UPB, Arachi: “The decision to link autonomy implementation to the Lep is good”

Fiscal delegation the Upb opinion shared objectives but flat

(Finance) – “The decision to link the implementation of the differentiated autonomy to the determination of the essential levels of services is a passage of great importance. The Lep represent in fact an essential element for the application of the principles of article 119 of the Constitution” . That’s what the says advisor to the Parliamentary Budget Office Giampaolo Arachiduring ahearing on the differentiated autonomy of the Regions with ordinary statute in the Constitutional Affairs Commission of the Senate. “However, it should be noted – underlines Arachi – that the determination of the Lep in relation to the functions currently performed by the State will have a very different value and outcomes from those that would occur if the Lep were also defined on the functions already performed today by the local authorities. The levels of the services of the latter are in fact characterized by a strong heterogeneity which reflects not only the differentiation of needs on the territory but also profound disparities in the financial endowments deriving from the overlapping of uncoordinated financing interventions over time. would in all likelihood reveal significant discrepancies between standard needs and historical expenditure, which should be filled by equalization measures”. “

“On the contrary, – continued the Councilor – the provision of state services tends to follow uniform criteria throughout the territory. Therefore, unless these criteria are re-evaluated in the Lep determination phase or services not explicitly guaranteed by the State are included in the Lep , it is plausible to expect that i standard needs will not differ significantly from the expenditure currently implemented by the State in each Region. Therefore, it is unlikely that significant corrections in the level of resources and in their distribution among various territories could emerge from the transition from historical state expenditure to standard needs”.

In the substantially “shareable” system of the bill on differentiated autonomy – he claims Peanuts – “a less solid and less satisfactory aspect concerns the safeguards necessary to ensure that the essential levels of services are effectively achieved throughout the national territory. The guarantee of the resources necessary for the functions assigned to the Regions with differentiated autonomy must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards to ensure that the Lep are actually achieved throughout the national territory Article 7 of the bill contemplates optional and asymmetrical checks as they concern the achievement of the Lep in the Rads and not in the rest of the national territory where the supply continues to be state-owned Given the constitutional relevance of the Lep guarantee, the checks should more appropriately be foreseen in the context of a periodic and symmetrical procedure that covers both the services rendered by the Rads and those provided by the State. Periodic monitoring and with uniform rules between the Rads should then connected to the activation of the substitutive powers of the State in case of default, in analogy to what is foreseen in the health field with reference to the Lea “.

The bill on differentiated autonomy – for Arachi – does not resolve the uncertainties on the possible dynamics of regional resources in the years following the approval of the agreement. A more precise definition of the financing model towards which to direct the system – he explains – should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure coordination of public finance between the various levels of government. First of all, it will be necessary to ensure full sharing of the programmatic objectives, uniformity in the methodologies for reviewing needs and mechanisms to ensure the contribution of the Rads (Regions with differentiated autonomy) in the event of exceptional public finance needs”.

tlb-finance