President Meloni addresses Cernobbio Forum

Good morning everyone.

Thank you for being here and, first and foremost, I would like to say happy birthday to The European House-Ambrosetti for these 50 years. My thanks go to CEO Valerio De Molli for this invitation, and thank you for the work you all do.

The last time we saw each other was during the election campaign that led to the formation of this Government, so I am pleased to return two years later to try and give an overview of the situation.

That said, in response to your question, Mr Editor, I would first like to put your mind at ease: my weeks are more or less all pretty difficult, so I would just like to say (and I must say that this is often the case, perhaps it is not the case now), I must say that what is of concern to me often does not appear to be what is of concern in the general debate.

I would just like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank Gennaro Sangiuliano once again for his work over the last two years. As is always the case, accomplishments are much less talked about and much less reported on. However, I believe the Minister has done very important work. For example, I believe the significant rise in visitor numbers and revenues at Italy’s many cultural sites has been very important; I think it was a very intelligent choice to bring an end to the all-Italian disgrace of museums and archaeological sites being closed on holiday days; I believe it was an important and wonderful choice to launch major projects that had been at a standstill for decades, such as the former Ospedale dei Poveri in Naples; I think it was important to expand the branches of the Uffizi Gallery; I also think it was important to reform regulations on subsidies for the cinema industry, in relation to which there were many things that were not working. I therefore think that Gennaro Sangiuliano did an excellent job and he should be thanked for it.

That said, what happened? A colleague of yours, the editor of La Stampa newspaper Andrea Malaguti, has paradoxically provided a good explanation of what happened. At a certain point, Editor Malaguti, who is probably also here, said that we have been talking about a minister’s private life for days now. It goes without saying that, if you talk about a minister’s private life for days, then his public life is over. That’s the way it is, but there are two elements of that statement that should be taken into consideration.

I believe the first regards the fact that Editor Malaguti confirmed this is a private matter, because, as things stand today, Minister Sangiuliano has resigned but this matter did not involve the Minister committing any offences. The second issue is that we have been discussing this for days. Who are we discussing? There has certainly been a strong media campaign – without prejudice to the fact the Minister clearly made a mistake – which has turned a private matter into a public one. I do not think this is a precedent I intend to set, that should be set, hence why I did not accept Minister Sangiuliano’s resignation initially. I then accepted his irrevocable resignation yesterday, as Minister Sangiuliano wanted to be free from the role of Minister in order to be able to defend himself better. He understood, as indeed I understand and understood, that the Government’s authority, the Government’s role could not continue to be subjected to such media pressure.

That said, while some may think that situations like this may help weaken the Government, I’m afraid that won’t happen. As they say, the king is dead, long live the king! A minister has resigned, and we wish the new minister all the best in his role. Yesterday, while the press were still waiting for Sangiuliano to resign, I was already at the Quirinale Palace to sign the appointment of the new minister, because I intend to do my job and do it well until the end of the legislative term, and I also think Italians understand certain ‘double standards’ whereby more importance is given to less significant things and less importance is given to more significant things. I wish to say that I am really struck by the disproportionate number of articles dedicated to Minister Sangiuliano’s private matter compared with the ones dedicated to an investigation by the Perugia Public Prosecutor’s Office into Italian State officials illegally accessing this nation’s databases hundreds of thousands of times over several years, and it is fair to think they did so in order to blackmail people. I think we need to give things their due importance if we want to help this nation’s institutions. That said, I shall say again that the Government has done what it had to do. For me it is very important indeed that the Government maintains its authority, and I hope that we can now move forward and that the new Minister, Alessandro Giuli, can keep up the excellent work done by Gennaro Sangiuliano.

Luciano Fontana: Just a few more words about the appeal, so to speak, that Mariarosaria Boccia made to you when she said you can’t demand respect for the dignity of a woman, whose feelings have been hurt, in an on-and-off way. An appeal addressed to you.

President Meloni: Look, I don’t believe I have to get into a squabble with this person. All I can say (and I am not saying this regarding this specific case, but with regard to the many women who have probably looked at this matter in the same way I have) is that my idea about how a woman should earn her own place in society is the polar opposite of this person’s.

