Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-06-11-Speech-2-054-000"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20130611.5.2-054-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, this proposal is presented against the backdrop of rising poverty and deprivation across Europe as a result of the crisis. There are almost 120 million Europeans – a quarter of our total population – at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Over 40 million suffer from extreme material deprivation, this means that they are unable to put a basic meal on the table every other day. Almost six million children do not have two pairs of shoes. Over four million people are homeless. In short, the Fund for the European Aid to the Most Deprived is a sign of European solidarity with those hardest hit by the crisis. I urge Members to endorse the report as adopted by the Employment and Social Affairs Committee so that we have a strong mandate to negotiate with the Council and Commission and see FEAD commence operations, as planned, from early next year. Since 1987, the Food Distribution Programme has been an important support for organisations in direct contact with people on the margins of society. Eighteen million people across 19 Member States are benefiting from this programme this year. Ending the Food Distribution Programme next December without a replacement European programme would pose a direct threat to food aid programmes in many Member States. The proposal that we are considering today envisages European support for national schemes that address poverty, which exist in all Member States, but it would go beyond the Food Distribution Programme by introducing the possibility for the distribution of basic material assistance. This could include, for example, starter packs for homeless people moving into a new home or clothing and footwear for children. It would also introduce support for accompanying measures aimed at the social reintegration of end recipients that many of the organisations involved in food aid programmes already provide. I would like to thank and pay tribute to the shadow rapporteurs, to my colleagues in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee as well as to the rapporteurs for opinions from the other committees. Over 500 amendments were initially tabled, and we managed to reach consensus on the vast majority of these, on issues such as the broader scope, developing the partnership principle, the definitions, mutual learning, co-financing, reducing the administrative burden on NGOs and developing synergies with other EU policies in the area of food waste and healthy diet. Much of the discussion then in the Employment and Social Affairs Committee centred around two issues. Firstly, as rapporteur I recommended that the proposed budget for FEAD be at least the equivalent amount of the existing food programme, that is EUR 3.5 billion instead of the EUR 2.5 billion which was proposed by the Commission. There was a clear majority in favour of this proposal in the committee. There is a technical amendment tabled in this regard for plenary which reflects the vote of the Social Affairs Committee, and I commend this amendment. Secondly, one of the central issues to emerge in the debate concerns the participation of Member States, specifically whether the funding should be ringfenced for the most deprived, as originally proposed by the Commission, or alternatively if it should be reallocated to other EU programmes not necessarily targeting the most deprived. The Employment and Social Affairs Committee decided overwhelmingly to endorse the Commission’s original proposal on this point. There are amendments from two political groups – ALDE and the Greens – proposing that, if Member States decide not to take part in the Fund, they may use the funding for other EU programmes. I would have strong concerns that these amendments, if approved, would set a dangerous precedent for the reallocation of funding between programmes. They could also delay the entry into force of the new Fund, which is planned for January 2014. January is, by the way, one of the coldest and most difficult months of the year for the target group. The amendments could also delay the programming of the European Social Fund and ERDF from next year. I therefore cannot accept the amendments tabled by ALDE and the Greens. It should be noted that the responsibility and the obligation to combat poverty and social exclusion will remain with the Member States. FEAD is intended to complement national policies, not replace them. It is by no means an alternative or a substitute. But it would enable the European Union to continue to contribute towards alleviating some of the worst forms of poverty and social exclusion. FEAD would, in fact, be the only EU instrument that specifically targets people who are on the margins of society, including people who are often well beyond the reach of the ESF."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph