Proposition 53K1728

Proposition de résolution relative au régime de distribution de denrées alimentaires au profit des personnes les plus démunies de l'Union européenne.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Patrick Moriau, Christiane Vienne, Özlem Özen

Submission date

Sept. 5, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union poverty resolution of parliament food aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 17, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, our group will also adopt this resolution. This resolution actually has primarily a signal function because we cannot decide in place of Europe. With this resolution, we intend, in any case, to signal our Prime Minister and his ministers that they are using all of their influence at the European level to reach a sustainable solution. A transitional arrangement for the next two years was adopted on Monday. However, there is still no solution for the period after 2013. We demand that a sustainable solution be found for that period. We can only make a call to use all possible influence.

It is, of course, a shame that we still have to beg food packages to people to survive. The European Food Aid Programme covers 400 000 tonnes of food distributed through 240 food banks. In Europe, and therefore also in Belgium, 41% of food packages come from this European programme, which represents approximately 11 million euros. If this falls away, we must, of course, take care of the resources in that area.

We would also like to ask that the further settlement of that principle agreement be followed. I have understood that the Polish Presidency will further finalize this, after which it must be ratified by the Council and then go to the European Parliament for final approval. We must also strive to find a sustainable solution on a European level for the period after 2013 so that the food distribution for the poorest persists.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, dear colleagues, first of all, allow me to tell you that I am proud that the Committee on Public Health has been able to approve by almost unanimous vote the resolution proposal that my group had submitted in July on the regime of food distribution to the benefit of the poorest in the European Union, and this thanks to the constructive approach of my colleagues. I thank them.

But it is also with a shared and bitter feeling that I present to you today this text. Indeed, Europe today seems to push the ideology of selfishness to its paroxysm, while it has never had such a need for solidarity. My group continues to say this in the various forums of this assembly: solidarity is and will be the key word for finding a way out of the current crisis. A solidarity, of course, inter-state but also a solidarity between individuals, Europeans, which is equally essential.

This resolution is consensual since it relays the joint resolution adopted by virtually all political groups in the European Parliament, both right and left, without yet losing its symbolic force. We must also show that our assembly supports, more than ever, our government with strength in this dossier that, as I told you, symbolizes European solidarity. It is not less important and especially topical.

We know that this ground solidarity is now threatened as a result of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union which gave righteousness to six Member States. The European Union’s food aid program for the most disadvantaged. The Commission had to reduce the budget of the European food distribution scheme from 500 million euros to 113 million euros. This judgment, however, did not in any way question the very principle of the aid but only its legal form.

Germany has now turned its face. “We would be ready for a transitional solution for the next two years, with respect to charities,” said Minister of Agriculture Ilse Aigner.

But, for my group, what is asked in exchange is simply unacceptable and, above all, incomprehensible. Because, in exchange, Germany demands the removal of the program in the future and goes even further, since it claims that in January 2014, there will be no more social policy at the European level.

In fact, what is at stake behind this case, which comes to help millions of Europeans, is a symbolic aspect, but oh how essential it is the social dimension and the fight against poverty in our Union. It is unacceptable to save for two years this European plan for the benefit of the poorest before finally ending it. Faced with this impossibility of finding a technical answer, Europe teaches us how one can, from a legal problem, threaten the food security of several hundred thousand European citizens, even if we move the threat from January 2012 to January 2014.

According to several charitable associations, the drastic reduction of this European aid could deprive at least two million European citizens of a major food aid, which constitutes half of the food aid that Belgium benefits from.

We do not want a Europe that responds to the problems of banks and shuts its eyes on the problems of European citizens. We do not want a Europe that is frigid to tax speculators, but which does not hesitate to cut in its social policies. Neither do we want a Europe which proudly sets as its Europe 2020 strategy the goal of fighting poverty and social exclusion but which, by a lack of political will, throws the blade on one of its only concrete social policies.

How can we justify the position of some Member States, which want the end of European social policies, while adhering to the Europe 2020 strategy? For us, this is a dangerous double discourse. Even though we welcome the proactive role played by our country in this matter, ⁇ through Mr. Courard and Mrs Laruelle, it is about consolidating the principle agreement and ⁇ ining the financing of this European policy for 2012 and 2013, but also and above all, to find a structural solution for the period 2014-2020 by providing it with a solid legal basis and ⁇ ining the ceiling of 500 million euros, so that the persons dependent on this European food aid do not suffer from poverty.

This is to maintain a concrete social dimension, essential at European level. A social Europe is possible, it must exist, it must be felt by the citizens who are increasingly affected by the economic and financial crisis.

