many of this former president’s trips “were financed by general state budgets during the year 2024.” The answer consisted of a single word: “none.” Something which, however, opens up many other unknowns. The fundamental question: who pays for Rodríguez Zapatero’s trips to China or Venezuela?
About The Author
