Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to recall the 21 people who tragically lost their lives in the accident that took place last night in the city of Mestre, near Venice. A human tragedy, a European tragedy involving Ukrainian, German, French, Austrian, Spanish and Croatian citizens, as well as the driver of Italian nationality. A tragedy in front of which we can do nothing but gather around the families of the victims and wounded, including several children. A special and sincere thanks allow me to do so to the many rescuers who intervened promptly on a scenario defined by themselves apocalyptic. I join in the words already expressed by President Metsola, whom I thank, and express with sincere condolences the condolences of this Parliament to all the families involved, asking all colleagues to join in this moment of condolence.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today is a day of remembrance, but also of reflection. The human tragedy in Lampedusa and the more than 28,000 migrants who have died and been missing in the Mediterranean over the last decade represent the defeat of Europe, and none of us can deny it. In the meantime we have used and abused the word "solidarity", but it is a boastful and never applied solidarity. And this is confirmed by the fact that at the right time we are backing down and some states are left alone to face a crisis that is no longer emergency but structural, and for which Europe and the United Nations itself must do more, developing a strategy in Africa to create better living conditions. We have a duty to promote regular migration mechanisms, such as that of humanitarian corridors, but above all and above all we must fight without delay the traffickers of human beings who sell the risk of life disguised as a European dream. Let us not make the mistake today of belittling the importance of this day with forms of controversy and exploitation, because today is not the occasion to point the finger at us, today is the day of remembrance, it is the day of pain. And it is precisely this pain that must be the starting point that gives us the strength to find true and shared solutions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, every year between 70 000 and 90 000 people die in the European Union from previous exposure to asbestos: A real war bulletin. Two years ago this House voted on a resolution in which 675 Members confirmed the need to strengthen European action on the protection of workers from exposure to asbestos. However, the European Commission's proposal that we have seen has not confirmed the ambition that we have requested. Leaving aside the fact that this theme confirms the need for the European Parliament, directly elected by the citizens, to play a greater role in proposing and promoting European policies, especially for the well-being of our citizens, we must remember that the main source of exposure to asbestos is old buildings which, as has been said, obviously become the subject of a general renovation process to ensure their energy efficiency or their seismic improvement. That is why it is crucial that this House votes in favour of the current report to confirm the need to lower occupational exposure limits compared to a Commission proposal that is ten times higher than our request. Obviously, to achieve the required objectives it is necessary to have a global approach, starting from the mapping of asbestos in buildings, a mapping that must take place safely and with the help of new technologies, from the research of alternative methods to landfilling, but also from the simplification of practices and economic support for the detection and possible disposal. There is a need, in fact, for an overall strategy that involves companies, professionals and citizens and provides in an extraordinary way a financial plan in favor of the owners of buildings for the screening and the safe removal of asbestos.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, parliamentarism, citizenship and democracy: three interconnected and vital elements for the European Union and all its Member States. The decisions we make every day in the institutions have a direct impact on the lives of citizens. This is why it is necessary to clarify and reclaim our role and the role of all national parliaments by opening a reflection on the functioning of democracy in Europe and its institutions. We must encourage knowledge of the European Union and a sense of belonging to it, increasing the value of European citizenship, so that citizens clearly know their rights and duties, while promoting European civic education. This will not only strengthen their sense of belonging to the Union, but also their participation in democratic life, also in anticipation of the next elections. In the light of the AFCO proposal for the revision of the Treaties, I call on the Council and the Commission to open a serious debate on the future of the European Union, so as to follow up on the citizens' and Parliament's proposal. The future of the Union depends on our ability to promote these three values and only by making Europe more efficient will we be able to ensure true trust in the institutions and, above all, to make citizens feel an active part of this project, which is the only way to face current and future challenges.