Luciano Fontana: You mentioned your presence at Cernobbio two years ago. I remember a point you made in your address, stating that if Ukraine falls and the West perishes, then tomorrow’s big winner will be not only Russia, but also Xi Jinping’s China.

Is that what is happening? With regard to the Ukraine issue, you have just finished a bilateral meeting with President Zelensky; you must have been asked something about preventing that prophecy from coming true?

President Meloni: Firstly, thank you for this question and how you worded it, because you and I have incredibly had the same idea. The last time we saw each other, the election campaign was still underway and I was still a member of the opposition. We spoke about many strategic issues on that occasion, and so I went back to see what I said two years ago, because I believe it is always important, especially for my own benefit, to see how much of what I said on that occasion has actually then been covered by my work over these last two years and has been the focus of what I’ve done.

I shall digress for a moment but, don’t worry, I will come to the answer to your question. I was very pleased to see that the points I argued here two years ago, before becoming Head of the Government, are firstly the same positions I have now as President of the Council of Ministers and, secondly, they are also what I have been working on over these last two years. Compared to the debate two years ago, it appears to me that, with regard to many of these issues, plenty has changed.

On that occasion, I stated that Europe had a very serious problem regarding strategic autonomy linked to supply chains, and that it had to rethink them. When I would argue this point a few years ago, it would often be said that I was autarkic; today, this is being discussed at European Council meetings. I had been claiming for some time that the energy transition was important, but that it should not be carried out with an ideological approach, as otherwise it would risk heading directly for deindustrialisation in our nation and in Europe. It was said that I was an enemy of the environment and yet today we see the European Commission having to take more pragmatic positions with regard to many of these choices.

I said at the time that the NRRP [National Recovery and Resilience Plan] should be revised, I said so here during the election campaign, because it had been drawn up in a different context to the one we were facing. It was said we would have made Italy lose NRRP funds, but it appears to me that the reality has turned out differently. We revised the NRRP and freed up resources which we then dedicated above all to this nation’s businesses. I believe we did a useful thing and did not lose NRRP funds; I would actually like to recall that Italy ranks first in terms of implementation of its National Recovery and Resilience Plan, despite the fact it is also the nation with the largest Plan.

I am therefore saying this to also remind myself and everyone else to a certain extent that you must never be afraid to defend your positions if you are convinced they are right, and even if it seems that everyone else is going in a different direction; the most useful people are those who also have the courage to state things even if they have to swim against the tide. At times like this, I think this is particularly important, because we are living through extremely difficult times, and it is above all during extremely difficult times that politics is necessary. Politics, however, means visions, otherwise it doesn’t exist.

This is precisely the context we are operating in, and also in this regard I have always said what I think on the issue of Ukraine and have never changed my mind. I think that Italy has shown an extremely serious, determined and clear stance, as acknowledged by all our partners. In my view, when it comes to Ukraine, we must not give up, and I say that very clearly indeed, also knowing that public opinion is clearly afraid and concerned by the war, legitimately and with good reason.

I do not at all think that the fate of the Ukraine conflict is sealed. I think we need to be careful not to fall into the traps set by Russian propaganda. For months and months, I’ve kept hearing that the war in Ukraine is lost, that Russia is winning the war, that we do not have hope. The facts say something quite different. If we take a step back, we remember that the invasion of Ukraine was supposed to be a blitzkrieg by Russia which should have led to Kyiv being conquered in a matter of days. If we look at it two years on, we realise more and more that said goal is light years away.

I’ll give you some figures: in February 2023, Russia controlled 17.3% of Ukrainian territory; in February 2024, a year of war later, Russia controlled 17.5% of Ukrainian territory. This is not an imminent victory for Russia, it is a stalemate. We have helped create this stalemate by supporting Ukraine, because when the conflict began there was a huge disparity between the two forces in action, and it is obvious that, without the support to balance out that disparity, there certainly would have been a defeat, an invasion, which would not have meant peace. To those who talk to me about peace and say that we should not send weapons to Ukraine because then we can create peace, I would like to quietly point out that an invasion does not mean peace, and if there had been an invasion, there would not have been any need for a negotiating table.