Winter is coming fast and this problem needs to find a solution, both in the short and long term. This European Fund must be ⁇ ined at its current level. For the Socialists, both the legal solution and the financial solution must be found at European level, by constructively involving the Member States. However, if in the end no European solution can be found, a plan bis will need to be considered to finance this food aid.

Beyond words, Europe must come to help its citizens because it is them, rich and poor, who build it. It is now necessary to create a common space of solidarity, one of the pillars of which is this programme.

I thank you for your attention and support, which I hope as unanimously as in the Public Health Commission.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, in the framework of the aid file for the most deprived, the MR group also welcomes the change of attitude of Germany and the recent compromise at European level. This compromise allows us to safeguard for at least two years this policy, which is important for the poorest of our fellow citizens.

However, it is important to say that this is not just a Franco-German agreement. The President of the Council interrogated all the representatives and they signed a verbal agreement. This verbal agreement will be formalized at the next European Council meeting in mid-December 2011. In this regard, we would like to welcome the hard work of persuasion carried out by Mrs. Minister Laruelle, which allowed, among other things, to result in this case, as well as the effective support of Minister Courard.

It should, of course, be noted that part of the text of this proposal for a resolution has lost its relevance in view of the agreement reached at European level. However, we will support it, taking into account some of the amendments that Ms. Snoy will submit soon. This text contains at least two specific elements to which you should pay attention. The first concerns the solution for 2014 and subsequent years. Probably, the current agreement is not clear on this subject and therefore pressure should be ⁇ ined to result in a perpetuation of this policy, which ⁇ will no longer be included in the CAP but which may be included in other sectors of the European Union. The second element concerns an amendment that we have submitted and which was adopted in a committee, which requires that the federated entities be integrated into the mechanism of solutions that Belgium will have to adopt.

These two elements deserve, therefore, that we vote this text despite the European agreement.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, from the very beginning, our group appreciated the proposal for a resolution. We also introduced a proposal for a resolution that we decided to attach to that submitted by the PS.

It is obvious that we support the idea that food aid to the poorest must absolutely be preserved and continued. Like our colleagues, we were very concerned about this breakup, which seemed to be a catastrophe, as food aid in Belgium, but also elsewhere, would be reduced by about 80%.

It was therefore about acting at the European level, but also about preparing an alternative and compensation, if necessary, at the Belgian level so as not to be surprised by the winter and to avoid the coming years being really difficult for a number of people in a situation of precariousness.

We submitted amendments to the committee, one of which was approved. This amendment concerns the qualitative aspect of food distributed to the most precarious. It is therefore with pleasure that we have received the agreement of our partners to request that special attention be paid to the nutritional quality of distributed foods and their sustainability, prioritizing regional and seasonal fresh products. We believe that everyone should have access, not only to adequate nutrition, but also to quality and healthy food from all points of view.

Moreover, if you can gain from an environmental point of view by avoiding long transportation, it is all the better.

Another of our amendments addressed the issue of food waste. We found it important to take advantage of this food aid crisis to pay attention to the structural waste that occurs in distribution and throughout the food chain.

We would have wanted a request to be submitted for the creation of a federal working group to arrange a consultation with the major distribution and to establish a cooperation between public and private aid in order to avoid the large waste of food that is not expired and is nevertheless thrown away.

This would avoid the waste, which is still very important unfortunately, of food that has not expired and yet thrown as waste. We will therefore continue to demand the establishment of a system that pushes the large distribution to give up its outdated foods which it wants to get rid of. This structural system must be addressed.

Between the commission vote and today, a European unblocking took place: Germany has changed its mind and agrees to continue the aid for two years. It seems to us that some elements of our text may seem inappropriate, or even outdated.

Thus, since this point is on the agenda of the next Council, at the beginning of December, we propose not to take into account the first two introduced amendments.

On the other hand, we maintain the third amendment, with an almost general agreement of the hemisphere, on the fact that federal aid remains planned, but that in case of non-agreement at the European level, the same demand remains: that the federal budget compensates for any loss of European aid. The important thing, at this time, is that the solution that comes into effect for 2012 and 2013 does not prevent us from considering the long-term: we cannot rely on a temporary agreement and admit that, in two years, everything will stop due to the lack of funding from the agricultural budget and that we remain without solution.

Our goal is to maintain this resolution in its full validity and to find a solution from 2014 for the period extending until 2020. It will not be a matter of taking action at the last moment: it is likely that the agricultural budget will no longer play this role; in addition, we are also not in favor of the creation of surpluses and stocks. We will probably need to turn to another European budget to ensure this aid. Therefore, we will have to think about a way to provide it.

In general, one can also obviously ask the question of the upward and ask why a part of our population should still receive food aid. This is because, structurally, there is too much poverty in our country, let’s not forget that.

