The penal shield for the managers of the former Ilva of Taranto has disappeared since decree Save companies, on which the Senate gave the green light to the trust on Thursday 24 October. To date, the only certainty is that the rule cannot be reinserted in the same provision, expected by a new armoring in the Chamber to avoid forfeiture on November 3rd.
So what happens now? Unions and workers fear that the French-Indian group Arcelor Mittal - the current owner of the steel plant - will follow up on the threats of closure in the absence of the shield. However, the position of the government is not clear. Some members of the majority aim to restore criminal immunity (it would be the third time) with an ad hoc provision to be finalized in the coming weeks; others are against it.
The question is central to Italian industrial policy. If the former Ilva in Taranto were to close, not only would more than 5 people lose their jobs, but many Italian companies would be deprived of the steel supplies guaranteed by the largest steel plant in Europe. And they would be forced to go abroad, with the risk of running into higher prices and poorer quality.
To clarify, let's retrace the fundamental stages of this story.
CRIMINAL SHIELD FOR THE FORMER ILVA: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT WAS BORN
The penal shield gave the managers of the former Ilva the certainty of not ending up on trial for any problems related to the implementation of the environmental plan. It was introduced at the time of the Renzi government by the former Minister of Economic Development, Carlo Calenda, even before Arcelor Mittal came into play. At the time, in 2015, the goal was to find high-profile personalities willing to play the role of commissioner, as no one would accept at the risk of prosecution. After that, the shield was also guaranteed to the French-Indian group, always with the same logic: anyone who works in the interest of the steel mill cannot be accused of crimes that originate from the conduct of the previous managers.
THE CANCELLATION, THE THREATS AND THE TWO THOUGHTS
The first reverse came last June, when the Lega-M5S government - at the behest of the pentastellati - inserted in the Growth Decree an amendment which limited criminal immunity on the implementation of the environmental plan to 6 September 2019. With this compromise formula, the grillini hoped to recover part of the lost consensus after the failed closure of the Apulian steel mill, an electoral promise not kept.
At that point Arcelor Mittal - which without the shield would never have taken over the plant - threatened to close the steel plant if the government did not restore immunity.
Result: at the end of the Giallorossi experience, Luigi Di Maio had the penal shield reinstated in the Save Business Decree. But in the end the rule was removed via amendment after the protests of 17 M5S senators.
PROVENZANO: LEGAL PROTECTION ALREADY EXISTS FOR ARCELOR
The minister of the South, Peppe Provenzano (Pd), then entered the debate, arguing that in reality Arcelor Mittal is already protected by Italian law. “A country that constantly changes the rules of the game does not do development a good service – said the minister in an interview with Corriere della Sera – But I would like to remind you that according to article 51 of the penal code anyone who acts in the fulfillment of a duty such as for the environmental plan is not punishable, least of all for the faults of others and errors committed previously. So there is a protection. The agreements with Arcelor Mittal remain valid. There are no alibis or pretexts”.
Unfortunately, the French-Indian group does not seem to think so, which so far has not withdrawn the threat to close the steel plant. On the contrary, appointed Lucia Morselli as director of Arcelor Mittal Italia, who has already worked in the iron and steel sector at Ast of Terni and in the engineering sector at Breco. Two turbulent experiences from a trade union point of view, which do not bode well for the workers of the former Ilva.
"We remind Minister Provenzano that in all these months article 51 of the Penal Code has not been sufficient to ensure legal protection - said Marco Bentivogli, number one of the Fim Cisl - And not only to managers, but also to other workers, up to the seventh-level employees, who during the commissioner's management received notices of guarantee with the initiation of legal proceedings, yet they were working for the environmental plan”.
NOTHING TO DO AT THE MISE
On Friday 25 October a meeting was held at the Mise between the minister for economic development, Stefano Patuanelli (M5S), the head of territorial cohesion, Peppe Provenzano (Pd), and the representatives of the trade unions.
“The concern is very high – said Bentivogli on the sidelines of the summit – CEO Morselli has two paths ahead: consolidate steel production to 4 million tons per year, which means reducing the workforce by 5 people, or, after the mess made in the Senate on the legal shield, literally pack your bags ".
According to the leader of Fiom, Francesca Re David, “an issue that concerns more than anything else the parliamentary balance within the majority risks providing the company with an alibi. The change of managing director usually means that there is a change of strategy”.
Uilm number one, Rocco Palombella, underlined instead that “there is no government position: one says one thing, one another. And they continue."
“I do not consider an ad hoc regulation practicable, a wide-ranging regulation can be taken into consideration if necessary – said Minister Patuanelli at the end of the summit – The company has not raised this problem. Where there were overall reasonings that do not necessarily concern only Taranto, a specific rule seems clear to me - he said - does not have a parliamentary estate. If there were doubts that the application of a rule such as an environmental plan could lead to legal action, the application of this device will be clarified, which is valid in many examples"
Patuanelli then announced that the company and the unions will be summoned to the ministry for the second week of November. “We will ask the company to continue to ensure compliance with the agreements. From this point of view, the government is extremely clear: we ask that there be compliance with the industrial and employment plan”, concluded the minister.