Negotiations perhaps become possible when there is a stalemate between the forces in action. We therefore created that stalemate in order to build peace, and I think we did the right thing, I think we did and are doing the right thing both morally, and, please pay attention ladies and gentlemen, in Italy’s national interest. Are we sure a world in which the international rules that have guaranteed the multilateral system are broken could ever be in our best interest? Or a world in which those who have greater military might can invade their neighbours?

If we think about it, I fear this would not be in our best interest. It is in our best interest to have a world in which there are rules, as this guarantees that we have open markets, for example, and that our top-quality products can compete on the big markets. I do not, on the other hand, believe that competition on the number of tanks we have is in our best interest.

The Italian Government therefore chose justice, it chose justice and it chose to defend its national interests. I believe other major global players also need to focus on this same issue. It is obvious that, if the rules of international law are broken then we will end up with chaos and crises multiplying, but it is also obvious that, with multiplying crises, we will have a natural fragmentation of the geoeconomic sphere; in other words, economic globalisation and calling into question the rules of international law cannot go together over the long haul. This is also what I said to my Chinese counterparts; it is necessary to choose because the two things don’t go together, and this is also why I think that, in the end, nations, players like China and India, can and must play a role in resolving the conflict in Ukraine.

The only thing, ladies and gentlemen, that we cannot do is think we can resolve the conflict in Ukraine by abandoning Ukraine to its fate, because this won’t lead to peace; it will cause chaos, bring wars closer to our home and will have many much more serious economic consequences than it costs today to support Ukraine.

So, the choice Italy is making above all regards the national interest, and it is a choice that will not change.

Luciano Fontana: Did President Zelensky specifically ask you about the support Europe and also Italy can give…

President Meloni: There are certainly many things we are working on, starting with the fact that, as you know, next year we will be hosting the next Ukraine Recovery Conference on reconstruction. This will be a major event and so we are obviously already working on this, also thanks to the support of the European Union and all our partners, even though it will be held in 2025.

We must move forward with the subject, raised during the Italian G7 Presidency, of the famous loan of 50 billion, guaranteed by income from frozen Russian assets. We need to move forward on this; there are some decisions that are up to the European Union and, also in this regard, there is a fair amount of work to do.

Then there is the matter of the peace conference because, in all this, you saw that, immediately after the G7, there was an initial edition of an initiative to support negotiations. 

President Zelensky has said on several occasions that he is in favour of the possibility of the other parties also attending one of the next conferences, so we have discussed how we can keep working to achieve a just peace.

Luciano Fontana: President Meloni, the US election is drawing closer, with Harris and Trump running. There is a very strong risk that whoever wins will tell us, some to a greater and some to a lesser extent: “do it yourselves”. Is Europe equipped to go it alone in terms of economic competition and above all in terms of defence?

President Meloni: I don’t know. I think we must always remember that things are often more complex than they may seem because, in my view, foreign policy is often talked about in a, how can I put it, childish way based on what I read. It is never a game of cheering on some over others; great nations do not alter their system of alliances based on the changing of governments, as I’ve also sometimes read in certain reconstructions. I mean, I was supposedly an unpresentable far-right leader and the US administration is headed by a democrat, yet since my Government took office, Italian exports to the United States have increased by 7 billion. Great nations do not alter their system of alliances. So, I would first like to provide reassurance on Italy’s role and on relations between Italy and the United States, whichever way it goes. I also don’t think we need to worry about the relationship between the United States and Europe, in the sense that, yes, in the history of the United States there has been quite a recurring debate about an isolationist tendency; for a nation with such geographic dimensions and such economic strength, it is also normal to question whether it would perhaps be more advantageous for it to disregard what happens beyond its national borders. However, attention must also be paid to today’s global balances.

