Speeches

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, guaranteeing animal welfare is a moral obligation, as well as a civic duty towards our four-legged friends who bring love and affection into our lives, but also towards all those animals destined for commercial purposes. For this reason, we must adopt strict controls on farms and in the trafficking of animals of affection, so as to avoid any form of abuse and ill-treatment, while ensuring that buyers are aware of the importance of choosing ethical sources. At the same time, we must ensure that the livestock sector also adopts best practices and complies with EU standards, which are the highest in the world. This not only guarantees the welfare of the animals, but also the quality of the products we consume. However, we must not fall into the error of demonising an entire sector for the non-observance of a few. Strictly punish those who transgress, absolutely yes, but without forgetting that the vast majority of operators work with dedication and respect for animals. We cannot afford to adopt ideological measures that risk bringing entire farms to their knees without bringing any real benefit to animal welfare. Only by working together, institutions and industry, can we ensure a better future for the animals that deserve our respect and protection. (The speaker rejected a "blue card" question by Niels Fuglsang)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, 890 geographical indications including food, wine and spirits: With this data, Italy is the first European country for PDO and PGI certified products, which have a value of more than 20 billion euros in total. Thanks to this regulation, we will protect our producers more, especially against counterfeiting, and finally ensure that our cultural, gastronomic and local heritage is certified as authentic in the European Union and around the world. This is an important result, which perhaps will also trace the way to resolve disputes such as that of "Prosek" and our beloved Prosecco. Surely there will be no more similar problems in the future, because the new regulation is clear: traditional terms such as ‘Prosek’ may not be registered in the case of geographical indications such as Prosecco. To achieve this result, we at the League have worked at the forefront, demonstrating that we are always at the side of producers and territories for the protection of our agri-food excellence.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, regencies and deputies awaiting the desired chair: this is the fate of many, too many teachers who, still in 2024, have to deal with precarious working conditions, unattractive wages, exhausted rankings, episodes of burnout that risk having repercussions on students and an understandable crisis of vocation among young people. Teachers and principals are lacking and so the staff ages. There is difficulty in hiring and paying for it is the quality of teaching for our children. Solutions must be found and Veneto, my region, has also asked for autonomy to manage staff more quickly and efficiently. And this EU too must do its utmost to support Member States in improving education systems through dedicated and high-quality teacher training, especially in digital skills, which are increasingly in demand and needed. Rita Levi-Montalcini said: The choice of a young man depends on his inclination, but also on the luck of meeting a great teacher. We must therefore ensure great teachers for the future of our young people and to do so we must train trainers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, fisheries subsidies: This was the focus of the previous WTO conference. Noble intentions, especially in the fight against IUU fishing, on which we all agree that an iron fist must be adopted. But a big spectrum on the horizon: the end of tax breaks on fuel for fishing vessels. For many years, our fishermen have been threatened by this sword of Damocles and the risk of fuel being taxed again. If the Marrakesh Agreement is ratified by two-thirds of the members, we will only have to appeal to Article 4.3, demonstrating that subsidies or other measures, such as MAPs or GFCM recommendations, are implemented to restore stocks. And here we would need the support of Europe, which has so far turned its head on the other side. That is why in Abu Dhabi we cannot allow fuel tax breaks to be seen as harmful subsidies. Fisheries must live in order to contribute to European food security.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the end of bottom trawling is what Europe is calling for in the action plan. The understandable protests of the European navies and the sound of the sirens of the more than 7 000 boats that are in danger of ceasing to operate do not seem to have reached your ears, dear Commissioner. What else do fishermen have to do to be heard? Why do you continue with proposals that directly affect a sector that in the European Union contributes 25% of total landings of fish and 38% of revenues? Do you want to flood our markets with products imported from third countries? Because this will be the only way to meet the growing demand and destroy the European train. Yet European fishermen already follow some of the strictest rules in the world, giving them the role of guarantors of best fishing practices. For this reason, the action plan should protect the environment and biodiversity, following a cross-cutting and holistic approach and not focus only on fishing activities, especially considering that marine protected areas have been established to protect natural resources, while the seabed should be managed, on a case-by-case basis, on a local basis. We need clarity, especially in the binding aspects of the plan and a little more realism in dealing with the economic and environmental problems of this European Union.