'We said it: there can be no autonomy without resources for Lep'
The president of the Calabria Region (deputy secretary of Forza Italia) after the Constitutional Court's decision reiterates: 'Overcome historical spending and finance equalisation'
3' min read
3' min read
"We had said it, the central issue is the definition and funding of the Essential Levels of Services". This is how the governor of Calabria, Roberto Occhiuto, who has long been a critical voice on differentiated autonomy within the centre-right, began the day after the Constitutional Court's ruling on the Calderoli law: "I had suggested to the government that it should give more thought and a moratorium on differentiated autonomy," explained Occhiuto, who is also the deputy national secretary of Forza Italia. "Instead, with much more authority than I have, the Constitutional Court now imposes a moratorium.
President, as a man from the South, are you satisfied with the Consulta's decision?
It is not a question of being satisfied or not, but when working on such impactful reforms one must proceed step by step, without leaving any relevant issue behind. From day one, in the Conference of the Regions, when the Calderoli law was discussed, I stated that autonomy was the least important part of the measure. More important was getting to the definition and financing of the Lep. The Calderoli law was supposed to be a law implementing Title V of the Constitution, bearing in mind that Article 116 provides for the possibility of attributing further forms and special conditions of autonomy to the regions. But 117 contains, instead, an obligation for the State, that of guaranteeing throughout the territory the essential levels of services, hence the enjoyment of social and civil rights.
The Constitutional Court also rules on historical expenditure.
Central issue. Basically, Article 117 imposes the overcoming of historical expenditure, which is a very unfair criterion for the distribution of resources that has penalised the South very strongly. I have always said that if this law serves to overcome historical spending through the determination of requirements, I welcome the measure.
Do you think the same Lep can really be guaranteed in every region? With what degree of difficulty?
In the meantime, the Constitutional Court tells us that the Lep will have to be dealt with by Parliament, a simple Dpcm for their definition will not suffice. But besides the method, I am very interested in the merit. If the criterion for defining and financing the LEP were that of the cost of living, we would be faced with assessments that are still unjust and unfair. It would mean, for example, paying teachers, doctors, civil servants less, precisely in those regions where, due to structural deficits, there would be a need to attract the best. And apart from the criterion, the gigantic problem remains that of Lep funding. Public finance institutes estimate it to be in the order of 80, 100 billion. The government manoeuvre is worth 25.
I believe that in the South today there are quality ruling classes that do not suffer from any inferiority complex compared to those in the rest of the country. We do not need claim barriers, nor will it be useful for us to play defensively. I am not concerned about autonomy, I repeat, but overcoming historical spending and financing all Lep is indispensable. We need equalising resources to allow all regions to compete at the same level.