In 1990, the European Union with its 12 Member States held 26.5% of global gross domestic product. Today, the European Union has 27 Member States and holds 16.1% of global gross domestic product. In 1990, China’s gross domestic product equalled 1.8% of global gross domestic product, while today that figure stands at 18%. The United States today holds 26%. It is true that the United States is strong, but it is also true that you can manage to be much stronger in a system of alliances, right? Perhaps the real mistake we must not make is thinking that, when we focus on ourselves, we are also focusing on the bulk of what is happening in the world. This was the case in 1990 because we held the majority of global power; it is no longer the case. Today, when you decide to move, you have to do so taking into consideration the context. I therefore do not think this will happen in the end, but Europe clearly has to also take this possibility into consideration. 

I replied ‘I don’t know’ because, compared with the past, I can see that Europe is becoming aware of certain things that have not worked and certain things that need to be sorted out and worked on. It is equipping itself with a defence strategy; today we are aware of the fact that our ability to defend ourselves is also our ability to defend our national interests – simple. I believe I was one of the few opposition party leaders in the world who had the courage to say, while I was still a member of the opposition, that defence spending is needed to adequately defend our national interests.

Europe now understands this, establishing this as one of its priorities. However, it then isn’t equipping itself with the instruments it needs to pursue that strategy, and this is what doesn’t work. We are all saying that Europe needs to develop and strengthen its defence industry, but when we drew up the governance rules, there was a failure to duly take into account the investments needed in defence.

The same thing is true for the ecological transition and for the digital transition. In my view, if you have a strategy, you have to pursue it, because if you equip yourself with a strategy but then don’t pursue it, in this context you unfortunately risk not succeeding.

Then there is the problem of competitiveness. On this matter, I can really relate to the phrase used by someone who follows American politics very closely: “America innovates, China replicates, Europe regulates”. This is an extraordinary snapshot of the context, as this really is the case. 

In other words, at a certain point in time, Europe thought its main role was to regulate everything. I think the solution is to regulate less. I think that, in this scenario, Europe would be stronger if it dealt better with the major issues that national states cannot address alone, and dealt less with issues that national states are closer to and in relation to which they can also manage to better defend their specific characteristics.

If we keep thinking we can solve the problem of our production system and our competitiveness by adding rules, then I am afraid we risk not helping our companies.

These are clearly issues I am raising, we have now also seen – I can see Enrico Letta was here and I found many of the points Enrico made in his plan to be very interesting; we will now also hear Mario Draghi’s assessments. Regardless of the fact I was a member of the opposition during both their governments, I think we should be happy that the European Union called upon two Italians to evaluate competitiveness, the single market and Europe’s major challenges. This is a great thing and I am willing to speak with anyone who wants to discuss serious matters, because I believe those who are true friends of Europe at this difficult time must not simply stand there and say that everything is ok.  

Luciano Fontana: Speaking of serious, very serious, matters, there is undoubtedly the issue of the role our commissioner will have in Europe. Are there any updates on appointments, or any indication of who will then follow implementation of the NRRP in Italy, as this is a key point regarding investments next year.

President Meloni: The journalist is coming out now, Mr Editor. Now, let’s see, there should be some news next week; I believe an announcement by the President of the European Commission is on its way. I wish to stress that I do not have any reason to believe that Italy will not be given what it is due, and not because the Government or Giorgia Meloni is liked or not, but because of Italy’s strong role. On this point too, I wish to say that I frankly often find discussions to be, how can I put it, surreal, based on what I read. I think we always need to remember what Italy’s role is. We are a founding member of the European Union, we are Europe’s third largest economy and second largest manufacturer and the third largest nation in terms of inhabitants. We are a strong nation within the European Union and no one wants Italy to be denied that role.

That said, with regard to the debate as I have seen it, I think it is rather undignified to claim, as some have, that because Fratelli d’Italia did not vote to reappoint Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission, the President of the European Commission has allegedly been unable to let that go and thus apparently won’t give Italy the importance it deserves. If I were Ursula von der Leyen, this would objectively make me very angry indeed. Fratelli d’Italia did not vote for Ursula von der Leyen the previous time either and, by the way, this time it wasn’t because of Ursula von der Leyen, with whom I have worked very well, but clearly because we must take into account the supporting majority. Fratelli d’Italia did not vote for Ursula von der Leyen previously, and I have worked very well with her over the last two years; I have no reason to believe things will be different in the future. I think you gain a lot more respect if you have the courage to say what you think and behave in a loyal way, rather than always saying everything is fine and then maybe saying something different behind people’s backs; at least in my view that is what serious politics is about. 