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was 2013 when the common fisheries policy was quickly reformed. In the last ten years we have gone from a total lack of objectives for fisheries management to political, if not electoral, objectives, which in some cases are impossible to achieve or extremely difficult to put into practice. The result is fishermen's distrust of politics and of the European Union, as the measures adopted are inadequate and lack a solid scientific basis, and the distrust of society, which does not see the desired improvements to the environment and ends up considering fishermen as outlaws enemies of the sea, instead of recognizing their role in ensuring food security and the development of coastal communities. In the future Common Fisheries Policy, the balance between the three pillars of sustainability will need to be restored and its balance re-aligned. We give fisheries, aquaculture and the whole value chain of fish products the place they deserve, placing them at the top of the European Union's political agenda.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, more than 700 companies at risk, devastating repercussions on thousands of jobs and a negative impact on more than 30% of Italy's GDP: These are just some of the effects of this absurd regulation for Italy, which has achieved a recycling rate of 73.3%, nine years before the target set by the European Union. Yet the efforts made by Italian companies would not be enough to cope with the follies contained in this proposal that aims to replace recycling with reuse. All this without considering the increase in the use of water, energy, prices for companies and consumers, as well as possible damage in the transport, storage and safety of certain products, especially food. No more red fruit trays, salad bags, protective films, flower pots, courtesy sets in hotels, takeaway packaging. Not to mention the impact on wines and drinks. Will the benefit really be commensurate with the commitment? No, this is the wrong way and with tomorrow's vote we have a duty to strike a balance between the need to reduce packaging and related waste and the needs of producers.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, that is the ideology, that is what moved the majority of this Parliament when it adopted drastic reductions in the use of plant protection products, which are even more restrictive than those proposed by the Commission. The rapporteur has rejoiced and who knows if she will do the same when she realises that she has put the entire agricultural supply chain at risk: Or maybe that was the goal! Let him state this clearly, because these strict rules go only in the environmental direction and do not consider the production needs, not to mention the serious risks to food safety to which they expose the whole of Europe. We are faced with rules designed to destroy European agriculture, because, dear colleagues, our farmers do not need free advice on preventive measures but they need to be able to use the necessary tools to work, especially in the absence of viable alternatives.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, everything changes so as not to change anything. I congratulate the Commission and the Council on having completely wasted four years of negotiations. In this regard, I would like to know where the Commissioner is tonight. We had to give fisheries a leaner and easier-to-implement control regulation. Instead, we will have twisted and punitive rules, more bureaucracy and a lack of harmonisation. You have even managed to impose the obligation to install cameras on board to monitor the work of our fishermen, on the basis of the risk of infringement, not on infringements that actually took place. It's a shame. So, Commissioner, let us imagine together: How would you react if I now pointed this camera at your notes or your mobile phone? Or if I record it while discussing with your staff or during your meetings? Would he feel violated, perhaps a little in awe, knowing he was being controlled? So why do you do this to fishermen? So you showed that your intent was to inflict yet another blow to harass the fishing. In fact, the negotiations in which I participated as shadow rapporteur were marked by your continuous blackmail to sabotage a just agreement, respecting the three pillars of sustainability. For years you have exploited environmental and stock sustainability through absurd proposals, such as the action plan to destroy bottom trawling, and unsustainable fishing reductions, such as those of WestMED or the GFCM. For what? To favor synthetic fish, imported fish, plant alternatives or insects, because that's what will remain, if you continue like this. The League says no and votes against, because the positive aspects that we as a Parliament have managed to include in the text do not balance the damage that fishing will suffer as a result of the pitfalls of this regulation. Convincedly, we have asked for the whole proposal to be rejected. Our fishermen are tired of your ideology and deserve clarity for the future.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, glyphosate yes or glyphosate no? For years, the European Union has been questioning this substance, and with every deadline and renewal we find ourselves reopening a debate that touches on different economic and public health spheres. Member States that choose to authorise glyphosate do so with requirements for thresholds and how to respond to environmental and social safety needs, but this, in view of a multi-annual authorisation, is an even more important element. At the same time, local governments need to put in place effective measures that are incompatible with the European bureaucracy if it turns out to be an end in itself. That is why, after so many years of diverging opinions, the sector needs a bit of clarity and today, after a legislature that raises more unknown than certain farmers, we take on board the technical conclusions of the latest studies. Some doubts, however, remain on the table and the proposed renewal of the authorisation comes without great effort in Brussels' support for the search for viable and effective natural alternatives. Then the question arises spontaneously: Is the EU facilitating the search for alternatives? Are we prepared to apply the same technical standards to our trading partners in free trade agreements? The renewal of the authorization to five or ten years certifies the delay that we still discount in the development of spendable alternatives. Be at least honest and avoid unnecessary bureaucratic quibbles for those who need them and have no alternative.