What Annalisa spoke about.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this umpteenth debate precedes a very important vote that will tell us whether we will have an Asylum and Immigration Pact. The Lega delegation has asked, in these years of work, to prevent departures by defending borders without having to risk prison, as is happening today to Minister Salvini, to establish identification centres in transit countries managed by European agencies, to strengthen cooperation agreements to facilitate returns. Common sense proposals aimed at interrupting that criminal business that you also know and favor. But the Pact on the table today, with the exception of very few useful measures, does not achieve any objectives. It is a compromise to the bottom, looking for a majority without solutions or protections. There is no protection for the desperate who cross the desert because they will remain at the mercy of criminals. There is no protection in our territories, lands now conquered and subject to the danger of terrorism. There is no protection of European society and culture from those who think, with your complicity, that they can subdue it. Repeat shamelessly that you need low-cost workers and, if that is the only reason – we want to believe it – have the dignity to co-opt them legally. You will find us in a barricade, because for us those who arrive in Europe must do so legally to be integrated into our civilization and not become slaves or criminals. This is not the Europe we want, but we will build it with courage, coherence, common sense and without ideology.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commissioner said as soon as we took office that we need cheap non-EU workers in Europe. In other times, without hypocrisy, they would have called them slaves. On this plan that opens up criminal businesses, as repeatedly denounced, legal immigration is encouraged without blocking illegal immigration. Legal immigration is therefore an addition and not a substitute for irregular immigration, while the demographic crisis is raging throughout Europe and in particular in the South, a crisis that, according to the left, would affect the European Union's labour market. Take note that the double demographic and labour crisis is a consequence of your political agenda: It would be enough to protect our workers or allow Member States to do so, rather than, in the name of austerity, destroying our labour policies. The voting directive only introduces unsustainable bureaucratic burdens for the national authorities of the Member States that manage the migration phenomenon, such as Italy. We therefore say no to a rigid, over-guaranteed and controversial text, which would create further regulatory fragmentation in the name of alleged harmonisation. Legal migration can only take place after the irregular migration has been managed and contained, but the majority of this Parliament and the European Commission are still on their way. European citizens will set the course for the next elections.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the side of small and medium-sized enterprises, honest work and our economic system, we are saying no to a text, the proposal for a directive on misleading environmental labels, which, as a practice in this legislature, circumvents the objective of the proposal, because it is aimed at something else. Rather than protecting the consumer, as in the Commission's stated intentions, the text, in line with the Eurofollies green, adds burdens and sanctions against small and medium-sized enterprises targeted by the measure. We have included the concept of interconnected human and environmental health as the only objective and have tried to lower costs for businesses, but the lack of flexibility for Member States in enforcing the legislation and the exaggerated sanctions, even confiscation, are unacceptable to us. We had to protect consumers and help them make informed choices, avoiding the misleading practice of false information about the environmental benefits of a product; I am afraid, however, that this proposal will also fail in its objective. It will not help consumers or even the environment, both hostage to radical and punitive choices by the majority. The usual movie we'll change soon!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have listened to this debate and it has marked me a little, especially for a very political reason, for the political group to which I belong and to which I firmly belong. That is why I would like to say to all my colleagues - most of them have already expressed their skepticism and hesitation - that we are very clear about the role of Europe and the role of nations and what we want in this Europe. Precisely for this reason, in a convinced and decisive way, we worked on this text so that it could be strengthened where, even politically, we believed that it was not close to our needs. Today, our citizens ‘give away’ – let me use the term – often their data, even for trivial reasons, linked to ridiculous applications and really unnecessary uses. Today, however, we demand that this use of data, which we have tried to protect in the best possible way, has a primary purpose, with an important legislative ratio, which is that of protecting the health of our citizens and the progress that must be made in health in Europe, and not only in other continents, in favour of citizens who belong to other parts of the world. That is why, also on this political side, we have decided to work on this text and to support it. I understand the difficulties that are there but I hope that the text will be read without any prejudice or preconceived political position, because, as we have seen in recent years, which have marked us very much, the health and health of citizens comes first.