«A politics that chases events, that fails to plan ahead and that lacks vision». This is the assessment of Matteo Casali (Repubblica Futura) on the bill dedicated to measures supporting families and the birth rate, discussed and approved by the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale). Repubblica Futura chose to abstain, acknowledging some positive aspects of the text but judging the intervention insufficient to tackle a complex problem such as the declining birth rate.
Casali focused his criticism above all on the method and timing. According to the councillor, the need to revisit the matter just a few years later demonstrates «the failure of the 2022 law», while the year and a half that has passed since the March 2025 motion, along with amendments introduced right up to the second reading, are signs of a policy lacking any real planning.
For RF, however, the core issue is above all political. Subsidies and incentives are not enough unless they are part of a broader project that simultaneously tackles employment, purchasing power, housing, education and healthcare. The passage on housing was particularly pointed: according to Casali, San Marino is «no longer facing a housing emergency», but rather a problem that has become structural.
Hence the call for a steering committee and a genuine «national model», backed by more effective use of data to identify the categories on which to focus interventions. Casali nevertheless acknowledged some positive measures, including those concerning caregivers, while reiterating RF’s willingness to take part in a broader dialogue.
Below is the full text of his speech.
Matteo Casali (RF): «I will start by saying I have partial satisfaction with this legislative measure, and I will say from the outset that we are not opposed to it. However, I must point out that once again we are faced with an example of politics that chases events rather than planning ahead. The first political fact worth underlining is that we have had to intervene again only a short time after 2022, revising a law that at the time was hailed as a definitive solution in terms of family support. So the first political fact is the failure of the 2022 law, which today must be substantially reworked. This example of reactive politics is also evident in how long this law took to gestate. I recall that the motion which brought us to this second reading dates back to March 2025: a year and a half ago. This is politics that chases events and fails to plan. Not to mention the last-minute amendments and the way the process was managed: a first reading, followed by the bill going to Committee with a huge number of amendments that opposition committee members effectively had to discuss on the spot, right up to further amendments being made at the second reading, chasing changes up until just a few days ago. So this is politics that chases events, fails to plan, and lacks vision. Apparently, this is what is being sold to us as flexibility. Flexibility, if anything, would mean a legislative tool that is enacted and applied from the moment the law comes into force. You cannot pass off last-minute changes as flexibility, when in reality this hides a method based on improvisation and error, and probably also some difficulty in identifying the right stakeholders to engage with. The declining birth rate is a complex issue. No one claims to have a magic wand, and no one is boasting: “We’ll come in and solve the problems.” It is a complex, systemic and, above all, cultural issue, one that affects, I believe, the whole of Western society, of which we are part, whether we like it or not. The State can hardly intervene—without venturing into philosophical considerations that would take us too far afield—on matters of custom and culture. What it can certainly do, however, is provide the means and create the right conditions. That is what we are called upon to do. But these means and these conditions, beyond the subsidies and support incentives we are discussing, cannot be separated from a comprehensive, I would even say holistic, vision of all the issues that together create those conditions. Beyond the question of subsidies, there is the issue of employment. And when I speak of employment, in relation to the conditions needed to start a family, I am referring specifically to work as the means to secure the purchasing power necessary to get by. Employment is therefore essential, and full employment on its own tells us little: what matters is the real purchasing power that such employment guarantees to families. In light of what has been said in recent days, I would also add that pensioners have a point too. We have always spoken about the purchasing power of families, and rightly so, since that is the subject at hand today, but let’s not forget pensioners, because purchasing power must be safeguarded for them as well. Then there is housing. How can we expect a young couple to start a family with any degree of security, creating the very conditions I said it is the State’s duty to provide, if they cannot afford—not even to rent, let alone buy—a home? As I have already had occasion to say, we are no longer facing a housing emergency, because an emergency is, by definition, something limited in time. What we now have is a housing problem, not a housing emergency. Rather than showing some humility about the failure to resolve certain issues, the opposite happens: a problem left unresolved by this Government becomes yet another opportunity for self-promotion, another chance to claim it will be solved through other measures. I am referring to the housing law, to function H of territorial planning and, most recently, to the social housing measure we will examine in this session. Then there is education, a training system that must constantly evolve and which never provides enough preparation for a labour market demanding continuous training. These are the major technical and political issues. What is missing is a steering committee capable of building a national model which, despite what some may claim, does not currently exist. We must move towards creating a national model, so that this State is able to provide all the tools needed in the areas I have just described, and others besides—healthcare comes to mind too—so that the State and its structures create those conditions. There is also a major difficulty in managing data. The work done in Committee, and indeed in this Chamber, has shown that the Government struggles to manage data effectively. Rather than starting from an analysis of the data, summarising the trends and then formulating proposals for intervention, measures are introduced by broad categories, without proper targeting, without identifying and without truly aiming at the categories one actually wants to help, including with regard to contributions. The atmosphere in Committee, and I must say in this Chamber too, has been fairly resigned, precisely because everyone fully understands that this piece of the puzzle—support measures and subsidies—if left disconnected from a genuine revival strategy, is unlikely to reverse, or even halt, the declining birth rate. To be fair, some measures are positive. The caregiver provision, setting aside various details, is a battle we have championed for years. There have been a few rough edges, such as the cap of 50 caregivers and the spending ceiling. We said no to the moratorium on nursery fees, no to parenting subsidies such as those for nappies, formula and similar items. So, while there is broad agreement on some measures, I must say that many of our proposals unfortunately went unheard. The challenge, then, is this: to create a national model, a national project to which we can all contribute, each within our own role, because otherwise we are told we are demanding who knows what. Within the bounds of our respective roles, we are willing to help build this national model. Recently, some majority parties have been talking about working groups, evidently because they realise that certain ways of governing are starting to creak. We, within the bounds of our role, are willing to take part in these working groups and contribute to building a national model. Because we can only halt this trend—if we cannot reverse it—by creating those very conditions and that national model which some, even in this Chamber and on this occasion, have boasted about, but which, unfortunately, does not yet exist. A steering committee is needed, now more than ever, to shape a coherent set of measures. Today’s measure is one we are not opposed to—indeed, we will abstain—but on its own, while containing interesting and worthwhile ideas, it is not enough. We believe that, in order to reverse this trend, more can and must be done, and done better».