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the agreement reached with Tunisia is certainly one of the most important steps taken by the European Union in recent years in terms of migration policies. Of course, the glass in this case is half full and not half empty, as some critics want to represent. The difficulty of managing migratory flows in recent years has put a strain on the resilience of Tunisia, whose instability is a cause for concern for all. That is why I believe that the agreement aims to ensure conditions for greater stability and cooperation, including support for improving coastal control instruments. As I have repeatedly said in this House, countries facing the greatest burden of migratory flows cannot be left alone, whether they are part of the European Union or of our precious neighbourhood. I would therefore like to thank the European Commission for promoting this agreement and also stress the strategic role that the Italian Government has wanted to play and is playing at European level, reconfirming its credibility and, above all, its concrete commitment to finding a common response to the migration phenomenon. The fight against irregular immigration and criminal organisations that endanger thousands of lives every day must be tackled on several fronts. That is why we must continue to work together with all those countries, such as Tunisia, which have proved to be a partner on which to invest in order to ensure that our solidarity is not only proclaimed, but also practiced.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome the decision to hold a debate on the composition of Parliament before tomorrow's vote, because it is an opportunity to reiterate the importance of our role. We regret, however, that the Council did not accept Parliament's proposal, which provided for a minimum increase in seats for states with a significant increase in population. We take note of the Council's different decision but I would like to point out that the Council not only did not intend to recognise more seats but completely ignored any other indication of our resolution, including, in our view, a provision on the budget It lacks any legal basis. Nevertheless, Parliament, with a great sense of responsibility and within the timeframe indicated by the Council, will express its views on this decision in order to allow the States affected by the amendment to be able to adapt their national legislation. But more interaction with Parliament would have been appropriate to reflect the different needs and perspectives expressed in our resolution. That is why I hope that in the future the Council will be able to pay greater attention to Parliament's will, ensuring in practice the spirit of sincere and mutual cooperation that must characterise relations between our two institutions.

Madam President, the revision of the Rules of Procedure represents an important moment in the history of this Parliament, which, it has been said, is deeply shaken by the scandal of last December. First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur Gabriele Bischoff, the Chair of the AFCO internal working group, Rainer WIELAND, and all the Members who have worked hard in recent months on the basis of a proposal that President Metsola immediately handed over to us, asking us to strengthen the existing rules to safeguard and make our work more transparent and independent, ensuring greater and further credibility of Parliament. It was a difficult, demanding but necessary job to contain also the easy instrumentalizations and simplifications of the serious events that happened but, above all, to prevent a dangerous delegitimization of a democratic institution directly elected by the citizens. The work that is presented today fully reflects the objectives that the Presidency has given us and has been taken forward within the timeframe necessary to ensure a balanced, correct and effective text. Unfortunately, we must be aware that there is no rule that cannot be deceived by those who intentionally want to deceive her: However, we are going to make the system stronger by stepping up controls and imposing sanctions. This revision is further evidence that Parliament firmly intends to exercise its activity in a free and democratic manner in the interest of citizens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, last year in Italy there was a film by Paolo Virzì entitled 'Siccità'. A film set in a Rome where, not raining for three years, the lack of water has distorted the rules and habits of everyone. If until a few years ago its plot could have been surreal, today this scenario could become more and more likely if you do not act promptly. I do not think it is necessary to reiterate how water is an essential resource for life and what are the devastating effects of drought on people, the environment and the economy. Surely agriculture is one of the most affected sectors, because the lack of water compromises food production and our food security. Unfortunately, water, imagined by everyone as an infinite natural resource, in fact may not be. Almost a year has passed since the debate requested by the European People's Party on the drought emergency in Europe, where we asked the European Commission for concrete proposals to avert and deal with new emergencies that, let me say, can no longer be defined as such, since these are more than predictable phenomena. In recent days, Italy has approved a law with which it has ordered a series of measures to combat drought and for the strengthening and adaptation of water infrastructure. This is a first step, but it is not enough, because drought also requires a common approach, as we have just heard from the Commissioner. There is a need for an extraordinary medium-long term plan that includes the modernization of old infrastructure, the construction of new reservoirs, the incentive for greater use of space data technologies for the containment and improvement of water efficiency. Faced with such a changed production scenario, we also need Community legislation on assisted evolution techniques, not to be confused with GMOs, in order to guarantee crops resistant to climate phenomena and new pathogens. Meanwhile, the images of the dramatic flood in Emilia-Romagna, as well as those of dry and arid soils in France and Spain, show the face of the same coin represented by water and its management, on which our daily life depends and in particular our food security.