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as a representative from Venice, I too must remember the victims of the tragic accident that took place last night in Mestre. They were thirty-five foreign tourists returning from a day's visit to Venice, when the bus crashed from an overpass, catching fire. Twenty-one people have died, including two children and the driver from Treviso, and more than fifteen people have been injured, five of whom are in serious condition. The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, decreed the city's mourning and the president of the Veneto region, Luca Zaia, displayed the flag at half-mast in all regional offices as a sign of public mourning. I believe it is important for this Parliament to express all its condolences for such a tragedy and to show closeness to the victims and their families in this dramatic moment of grief.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we do not have enough medicines in the European Union. For twenty years now, the costs of these structural deficiencies have been paid by the citizens, who only in Italy suffered the total absence of almost 900 drugs last winter. These are numbers that must make us reflect not only on the shortage of drugs, but also on dependence on third countries. This is why diversifying production is not enough. Above all, we must support as soon as possible a new industrial policy that concentrates in Europe the implementation of the active ingredients we need. The hope is that these solutions will come from the next pharmaceutical strategy, from which we all expect a decisive change of approach. With the winter season just around the corner, we can no longer afford to repeat the same mistakes of the past and still depend on others, especially when it comes to the health of our citizens.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the recent energy crisis and galloping inflation are hitting European households hard, not just those in the weakest strata. In the European Union, it is estimated that one in three households struggles to make ends meet; In Italy, this figure drops to one in two families. This is why we need to act urgently and do so on several levels, to concretely address the problem of precariousness, especially of all those workers on fixed-term and seasonal contracts, very widespread in key sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, tourism and construction. These workers are hired for limited periods, usually during peak seasons of activity, and for this reason they are in a situation of instability and job uncertainty but also credit. We must therefore act on access to credit, which today is particularly difficult, if not impossible, for precarious workers, and we must join forces to adopt harmonised policies and measures that guarantee adequate protection and rights. Only in this way will we be able to regulate seasonal work and ensure the safety and health of workers.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I still hear the sound of hail in Veneto, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Trentino-Alto Adige last July: ice grains so large as to fill the palm of one hand and devastate cars and cultures; gusts of wind such as to uncover roofs and uproot trees; people and animals injured by the impetus of bad weather. And how to forget the flood that hit Emilia-Romagna... A real catastrophe! A catastrophe with damage that could be partly avoided if all the preventive measures had been taken, something that the left-wing governor obviously did not do, just to respond to his colleague. But the regions of the North-East of Italy have been able to react and rise, thanks to the tenacity of the population and also to the incessant work of firefighters, Civil Protection, Alpini and volunteers. But it is undeniable that every extreme event weakens our territory and exposes citizens to danger. Stop wasting time with spot measures that look to 2050 and ignore the problems that businesses and families face today. To be truly resilient, states need quick and effective responses right away. Here and now.

Madam President, the ambition and objectives of this directive were known from the outset. Too bad that the result was not fully in line with expectations. We all want to protect the health of our citizens, considering the importance that water has in our lives and uses in agriculture and industry. With the new directive, data will be available to citizens. And this, along with updating definitions, will make monitoring more transparent and aware. At the same time, we must be realistic and set achievable standards, at sustainable costs: In Veneto, my region, the supervisory authorities will have to monitor more than 900 water bodies and tell us that they need time and methods adapted to the new standards. We cannot ignore this and we do not want to deceive our citizens. It is time to put a stop to these ideologies and give back to the Venetians, Italians and Europeans the protections they deserve.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, rejected in the PECH Committee, rejected in the AGRI Committee, rejected in the ENVI Committee and, it would seem, the fourth comes by itself. And in this case, that is what we are asking of this plenary. Once again, hoping that it will be the last, we aim to reject a regulation that damages productive activities, hiding behind the noble intent of the defense of nature. Less land for farmers, less sea for fishermen, less activity for businesses and less European products and jobs for our citizens. Here are the heavy backlashes of the proposals contained in a regulation permeated with ideology and counterproductive to nature itself. It is not what we want, and above all it is not what the citizens and the planet deserve! The European Commission must stop selling us out to third countries, the only ones benefiting from this hypocritical environmentalism.