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the co-rapporteur, Mr Sokol, the shadow rapporteurs present in the Chamber and all the staff of the negotiating team for the work they have done on this file: our assistants, the groups, the two committee secretariats and the other services who contributed hours of work to the text to the vote tomorrow, on which we ask for the consent of our colleagues in view of the negotiations with the Council. I would like to try to make a small political premise, especially for those who are more sceptical about this instrument. Our text represents a significant improvement compared to the European Commission's proposal, from which it differs not in its rationale but in the value that we have conferred and recognized to personal health data, which have been considered deserving of the highest level of privacy, especially with reference to the so-called "secondary uses", which do not concern the main purpose of patient care, if not indirectly. After listening to the representatives of the categories involved, I am convinced that the European Health Data Space can be a useful tool to provide better healthcare for patients and state-of-the-art health in the European Union and in all our countries, especially in those that have not yet fully experienced the digitalisation of data in the health field, such as Italy. All the work has been, from the outset, in my capacity as rapporteur for the LIBE Committee, aimed at including strong guarantees for the respect of citizens' privacy, a priority and essential element for us, also taking into account the experience gained in countries where the electronic health file has been a reality for years. In these countries, it is possible to avoid repeating even invasive diagnostic tests, to travel with faldons and CDs for a medical consultation in a region or in a State other than one's own or for a second opinion of a health professional. In cases of emergency, medical staff can access the electronic record even if the patient is unconscious, make sure of any allergies, previous treatments or pathologies and save a person's life. With this aim in mind, we have worked hard on the file, while at the same time balancing the need for our data not to be at the mercy of everyone. For this reason, we have required the application of rigorous proven techniques to ensure the confidentiality of the information contained in electronic health data, when processed, making them anonymous. We have also introduced the so-called "opt-out" system which, contrary to what the European Commission envisages, will allow citizens to choose to completely or partially exclude their health data from the system for secondary uses. Secondary uses that are not directly related to patient care but are nevertheless important, such as life-saving drug research. Under strict conditions, researchers and companies can have access to anonymized health data in a secure processing environment, where strict technical and security standards are applied. Thanks to the changes that we introduced during the parliamentary examination, the citizen can legitimately choose, unlike what happened in the text proposed by the European Commission, to use the system only for health care, therefore to be treated, excluding further uses. Just make an informed and informed choice. However, I would like to highlight the main fact: we will have a medical record accessible via smartphone or PC, we will be able to decide who to allow access, what data to obscure or not to share with some professionals and also control the latest accesses. You can decide which doctor to allow access to your data and which not, also due to the specialization of the doctor. We have also included some provisions for those who are less accustomed to technology, because perhaps later with age, but will still have full control over their health data. In general, I believe that the work done in recent months has enabled us to take up the main challenge of the file, namely to strike the right balance between the use and exchange of health data for medical care purposes, on the one hand, and the protection of personal data, on the other. It wasn't easy and he won't find us... (The President took the floor from the speaker)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, someone here in this House has the courage to exploit the Lampedusa massacre, in which 368 migrants drowned ten years ago, and it is a cowardly act. That tragedy has served in these ten years to build a media castle of goodness, respectability and beautiful words behind which hide, not so veiled, great international business and criminal affairs, with which Europe is very often conniving. After ten years, nothing has been done to prevent more deaths, but on the contrary, with the omission of many of you, you have made our sea the largest cemetery in Europe. Let's really help those who dream of a better life at home, let's put them in a position not to run away from any war, to come to Europe legally. Stop irregular flows and NGOs that facilitate human trafficking. Stopping departures means stopping deaths at sea. If you care about the European institutions, let us help Lampedusa to be part of Europe in its own right, and not just the furthest border where you can relegate what you do not want here, in your European heart.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in these four years of the parliamentary term, the European Union has managed not to give definitive answers to the immigration emergency: so many handshakes, so many catwalks, so many beautiful words; results, to date: zero. For almost ten years, Brussels has been working on reforms on which there are no majorities and, in the meantime, weight and responsibility continue to be shifted exclusively to Italy and Sicily. Today we are under the illusion that the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Tunisia is a noteworthy action; however, we are waiting for it to become operational because, in the meantime, thanks to your blackmail of the Italian government, the invasion arrives from Tunisia, without anyone worrying about stopping the departures; On the contrary, with someone who, like the PD, does the collection to finance the ship of the NGO Open Arms and send it back to sea. We wonder if the PD has ever made a collection for desperate Italians: We don't think so. We will work so that this socialist-led Europe is just a bad memory and so that another majority in the next term can have the courage to take the problem seriously and finally defend Europe's borders.