We’ll see which mechanism works best next week, but I am optimistic about the role Italy will have in the next European Commission. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Gentiloni, whose mandate is about to come to an end, for his work over the last years.

With regard to the NRRP, I can’t help but smile a lot, because Minister Fitto has received all sorts of insults from the opposition over these years, they’ve said pretty much everything about him, yet today the same people who insulted him are asking us to carry on Fitto’s work. In short, this is a rather good reflection of how serious certain opposition views are. I nevertheless believe that Raffaele Fitto should really be thanked for his extraordinary work on the NRRP over the last years. We were used to Italy always lagging behind somewhat, with difficulties in spending European funds, yet today we rank first in terms of implementing the NRRP, which is undoubtedly a credit to our nation.

Just as the NRRP was in good hands with Raffaele Fitto, rest assured it will be in good hands also in the years to come, because the Government has shown it will put all its expertise and focus on this strategic project and Italy’s entire economic system is working on it and working on it well. The most crucial phase is now here, which regards spending and implementing these resources, and this is also the best phase as citizens will see the results it can and will bring. I think the whole of Italy must thank Raffaele Fitto for the work he has done and also for the work he will be able to do for Europe, hopefully, over the coming years, above all because we need skilled people with vision and concreteness also at European level and Italy is trying to do its part to ensure those people are there.

Luciano Fontana: President Meloni, we are coming to the end of this initial segment and will then have some questions from the audience, but I wanted to ask a question now we are heading towards the autumn, the season of the budget law, the season of the structural budget plan to be submitted to the European Union. You have already put your hands up, giving an overview saying there are few resources, and of course we know there are not many and they need to be used in a responsible way, but then we have seen a flurry of requests come in over the last few days. How do you move on an issue – the debt repayment plan and budget law – in relation to which there are so many choices to be made? Can you give us an indication of what will definitely be included and what definitely won’t be?

President Meloni: I’d rather tell you who the next NRRP Minister will be. Well, Mr Editor, the economic situation is clearly not easy, as we all know, there are few resources available, but I believe that how those resources are used can really make the difference. What I would like to say is that perhaps the thing I am most proud of after the last two years of work are this nations’ economic results in such an impossible context, a context in which Italy has clearly always been considered the weakest link to a certain extent; it was thought it would be the first to perish but instead we see Italy climbing up many rankings.

Gross domestic product is growing by more than the European average and more than in other major Western European nations. Employment figures are very significant, although they are not talked about very much. We have the highest number of people in employment in Italy’s history, since Garibaldi unified it, and we have the lowest unemployment rate since 2008. We have the highest ever rate of female employment, an increase in the number of permanent contracts and a reduction in job insecurity. In 2023, we were the fourth-largest exporting nation in the world, which had also never happened before. Is this thanks to the Government? No. It is thanks to this nation’s production fabric, it is thanks to the companies and their workers, it is thanks to our entrepreneurs’ ability to be resilient (sometimes even despite the institutions), to innovate and compete, it is thanks to our excellent products; in short, it is thanks to our production fabric.

How has the Government tried to help? By ensuring Italy has an authoritative position and plays a key role in international dynamics. I am sometimes asked why I work on foreign policy so much. Foreign policy is also domestic policy. The more you have credibility at international level, the more you can create opportunities for your own production companies and products, and the export figures prove it.

Authoritativeness, a key role at international level, Government stability. In 75 years of the Italian Republic’s history, we have had 68 governments. I am currently heading the ninth longest-lasting government in Italy’s history. If I get to Christmas, it will be in sixth place. In other words, it is a very easy ranking to climb, but joking aside…

Luciano Fontana: And Easter?

