Superintendencies, the League's proposal to make opinions no longer binding

More 'simplification and unbureaucratisation'. After the (unsuccessful) raid a few months ago, with an ad hoc amendment to the Culture decree, the League's bill to review the role of the Superintendencies in landscape authorisation procedures is travelling through the latest hearings in the Senate. Basically, the aim is to simplify administrative procedures 'to prevent the Pa from becoming an obstacle to the economic and territorial development of the country'. The opposition is up in arms, as are some organisations committed to protecting the landscape.

Currently, is the thesis of the proponents, the Superintendencies are called upon to express their opinion on a large number of files, including those that do not concern large monuments or works of particular historical-artistic value. "This leads to a considerable slowdown in decision-making processes and a dispersion of resources that could be avoided." To the letter, the bill intends to introduce regulatory changes to rationalise the authorisation system, giving municipalities greater decision-making autonomy for interventions with less impact and defining definite timeframes for the expression of the opinion of the Superintendencies and avoiding bureaucratic delays.

In particular, Article 1 of the Bill (Senate Act no. 1372, first signatory of the proposal Roberto Marti) establishes the cardinal principles of the reform, indicating as aims the reduction of administrative time, the strengthening of the effectiveness of local authorities' action and the improvement of legal certainty. The revision of the Cultural Heritage and Landscape Code (Legislative Decree No. 42 of 22 January 2004) is therefore considered as a tool to ensure a more rational management of authorisation procedures, 'without compromising in any way the protection of the landscape'. The amendment to Article 146, paragraph 5, introduces a silence/assent mechanism: if the opinion of the Superintendence is not rendered within thirty days, it is automatically considered favourable, thus allowing the competent administration to proceed without further delay. But letter b) instead intervenes on Article 152, paragraph 1, replacing the words: "binding opinion" with the words "mandatory non-binding opinion". As a result of the proposed change, the opinion rendered by the Superintendent is changed from binding to non-binding mandatory. Consequently, the proceeding administration will be obliged at the preliminary stage to obtain the opinion (under penalty of violation of the law), but this opinion will not be binding and thus will not acquire a co-decisional nature. More simply, the opinion, which must be compulsorily acquired, may then be disregarded subject to adequate justification by the proceeding administration.

Article 3 delegates the Government to adopt, within six months from the date of entry into force of the law, one or more legislative decrees aimed at an organic revision of landscape authorisation procedures. The legislative decrees provided for by the delegation are adopted upon the proposal of the Minister of Culture, after consulting the Permanent Conference for Relations between the State, the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano.

"On the cultural front, Giorgia Meloni's right wing continues to give as good as it gets: in the Culture Committee in the Senate, a measure by the League that empties landscape protection, weakens the Superintendencies and opens the door wide to the worst interests is travelling swiftly. All in the name of 'simplification', of course. It is almost tender to think back to Alessandro Giuli, who a short time ago boasted of having 'foiled' the Lega blitz against the Superintendencies. Now that that blitz is travelling serenely in Parliament, he may be wondering how much his 'victories' are really worth'. Thus in a note the M5S senator Barbara Floridia, president of the Rai Vigilance Commission. "Meanwhile, the silence-consent on constraints and the shift from binding opinion to a simple mandatory opinion cry out for revenge. A frontal attack on landscape, culture and institutional decency. When the landscape is sacrificed, it is not just an environmental problem: it is the total surrender of a policy - concludes Floridia - incapable of looking beyond cement and business'.