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to recall the girl who died from the flames in a fire the other day here in Brussels. I know you cannot ask for a minute's silence, but I wanted to join all those young people who move here to Europe to build this Union and give importance to what is a great meaning for us. So I ask for a minute's silence, if possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will be direct: We don't like this action plan. And I tell you this by showing you a piece of net that our fishermen use for trawling in Italy: Do you see the size of the shirts? Do you know that the impact on the bottom of our train is not like the one outside the EU? Did you hear the sirens of the fishermen who demonstrated in Europe the other day? This action plan is a boomerang that demonstrates once again that the policies of the European Union are inadequate and far removed from reality, from the life at sea and on the quayside that our fishermen live. In the name of ideological environmentalism, you want to ban trawling by as many as 2 088 Italian vessels, which supply 80% of the fish sold in our fish markets and fishmongers. You are asking us to give up 20% of the Italian fleet and entire fish supply chains in order to make room for fish imported from third countries that do not even comply with our own rules and standards or, worse, to give us fish produced in the laboratory. Is this what you really want for the food future of the European Union? Yesterday we said it loud and clear with a flash-mob: we are on the side of fishermen and also of all those citizens who want to continue to consume Italian and European fish, which is synonymous with quality and safety. Give us answers on the future of trawling and fuel taxation but do not repeat the usual fable that the action plan is not binding, because we know that it will be the matrix of future proposals for regulations that, yes, will be binding. We will defend our ocean economy from this threat. You remember to look fishermen and their families in the face before condemning them to these wicked proposals.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, to support European farmers and consumers: this must be the European Union's priority in the face of the food security threats brought to light by the conflict in Ukraine. The shortage of products and fertilisers, which we have witnessed over the past year, has underlined the need to strengthen European food production and sovereignty. That is why, as rapporteur for the ID Group, I have put forward constructive proposals for this resolution, on which we have worked fruitfully and positively. Our aim is for fertilisers to become truly available and affordable and for the European Union's dependency on third countries to be reduced. We import too much and produce too little, so we have to change course. The European Union must focus on its farmers and provide them with all the tools to create a sustainable value chain. That's why we asked to equate chemical fertilizers with all those nutrients coming from processed manure. In addition, we asked to increase the regional diffusion of small and medium-scale biogas plants dedicated to the production of fertilizers, in particular digestate and energy. This resolution brings some common sense to the European Chambers on agriculture and its environmental commitments. Too often, in fact, the European Commission forgets that to have viable commitments, alternative resources and innovation are needed, starting with the use of products and technologies that the first sector has already developed as its own heritage of knowledge, as demonstrated for years by Italian farmers. Only in this way can we regain the productive power that European citizens expect and ensure a proper food supply.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the right direction is the path taken by this report where we have all worked, showing that when we join forces, good agreements are reached. Small-scale fishing is the heart of European fishing and embodies the deepest values and traditions. It is a sustainable fishing, more selective and less polluting, carried out with sacrifices and passion of our fishermen, strong and proud men and women, who guarantee us healthy and quality products. It is necessary to recognize their value and their strategic role at the economic, environmental and social level, given the employment and growth impact of the lagoon coastal communities. This is why we wanted to highlight the added value that small-scale fishing brings to the seas, fish stocks and society. Our proposals have been clear: earmark EMFAF funds to modernise vessels and ensure more safety and usability on board; encourage direct sales to increase the profitability of fishermen and promote local products; enhancing young people and women; also consider all other factors impacting the seas, as fisheries are not solely responsible for the depletion of stocks. The call is for the Commission to take this position of the European Parliament into account, especially in the Control Regulation and in the forthcoming revision of the Common Fisheries Policy. Try not to destroy what is left of good. European fisheries want to live.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are recently witnessing a newfound and unanimous awareness on the subject of disability, as evidenced by the numerous legislative proposals and the increasingly frequent institutional debates. It is clear, however, that all this is not enough and it must be said clearly. There are too many obstacles that prevent people with disabilities from actively participating in society, from training in schools, where inclusion limits still persist, to employment, where prejudice often prevails over skills. If we add to all this that in many Member States there is still no legal and contributory recognition for caregiver, which assist people with disabilities, we understand that there are still many gaps. In short, there is an urgent need for practical but also cultural change, which allows people with disabilities to feel protagonists and not only recipients of welfare policies and which allows each of us to recognize ourselves in a truly inclusive and accessible society for all.