What Alessandro spoke about.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, we have come to the end of this experiment. I don't know what else to call it. An experiment that had the ambition to bring institutions from citizens, but did nothing but bring citizens, or rather a small minority of citizens, who we do not know well chosen as, within the vortex of institutions. An experiment that immediately gave the impression of not looking so much at the result, but of doing, a compulsive, disorganized and above all without clear objectives and purposes. Obviously with these premises, the result could only be what is now in front of everyone's eyes. The mountain gave birth to a mouse. A mouse made up of recommendations, which are largely acceptable, yes, but which are already largely the subject of political discussions and have therefore not brought much news. A mouse that has also made clearly straight recommendations such as those on transnational lists. If we think that European citizens consider them a priority, perhaps it would be better to get out of the situation for a moment. comfort zone Let's talk to the real people who at this moment have many other problems, many other concerns. Let's face it, it was an experiment that completely missed its goal, unless its goal was to give a semblance of popular legitimacy to positions that are very well rooted within the palace. But only here. Of course, we will never know exactly how much this experiment cost, but we hope that the lesson is that politics will once again have its legitimate decision-making primacy without being ashamed of it, while actively and concretely involving all citizens, even and above all the most critical ones, who have had no voice within this initiative, which is all the more reason to consider this experiment a failure. Too bad. We all believed it, but we have, you have missed another opportunity to really bring European citizens closer to these institutions.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, cohesion policy once again proves to be the main and immediate instrument to be made available to deal with the emergency facing the European Union. So it is good that there is this provision, this increase in the pre-financing of REACT-EU, that we move towards CARE+, that there is a concrete and immediate response for populations that are suffering, for States that are struggling on the front line for the reception especially of refugees and those who are fleeing a war, of which we still struggle to understand the meaning. It is necessary for the Member States, where we are still a little still and a little behind, not to waste any more time on partnership agreements and cohesion policy, in order to avoid overshadowing the importance of this policy and to give the impression that the Member States are of little interest. I therefore also urge the Member States and those regions that are still struggling to find partnership agreements.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the serious humanitarian crisis affecting Europe in recent weeks is a shocking event. Putin's war has forced millions of Ukrainian women and children to flee their land under the sound of anti-aircraft sirens and bombs. The dramatic images we see on the border with Poland must make us reflect and act promptly. Whoever escapes from a real war must be helped immediately and without hesitation. I therefore appreciated the responsiveness, timeliness and concreteness with which the Commission prepared the CARE proposal. I also thank the REGI Chair and Coordinators with whom, despite some initial uncertainty, we then worked together and fruitfully. For this reason, as an Identity and Democracy group, our support will be without delay. With regard to cohesion action for refugees in Europe, we welcome the flexibility and speed of this new instrument aimed at supporting and meeting the first needs of Ukrainian refugees. We welcome the extension throughout 2022 of the possibility of 100% co-financing by the European Union for 2014-2020 cohesion policy funding. This will help alleviate the fiscal pressures on Member States and regions, already severely tested by the extended impact of the pandemic crisis. However, we must not forget two important aspects. The first is that it is a reallocation of resources from the previous programming and therefore there will be no additional resources. The second is that the perimeter of this instrument should not be widened in any way. In this particular historical context, we do not have a single emergency, but there are multiple crisis factors weighing on regions and cohesion policy. I am thinking of the explosion in energy costs, the supply of raw materials that are putting citizens and businesses in difficulty in many regions, such as the mountainous areas of my country. Once again, cohesion policy has proven to be the ideal tool for dealing with emergencies. And perhaps this should also make us reflect on how long-term strategic policies are sometimes lacking. But this is not the place to discuss it. I would like to conclude, Mr President, with a proper and sincere thanks to the local and national governments who have worked from the outset to manage this emergency and whose due and respectful recognition I expect from the whole of this House.

Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Madam President of the European Commission, ladies and gentlemen, transparency for those who play such a high-level institutional role is not only an administrative and above all an ethical duty, but also the guarantee of their good work, which can be so free from speculation, doubts or misunderstandings. If the object of this lack of transparency were the biggest crisis that Europe and its institutions have faced, clarity becomes an indispensable imperative. Perhaps this is the spirit in which the European Ombudsman, when asked about access to the text of some SMS that you would have exchanged with the CEO of Pfizer, reiterated, I quote: Access to EU documents is a fundamental right. Unfortunately, since the beginning of the Covid emergency, there have been several times when the Commission has lacked transparency and every time this happens its credibility is undermined. Let us think about when it was discovered by chance, thanks to Wikileaks, that the Commission was funding the Wuhan laboratory and it was only thanks to a question from our group that the Commission itself had to admit that that laboratory was not complying with the requested documentation, or when this House strongly asked to be able to see the contracts for the purchase of anti-Covid vaccines with the main pharmaceutical companies in the world, but then to be handed over documents that were largely censored. President, we are convinced of your good faith in dealing with a political and social crisis that has never been seen and that has required an incredible political effort, but we cannot leave room for doubt, and that is why the question of so-called SMS is not only to know if there are or what they contain, but must be the tool to show that the Commission is above suspicion, so that no one can speculate, misrepresent the lack of transparency or, worse, think that someone puts commercial interests, perhaps with China, before the interests of European citizens. Madam President, we owe it to the victims of COVID-19, we owe it to the families who have suffered and are suffering the health and economic consequences of the pandemic, we owe it to all European citizens. I conclude, President: It is always said that this is the home of European citizens, well, then it is a house of glass and flooded with light, where there is never room for any shadow.

Madam President, Commissioner Ferreira, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately we have not yet come out of a crisis that we find ourselves catapulted into another crisis, much more serious in some ways, a crisis that shows us how dependent our transition policy was on someone we perhaps did not want and how much this will cost us in the months and years to come, demonstrating our unpreparedness to assume this role. Cohesion policy can and must do much to cope with these successive crises, which will take a long time to resolve. But we also need to give the Member States the opportunity to properly address the partnership plans in order to be able to meet the Commission's needs. One of them is the encroachment that exists in many states between the Next Generation EU and cohesion policy, which is creating, especially at local and regional level, a clogging of work, a clogging of bureaucracy that creates great difficulties in carrying out these plans. Therefore, the appeal to the Commission is to take into account, firstly, the particular situation we are experiencing at international level and the repercussions that this has, not least on the energy aspect, and the cost it has at social, economic and energy level, and, secondly, the bureaucratic overload that administrations, especially local and regional authorities, have in this difficult period.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as is unfortunately often the case in this House, an important theme is used to make low propaganda. I believe that it is essential, however, to analyse the link between human rights and corruption, as addressed in the text, even if in some parts the approach used is abstract and contaminated by too much ideologisation, but we know this. As for example, in my opinion, it would be interesting and necessary to deepen the issue of corruption also in the field of reception of asylum seekers. Episodes of corruption in the protection of human rights in this field are no longer tolerable. It is well known that this type of activity has been at the center of numerous phenomena of illegality, generating not a few damages to public bodies and people who really need international protection. Too many have been enriched by corruption in this area. Issues such as these should be at the heart of Parliament's action. Let us set aside ideologies for a moment and act incisively and pragmatically against the corruption of those who incense themselves as protectors of human rights and the last, but then have as their only interest to plan acts of corruption to enrich themselves.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to thank all the colleagues who have contributed to the drafting of this document. So much is being done about prevention, but so much more must be done about the procedures for the treatment of these diseases that, if in some cases fortunately they are gradually becoming chronic, in others, unfortunately, they still carry with them all their deadly potential. Cancer is a complex disease. To improve its care, a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach is necessary, which always puts the patient and his needs at the center of attention. The units dedicated, such as breast units or pancreas units, the latter still in the embryonic stage, carry with them the model hub and spoke They are the organisational reference that guarantees fairness and speed of access to care. However, this model can only be implemented if it is supported by appropriate digital technologies and with a better ease of data sharing, necessary to be able to constantly and scrupulously follow patients. It is precisely on these new technologies, thanks also to the objectives of the Next Generation EU, that we can and must make a common effort. Finally, allow me to draw attention to the need not to demonize products that are not carcinogenic. I am thinking of a case cited by many colleagues, namely wine. Instead, we promote a healthy lifestyle and responsible consumption of a drink that is part of our European historical and cultural heritage.

