Speeches

It is not the opinion of the Conservatives and Reformists that part of today's anti-Semitism is linked to mass Islamization. If anything, the issue is the answer, don't look at a single case. And, if I have to be honest, colleague, I don't think it will do you any honour to seek controversy on a day like this at all costs.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I think that we are not only here today to express the great feeling of condolence two years after the events of 7 October. We are here to reflect on the reasons for a growing anti-Semitism in Europe and I think that each of us, whatever our belonging, is also recognized in the cry of concern that Pope Leo XIV, precisely on this issue, in Europe and speaking to the world, has launched. But the answer to today's anti-Semitism, which is very different from the tragic one of the twentieth century, comes from your portfolio, Commissioner Brunner, which is that of Home Affairs and Migration. Because we would be very far from the truth if we did not recognize that in a Europe that has forgotten its Christian roots, its Judeo-Christian roots, today there is a phenomenon of immigration that risks being uncontrolled. And then to you also this task.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 17 September - next week - it will be two years since the visit to Lampedusa, Europe's southern border, by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and President Ursula von der Leyen. After that meeting, after the first time that Europe took note of the situation in the south of its border, the memorandum of understanding with Tunisia arrived, thanks to which, in the following months and years, there was a clear collapse of landings on that route. But we are concerned, Commissioner, we are very concerned, because we feel a strong lack of attention on the part of the Union in the North African context, with reference to Libya, where there is Russia, which - as President von der Leyen said this morning - is the first promoter of human traffickers. Europe cannot remain silent in the face of what is happening in Libya.

I do not think that the European Parliament, my colleague, has the opportunity to avoid further fires. Of course, European policies and national policies can provide for climate adaptation strategies, but to provide for climate adaptation strategies – I am an Italian, the Italian government has also done so by working on the climate adaptation plan – means working on prevention, it means working on what concerns hydrogeological prevention and it means determining all those actions that serve to accompany the time in which we live towards the possibility that there are no emergencies.

I do not think that the European Parliament, my colleague, has the opportunity to avoid further fires. Of course, European policies and national policies can provide for climate adaptation strategies, but to provide for climate adaptation strategies – I am an Italian, the Italian government has also done so by working on the climate adaptation plan – means working on prevention, it means working on what concerns hydrogeological prevention and it means determining all those actions that serve to accompany the time in which we live towards the possibility that there are no emergencies.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning of this parliamentary term, this is not the first debate in which we are dealing with fires, it is not the first debate in which we are dealing with droughts. Many months ago, as an Italian Member of Parliament, I asked the European Commission a question in which I asked about the choices that have been made, for example with regard to the purchase of Canadairs. We have the feeling that we are lagging behind on the roadmap, but above all we have the feeling that we have chosen a technology – probably still the only one present today – which, however, is highly obsolete, which is not adequate in number to the growing need for danger, which does not put digitalisation at the heart in order to create forms of prevention that can safeguard our territories. It has been said in the debate that most of the fires are linked to arson, but the expansion of these fires in most cases is due to the fact that you can discover them late and that you can not act soon. The Commission is expected, precisely in the preparation strategy, to pay attention to the European partnership in order to go beyond adequate and obsolete technology.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning of this parliamentary term, this is not the first debate in which we are dealing with fires, it is not the first debate in which we are dealing with droughts. Many months ago, as an Italian Member of Parliament, I asked the European Commission a question in which I asked about the choices that have been made, for example with regard to the purchase of Canadairs. We have the feeling that we are lagging behind on the roadmap, but above all we have the feeling that we have chosen a technology – probably still the only one present today – which, however, is highly obsolete, which is not adequate in number to the growing need for danger, which does not put digitalisation at the heart in order to create forms of prevention that can safeguard our territories. It has been said in the debate that most of the fires are linked to arson, but the expansion of these fires in most cases is due to the fact that you can discover them late and that you can not act soon. The Commission is expected, precisely in the preparation strategy, to pay attention to the European partnership in order to go beyond adequate and obsolete technology.

Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Serafin has spoken about what unites us, and I will try to summarise some important things that perhaps divide us today and perhaps unite us tomorrow. There are divergences at the outset and we are afraid, for some choices, that we already know are not shared by the majority of Member States and certainly by the majority of Parliament. On cohesion, we are against merging resources into national funds, depriving regions and municipalities of resources, and we are in favour of maintaining the current classification of regions on the basis of GDP. On agriculture, we are against merging the agricultural policy fund with the cohesion policy fund and on border controls, and we think that we should invest more in neighbourhood policies – especially in the southern neighbourhood – perhaps by creating a fund for the Mediterranean. We support, Commissioner, the initiative to create a Competitiveness Fund, but we hope that this fund will have autonomous and different resources. We are ready as a delegation to work and we will do our part.

Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Serafin has spoken about what unites us, and I will try to summarise some important things that perhaps divide us today and perhaps unite us tomorrow. There are divergences at the outset and we are afraid, for some choices, that we already know are not shared by the majority of Member States and certainly by the majority of Parliament. On cohesion, we are against merging resources into national funds, depriving regions and municipalities of resources, and we are in favour of maintaining the current classification of regions on the basis of GDP. On agriculture, we are against merging the agricultural policy fund with the cohesion policy fund and on border controls, and we think that we should invest more in neighbourhood policies – especially in the southern neighbourhood – perhaps by creating a fund for the Mediterranean. We support, Commissioner, the initiative to create a Competitiveness Fund, but we hope that this fund will have autonomous and different resources. We are ready as a delegation to work and we will do our part.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Executive Vice-President of the Commission, I think that, at times, this debate has not wanted or been able to take into account some of the innovations that have emerged in recent weeks. It is right and very correct that Parliament should ask itself how to move forward on the many projects which the plans have carried out in the various States and which may, for a thousand reasons, not be fully implemented within the time-limit to date. But the European Commission has, in recent weeks, given two absolutely convincing answers to this question, which I think should be mentioned in the parliamentary debate. Because, on the one hand, the modification of the medium-term strategy of cohesion policy and, on the other hand, above all, I say this with deep respect also to the debate that I have heard from those who perhaps do not want the programme to succeed, and for this reason want to postpone it and postpone it in time as to its expiry. But the European Commission's communication of 4 June has already indicated instruments that allow both the completion of the initiatives that are being implemented and, above all through the establishment of specific funds at credit institutions, the possibility of investing on the same objectives and going even further. So I think that while the Commission pointed to the moon someone here keeps looking at the finger.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are taking part in a particularly important debate because it concerns the economic policy trajectory that will lead us to 2035. And my previous Conservative colleagues have said how important it is for us that Europe should once again be hospitable to business, that we should be able to invest in research, innovation and development, that we should be able to adopt new security policies. We have some doubts about the document that we will be called upon to evaluate tomorrow, because it seems to us a document, precisely on these objectives, rather weak, the result of a compromise sometimes between opposites, a document that manages to be unclear even on one of the pillars, the Competitiveness Fund, which had been announced by the Commission. And then our will is to work positively: Let us not miss the opportunity to give a solid multiannual financial framework to our institutions.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to begin by acknowledging to the rapporteur, Mr Halicki, the effort he has made to try to include, in these guidelines on the 2026 budget, some of the most important essential elements that came from the proposals of all the political groups, including our own. Obviously this is a debate that takes place at a particular time, while the framework of economic growth for all 27 countries of the European Union is uncertain, also linked to geopolitical issues that are looming in recent months, and so it will be in the months to come. It is therefore not surprising that attention should be paid to the issue of security and defence, which is considered, also in this report on the 2026 budget, to be one of the extraordinarily important points. Just as we very much share the work on the subject of research and development, on the need to have sovereignty in the production of energy, in the management of the supply of medicine, in the attention to small and medium-sized enterprises, also in the form of the partnership between public and private; reaffirming its commitment to the common agricultural policy. These are all issues that certainly find space, as well as the great issue of the fight against immigration. There is only one doubt, Commissioner: that 200 billion euros are few to do all this. This, too, will have to be considered.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all thank you, Commissioner, for fulfilling one of the commitments you announced at your hearing, namely to be here within 100 days and to present a legislative act of extraordinary importance. Regulatory act that was widely expected, not only for what emerged in the aftermath of the pandemic, when we discovered as Europe that most of our production took place outside the 27 countries and therefore a supply was difficult, especially in times of difficulty. Today there is a very important issue that this act begins to address and is to make competitive and feasible the production of medicines, especially generics, even in Europe, while today we know that the main criticality is all here: in the fact that producing the drug in Europe has become uneconomical. So it's a job that starts with Critical Medicines Act, it is a work that has been taken from the competiveness compass. We are optimistic because this is also a question of sovereignty.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, the OECD report 'Health at a Glance: Europe 2024", tells us that 1.2 million doctors, nurses and midwives are missing in Europe. The same report tells us that a third of doctors and a quarter of nurses in service are over 55 and will retire in the coming years, while young people's interest in health and nursing careers declines. What does Europe do? In response to a question from myself and my colleague Mr Mantovani, the previous speaker, on behalf of the Commission, said: If there is a lack of healthcare professionals in Europe, go and get them in third countries outside Europe. I can say that this is a strategy that does not convince us. It does not convince us because there are countries that have faced large investments. Italy has invested over EUR 9 billion in the last two years, bringing the health fund to almost EUR 137 billion by 2025 alone. It has increased the hiring ceiling, the number of public places in the faculties and the number of scholarships, and doctors continue to be lacking. I quickly bet very few proposals. The first one: increase the European Social Fund's budget for an extraordinary plan of recruitment and placements in university faculties and specialisation grants, also in order to finance the very heavy cost, in many private universities, of courses in medical sciences, which reaches more than EUR 100 000. Then we try to consider human capital, and therefore the cost of health and training, as an investment expense and remove it from the constraints of the Stability Pact. We also try to tax the work in health care, as in Italy was done for the recovery of waiting lists, and we invest in digitization, telemedicine and artificial use. It is no longer time for analysis, it is time for answers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, since there have been cases of damage in the Baltic and Mediterranean areas, the feeling that has emerged to many observers is that the European Union lacks attention to the protection of its strategic assets. One of these – perhaps the most important and least observed – is the underwater side. Some States of the Union, such as Italy, on the initiative of the government of the President of the Council Giorgia Meloni, have dedicated to the submarine dimension and to the dimension of the protection of the digital connection and the energy supply specific administrative and regulatory measures. The feeling that emerges from the Baltic to the Mediterranean is that there has not been this attention on the part of the Union, which today becomes even more decisive, because we are, in some cases, faced with real acts of war.