FIFTEENTH REPORT
The European Scrutiny Committee has made further
progress in the matter referred to it and has agreed to the following
Report:—
CO-ORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY WITH
ASSOCIATED COUNTRIES
| Draft Council Decision on the position to be taken by the Community within the Association Council established by the Europe Agreements between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republics of Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and the Republics of Latvia, Romania and Estonia of the other part, with regard to the adoption of provisions for the co-ordination of social security schemes. |
(a)
(20891)
5234/00
COM(99) 675
|
Hungary.
|
(b)
(20892)
5235/00
COM(99) 676
|
Poland.
|
(c)
(20893)
5236/00
COM(99) 677
|
Bulgaria.
|
(d)
(20894)
5238/00
COM(99) 684
|
Slovakia.
|
(e)
(20895)
5240/00
COM(99) 682
|
Slovenia.
|
(f)
(20896)
5241/00
COM(99) 681
|
Lithuania.
|
(g)
(20897)
5242/00
COM(99) 679
|
Czech Republic.
|
(h)
(20898)
5243/00
COM(99) 680
|
Latvia.
|
(i)
(20913)
5239/00
COM(99) 683
|
Romania.
|
(j)
(20914)
5237/00
COM(99) 678
|
Estonia.
|
| Legal base:
| (variously) Articles 37-41 of the Europe Agreements with the associated countries; unanimity
|
| Department:
| Social Security |
| Basis of consideration:
| Letter of 6 April 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-ix (1999-2000), paragraph 2 (16 February 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment:
| Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| (all) Not cleared; progress reports requested
|
Background
1.1 On 16 February 2000, we considered a
proposal to give effect to the Europe Agreements on the co-ordination
of social security schemes with ten applicant States. We left
the documents uncleared, principally because it seemed to us that
there was a significant difference of view between the Government
and the Commission on whether the proposals went beyond the provisions
envisaged in the Europe Agreements. The Government held that the
Agreements only provided for co-ordination in the three areas
of social security provision to which they specifically refer.
The Commission appeared to think that the specified matters were
illustrative not determinative. We asked the Minister to explain
her reasons and those of the Commission, and to let us know the
views of other Member States.
The Minister's letter
1.2 In her letter of 6 April 2000, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Social Security
(Angela Eagle) says that:
"The relevant provisions in each of the Europe
Agreements are those cited by the Commission as the legal basis
for each proposal. These provisions contain an exhaustive list
of the three respects in which social security can be co-ordinated.
They read as follows:
"With a view to co-ordinating social security
systems for workers of [the relevant] nationality legally employed
in the territory of a Member State and for the members of their
family legally resident there, and subject to the conditions and
modalities applicable in each Member State:
"— All periods of insurance, employment
or residence completed by such workers in the various Member States
shall be added together for the purpose of pensions and annuities
in respect of old age, invalidity and death and for the purpose
of medical care for such workers and such family members;
"— Any pensions or annuities in respect
of old age, death, industrial accident or occupational disease,
or of invalidity resulting therefrom, with the exception of non-contributory
benefits, shall be freely transferable at the rate applied by
virtue of the law of the debtor Member State or States; and
"— The workers in question shall receive
family allowances for the members of their family as defined above.
"Thus the Agreements create the power to provide
for only three things:
"— aggregation, only for old
age, invalidity and death benefits and benefits in kind;
"— exportability, only of contributory
old age, death and industrial injury benefits; and
"— family allowances to be paid only
in the State of employment, without aggregation.
"The other Articles cited as the legal base
are those that provide for the Association Council to adopt provisions
to implement the co-ordination measures and detailed rules for
administrative co-operation for their application, and the requirement
that those provisions should not affect bilateral obligations
where they provide more favourable treatment.
"In its explanatory memorandum to each proposal
the Commission observes that the Europe Agreements with the countries
of Central and Eastern Europe are a means towards their joining
the Community. It states that this ultimate goal is taken into
account in the draft decisions insofar as they are based on the
acquis communitaire in this field, especially EC Regulation
1408/71, which co-ordinates Member States social security systems.
The Commission goes on to say that the Community has already found
it necessary in the past to draw up provisions similar to those
which need to be adopted for implementation of these Agreements,
in particular Decision No. 3/80 of EEC-Turkey Association Council
derived from Article 39 of the Additional Protocol to the EEC/Turkey
Association Agreement.
"In proposing to adopt much of the provision
of EC Regulation 1408/71, which co-ordinates Member States social
security schemes, the Commission appears to take the view that
it is possible to go beyond the clear words of the Europe Agreements
to adopt more wide-ranging measures than Agreements describe.
The Commission evidently draws an analogy with Decision 3/80 of
the EEC-Turkey Association Council, which provides a framework
for social security co-ordination between the EC and Turkey. This
is more wide ranging than the social security provisions in Article
39 of the Additional Protocol to the EC/Turkey Agreement, which
are similar to those in the Europe Agreements. (Most of the provisions
of Decision 3/80 require further implementing measures before
they can take effect. There has been no proposal for such measures.).
"There are many significant differences in wording
between the Europe Agreements and the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement
and, for that reason, I doubt that the analogy with Decision 3/80
is sound.
"The stated purpose of the Europe Agreements
is less extensive than that of the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement.
The legal basis for Decision 3/80 is Title II Chapter 1 of the
Additional Protocol to the EEC/Turkey Agreement. This talks of
freedom of movement for workers and the social security provisions
in Article 39 of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement appear
in that context. By contrast, the Europe Agreements contain no
such general statement of intent. I would not accept, therefore,
that it is possible to go beyond the clear words of the Europe
Agreements in order to achieve a broader purpose, as the Commission
seems to be seeking to do.
"These proposals have not yet been discussed
among the Member States. They were on the agenda for the Central
Europe Working Group meeting on 31 January, but the Group concluded
that it had not the technical expertise to deal with social security
matters. We await further developments."
Conclusion
1.3 We are grateful to the Minister for
her response. We note that the issue of the scope of the legal
base remains unresolved.
1.4 We do not wish to question the Minister
further on it at this stage but it is a significant point. We
accept that the Minister's approach is arguable but, on the other
hand, see the force of the Commission's broader interpretation
of the legal base. We therefore wonder whether underlying the
legal argument, there are political or financial objections to
a comprehensive co-ordination of social security systems. There
is also the linkage between this measure and the Commission's
proposals for revision and extension of existing Community legislation
on the co-ordination of social security between Member States,
to which we referred in our earlier Report. So we leave the documents
uncleared and ask the Minister to continue to keep us in touch
with developments on the legal point and the progress of the documents
generally.
|