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank, is the result of a negotiation by the ECON Committee, whereby a series of practices and informal agreements between the Central Bank and our institution will be formally defined and structured, allowing the Central Bank to fulfil its obligations of accountability and transparency in compliance with the Treaties. In this context, Parliament acts as a bridge between the Central Bank and the citizens of the Union, exercising democratic and transparent scrutiny, while providing the Central Bank with the opportunity to explain its policies to the public. It is important to support this proposal, as already unanimously supported by AFCO.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the European elections will take place in 2024, against the backdrop of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and under pressure from authoritarian regimes that have been trying for years to attack democracies in general and European democracies, where freedom and the defence of human rights, our values, together with economic prosperity, are frightening elements. The work of the ING Committee was only the first step in recognizing and addressing foreign interference attempting to enter our decision-making processes, using information manipulation and other tactics to weaken our democratic governments. Today more than ever, in anticipation of the next elections, we must reject any kind of intrusion that attempts to condition or compromise the integrity of our electoral processes. Our commitment must continue with a coordinated European Union strategy against all forms of interference, taking into account the complexity of the multidimensional nature of threats, strengthening our cybersecurity and the resilience of our communities. Our citizens have asked us for a stronger and more credible Europe that we could only have by countering even those who try to undermine our institutions.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this heated debate on the importance of agriculture confirms once again that Europe and this Parliament cannot find a pragmatic and common-sense solution and all this to the detriment of our credibility. Listening to and interpreting what farmers are telling us, someone thinks it can mean denialism and this is a serious mistake. I would like to point out that farmers are probably the most European of all for having experienced first-hand what Europe means. We just have to understand that environmental sustainability cannot be an ideology, we have to make sure that it is declined and implemented with concrete and practicable actions and that support actions are put in place, because farmers mean food security and farmers are clearly those who have also allowed us to identify ourselves on the global scenario as the best producers in the world.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Avram, who has worked well with all the groups to share a balanced text, while always keeping in mind the objective of this programme, which I would like to reiterate is exclusively dedicated to the food education of our young people, to a diet in which milk, fruit and vegetables are present, and therefore healthy and quality foods produced by our farmers. However, I do not agree with some colleagues' attempt not to consider the role of farmers and the importance of the work they do and to alter the objective of the programme by proposing alternative vegetable drinks to milk, going against the fundamental principles of the programme itself, namely to encourage the consumption of local and seasonal products. This programme must be strengthened with economic resources and above all with concrete awareness-raising actions to bring the new generations closer to the territories and to make known the work and commitment of farmers to produce milk, fruit and vegetables. I hope that, with tomorrow's vote, this Parliament will also want to confirm its support for farmers and the importance of food education without ideologies.

Mr President, today's debate, as has been said, stems from a request from my group, the European People's Party, which, however, has seen a different wording of the title, demonstrating that some are probably more interested in form than substance. Many, many times in this House we have discussed immigration and every time the word most used, indeed abused, has been "solidarity", which, unfortunately we must take note of, is never practiced, but only announced. It is an objective fact that only a few, few States, including Italy, are engaged in the difficult management of migratory flows, saving thousands and thousands of lives, beyond the speculations or political controversies of the moment. Time and misfortunes have shown, however, that no one can do it alone, including Italy, despite its efforts. One cannot be surprised or even agitated if Italy or other States struggling with a situation destined to increase in the coming months, takes its own measures, with which it only intends to give certain rules to the management of migratory flows. If you do not want this, then let us try to give a real shock to our Europe. We intervene immediately with common and concrete solutions, we strengthen, for example, the border verification procedures, we favor cooperation agreements with the countries of origin, both to contain departures and to ensure the return of those who are not entitled. Above all, however, let us also try to make access to European funds conditional not only on the rule of law, but also on the compulsory relocation of those arriving in the border states. I understand that in the meantime Europe is engaged in many ambitious challenges, on energy, on the environment, on digital, on human rights, but it does not seem to realize that among these there must also be the immigration emergency as a priority, above all to contain that anti-European sentiment that risks taking over in anticipation of the next European elections and leaving room also for extreme solutions, which would obviously become the only response to the immobility of the European Union.