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, only three weeks ago I was in Lampedusa on a mission with the LIBE Committee. All the colleagues present have experienced first-hand the work, self-denial and sacrifices of a population that has given assistance and hospitality in recent years, "offering to those who have arrived the best face of Europe", as recalled by Mayor Mannino on the occasion of our recent meeting. In the face of this, chatter counts for little. It is easy to speak from these desks for those who are not on the front line, or for those who, like NGOs, are welcoming with the ports of others and, in order to flaunt hospitality, are conniving with those who determine deaths at sea. We do not tire of repeating this, but the only solution is to act on the external dimension, strengthening cooperation with third countries to stop departures. That Brussels is finally understanding this, especially thanks to the work of the Italian government, we hope so. We will therefore work hard for a centre-right majority, to abandon ideologies definitively, to move to common sense and to solve, rather than create, the problems of European citizens. Our leader Matteo Salvini is on trial for defending European borders, blocking departures and reducing deaths in the Mediterranean. The League continues this battle: Save lives and ensure security by fighting against the business of smugglers. This has been and is our priority.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, today we are finally discussing an important agreement for the security of our citizens, the so-called e-Evidence package, which concerns the exchange of electronic evidence, e-mails, messages via apps and any digital data necessary to prosecute any type of crime. Investigative bodies tell us that 85% of criminal investigations use digital data, often stored in a different state from the place of the crime, with great difficulty in finding and bureaucratic delays. Hence the need to follow up on the request to equip judicial authorities with useful tools to quickly track down criminals who use technology to plan and commit crimes. A concrete battle that has remained entangled like so many in the ideologies of the left, which has tried to put the alleged right to privacy of those who use the network for crime before the security of European citizens. A text presented by the Commission even in 2018, which is only now under discussion and which, also thanks to our firmness and determination in these years, will become law, allowing rapid access to digital evidence before their disappearance, regardless of where they are created and stored, to punish those who commit all kinds of crimes, from terrorism to terrorism. stalking, crimes that fill the black pages of our States. We actively participated in the negotiations and demanded that there were also strong guarantees and requirements regarding the protection of personal data, excluding the real-time interception of telecommunications, but avoiding giving in to those who tried to make unnecessary delays in procedures. Tomorrow we will confidently give the green light to this important instrument to combat crime and we will do so in the name of the many victims and their loved ones. In the Europe we want and for which we are constantly working, the fight against criminals is a priority.

Colleague, you tell us what you did in two terms and what you did to the government for a whole decade. Because this government, in a few months, has given important answers to the most fragile and among the most fragile there are certainly the category of fishermen, and certainly not to the strong powers, those that you have guaranteed in the past governments of our State.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we will not tire of repeating a resounding 'no' to your proposals, nor will we allow an entire sector, fisheries, and with it fishermen, or workers who are not only unprotected by this Europe that pretends to be democratic, but who are opposed to it. If it is not your intention to eliminate trawling, you have to put it in writing, because reading the action plan seems just the opposite. We will not silently see further damage to the entire sector, nor will we accept an increase in imports from third countries, with fish of lower quality, not safe, if not illegal. There are important studies that show that this type of fishing not only does not harm our seas, but indeed is absolutely useful. And do not think about closing other portions of the sea, beyond those already planned in the Mediterranean, because we are not there. We want to eat Sicilian, Italian and European fish and above all guarantee the work of many families. (The speaker agreed to answer a "blue card" question)

Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, controlli alle frontiere esterne, e non a Lampedusa, e rimpatri: That's what we've been asking for for four years. Finally, we are allowed a debate that calls for a new approach and the extreme left decides to boycott it, not sending Members to take the floor. The same left that makes proclamations and shouts at the scandal for the massacres at sea today abstains in the Chamber, because the real intention is to maintain the status quo and do business with the business of illegal immigration. I think it is a shameful behaviour that does not respect not only this House, but also the citizens, their constituents. For some time now, we have been calling for asylum procedures to take place before entry into European territory and North Africa for entry by sea, with staff from European agencies respecting rights, to eliminate massive arrivals and journeys of hope. It is to be welcomed that now many governments and even the German socialists finally agree with us. We welcome concrete European initiatives to respond to the immigration emergency, as we have been asking for years, but we want your help to stop departures through greater cooperation from third countries and certainty on returns. In Europe, also thanks to our government, we are working to give the right answers to the citizens, who demand security and legal and controlled immigration. Others, on the other hand, prefer to continue with overcrowded hotspots, deaths at sea, delinquencies and help to criminals who get rich on people's shoulders. Let's say enough, finally!