“Competition, market… and protections”. Is this the new way to make liberalization more acceptable in Italy? Launching the message and the idea of a new strategy that will make the reforms that go towards the opening of the market more shared and more favorably received is Linda Lanzillotta, vice-president of the Senate in Pd share and among the most competent in Parliament on the subject of liberalizations that have seen her at the forefront for years. It was a few months ago, in February, the wildcat strike who rebelled – blocking the main Italian cities for days – against a majority amendment proposed by her to arrive at a plan that would fix, once and for all, new rules for transport with a driver. The Government then responded to that violent reaction with a mandate to resolve the problem that remained open within a year: Flixbus and Uber – will the new platforms that make low-cost services available – have free citizenship in Italy? It is one of the many questions that remain open.
La competition law, recently passed to the Senate after two years of slow and tiring parliamentary progress should be definitively approved in June in the Chamber. In the meantime it has been weakened, it has gone from 32 articles to 191 paragraphs which make it a great cauldron and the original structure has been lost along the way. He's right Giovanni Pitruzzella, president of Antitrust, to pull the ears of Parliament and raise the alarm on the attack of nationalism on the open economy, in Italy and in Europe? And above all, what antidotes to the "sickness of competition" can be put in place for the future? Perhaps even hold parliamentary sessions on competition in which to mature choices, as he suggested Albert Pera on FIRSTonline, that might be one way to go.
“Competition is not a persecution on the contrary, it is left-wing. It is a tool for redistributing the wealth produced in a more equitable way. It is a lever that must be activated and used constructively. But we cannot ignore that in times of crisis or low economic growth, the impact of liberalization is frightening and arouses resistance in traditional sectors. We must therefore take responsibility, much more than in past years of economic expansion, to reassure and accompany those sectors that feel threatened with financial, training and active labor policies", Lanzillotta affirms today in this interview with FIRST online.
The proposal is innovative and also involves the use of European social funds. Perhaps it will be able to overturn the thesis of those who, like the Movimento 5 Stelle or the Lega, believe instead that the market transforms consumers into prey for ravenous and aggressive economic Big Potentates. But here, below, the Interview with Linda Lanzillotta.
Senator, will the new law on competition be an adequate tool to deal with nationalism on the one hand and the overwhelming power of the Web giants on the other, confirmed in recent days, by the European Antitrust maximum fine to Facebook on WhatsApp?
“Certainly the law has been tested slowly: it suggests that competition is not among the priorities of the parliamentary agenda but it must also be said that the government perhaps has not pushed enough. In general, all the changes introduced have gone towards greater caution towards market opening. In some sectors, in particular those of the professions and I am thinking of notaries and the lack of transfer of skills to lawyers on real estate sales, there has been a bit of a setback; in others, improved results have been obtained”.
For example which ones?
“In insurance there is a benefit for consumers: a better and simpler comparison of offers has been obtained, easier withdrawal for customers and a push for greater driving discipline on the part of motorists. In energy, the abolition of the standard offer regime is positive”.
However, it was postponed to 2018…
“The postponement and setting aside of the auction system can be seen as a point in favor of Enel. On the other hand, the State finds itself in a conflict of interest on this matter: on the one hand it pushes to favor consumers, on the other, as a shareholder of the electricity group, it is sensitive to the economic interests of the company. The postponement to 2018 was the mediation point but it is still a step forward and nothing rules out the possibility of improving it".
Is there more to the law?
“The law introduced, it is true, a series of cluster measures. There is some opening on postal services, with the tendering of judicial notices and fines, but it would be good to go ahead. However, we must also take into account the need to balance openings with the restructuring of the Post Office. Graduality is needed because if it is true that the monopoly reserve areas that still exist allow for inefficiencies, it is also true that they serve to keep services going that are not always supported by an economic but a social justification: the presence of post offices spread over an area of small Municipalities like ours is important. And the annuity should serve to finance them. It must be taken into account".
Does this also apply to pharmacies?
“If you're referring to the dispute with the parapharmacies over class C drugs, I'll tell you right away that I had proposed to keep it but only for smaller municipalities and not in big cities. It was decided otherwise and this prompts me to further reflection".
What?
“We must begin to think that market liberalization processes are part of the fear and insecurity about the future that weighs heavily on a large part of the country. In particular on small businesses and traditional activities. We must therefore think of accompanying the opening of the market and competition with social protection measures. Otherwise you risk blocking everything. Of course, some sectors accept gradualness and support, others – as is the case of taxis – are for hard and pure conservation. However, it is important to make people understand that opening up to competition is not a punishment for some and an advantage for others but a benefit that is in everyone's interest. No one should feel traumaticly abandoned."
She herself distinguishes between more or less “resistant” sectors. But the Competition Law from a "maintenance law", anchored to Antitrust reports, has turned into a provision-container. There is a little bit of everything inside. Does it make sense to continue on this road or is it better to study other strategies for the future?
“The annual law has become the place where the knots not resolved elsewhere move. To be more effective, however, it would be necessary to include not only the liberalization rules but also those that accompany the restructuring of the sectors concerned. All things that do not lend themselves to an omnibus law. Now the government has announced a new decree on competition precisely to follow up on reformist policies, also from an EU perspective. After that, a reflection on how to operate in the future will certainly be useful".
Is it a legacy for the new legislature?
“I hope that the new decree will also find space for a regulation that will speed up the approval of the new rules for transport with driver by the end of the year. Leaving them to a delegation to be exercised within a year of the approval of the current competition law would mean postponing everything to the new legislature. And I also hope that space can be found, in the next decree, to eliminate the patent linkage which improperly extends the duration of pharmaceutical patents and prevents the introduction of generics on the market. Not only would it bring more transparency between the Public Administration and pharmaceutical companies but it would allow savings of 500-600 million a year”.
To sum up: can giving competition a socially sustainable face be a European issue as well?
“Definitely. It is important that taking responsibility for the social impact of the reforms be a shared value at European level: it would allow the use of European social funds and would prevent any support measures from being rejected as state aid. On the other hand, the issue of protection is a European issue and this can be seen from how it was declined in the French electoral campaign: by Marine Lepen in a protectionist key and by Emmanuel Macron as a way to accompany the French towards liberalization and the change. Traditional left, social right, Conservatives, Sovereignists, the political distinction passes from there: between those who are for the closure of borders and markets and those who see pro-European openings supported by support mechanisms that make them shared by all ".