Mr President, when we are discussing the budget, we cannot make the mistake of limiting our analysis to numbers alone, because the numbers in a budget indicate a political will and must then be implemented in the legislative measures. That is why I believe that the budgetary and legislative functions of this Parliament need to be more harmonised and more coherent in order to be more credible. In fact, it is essential that our budget is adapted to the objectives that are intended to be achieved, the ambition of which depends very much on the resources made available to it. Next year we will vote for the new Parliament and I believe that it is essential to have an adequate and well-structured budget in order to achieve the many different objectives, some of which may be overly ambitious, but above all in order to be able to express the real strength that Europe represents for its history of freedom and democracy. We need a budget that allows us to respond to the concerns and needs that citizens expressed to us in the Conference on the Future of Europe, underlining that they want more Europe, but a different, closer and more concrete Europe.

No one is questioning children's rights. We are insisting on making you understand that such an important issue would have required a different path. You are lending yourselves to a national controversy, and it is no coincidence that there is a showcase or a political catwalk. Here we are not denying the need to arrive at a shared norm, but Europe is the place of division, not of fans. Voi state facendo soltanto un dibattito politico e il fallimento della vostra richiesta è l'assenza totale di tutti, che avrebbero dovuto invece essere qui, perché anche io sono a favore dei diritti dei bambini, ma voglio una norma, non voglio l'emotività. There is no law and there is an attempt by Europe to harmonise. So this is what we are asking, not to lend ourselves to exploitation, otherwise this becomes the national parliament and I do not believe that we have been elected to discuss national issues here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the failure of this debate and the true purpose of this debate are confirmed by the totalitarian absence of all the Members of Parliament who today have flocked to insist on a debate that had the sole purpose of bringing back here a national issue that is being exploited at the moment. It is surprising that Parliament is lending itself to the political exploitation of some who have transferred here to Brussels a national issue, a national debate, a national controversy on a subject that should have taken a different path, not a change in the agenda. A delicate, sensitive theme, a theme where everyone should have been able to express their position, even in the diversity of sensitivities that such an important theme requires, and be able to do so without any prejudice. Instead, we wanted to choose to ride the national emotion, through a debate without resolution, which has the simple flavor, and you demonstrated it when even today here you begin to define the current government of Italy as a far-right government that has only the fault of having detected an absence of specific legislation and having recalled a judgment of the Court of Cassation. The result of this little theater is yet another waste of time towards what could have been a step forward in the protection of the rights of children and homogeneous families, thanks to a well-reasoned discussion, a constructive confrontation where, I repeat, it was necessary to bring together the different sensitivities and in which what would have emerged in our specific case is the main problem, namely the lack of legislation and the attempt to harmonize a rule in all States. So I congratulate the many colleagues, including Italians, who wanted to put forward their political interests at this time, evidently too weak to be claimed in the right national forum, drugging this debate with national issues and misleading public opinion. (The speaker agreed to respond to an intervention. "blue card")

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, during the November plenary, here in this House, I and other colleagues urged the Commission and the Council to put forward a concrete proposal to prevent illegal immigration and human trafficking and yet another massacre of deaths at sea. At this point I wonder if it is worth continuing to debate in this House, if there is not someone who takes our positions into account and, above all, does not follow up on what this Parliament has expressed clearly and repeatedly. This is the third debate in the last three months on the issue of immigration, a dramatically topical issue on which it seems incredibly impossible to find a common solution. Then I wonder: How many more debates do we have to have? And most importantly, how many more deaths do we have to keep crying? The shipwreck of Cutro in recent days has shocked everyone deeply and once again Italy has been unjustly made the protagonist of this tragedy. But let's be clear: Cutro's tragedy is not an Italian tragedy, but a European one. Just as there is no migration emergency in Italy, there is a migration emergency in Europe. And it is a Europe that must intervene and not just discuss. So, our prime minister did well to include the issue of immigration at the next European Council, demonstrating that Italy is there and wants to do its part but cannot be alone. Because we need a single European policy that includes the true and undisputed solidarity of all states, the ban on human traffickers and above all a new immigration pact that strengthens cooperation with countries of origin and guarantees a legal migration that can be truly welcomed and integrated. There are no more excuses: Another misfortune at sea will have only one culprit, unfortunately: the European Union and its negligence.