Our group emphasizes the long-term mobilization as well as the qualitative aspect of this food aid and the fight against waste.

Mr. Speaker, the Flemish Interest, like in the committee, may be the only one to vote against this resolution.

I would like to point out for a moment that it cannot be inferred from this that we would not be concerned about the approximately 116 000 people who are still dependent on food banks in Belgium.

It also does not mean that we are against food banks, no matter how much we would like that they should no longer be used in a Western developed society.

We are against the use of the European umbrella. In that sense, I was very satisfied with Mrs. Laruelle’s answer to my question what we would do with the Belgian food banks if Europe would no longer provide those resources. The minister had a plan B for that and I was very happy.

Europe’s involvement in this has actually grown historically. The European Union is largely responsible for the agricultural policy and as such has also become responsible for food surpluses.

The transfer of these agricultural surpluses to food banks was a win-win situation and also a healthy form of solidarity between Member States.

Agricultural surpluses decreased and demand for food packages increased, resulting in shortages, which were then supplemented by financial support. Here we think it goes wrong.

The distribution of food packages, interpersonal solidarity, should take place as close as possible to the people. One must feel the need to be solidary and the help must go as directly as possible to the needy.

That is the beauty of solidarity. In the other case, you are registered in institutions and institutions where you transfer resources that are not theirs from one post to another, which usually also involves a lot of resources in costs.

The European bureaucracy is too logical and money-consuming to meet these needs. Indeed, it is the national states and regions that must take care of the most needy.

There is also an element of responsibility.

Initially, Member States should be able to maintain their food banks. Thus they will also be forced to come to a structural solution, each in its own way in its specific situation.

We should not hide behind a European umbrella. We must rather defeat the logged European apparatus, where people are retired early to be replaced by other long-paying officials. With these savings, we can then tighten our own food banks.

We do not ask for a response from Europe. Therefore, we cannot support this resolution.

The Council of Ministers of Agriculture has finally reached an agreement to continue for two years the financing of the program of aid to the most disadvantaged through the budget from the Common Agricultural Policy. It was time! Unfortunately, this program is still indispensable for a large number of people. This European aid funds 50% of the supply of food banks and associations that help the most disadvantaged.

This agreement is only valid for 2012 and 2013, but it avoids an immediate and abrupt reduction of food aid. This is a temporary relief for many charitable organizations.

But what for 2014? Unfortunately, there will still be poor people. My group therefore insists that a lasting solution should be found from 2014. Guarantees must be provided promptly to reassure food banks and associations.

We wish to strongly support the adoption of a strong legal basis for financing a food aid programme at European level. This budget could be supported by the European Social Cohesion Policy. The European Parliament resolution and the proposal of the European Commissioner for Social Affairs must therefore be truly supported.

To conclude, my group would like to recall the importance of valuing unsold foods and avoiding waste. This idea is not included in this resolution proposal, but it is an essential matter that needs to be looked at closely. For this purpose, we have submitted a proposal for a resolution to the Walloon Region since it is at this level of power that this must be discussed. I invite you to raise the awareness of all the parties to adopt, with us, a constructive approach at all levels of power in order to find a solution regarding unsold food and waste.

Mr. Speaker, we discussed this point at the latest Agriculture Council on Monday. We didn’t vote on it because it was scheduled under “diverse points”.

I hope that this issue will be included on the agenda of our next European Council on 13 December. But on Monday, the President of the Council verified that he had a qualified majority.

I would like to clarify two or three points. Today, we do not carry out a social policy. This is what poses the fundamental problem. We are within the framework of agricultural policy, one of the measures of which has a social goal. This is precisely what the six countries question with the pretext that it is no longer a foundation of agricultural policy but a social foundation.

I always said that the solution we were looking for was not a 150-year solution, but a two-year solution. Therefore, it is not surprising today that the proposed solution is for two years! Read the minutes of the committee meetings. It has always been said that we are looking for a solution for two years. Why only for two years? As part of the programming phase, Mr. Barroso has already said that he would incorporate this policy not in an agricultural policy, but in a social policy.

Therefore, it is necessary to remain attentive, to continue to fight for its insertion in social policy. I want to reassure you. I do not know the content of the Franco-German discussions, only the results: this allows us to unlock the file. But I can in any case say that Belgium has not committed itself at all to no longer pursue this type of policy after 2014. On the other hand, in the European Council of Ministers of Agriculture, everyone agrees that it should no longer be an agricultural policy, because we no longer have surplus, but that we must be able to pursue it at the level of a policy of social cohesion.

Finally, I would like to thank Parliament for its involvement in this crucial issue.