Parliament finalizes vacation‑rental law for the Canary Islands in committee

The committee report on the Sustainable Regulation of Tourist Use of Housing bill received nine votes in favor and six against, clearing the way for a plenary vote.

The Canary Islands Parliament approved the report by majority, with support from the Canary Coalition (CC), People’s Party (PP), Herreña Independent Assembly (AHI), and Gomera Socialist Group (ASG). The Socialist Party (PSOE), New Canary–Canarian Bloc (NC‑BC), and Vox voted against it.

In the Employment and Tourism Committee, parties backing the regional government framed the law as a measure that protects the general interest against speculation and abuse, while acknowledging the archipelago’s diverse realities. They highlighted the “singularities” of islands such as La Palma, La Gomera, and El Hierro, where small‑scale tourism is essential.

---

Opposition Voices

González (NC‑BC) lamented the lack of consensus, accusing the process of being driven by a “modus operandi that now seems to prevail: to impose, discipline, and humiliate the dissenting.” She claimed the government showed no intention to negotiate, describing the law as a “red carpet for large tourism interests” that penalizes small owners and leaves thousands of families in legal limbo.

“What has been done with this bill in this Parliament is the modus operandi that seems to now prevail: impose, discipline and humiliate the dissenting,” González warned.

Santana (PSOE) also expressed disappointment that most of her party’s amendments were ignored. She criticized the lack of consensus and noted disagreement from the Official College of Economists over the figures used to justify the bill. Santana emphasized that her amendments aligned with a model aimed at fairly distributing tourism revenues to small property owners. She reiterated a key demand: limit owners to three homes for vacation rental use.

“Our amendment package came hand‑in‑hand with the model we have defended. We have said in the plenary: if we truly want the income generated by the tourism sector to be distributed fairly, what better way than to do it in benefit of small owners?” – Santana.

---

Government Support

A and ASG

Raúl Acosta (AHI) defended the government’s efforts, acknowledging the difficulty of the work but stressing that agreements were reached to avoid a negative impact on the sector. He highlighted the sustainable tourism model being promoted on the “green” islands, such as El Hierro, where accommodation is family‑run rather than dominated by large hotel chains. Acosta emphasized months of work to understand each island’s unique reality, giving municipalities a predominant role in deciding the tourism model they prefer.

Ramos (ASG) praised a “brave government” for confronting the challenges of vacation rentals since 2015. While sharing the socialist view that the regime should promote a fairer distribution of tourism wealth, he reminded that the Canary Islands host two distinct tourism models: mass tourism on the more developed islands and a green‑island model with its own regulatory framework.

“It was important to consider that duality. And this government has had it. And the important thing was, above all, to equip municipalities and island councils with the tools to decide on this activity,” Ramos said.

Vox

Paula Jover (Vox) criticized the bill as “chameleonic,” noting that it has been altered so many times that even its own promoters are uncertain of its current state. She reiterated her party’s amendment to withdraw the law entirely, explaining that they have been forced to abstain until a final, clear text is produced—free of “tacks, shifting criteria, and daily changes to basic concepts.” Jover also warned about the six‑month window after the law’s entry into force, during which the criteria for its application must be defined, calling it “unreasonable” to approve the law without that clarity.

PP

Morales (PP) celebrated the law as evidence of the current Canary government’s commitment to updating, adapting, and approving tourism‑related legislation. He lamented the opposition’s resistance to fast‑track the text despite the “imperative need” to regulate this accommodation modality, which had been overlooked in recent years. Morales highlighted the law’s role in ordering and regulating extrahotel accommodation, contributing to the broader housing emergency that affects not only the archipelago but also the wider region. He dismissed claims of a lack of consensus, emphasizing the law’s adaptability.

Coalition Canaria

Beato (Coalición Canaria) stressed that the new law will address the uncontrolled growth of tourist rentals in residential homes, which currently creates tensions in the housing market and threatens the sustainability of neighborhoods, towns, and tourist destinations across the islands. He praised the legislation for striking a balance between the need for decent housing and the economic development of tourism, reinforcing the role of municipalities and island councils, simplifying municipal procedures, improving platform control mechanisms, and combating illegal supply.

---