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, allow me to thank Mr Lins for the work he has done and for having been able to draw the attention of a very serious emergency that may involve risks that we must remedy. A global fertilizer crisis like the one we're going through hasn't been seen since the 1970s. The pandemic before and the war and the energy crisis after have led not only to a reduction in fertilisers, but also to an increase that in some cases, it has been said, reaches around 150%, thus causing a serious difficulty for the entire agri-food chain and a loss of competitiveness compared to farmers in third countries. Imports from Russia and Belarus, which supply more than 60% of EU fertilisers, have drastically decreased and the increase in the production costs of synthetic fertilisers has forced many European producers to reduce their activities or even stop production. Add to this the fact that in this House we are even insisting on a further reduction in fertilisers, to achieve environmental sustainability objectives, which we can agree on, but without finding an alternative solution in the meantime and without worrying that today's shortage of fertilisers will weigh on tomorrow's production, with a growing world population and with repercussions on the availability of food and on our food security, unless someone is convinced that the solution is synthetic production or the consumption of insects. Our farmers are in the midst of an economic crisis and we need to find a remedy against which the CAP will probably not be able to support them either, given that there is inflation that is reducing its scope. Ladies and gentlemen, the current situation urgently requires the need for a strategy which, we note, has been announced by the Commissioner, but which must be timely, because we are obviously in a position to put European food security and autonomy at risk and we will find ourselves, as has already happened with gas, where, of course, we will be increasingly dependent on third countries and will lose our credibility and geopolitical strength.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as has been said, there are still too many millions of European citizens who live and reside, including for work or study purposes, in a country other than their country of origin, which unfortunately cannot exercise their electoral rights. Their turnout is low compared to national citizens, and even lower is the percentage of those who decide to apply in a country other than their country of origin. In reality, these citizens represent the social mobility that has been so aspired to strengthen the project of European integration, and that is why today Parliament is making it clear why they can and should be encouraged and facilitated to stand as candidates and to be able to vote, especially with regard to people with disabilities. Let us not forget that participation in political life is the foundational precondition of any democracy, and the new rules we propose also aim to have a Europeanisation effect in order to change the way in which the citizens of the European Union view European democracy, strengthening its sense of belonging and fighting what, in my opinion, is the real enemy that we must face: abstentionism.

Mr President, Madam Minister, ladies and gentlemen, after so many speeches by my colleagues, it is natural for me to ask how much longer this Parliament, before a Council, has to speak in order to have a concrete answer. This Parliament has reiterated this on several occasions, albeit with different sensitivities: We need a political and European solution. As long as the Member States continue to put national logic before Community logic, it will unfortunately not be possible to find a concrete and pragmatic answer. If we do not act now, we will continue to witness impotent waves of migration that will become, as they have been in the past, real emergencies. So I appeal to you, so that the Swedish Presidency can have the strength to find an agreement based on solidarity and on the idea that the southern and eastern borders are European borders. We need to work with third countries to make returns more efficient, while promoting social and labour reintegration; We need to strengthen the external borders, which will undoubtedly have to be financed and implemented in order to process asylum applications. Finally, we support a code of conduct for NGOs in search and rescue operations, so that they are made accountable, with their states, for compliance with international and national law. Good luck to this Parliament and good work for a difficult commitment, which is truly concrete.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the revelations about Uber at this historic moment for our institutions call for a responsible debate in Parliament, without leading to generalised and demagogic conclusions. The risk that is run, in fact, in these moments of great emotionality, is to get to demonize someone, without realizing that the facts from which the debate is born are often attributable to a few subjects and cannot compromise the credibility of an entire system, which seems almost to appear as devoid of any rule. Indeed, let us be careful that on these serious episodes there is not the speculation of those who have an interest in delegitimizing Europe as a subject that is conquering the centrality on the geopolitical scenario. Surely the diffusion of the Uber documentation confirms that extremely aggressive political pressure techniques have been adopted and that in some cases they have exceeded the limits of ethics. This conduct must be condemned openly, but it is also right to point out that lobbying is a legitimate political activity and the illegal behavior of some cannot tarnish an entire category of professionals who often, thanks to their contribution, provide us with useful and important points to better carry out our institutional task. Lobbying is an essential activity within Parliament, it is an evaluation tool to understand the various aspects of the many issues that are being brought before us. Those who are stakeholders, in compliance with the rules and with the utmost transparency, cannot be confused with those who carry out their work illegally. Uber's facts teach us that there is a need for more transparency, including financial transparency, and this must be requested from those who lobby and that we must expand a code of conduct that provides for stricter sanctions. We MEPs can and must also play our part in supporting the current process of change initiated by President Metsola, so that our activities, which are already strictly regulated, can be better protected from illegal and unfair conduct by certain parties who must be kept away from any form of institutional representation. However, it is understood that those who want to act illegally will continue to do so at the expense of any current or future rules.