The government approves the Competition Bill, but there is little competition

Yesterday the Council of Ministers gave the go-ahead to the Competition law bill for the year 2023. From a formal point of view it is a necessary step to respect a milestone of the Pnrr. Given the delays of the Plan, including the implementation measures of the previous Competition law still outstanding, Giorgia Meloni necessarily had to give a signal to Brussels. From the point of view of substance, however, the bill appears very light, perhaps even more than one might expect.

If the drafts circulated in the early afternoon of yesterday are reliable, it is a package of about ten articles, none of which are particularly incisive. Of course, these are mostly measures useful for improving the situation in the areas in which they intervene, even if the link with competition is not always clear. For example, guaranteeing prompt approval for development plans for the national electricity grid – to prevent reality from overruling the sealing wax of the ministries – is undoubtedly a shareable intention. Just as it is an important step forward to allow consumers to share historical data on electricity and gas withdrawals with third parties to generate “real” estimates. And there is no reason to oppose the introduction of a modern regulatory framework for district heating or concessions to electrify port quays.

The European Commission’s concerns about the lack of tenders for market areas find a partial and disappointing response: the same article which establishes the principle of the public procurement procedure effectively provides for a 12-year extension. Then there are some clarifications or simplifications in competition law and the implementation of some aspects of the European regulation on digital markets.

The very fact that the contents of the entire bill can be summarized, without particular renunciations or sacrifices, in a simple paragraph makes it clear what the limits are. On the one hand, it strives to fly low to the ground and make modest regulatory adjustments with the sole aim of declaring an obviously unwelcome obligation fulfilled. On the other hand, such a meager bill could aim for approval in record time by the Chambers, but could also end up getting stuck in the war of amendments of those who will see it as a vehicle to be burdened with more or less additional measures relevant.

If we want to be optimistic, one could argue that the annual nature of the bill should dampen enthusiasm: its objective, both from the point of view of the Pnrr and that of the legislator who introduced the obligation in 2009, was certainly not to make a revolution, but to proceed systematically with maneuvers to maintain the pro-competitive profile of the sorting. Nor does the attitude of the guarantor authority (Antitrust), which in recent years has not distinguished itself for proactive capacity, help. Just look at the latest report, sent to the government on 22 March 2022: just twelve pages, with suggestions (very acceptable, however) in the energy and water sectors alone.

The reasons for optimism end there. The feeling is that the bill conceals a poverty of ideas rather than a lack of courage. Moreover, the package is approved at the same time as the Luddite attempt – and, by the way, failed – to block the way to synthetic meat. How can you think of taking serious action on competition if you want to prevent consumers from even choosing what to eat for dinner?

In short, the problem that this bill brings out is not so much related to its contents but to the attitude that the executive and the majority have towards the sovereignty of consumers and the freedom of companies to choose which goods or services to produce and how to do it. In other words, the government seems to see competition as a mere flag to put on the European questionnaires relating to the Pnrr, but the issue is much more complicated and even risks turning against Italy if the European Commission has the feeling of being fooled. And yet, a government cannot be forced to pursue economic policy objectives in which it does not believe. The question, therefore, is not so much whether the contents of the bill presented yesterday are adequate, but what goals Palazzo Chigi intends to pursue.