SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (5896/06, 9584/06)
Letter from the Chairman to James Plaskitt
MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work
and Pensions
Thank you for your letter dated 12 September
2006[156]
which was considered by Sub-Committee G on 19 October.
We are grateful to you for this helpful progress
report. We note your particular concern over the child-raising
provisions and that several other elements still need to be resolved
in negotiations and look forward to a further report on any progress
made in negotiation on those issues.
We would also be glad to know whether the Government
considers that the arrangements proposed for self-employed persons
are soundly-based and likely to work fairly and effectively in
practice.
We understand that this Proposal is on the Agenda
for political agreement at the ESPHCA Council on 30 November/1
December. We will retain the document under scrutiny and would
be grateful if you could ensure that we are given a full report
on all the points indicated above in good time before Council
decisions are needed.
20 October 2006
Letter from James Plaskitt MP to the Chairman
My Explanatory Memorandum of 16 February 2006
and 30 March 2006 and my letter of September 2006 refer. I am
now writing to provide a progress report on the negotiations to
amend the Regulation that implements the European Social Security
Coordination Regulations. I am sorry not to have written sooner.
OUTCOME OF
DECEMBER EMPLOYMENT,
SOCIAL POLICY,
HEALTH AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
COUNCIL (EPSCO)
The proposal to agree an implementing Regulation
for the simplified coordination provisions is complex and will
take some time to work through in the Council. Consequently the
Member States have decided that the Council will reach a general
approach on a chapter-by-chapter basis. This matches the successful
approach already taken with the main coordinating Regulation.
The June Council had agreed a general approach on Titles I and
II. The December Council agreed a general approach on the articles
relating to invalidity benefits, old age pensions and survivor's
benefits.
This is a provisional agreement, and the final
text may be changed as a result of issues that arise in future
discussions.
Amongst the issues discussed were how to deal
with period of voluntary insurance, which Member State a person
should claim their benefit from, a requirement for Member States
to provide information to benefit claimants about the impact of
deferring a claim for benefit, and how claims will be investigated
and awards speeded up.
As I explained in my previous update in September,
an important issue for the UK was a draft article relating to
periods of child-raising (Article 44). It was based upon two judgments
from the European Court of Justice (Elsen C-135/99 and Kauer C-28/00)
which clarified the rights of ex-workers who receive child-raising
protection for their pension from the Member State they worked
in, but then move to live in another Member State where they cannot
obtain such protection on the basis of residence. The Commission
proposal did not actually cover ex-workers but sought instead
to extend rights to people who have never worked, leaving workers
to be covered by the case-law rather than a provision in the regulations.
The UK felt that any article on this issue should incorporate
the case-law itself into the coordinating provisions and not extend
rights beyond those given by the Court. After much negotiation
Member States agreed to an Article that reflected the case-law.
QUESTION RAISED
ON THE
SELF-EMPLOYED
I would also like to refer to your letter of
20 October in which you asked a general question about the simplification
of the coordinating rules—whether the Government felt that
the arrangements proposed for self-employed persons are soundly-based
and likely to work fairly and effectively in practice.
The current EC Regulation 1408/71 affords self-employed
migrant workers the same social security obligations and rights
under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals of
that state. In general terms, the provisions for self-employed
people are identical to that of employed persons and are effective
in practice. In this regard, all these provisions have been carried
through to EC Regulation 883/04.
DISCUSSIONS UNDER
THE GERMAN
PRESIDENCY
Under the German Presidency, the Council Working
Group is discussing the provisions relating to sickness and maternity
benefits, including equivalent benefits for paternity, benefits
in respect of work accidents and occupational diseases, and death
benefit.
Sickness benefits include health care which
is a sickness benefit "in kind". A concern has arisen
for the UK relating to the read across between these coordinating
Regulations and an expected proposal for EC legislation on health
services.
The Regulations set out the rules under which
the home Member State will pay for a patient to go abroad for
treatment ("the E112" route). Recent ECJ judgments have
created a different set of rules for treatment abroad, this is
the "Article 49" route (named after the relevant section
of the Treaty). The expected proposal for health services legislation
will incorporate this new case law, which would then leave us
with two conflicting pieces of EC legislation covering the same
thing. This would be confusing for patients and difficult to administer.
The aim of the UK is to achieve consistency
and coherence on the issue of patient mobility within the EU and
the Government is currently considering how this problem can be
resolved.
25 April 2007
156 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, pp 554-555. Back
| 