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work, for being able to combine a text in which we must consider an important area for the single market, but also consumer protection. The European video game industry is the fastest growing cultural and creative sector in Europe, contributing to the development of new technologies and providing over 90 000 jobs across Europe. However, we cannot ignore the dangerous implications of improper and unmoderated use of video games, as has been said, which can have a negative impact on social relationships, mental health, work and academic performance. I also put the question on the prize boxes, the so-called loot boxes, virtual boxes that can be purchased during the game. Many scientific studies have found a correlation between gambling and the gambling system. loot boxes, emphasizing how they are able to manipulate underage users and push them to carry out microtransactions, triggering in them mechanisms of dependence and disturbance. I believe that the Commission should assess whether the current regulatory framework with regard to these premium boxes and purchases in-game is sufficient and I say this also as a parent, because eventually these risks are obviously available to all our users, but above all those most at risk are our children.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the International Federation of Journalists has already documented 59 murders of media professionals in 2022, twelve more than in 2021. It is even more disconcerting that nine out of ten murders of journalists still go unpunished. These are alarming data, especially if they are also associated with the many episodes of violence and intimidation against those who choose to tell the truth, protecting and strengthening our democracy accordingly. Freedom of expression, media freedom and pluralism are enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union, as well as in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clear that there is a link between freedom of the press and the rule of law, because promoting and defending the rule of law also means promoting and defending freedom of the press and all those who work for it. One thing is also certain from today's debate: Despite the many European initiatives, we must be more decisive and incisive than we were in the case of the Maltese journalist killed a few years ago, or in relation to the current Russian aggression or the uprisings in Iran, where journalists, cameramen, photographers are killed or arrested only because they want to hide the truth in favor of propaganda made of disinformation and manipulation. Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of our rule of law and, as such, must be promoted and defended because there can be no democracy without media freedom and pluralism. An attack on the media is an attack on our democracy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in these difficult days, President Metsola has said so, 'European democracy is under attack' and, I would add, that it has not been since Friday evening. Foreign forces have been trying for years to get involved in our decision-making processes to influence or change the fate of our Union, and it is no coincidence that we have set up a special committee precisely to analyse the attempts of these interferences. We have seen this with widespread demagogy on the occasion of Brexit, or with attempts by Russia or China to undermine our fundamental values. In this risk scenario, we must not underestimate the link between foreign interference and our energy, food or financial autonomy: It is clear that there are some regimes that for economic or energy reasons, for example, try to limit our principles and our democracy. We must respond to these attempts with strategies that lead our Union to become more and more autonomous in order to face any external threat that tries to weaken us. Unfortunately, today, we are witnessing a serious case of corruption within our home and I hope that those responsible for these conducts, if ascertained, will not go unpunished but, above all, that clarity will be made immediately to avoid destroying the credibility of our institution. A credibility built with commitment, sacrifice and many struggles. A credibility that maybe scares someone. And so, at this moment more than ever, we must react to defend the credibility of our institutions and of the whole European Union, not only to the outside world, but above all to our citizens who are calling for a strong, close and credible Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today, once again, we are here in the Chamber and we all agree that disability is an undeniable disadvantage, which makes everyday life and their integration into society more difficult for millions of people. Unfortunately, years later and despite numerous European and national measures that are not always coordinated with each other, we must take note that there is still much to be done and, above all, we must take note of the need to combat and break down the cultural barriers of indifference and discrimination. I believe that disability is in the eyes of those who want to see it, creating social barriers that are much more difficult to overcome than material ones; A physical barrier can be broken down, but the invisible barrier is one of incomprehension and indifference. This resolution goes in the right direction and proposes active inclusion policies to guarantee paths of autonomy, looking especially after us, which, allow me, should be an even more careful phase because the most difficult one not only for the disabled person, but for those who live with her and suffer with her, perhaps even more. He suffers the discomfort and uncertainty of having, for a loved one, no longer certainties of conditions of inclusion and equality.