18 EU staff pensions
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision | Cleared from scrutiny
|
| Document details | Draft Regulation about rates of contribution to the EU staff pension scheme
|
| Legal base | Article 83a of and Annex xii to, Regulation 259/68 (the "Staff Regulations")
|
| Department | HM Treasury
|
| Document Numbers | (36232), 11970/14 + ADDs 1-4, COM(14) 462
|
Summary and Committee's conclusions
18.1 A pay and pension settlement in October 2013 for EU staff,
resulting from a European Court of Justice judgement, requires
the retrospective adjustment of the rate of contribution to the
pension scheme for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. With this draft
Regulation the Commission proposes an adjustment, based on an
actuarial assessment.
18.2 The Government has told us previously that it
does not support the Commission's proposal, noting that, while
it welcomes the retrospective increase in the contribution rate
for 2013, it does not think that the Commission should be retrospectively
reducing the contribution rate for 2011 and 2012 and commenting
that EU Institutions and staff should not be immune from savings.
We asked to know, before considering this matter again, what support
the Government had in the Council for its view, what it assessed
the chance was of a challenge in the Court of Justice if its view
were to prevail in the Council and what it assessed the prospect
of defeating such a challenge might be. Meanwhile the document
remained under scrutiny.
18.3 We are now told that the Council has approved
a marginally improved text of the proposal, that the UK was the
only Member State to vote against that approval and that this
makes the question of a court challenge by the Commission redundant.
18.4 We are disappointed that, despite the Government's
best efforts, this unwelcome, albeit marginally improved, draft
Regulation has been approved by the Council. Also we note that
the question of court challenge by the Commission is rendered
redundant. Accordingly we now clear the document from scrutiny.
Full details of
the documents: Draft council Regulation
adjusting, from 1 July 2011, 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013, the
rate of contribution to the pension scheme of officials and other
servants of the European Union: (36232), 11970/14 + ADDs 1-4,
COM(14) 462.
Background
18.5 A pay and pension settlement in October 2013
for EU staff, resulting from a European Court of Justice judgement,
requires the retrospective adjustment of the rate of contribution
to the pension scheme for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. With
this draft Regulation the Commission proposed an adjustment, based
on an actuarial assessment.
18.6 When we considered this proposal in October,
the Government told us that it did not support the Commission's
proposal, noting that, while it welcomed the retrospective increase
in the contribution rate for 2013, it did not think that the Commission
should be retrospectively reducing the contribution rate for 2011
and 2012 and commenting that EU Institutions and staff should
not be immune from savings.
18.7 We noted the Government's opposition to this
proposal. However, we asked to know, before considering this matter
again, what support it had in the Council for its view, what it
assessed the chance was of a challenge in the Court of Justice
if its view prevailed in the Council and what it assessed the
prospect of defeating such a challenge might be. Meanwhile the
document remained under scrutiny.
The Minister's letter of 1 December 2014
18.8 The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr
David Gauke) now tells us that:
· this
proposal was formally adopted by the Council on 8 November, having
gained a qualified majority at Coreper on 31 October;
· prior
to adoption, the final proposal was amended to increase the pension
contribution rate for 2013 from 10.6% to 10.9%;
· this
amendment was obtained by likeminded Member States (Germany, France,
Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and the Czech
Republic) which, on the basis of the Staff Regulations, challenged
the methodology being used for the 2013 adjustment;
· this
change ensured that the methodology for 2013 was consistent with
that used for 2012 and 2011;
· while
the Government welcomed this amendment for 2013, it still could
not support the proposal overall, given the retrospective decrease
in the pension contribution for 2011 and 2012; and
· the
Government voted against the proposal on substantive grounds —
no other Member States voted against.
18.9 The Minister then touches on to the possibility
of a challenge in the Court of Justice, specifically the likelihood
of such a challenge by the Commission if the Government's opposition
were to prevail in Council and the possibility of the Council
succeeding in such a court case. He says that, given that there
was a qualified majority on the amended proposal, the Commission
did not entertain such a legal challenge.
Previous Committee Reports
Thirteenth Report, HC 219-xiii (2014-15), chapter
21 (15 October 2014).
| 