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, direct management funds, cohesion funds, recovery plan, NextGenerationEU and probably soon, as announced by the Commission, a large competitiveness fund. Una massa enorme di risorse che necessita in modo serio di adeguati controlli, perché, come non ci siamo mai stancati di ripetere come gruppo di Fratelli d'Italia, tutte le evidenze di corruzione rappresentano diritti negati, opportunità che vengono levate ai diretti interessati, a cui ingenti risorse sono destinate. What matters is the need to strengthen OLAF, what matters is the need to expand the powers of the EPPO Prosecutor, but what matters, Commissioner, is above all the adoption of prevention policies. Prevention doesn't just mean rules. Prevention means breaking even those unnecessary rules, because there is a good way to prevent corruption: Avoid unnecessary bureaucracies.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is the fourth debate we are having after a major disaster. We are here to express the greatest feeling of closeness to the people of Valencia and we pay tribute to those who lost their lives and feelings of thanks for those who worked tirelessly. Since the flood of 16 May 2023, there have been more than 20 major weather disasters in Europe: Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain. And in these hours, precisely in these hours, in my province, in Catania, a violent flood has struck the cities of Acireale, Giarre and Riposto. We know that these phenomena are destined to repeat themselves and to be more and more frequent. No one among us denies climate change, but we can finally say that five years have been lost in chasing a climate change crisis. green deal Ideological and raving about electric cars instead of presenting a plan for the protection of the territory, with an adequate European fund for disaster prevention? Can we say that respect for the environment is demonstrated by mending the territory, reducing land consumption and implementing policies against hydrogeological instability? That's what we need to talk about so we don't cry for more deaths.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the centrality of regions and municipalities in cohesion policies has been reaffirmed by all groups and I am sure that no one in this House believes that we can do without municipalities and regions in the planning of the next programming cycles. I have had the privilege of being part of a regional government that has been able to invest resources in cohesion policies, that has certified billions of euros of expenditure actually made and that has programmed the current programming cycle, putting together resources of over 15 billion euros. And therefore no one more than those who have had these experiences – and in all groups we are many – can be absolutely aware of the need to see the regions as protagonists, like the municipalities, of the new cohesion policy. But regions must be listened to and when – as was the case at the last meeting of the European Committee of the Regions – they told us that the green transition cannot undermine Europe’s competitiveness, they must also be listened to.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Minister, Commissioner, I have heard some enthusiastic tones in describing both the proposal from the Commission and the compromise reached in committee work. And I do not want to think, according to the rhetoric heard, that this is the first budget of the new legislature, because a legislature that has opened with a request for greater competitiveness and investment in Europe does not find them in its first budget. A legislature that has opened with a great expectation on the part of citizens on some essential issues – I am thinking of health – does not find it in the budget. Of course, we started from a cut of billions of euros on the multi-annual framework and we still get to a cut in health, which makes the counterbalance to a further cut, which is that of the ability of our system to grow the economy. So I want to think, Minister, that the right compromises can be reached, but above all I want to think that this is not the first budget of the new legislature, but that it is the last of the old one.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, why this debate? Because a large number of the groups in this Parliament feel that there is an urgent need to review the regulation of medical devices. I, Commissioner, give you just one piece of information to understand a rule that is not working and is causing delays: 15 900 applications for new medical devices were filed at the European Patent Office in 2023, one every 30 minutes. And there is still today, in the current regulation, the risk that the procedure must be repeated for many of the devices that today are placed in the health system of all the states of the European Union. What is the result? The result is that, for example, paediatric patients are at great risk of missing devices for cardiovascular diseases and there is a very strong feeling that excessively bureaucratic legislation is also distancing the production of devices from the European Union. Then it is time to make a reflection, to do it quickly. And well said, I conclude immediately, the Commissioner, that we need a greater investment in EU4Health. It is a pity, however, that this investment has failed precisely in the budgetary perspective.

(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, there is a strong feeling, also in the light of some of the speeches in this debate, that we have not fully understood how gigantic the phenomenon of drug trafficking is, that we have not fully understood how much force there is in the criminal organisations that deal with the management of the distribution centres in the re-use of capital, and that the fight against the re-use of this capital is not as effective as it should be. In the face of so many repressive initiatives, which have led to significant successes in the territories, both of the police and of the judicial authorities, what emerges is that the phenomenon not only does not tend to regress, but instead constantly increases. Mr Vice-President, you spoke before about a strategy in the making. Many of the interventions have shown how this strategy is still not allowing to achieve the objectives that it would like to achieve. And then I steal the conclusion of your speech: More needs to be done.