President Meloni: And Easter? I haven’t worked that out yet, because I’m superstitious. I don’t know, we’ll see. Once I’ve got past Christmas, I’ll look at Easter; one thing at a time, Mr Editor.

Moving beyond this fun fact, however, have you ever asked yourselves what price we have paid? Have you ever asked yourselves what price we have paid in terms of our ability to forge strategic international and therefore industrial relations with our partners? Have you ever asked yourselves what price we have paid in terms of our ability to put resources into investments and not always use spending to make short-term gains on the electoral level? What price have we paid for the fact we didn’t have a strategy? Because you don’t need a strategy if you’re looking at a term of office that only lasts a year and a half; you need to deliver results, as we have seen. In fact, we have the level of public debt that we do, but the investments haven’t been made. Stability is key.

This brings me to the issue of reforms, but I shan’t go into detail because I know there isn’t the time, right? Why did I say that in my view a system that can guarantee stability is the mother of all reforms, the key, not at institutional level but from an economic point of view?

What is Italy’s role in the world? What strategy do we need to pursue? I think, for example, that we can’t compete when it comes to product quantity but we can compete when it comes to product quality. We are in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, we are a platform in the Mediterranean. Can we really say that Italy has had the role it deserves in the Mediterranean in recent years? It has not had the role it deserves in the Mediterranean, and we are trying to rebuild it, in connection with Africa; you know all about the work this Government is doing. This means making choices and, as I was saying earlier with regard to the European Union, pursuing them with instruments.

What have we done? We have ensured authoritativeness, stability, vision, and responsible budget policies. If there isn’t much money, it cannot be wasted; it’s rather simple. What are the priorities that have the greatest multiplier effect? For me, they were companies hiring people, wages, defending households’ purchasing power, and citizens’ health. And, of course, the birth rate, because in all this we have another problem, ladies and gentlemen, which we must address. With current demographic figures, our welfare system will not hold up. The population is getting older and older, people are having fewer and fewer children, and we will have more and more people to maintain, and less and less people working to maintain them. There’s no way out unless we favour different policies. We have put resources into this; few, but dedicated to this. Has it worked? It appears it is working somewhat, and so I think this strategy simply has to be followed.

What is in the budget law? I’ll tell you what’s not in it. There are not many of the things I have read about, such as wanting to get rid of the ‘assegno unico’ [‘single allowance’] benefit (and I also ask myself how things that have never even been imagined can become front page stories in some newspapers); absolutely not, and this Government has actually allocated another 3 billion to the ‘assegno unico’ allowance, for the very reason I was just telling you about: the birth rate. It must then be defended against European Commission infringement procedures, but it is a crucial instrument, as is everything that helps working mothers above all, and families.

We want to confirm what we have done and continue seeing what else can be done, but always with the responsible approach of keeping a budget policy that says the time of bonuses, money being thrown out of the window and resources being spent on things that don’t have any multiplier effect and produce no results, is over. There are few resources, and that is all the more reason not to waste them. This is my budget policy, and the budget policy of the governing majority, because, moving beyond the legitimate claims we have all made and always make, I think our Government has approved its two Budget Laws in the quickest time ever, and so yes, those claims are fair. We will be making plenty of projections between now and when we present the Budget Law. I myself ask Minister Giorgetti every day to look into different things for me, because that is how to work responsibly: first you study the things and see what they can produce, and then you decide on your priorities. All parties in the governing majority are doing this and there will be discussions, but I have no doubt about the fact that we will keep doing what we have done over the last two years, because we are seeing results.

Luciano Fontana: Thank you, President Meloni. There will now be two questions from other meeting participants. Emma Marcegaglia.

Emma Marcegaglia: Thank you, President Meloni. I wanted to say that, as we all know, we have discussed global scenarios a lot over the last few days and what we are facing is a scenario of light and darkness: on the one hand, the United States seemed to be in recession but instead should be heading for a soft landing, China is experiencing a kind of stunted growth, and Europe is scraping by with +0.8% and a very serious problem with Germany, as we know, recording zero growth, we’ve seen the latest industrial production figures, -5% growth. As you were saying, Italy has been performing better until now, but it is clear that it is now being affected by this trend, especially by Germany, and so is now slowing down in certain sectors, particularly the automotive, steel and machinery industries.