Madam President, Mr High Representative, ladies and gentlemen, we share the concerns about what is happening between Ukraine and Russia and we need the utmost commitment of all to prevent any kind of escalation that could lead to an armed conflict, a threat that for now seems only such but that, if unfortunately it were to materialize, would lead to dramatic consequences for a Europe already severely tested by the pandemic. Expanding the field of view on the international chessboard, however, we cannot pretend that there is not a stone guest in this whole situation, which no one has mentioned. In fact, the news that the President of Turkey Erdoğan has proposed himself as a mediator in the dispute between Ukraine and Russia is of particular concern. Dear High Representative, what is Europe's position on this issue? But most importantly, when will we get out of this embarrassing situation? I say embarrassment because we are in a situation where we seem to continue to ignore the facts. Do we want to continue to ignore that Turkey purchases anti-missile systems from Russia while being a member of NATO? Do we want to continue to ignore the fact that Turkey sells drones to Ukraine? Do we want to continue to pretend that Turkey's behavior is not intended to prevent a conflict, but only to consolidate its geopolitical hegemony over the entire eastern and southern border of Europe, starting from Ukraine and reaching Libya? Do we want to continue to be subjected to the blackmail of migrants carried out by the Turkish regime, which then we have also seen found emulators as happened on the Polish-Belarusian border only a few weeks ago? Just because Europe is not able to make a serious border policy leaving it to the Member States alone. If European foreign policy finally wants to strike a blow and stop being at the mercy of events, in addition to announcing the usual sanctions, start making serious decisions and stop financing the Turkish dictator. Let's stop telling ourselves the fable that the billions of euros that Europe gives to Turkey serve for minorities and to foster a process of democratization, while we know very well that it is only the money of European citizens that is used by Erdoğan to consolidate his geopolitical power.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Covid has been a disastrous year for the younger generations, let us think about distance learning, the lack of social involvement that students have had especially in this year, so this European Year of Youth is appropriate and necessary, if it goes in the right direction. If it goes in the direction of creating long-term policies, aimed at developing the concept of youth in the years to come. Also for the Erasmus programme, not simply to teach young people to leave, but also to teach young people to return, to bring home those experiences that are made abroad, perhaps to go to populate those countries that too often are depopulated, especially in the marginal and mountainous areas of our territories. But if the European Year of Youth becomes another act of propaganda such as the failed Conference on the Future of Europe, which has been committing us for months without producing any results, well no, this is not good for us, it is not good for us because we want a future for young people and not propaganda.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to thank the rapporteur for her work. We in our group are often critical and caustic even in our criticisms, but we recognize when a job is done well, and above all it is done for the good of the European citizens, who benefit from these agreements. We can say that we are basically satisfied with the result, because the scope of the legislation has been clarified, for example, so electric vehicles and electric scooters are also being regulated, although this could be expanded a bit. In Italy there is a debate on the norm also from the insurance point of view for example scooters or anything that does not have a so-called muscular traction. Everything that has electrically assisted traction should in some way also be regulated from an insurance point of view. It is also important to increase protection for injured parties, even in the event of accidents with vehicles from another country, with foreign vehicles. For those who come from border territories like me, these are things that unfortunately happen quite frequently, so it is another important point. Let us say that the most important thing about this measure, however, remains the protection of citizens, especially as regards the harmonisation of minimum amounts, as well as the protection of guarantees for failing companies, which in any case allow European citizens to find compensation, to find satisfaction when they are victims of an accident. Those who suffer damage must still be compensated, must still be satisfied. As for the work on reducing the number of victims of road accidents, there is still a lot of work to be done here, but I am sure that we will all work actively on this.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, allow me to express once again my condolences for the victims of the floods in Germany and the fires in southern Europe. Italy has recorded just under 20 000 deaths from natural disasters in the last twenty years and is sixth in the world in terms of number of victims, while at an economic level there is a loss of about EUR 28 billion as a direct consequence of disasters. In the mountains, in particular, in addition to fires we have more and more floods that cause flooding and landslides, often due to neglect and abandonment of the territory. To return to protecting these areas, it is necessary to encourage a more extensive and conscious use, allowing agriculture and pastoralism to structure themselves and be able to return to being the guardians of those lands that today, too often, are abandoned. However, if we want to save the mountains and rural areas and those who live there, we must protect rural activity: There can be no life without work. Too often Europe is blinded by its environmentalist ideology, imposing laws and constraints that, given in hand, serve neither to preserve the environment nor to ensure its sustainability. I close by thanking all the firefighters and all the volunteers who have put their lives at risk to protect our beloved territories.