CAD: the risks of a false institution of the Permanent Consultation for Innovation

We are still waiting for the publication of the definitive text of the decree on changes to the CAD approved by the Council of Ministers on 10 August, and which (on the basis of the Press release) should include some very questionable points and, however, also incorporate proposals made (not only) by SGI.

Among these the Permanent Consult for Innovation, a multi-stakeholder body for consultation on strategic decisions on innovation issues, support for monitoring the implementation of digital technology, the exchange of good practices and the collection and structuring of new proposals.

We believe that the Council object of the proposal could play an important role in supporting the monitoring of the implementation of digital: for example, in these days it should have been passed to entirely digital training, management and conservation procedures for PA documents, with all the benefits and savings of the case, but the failure to apply the technical rules (it seems that some PAs were even unaware of the rules to be applied) will require a suspension.

Consultation that we have brought to life "from below" and which has given good results in terms of openness to cross-comparison. A body which in different forms has been requested by many during the consultations and hearings on the CAD in recent months.

The establishment of the Consulta, which was one of the conditions of the opinion of the Constitutional Affairs Commission of the Chamber, and which in the Press Release approving the decree the government declares to have fully implemented, however risks being greatly weakened, if not transformed into pure fiction .

In fact, rumors are circulating (which we hope are far from reality) that we actually want to establish the Consulta, activating it only for "electronic consultations".

In other words and in essence: no comparison, but only openness to online comments when, precisely from the experience derived from the CAD Consultation commissioned by the Hon. Paolo Coppola, it became clear how incisive an open and multi-stakeholder discussion can be, without introducing delays in the already defined legislative process (and in fact he contributed to the formation of many of the points of the opinion of the Chamber).

If true, this choice would not only be a clear denial of the opinion of the Chamber, but also a dangerous manifestation of intolerance towards the path of Open Government that the government seemed to want to start with the Open Government Forum (it seemed, because the first steps left a bit to be desired).

If true, this choice would in fact also destroy the Open Government Forum and would see the government once again closing itself like a hedgehog with respect to the needs and proposals of civil society.

Therefore, with much concern, we hope that the rumors are false and the institution of the Consulta is true and can thus be an incisive tool for defining and implementing the country's innovation strategy.


Nello Iacono and Andrea Caccia

Sign up to our newsletter!