I wanted to say three things, and I’ll ask a question about one of them. I think there are three key priorities for the coming months. The first, as you have already said, is to seriously and pragmatically revise the Green Deal at European level. We have discussed this several times, and we are in favour of decarbonisation but not in the way it has been done so far, and then an integration of the European future based on what Enrico Letta is saying [inaudible].

The second issue regards the cost of energy, as you are very familiar with. There is an issue with energy costing more in Europe than in the United States, but energy costs in Italy are also much higher than in France and Spain. 

The third issue, and I shall come to my question, regards investments. Investments are weak, and there is a growth gap that is probably also due to a lower level of innovation and digitalisation. I am therefore very convinced that the ‘Industry 5.0’ is a good law, as indeed was ‘Industry 4.0’, which led to Italy’s industrial system becoming more automated and stronger. There are EUR 6 billion to be spent on the digital and energy transition, on energy savings, and that is interesting. I would like to ask two things on this. The first is, from our point of view, the ‘Industry 5.0’ law is interesting but access is somewhat bureaucratic, somewhat complex; there are various requests that need to be submitted, so this could to a certain extent penalise above all small companies. The second is: considering it began a few months late, in August instead of January, 2025 as the work deadline risks penalising companies: today, if you order machinery, it will probably arrive after the end of 2025. So, if it would be possible to extend the deadline on this matter.

However, in my view, ‘Industry 5.0’ can, at this time of weakness, help support Italian companies’ investments.

President Meloni: Thank you. Firstly, as you know, we agree on the priorities, with regard to both the Green Deal and Europe’s and Italy’s difficulties with energy costs. I think that, also from this point of view, the strategy we are trying to implement of making Italy a sort of energy supply hub for Europe, also working in connection with Africa, and endeavouring to focus on connection infrastructure, is necessary to also provide these kind of answers.

‘Industry 5.0’, and thank you for mentioning it, is perhaps one of the things this Government has done that I have not managed to give adequate visibility to, but as you rightfully recalled, we are talking about EUR 6.3 billion being available to companies, in particular for the very purpose of making their work more efficient in terms of energy use and digitalisation; this is in addition to ‘Industry 4.0’, in relation to which the Government invested a further EUR 6.4 billion in the 2024 Budget Law.

We are therefore talking about 12 billion allocated to the innovation of our companies. This would not have been possible if we hadn’t carried out the famous revision of the NRRP I was talking about before. As you know, ‘Industry 5.0’ grants a tax credit to these innovation projects, with the value of the tax credit increasing the more the relative investments lead to energy savings. To give a few examples, a EUR 2.5 million investment leading to a 10% decrease in energy costs would receive a tax credit of up to 45%. I therefore think this can be a very useful instrument and, as well as investments, eligible expenses also include staff training costs. This helps big industry but it above all helps small and medium-sized enterprises and micro enterprises to keep pace with the energy transition. This is an automatic measure, and so isn’t subject to the time frames of an evaluator’s investigation, and I thought this would already be an important message from a bureaucratic point of view, but if there are things that can be improved then I am absolutely ready and willing to listen, and also to look into possible extensions because, in my view, you should implement measures, assess how they work and then decide how to move forward. I think you sometimes need to be brave enough to say “I thought up this measure but it isn’t working”.

When I wanted to halve tax on early childcare products and realised after a year that the cost for consumers of early childcare products had not gone down, I withdrew the measure. As we were saying before, money should not be thrown or given away. So, the better a measure works, clearly the more we will have an interest in pushing ahead with it.

Thank you for this nice discussion, thank you for what you do, thank you for your work. I wish to greet the many friends I can see in this room, and my greetings once again go to Valerio De Molli, who has already invited me to next year’s forum (you need to book a year in advance here now). My thanks to you, Mr Editor, for your work, and I wish you all a good day.

[Courtesy translation]