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the left in this Parliament is out and continues to look for the perpetrators of the massacres at sea, going so far as to shamefully accuse Prime Minister Meloni and Deputy Prime Minister Salvini and with him the Italian Coast Guard, which, instead, is engaged every day in boat rescue operations. None of them, however, ever thought, for example, of accusing the Socialist Prime Minister Sanchez for the tragedy of Melilla. Is it because it is an expression of the same political side? The truth is that the culprits with blood on their hands, as you say, are the smugglers and, with them, allow, the false do-gooders who deceive desperate people with a promised land, unfortunately non-existent. It is our duty, your duty, to stop human traffickers, as Pope Francis said, an objective to which we must address all our political actions. Absolute firmness and no indulgence against these criminals. At the next European Council, we expect Europe to propose positive actions to fight human traffickers, stop deaths at sea and protect our borders. The drama of Cutro is only the emblematic apex of a tragedy that has continued for years, but which we intend to stop at the base, preventing departures, implementing serious development programs in the countries from which these people flee, welcoming those who have a right in a safe and legal way. Good politics, if such, must take responsibility for deciding, instead of postponing a problem that remains on the shoulders of the usual countries as for years, Italy in the first place.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the line taken by the leaders at the European Council seems to be a clear change of pace. Perhaps it has finally been recognised that it is important for Europe as a whole, and not just for a few countries, to ensure effective control of external borders, with a clear reference to the specific features of maritime borders. This is what we have been asking for for years, taking insults from the same people who today are only engaged in criticizing the Italian government on a decree, the one on NGOs, legitimate and respectful of international regulations. The same, hypocrites, who cry out to phantom walls, when we speak simply of combating illegal immigration and criminal organizations that profit from deaths at sea. You can continue to insult us, but we as the League and the national government are only concerned with defending the interests of citizens on all fronts, including immigration, and in this we trust that Europe will finally take action.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief, I will take the floor because there is no debate on the file, to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation on the dossier relating to the international agreement between the European Union and New Zealand on the exchange of personal data between Europol and the New Zealand authorities responsible for combating serious crime and terrorism. As the European Union and New Zealand have often faced similar security problems for several years, we believe that cooperation in law enforcement in these key areas, as well as in the fight against corruption, drug trafficking, cybercrime and money laundering can bring significant benefits to both parties and is in the interest of the European Union. This is an important agreement that forms part of other negotiations with third countries, through which we will be able to increase the effectiveness of the prevention of terrorist attacks outside and especially within the European Union, while ensuring adequate safeguards for privacy and the protection of personal data. That is why we invite you to vote in favour.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank all my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs, the secretariat, the staff of the political groups and the parliamentary assistants for the constructive work that we have carried out in recent months and that will come to an end tomorrow, with the approval of our report on the action plan to promote long-distance and cross-border passenger rail services. A very important job, that it has allowed us to define in unitary way priorities and demands of the field, with the objective to improve the operation of the railway net with more accessible costs. A competitive sector of our economy that employs thousands of workers who provide services to citizens, but which needs to become more attractive than other modes of transport for passengers and goods. Our document pursues a wide range of objectives, including the creation of a single, safe and fully interoperable European rail system; improving sustainability and creating jobs. It was considered essential to ensure the intermodality of the rail system with other transport systems, including through the promotion of single multimodal tickets, to foster a seamless solution for passengers who can travel easily with a single ticket across different modes of transport. With our proposal, we want to protect the rights of passengers: equal accessibility, improving transport efficiency, reducing travel times and prices, promoting fair competition between rail operators and between different modes of transport, as well as the need for the full involvement of young people, both as users and as workers. I am confident that the enhancement of long-distance and cross-border rail passenger transport will play a significant role in promoting the European single market, ensuring a level playing field for the different actors while preserving the principle of mobility as a service and its role in promoting the socio-economic cohesion of European regions. From the beginning of this path, in fact, I set myself the goal of continuing the point of view of all those territories that have more disadvantageous conditions, emphasizing the importance of the development of local connections, also to connect the suburbs and islands to large cities. This is why I wanted together to insist on strengthening connectivity, with particular attention to remote, insular, mountainous and less populated regions. There can be no effective cross-border transport without connections to remote areas, including within individual Member States. Therefore, the report stresses the importance of stimulating investment for the early completion of the TEN-T, prioritising the allocation of funds to strategic projects, removing bottlenecks and missing links and completing last-mile segments, with a view to maintaining a market-oriented approach for high-speed and long-distance, while ensuring public service and continuity of routes. Digitalisation, regulatory simplification and the elimination of technical provisions and cumbersome procedures are also pursued in order to ensure better availability of trains. It will also be important to adapt the training and certification of railway staff to future needs and make the sector an attractive option for young people. So many objectives to be achieved through the preparation of legislative proposals and, for this reason, thanking the Commissioner for the availability shown so far, we ask the European Commission to do so, respecting what we have indicated in this document, in the interest of citizens and the sector.