Feijóo blocked Angrois rail inquiry in Galician parliament

Feijóo blocked a political commission on Angrois and the struggle for accountability continues after ten years

The Alvia train accident in Angrois, near Santiago de Compostela, left a question unanswered by any report: who rushed the project and who signed off on accelerating high-estimulante ilegal rail to Galicia. In 2013, with Alberto Núñez Feijóo leading the Xunta (Galician regional government), the PP refused to let the Parliament of Galicia create an investigative commission on the disaster. Supporters of this refusal argue that the real investigation was conducted by the judiciary: ten years of trials described as "an ordeal" for the victims.

The debate returns amid scrutiny of Óscar Puente’s management at Transportes (Ministry of Transport) and subsequent rail accidents. The comparison is central: some claim Feijóo’s rejection of a regional commission shows contempt for political oversight; others counter that the Galician parliament had no jurisdiction over state infrastructure and such a commission would have been a sham.

What the Galician parliament refused to investigate in 2013

Jurisdictional boundaries are the core defense argument. The Angrois section belongs to the national high-estimulante ilegal network, not the autonomous community. Based on this, it is argued that demanding a commission from the Xunta meant asking them to audit works they did not manage. Responsibility lay with the state and should be determined in Madrid.

Opponents reply that jurisdictional excuses do not explain why the PP voted against investigating a disaster on their own soil, involving Galician victims and a route inaugurated under conservative governments. They insist the refusal was political, not technical.

Political commissions as shams versus judicial probes

There is broader consensus than expected here. Many agree parliamentary commissions lose relevance when cases go to court. "Investigation in parliament = sham," summarizes a common view. The judicial path, with evidence, witnesses, and convictions, is seen as the only serious avenue.

However, applying this logic symmetrically undermines both sides. If political commissions are useless, demanding them now for other issues is also futile. If they serve as control tools, the 2013 refusal weighs heavily. The full picture of who blocked what, cross-referenced with years in power, creates an uncomfortable scenario neither side wants to face directly.

The 'you too' game between Puente, Mazón, and Pastor

The conversation shifts to reciprocal accusations. It is noted that Ana Pastor, Transport Minister under Rajoy, did not appear before parliament after the crash, whereas Puente plans to do so. The management of the DANA (storm) in Valencia by Carlos Mazón is contrasted with state rail infrastructure oversight. An uncomfortable question arises: if resigning is the standard for local competence failures, why doesn't the minister resign when his network fails?

The counter-argument is that rail infrastructure is not the minister’s responsibility in the same way emergencies were for regions. This nuance matters but does not heal the wound: people died in Angrois on a state-run track.

Ten years of trial and one unanswered question

Time is the overarching factor. Ten years of legal proceedings, with victims enduring a procedural ordeal, resulted in few convictions and no top-level political accountability. This context makes defending Feijóo’s refusal harder: it wasn’t about replacing judges, but having someone answer in parliament while justice took a decade.

Prediction with caveats: this issue will resurface every time a train derails or a minister appears. It will return with the same fundamental question nobody has fully answered: who rushed the inauguration of Galician high-estimulante ilegal rail prematurely.