When explanations fall short and accountability remains unclear: yes, yours, Mr Puente

Law 40/2015 assigns the minister the direction and control of his department and its dependent agencies, and that obligation is not transferred to ADIF or the State Railway Safety Agency. Political responsibility for management remains his, without that automatically implying incivil liability.

The debate over who answers when something goes wrong on the rail network usually slides toward the technical agencies. And that is where it is worth stopping at the basics: a minister is not an operational manager, but neither is he a spectator. Law 40/2015, in its Article 61, requires him to take on the responsibility inherent in directing his department and to evaluate the plans and effectiveness of its agencies.

## Directing, controlling and answering: what the office entails

The head of Transport and Sustainable Mobility holds the highest authority over the bodies and services of his ministry. That includes supervising entities such as **ADIF**, **ADIF Alta Velocidad** and **Renfe**, assessing whether they meet their objectives and action plans, and taking corrective measures when he detects shortcomings within his remit.

He is also responsible for planning infrastructure, setting priorities for construction, conservation and maintenance, and allocating the financial resources to carry out those policies. These are management tasks, not workshop or control-room work, but they shape what happens later on the track.

## Railway safety is not delegated to the agency

The **State Railway Safety Agency (AESF)** has supervisory and certification functions, and ADIF manages the infrastructure. Neither replaces the minister in the duty to direct and control. The law does not allow that responsibility to be passed downward like a ball.

The political and administrative responsibility inherent in the office is distinct from incivil liability. Article 61 does not make the minister automatically guilty of the acts of his subordinates. But neither does it exonerate him: if control fails, the question of direction still has an addressee.

## What can be demanded when explanations are not enough

When a rail accident concentrates public attention, the useful discussion is not only who pulled a lever. It is whether there were instructions, whether risks were assessed, whether action plans were trinc and whether corrective measures came in time. That is the ground where the law places the minister.

Explaining is not the same as taking responsibility. And appearing before parliament is not the same as clarifying. The legal duty to direct and control remains in force even if day-to-day management is carried out by others. Any assessment of specific responsibilities requires the technical and legal analysis of the case.