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, in the general emptiness of the words used on this subject, there are some unexpected, rather than meaningful, words from the EPP Group leader, Mr Weber, whom I quote: If you can't distinguish between illegal migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, then you can't help those who really need help. And again: I think it is necessary to protect borders and a state must be able to decide who arrives and who is not welcome in the European Union. Weber, a German from the European People's Party, said it, and I could have said it myself. But to really help those in need and defend the borders there is only one solution, which the EPP does not support: set up identification centres in Africa, managed and staffed by the European Union. This would make it possible to comply with international and Community law, eliminate the pull factors for illegal migration and open the door to a truly shared definition of the problem. Too many European failures so far and the joint demand from Malta, Cyprus, Greece and Italy are a testament to this. Scary numbers of arrivals, when they manage to arrive, in the absence of tragedies. Be determined for once, fill the political words of the EPP Group Leader, if not ours, with meaning. Let's go deep and make returns certain, let's define the regulatory modus operandi of NGOs, in too many cases conniving with smugglers, according to Frontex. Transparency and responsibility of the flag State must be the watchwords. To find a European solution on immigration, as you ask, you should only listen to us, because we who live the problem on our own skin have very clear ideas.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today is yet another debate on deaths and violence on the borders of Europe, today with reference to the events in Melilla and the violent and threatening crowd that tried not to enter, Commissioner, but to break through the border between Morocco and Spain. Pedro Sánchez, Spanish Socialist Prime Minister, called the tragedy "an attack on the territorial integrity of our country", a "violent and organized assault by the mafias dedicated to trafficking in human beings", but he, a member of the same party that in this House for years has denied the existence of trafficking in human beings and complicit NGOs in the Mediterranean by boycotting effective solutions, can say it, if we say so we are sovereignists, even villains and racists and, like Matteo Salvini, we go to trial only for defending our borders. You see, we can't talk about violence and death without looking at the real responsibilities: those of Brussels politics, of those who make these people believe that they will be welcomed, integrated, and that in us, instead of the crisis, they will find prosperity and work. The responsibility is not, as you want to make people believe, of those States like Morocco that, with great difficulty, try to support and stem an epochal phenomenon without real and concrete cooperation, but it is yours and your hypocrisy. Only by defending borders can we attempt to write the word "end" on a criminal business that generates millions of euros on the skin of desperate people, giving the opportunity to terrorists and criminals to infiltrate our territories. Europe cannot welcome all of Africa and Africans have the right to live civilly in their countries.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we propose to add to the agenda a statement by the Commission with a debate on the issue of inefficiencies in the air sector affecting European citizens. This is an urgent situation that is becoming truly unsustainable and is affecting millions of travelers on the continent, impacting our economy, especially in the tourism sector. We therefore call for a shift in the debate on Brexit measures in view of the increased urgency of the aviation sector. I hope that colleagues from the other groups will be able to support our proposal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank the Commissioner to whom our work and our appeal is addressed, but I see that she is absent, perhaps she had something more interesting to do than listen to us. I represent in this House the two largest Italian islands, Sicily and Sardinia, islands that, only thanks to their extraordinary beauty and the great adaptability of the citizens, have survived for decades to inadequate European policies that have not favored their development. Not a single piece of legislation in any sector – agriculture, fisheries, tourism, transport, just to name a few – that has taken into account their specificities. Rules made for you and imposed on us. The blackmail of State aid rules to limit any attempt by the State to compensate economically for disadvantages due to insularity. It is good that today, in front of the administrators, there is a transversal front, compact and united, which asks with us for a pact for the islands, a structured pact and not linked to individual emergencies, lasting and which provides for a development guided by a precise strategic agenda, with compensation for the inconveniences and the recognition, as for the outermost regions, of dedicated funding. Labour, infrastructure, transport, energy costs and technical assistance: These are just some of our needs to be able to live and create development in our land. Of other things, such as slaves disguised as migrants, thank you, but we do not need it!