Finally we return to the model of Authority and independent regulation of network services and the reform plan of the Monti government "is an important sign of discontinuity". This is the opinion of Giulio Napolitano, 42, from Rome, a pupil of Sabino Cassese and full professor of Public Law Institutions at the Faculty of Political Science at the Roma Tre University. In 2007 he helped elaborate the comprehensive proposal for the reform of the regulatory authorities presented by the Prodi government but remained a dead letter also due to the lack of enthusiasm of a part of the center-left itself at the time. Now the big picture is different. “We know – explains Napolitano – how difficult it is to combine industrial recovery policies and liberalization and consumer protection measures, but a more rational institutional set-up and a stronger and more common political will allow us to nurture greater hopes of success than in the past”. Here is the interview he granted to FIRSTonline.
FIRSTONLINE – Professor, the Monti government has rekindled the spotlight on regulation and on the Authorities both in the Salva-Italia decree and in the subsequent Cresci-Italia decree: what is the overall picture that emerges from it and what is your opinion?
NAPOLITAN – It is an important sign of discontinuity. It is a question of the conscious return to that model of independent regulation that had established itself in the 90s and the abandonment, instead, of the system based on ministries and para-governmental agencies which has prevailed in recent years. By extending the scope of competences of the existing Authorities, the Executive aims to fill the voids and the most serious weaknesses of the regulation. I think of how many years have been lost in a strategic field such as water, with negative effects on the quality and efficiency of the service as well as on investment planning. Even the postal sector has been left for too long in the hands of ministerial regulation lacking adequate powers and perhaps too close to the interests of the dominant public operator. Separate considerations apply to the transport sector.
FIRSTONLINE – Which is actually the most delicate point on the carpet.
NAPOLITAN – Yes, partial and micro-sectoral solutions have settled here: offices inadequate in terms of resources and personnel, entities without effective powers and sometimes "captured" by operators, rules "contracted" and then disregarded, invasions of the field by the legislator, delayed investments, tariffs now blocked, now increased without any economic logic. The quality of some services has sometimes improved, as in high-speed rail transport. But, in most cases, infrastructural development has been blocked, competition has been slowed down and citizens and users have been victims of growing disservices.
FIRSTONLINE – However, the regulation of transport remains a sore point especially in relation to the complex transition towards the long-awaited sector Authority, whose responsibilities will be provisionally assumed by the Energy Authority. How will the commissioners of the latter manage to improvise skills in a subject as diverse as that of transport? Wouldn't other solutions be preferable?
NAPOLITAN – I hope that, also thanks to the parliamentary discussion, more suitable solutions can emerge. The Energy Authority, for the competence shown in all these years, will be able to give, with the work and example of its offices, an important contribution to the start-up of the new Transport Authority. But we must avoid the concentration of excessive decision-making powers in the hands of a panel of people chosen for their expertise in the energy sector, not in the transport sector, also to avoid the risk of improper exchanges and regulatory arbitrage between sectors that have no connection neither economic nor industrial. For this reason, however, the opportunity must be seized to proceed rapidly with the construction of an autonomous transport authority, also by pooling the various technical skills existing in this matter in various public offices.
FIRSTONLINE - Shares the proposals put forward on Thursday 26 January in the Corriere della Sera by the constitutional lawyer Michele Ainis who suggests "not to proceed at random" in the relaunch of the Authorities and indicates three central objectives: 1) rationalize the existing one, eliminating Aran or Civit or the Regional Health Services Agency; 2) untangle the tangle of skills; 3) get out of the logic of subdivision?
NAPOLITAN – I share the observations concerning the excessive administrative fragmentation. There are some "false" independent Authorities and too many bodies that perform purely instrumental functions, and which could be traced back to the body of the Administration, as the recent Report of the Giovannini Commission has also clearly indicated. All these bodies could well be traced back to the body of the central administration. In this way, overlapping competences that hinder the speed and effectiveness of administrative action would also be resolved.
FIRSTONLINE – How do you think the problem of allotment of the appointments of the Authorities can be addressed and resolved?
NAPOLITAN – A first major benefit will come from the reduction in the number of members of the Authorities which the Government very wisely arranged with the first Salva-Italia decree. A further contribution in this sense could come from the extension of the appointment procedure envisaged by law 481 of 95 (the law which instituted the Energy Authority). The government designation, together with the binding opinion of the parliamentary commissions with a two-thirds majority, gives greater guarantees in terms of weighting and sharing of choices. I am also in favor of the introduction of public candidacy mechanisms and maximum transparency regarding the professional curricula of the nominees.
FIRSTONLINE – You were among the experts who contributed to drawing up an organic proposal for the reform of the Authorities presented by the Prodi government in 2007 but which unfortunately remained a dead letter: compared to those proposed, how close are they and how different are the solutions put in place by the Monti government?
NAPOLITAN – The plan drawn up by the Monti government is in perfect continuity with the proposal made at the time. In general, for the overall view of strengthening the independent regulation. In particular, for the filling of the regulatory voids and the unification of homogeneous competences in the hands of the existing Authorities (on water and postal systems the current solutions exactly follow those proposed at the time) and for the streamlining plan of the constituencies. It is comforting to see how his temporary measures, which were warmly received even by a part of the then centre-left majority, are now so widely shared by the government in office and by a wide range of political forces. We know how difficult it is to combine industrial recovery policies with liberalization and consumer protection measures. But a more rational institutional set-up and a stronger and more common political will make it possible to nurture greater hopes of success than in the past.