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, a precedent. We are concerned about this regulation, not only because of the reasons expressed just now by our fellow Members, but also because it may set a precedent for other seas. I am thinking, for example, of the Mediterranean Sea or my Adriatic Sea, where banning trawling would be detrimental to our fishing companies and our economy. Fisheries management is generally a complex matter and trawling is no exception. The fleet is specialized, stopping this craft would mean demolishing the fleet itself. Much has been and continues to be done with regard to European trawling, between the common fisheries policy and national policies. Progress must be made in the right direction with progressive adjustments, assessing the impacts of the measures, the responses of the stocks, the economic and productive performance of a sector that sees substantial investments, employment and a thriving market at stake. In short, you have to be sustainable, in the full sense of the word. Instead, for years we have been witnessing a demonization of fishing, and in particular of trawling. The real problem is that we do not want to distinguish the targeted, sustainable and cutting-edge trawling that our fishermen use from that which is exercised by third countries, predators of the seabed without reservations. This does nothing but worry and demean European fishermen, distressed by continuous policies of reduction and bans, even where there is commitment and desire to be sustainable and above all to survive. Then the Commission must take responsibility for saying that it wants to dismantle the EU fishing fleet, that it wants to import only fish and fish products from outside the EU, perhaps from those same states that have yellow and red cards for IUU fishing. I ask you, Commissioner, do you really want the death of European fisheries? If the intention is to kill the Italian and European train, you must say it clearly. Know, however, that you will find strong opposition from this Parliament.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a few months: This is enough time to bring down global food security. The war in Ukraine, the global shortage, the general panic. With a knock-on effect, the great powers began banning agricultural exports. China, India, Malaysia and the United States have decided to protect themselves against those who, like the European Union, relied on these products. In fact, in just a few months, the European Union has been facing a crisis involving fuels, fertilisers and food, in particular wheat, maize and vegetable oils. These commodities are experiencing low inventories, reduced production and disrupted supply chains. What to do? Globally, the G20 summit in Bali called for a formal commitment from the world's major economies to focus on food security and lift trade restrictions. At European level, we need to review the supply policies we have pursued so far, which are heavily dependent on foreign sources, and we need to start producing and strengthening our food sovereignty again. As an Italian, I want to praise the technological and digital progress of our agricultural sector that, combining innovation and tradition, continues to provide us with safe and quality products. Local productions that we must enhance, not sabotage from the inside with follies like Nutri-Score, which fatten multinationals to the detriment of citizens. Now is the time for concreteness, to ensure food on our tables. No more ideology.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Ferreira, the phenomenon of depopulation is leading remote and mountainous areas to attract and retain fewer and fewer people. This is because until now these areas have not had the necessary support and the right tools to prevent this escape. It is clear that if the population and especially young people do not have access to services, employment and infrastructure, they lose interest in living in rural and mountainous areas. Not to mention other problems that become both the cause and the consequence of depopulation. For example, the reappearance of wild animals in population centers, such as the increasingly frequent presence of wolves in northern Italy, which has negative impacts not only on farms and farms, but also on local families and potential population, or tourists increasingly discouraged and afraid. In the light of these incidents and Parliament's resolution on demographic change, I would ask you: Are Member States already taking measures under the new cohesion policy to tackle depopulation? Has there been any progress compared to the old programming? At present, do you consider the involvement of local authorities to be at a satisfactory level?

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, extreme weather events and natural disasters are becoming more frequent. In Italy, for some years now, we have been witnessing waves of bad weather that cause enormous damage: environmental damage with damaged trees, rivers and landscapes; economic damage, with entire crops ruined and crops compromised, with businesses to be cleaned up, sometimes to be rebuilt in case of fires, and damage to citizens and families who have to bear the costs of these disasters. I still remember the storm Vaia that in 2018 hit Veneto, my region, destroying forests, biodiversity and entire communities that, with effort but dignity, were able to get up and rebuild. Not least the recent tornadoes that have hit the coast, causing great damage to coastal and bathing areas. And again this summer the drought has helped to set fires in Friuli Venezia Giulia, damaging as many as 4 000 hectares of Karst woodland. Faced with this new unfortunate normal, Member States must be ready to act and Europe must provide adequate tools: landscape prevention and protection plans are needed, but also rapid response tools are needed to ensure that civil protection and fire brigades can manage these emergencies. Climate change requires mitigation and adaptation to be the guide of the next policies of the European Union, policies that must be tailored to nature and man, because it is not with the fanatical environmentalist ideology that problems are faced and solved.