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be very brief. We have raised an objection. A year ago in this House, we approved this instrument to be an instrument of regulatory harmonisation that would facilitate the exceptional movement of our citizens between Member States, so that it would be removed once the pandemic was over. Today in this House we are all fortunately back to normal. We vote in person, we have no masks, we have not produced any certificates, so we believe that the start of negotiations and the extension of this instrument until 2023 is really an infringement of some fundamental rights of our citizens. We therefore ask that you speak out against it.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard so many beautiful words of goodwill, in favour of the integration of Roma rights, in support of which we give generous funding. Funding stolen from millions of European citizens who carry out their duty every day. Well, today I would like to remind you that, in a model of civil society that is truly inclusive in the Christian sense of the term, rights are also accompanied by duties, which are non-existent for Roma communities, at least in Italy. Because, you see, it is a duty, and not just a moral one, to guarantee children the right to education, to teach them to play and not to steal, to take them to a warm bed and not to force them to sell roses in restaurants in the evening. Unless you admit, while we are voting here on the resolution on the situation of minors in Ukraine, that in your pure hearts there are children of the A series and others of the B series, indeed perhaps of the D series. Colleagues, it seems to me that we fill our mouths with beautiful words but the real fact is that the probability that a Roma child will reach the second level of secondary school is about 1 in 1000: I repeat, 1 in 1000, and certainly not for our lack. If we really want to help the future of these populations, we must demand concrete changes, first of all in terms of schooling, passing from the need to census these populations that escape while we are all registered, in order to restore legality and protect the interests of minors, to start towards adequate schooling paths. As is often the case in this House, unfortunately, hypocrisy reigns supreme, while what we should aim for is a fair balance between the legitimate fight against discrimination and the protection of public safety and the real rights of children. A real integration based on respect for laws and our values. Failing that, we are faced with those who, with an attitude of defiance and in an unacceptable way, place themselves above the law.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are here today for a simple and important reason: Citizens deserve to know the truth about the massive negotiation that seems to have taken place through an exchange of messages between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer, concerning the supply of the COVID vaccine to the EU. The response of the institutions in the aftermath of the spread of the virus has been strong in the fight against it and today we can talk about a near return to normality, despite many mistakes have been made at all levels. But one thing is certain, the emergency cannot justify shady areas or non-compliance with the rules. He can't even justify the doubt. The doubt that the Commission’s refusal to grant access to the file may hide something else. We are therefore here to shed light on what has happened, also following the indications of the European Ombudsman, who has decided to open an inquiry. You see, there is no power without responsibility and there can be no responsibility without power. Today we are talking not only about an exchange of messages, but about the violation of a principle, that of the transparency of the Commission's action. And the Commission's reply that this type of communication is not relevant is as weak as it is suspicious. As the Ombudsman pointed out, it is the content that matters and not the form used. That is why we ask the Commission to answer for its work: He owes it to us but he owes it First and foremost citizens who have faced this pandemic with sacrifices and their respect for the rules.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the press, media and TV are full of images that none of us would have liked to see, such as that of an entire family itself, lifeless and covered in rags on a sidewalk just outside Kiev, assault stations, children and mothers on the run, separated families. A sad and unacceptable return to the past. Helping is a duty and Europe is doing its part. The activation of the temporary protection mechanism, although not legally acceptable in its entirety, is allowing us to welcome and help real refugees: Women and children fleeing war, while fathers, sons and husbands remain courageously defending their country. It is they, we have been repeating for years, to whom we must open the doors, giving clear, determined and effective rules, even to those who, for many other reasons than war, want to arrive in Europe, but firmly barring them from traffickers and criminals. Today more than ever it is necessary to show firmness to human traffickers in order to be able to allocate resources to those who are really in need and to those States on the front line, such as Italy for decades and as today Poland and Hungary. Poland and Hungary, engaged in a great solidarity mission, instrumentally insulted in this House, must have unblocked their respective recovery and resilience plans. Support is also expected from Europe in order to welcome, and certainly not ideological blackmail. I believe that the events of these days show once again how little has been done in Brussels and how the reform of the asylum and immigration package itself, which you have presented with great pomp, is neither current nor effective, so much so that it is necessary to resort to an instrument, temporary protection, which paradoxically the reform itself cancels. Well, finally make courageous decisions. I conclude by applauding all those who are spending themselves to help those in difficulty, those who are spending themselves on peace, those who are spending themselves against war with diplomacy and not with weapons.