Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 1980

Social Security Schemes in respect of Unemployed Workers.

I propose to introduce my three reports fairly briefly. Each of them is a very long report and has been circulated to the members of the Committee. The first Report deals with a proposal for a Council Regulation which is basically an amending Regulation. It is to amend, for the benefit of unemployed workers, one of the basic Regulations, Regulation No. 1408/71, which provides for fairly comprehensive social security cover for employed persons and ? families moving within the Community.

Paragraph 2 summarises the kind of cover that this Regulation provides for employed persons and their dependants.

In paragraph 3 we summarised the position regarding benefit for the unemployed and here we see what the disadvantage for them is. I quote from the paragraph:

The basic rule is that the country where the person was last employed is the one required to pay the unemployment benefit and any periods of insurance, employment or residence as appropriate completed by the unemployed person in other Member States may be used to help satisfy the contribution conditions. However, in order to receive unemployment benefit a person must make himself available for work by signing on regularly at an employment exchange in the country where the benefit is being paid, and because of this the person concerned normally cannot continue to be paid unemployment benefit if he transfers his residence to another Member State.

I do not understand what is meant by that.

If, say, an Irish worker becomes unemployed in Germany, where he has been employed, he must remain in Germany in order to draw unemployment benefit. It may well be that, being out of work, he may wish to return home or to transfer to some other country and draw the benefit to which he is entitled. There are exceptions to such an arrangement as set out in the Council Regulation whereby an unemployed person can continue to receive unemployment benefit for a maximum period of three months. But what happens in practice is that an unemployed person must stay in the country in which he becomes unemployed and make himself available for work in that country. Therefore, he is unable to move temporarily as would an employed person benefiting under the various schemes.

That is unless he goes for the purpose of looking for work in which case he can draw benefit for up to three months.

In relation to Northern Ireland and the Republic, is there any——

The situation would apply between Northern Ireland and the Republic and the Border area.

At paragraph 6, we summarise the Commission's proposals. This is an amending Regulation. It is an amendment of the 1971 Regulation that would provide for the retention of the right to unemployment benefit where a worker transfers his place of residence to a country other than the one where he was last employed. It also provides for the export of pre-retirement benefits for workers transferring their residence after having become entitled to these benefits. This is extended not only to the unemployed worker but also in relation to State schemes for early retirement and so on. The other amendments proposed are either consequential or technical improvements.

Paragraphs 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

PARAGRAPH 7

Paragraph 7 gives examples of factual situations that would affect a worker. For example, it covers the following situation as set out in paragraph 7: the case of a worker who wishes to return to the country of origin or to the country of origin of his spouse. In the proposed amending legislation it is provided that a person must have not less than 15 years' residence in the country of origin. In other words, it must be a genuine country of origin of one or other spouse. Another example given is the case of a worker who has to transfer to another country and by doing so will be unemployed. The example given strikes me as a sexist example, but I would like to make it non-sexist by making it husband or wife. The example given is of a husband who has been moved to another country and his wife goes with him. She can benefit for at least six months from the unemployment cover in the other country.

Because she went with her spouse.

Yes. If the Committee agree. I would like to amend the paragraph on the lines I have suggested.

I agree.

I refer only to the example, to make it concrete. When I read it over, it occurred to me that it was falling into a sexist mode that I would not be happy with.

Another example we give is the case of a young unmarried worker who has no ties with the country in which he was last employed and who wishes to move to another Member State where his parents are living, for example. The parents must have been residing in the other Member State for at least one year, and it need not be the state of origin. The idea is to liberalise unemployed workers so that they are not tied down because of the fact that the place where they were last employed is the place where they would be in receipt of unemployment benefit and where they would have to be available for work.

This is really an improvement by an extension of the conditions of 6A?

Yes. It is an extension to the unemployeed of the secured rights for employed persons which are applicable anywhere in the EEC.

And 85 per cent of the cost of this is borne by Ireland, if the fellow comes from here.

I move:

In lines 14 to 17 to delete "wife who has to give up her job to move to another Member State to join her husband who has been transferred there by his employer the criterion being that her husband" and substitute "husband or wife who has to give up his/her job to move to another Member State to join his/her spouse who has been transferred there by his/her employer, the criterion being that the spouse"

Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

We deal with the cost situation under the "Implications for Ireland". It has been difficult to precisely indicate the cost. As we know, the vast majority of Irish emigrant workers migrate to the UK. The position is that under the existing 1971 Regulation a person can go to another Member State to seek employment and can retain the right to unemployment benefit for up to three months, but must at the end of that period return to the country where he was last employed in order to continue to benefit. This present Article 69 procedure is apparently regularly availed of by Irish migrant workers coming or going from the UK. The Sub-Committee were informed by the Department that it was difficult to estimate precisely what effect this new proposal would have on the amount paid by Ireland in unemployment benefit, but it is unlikely to be a significant drain on our resources. A worker would not be likely to transfer his residence from one country to another unless he considered his employment prospects in another country to be more attractive. Also, considerations of a domestic nature might influence a person's return to a country. Workers from other Member States might return to their country under this provision if they become unemployed in Ireland.

At paragraph 11 we summarise the position in relation to pre-retirement schemes. We have fewer of these than a number of other Member States. We do not have any statutory pre-retirement schemes.

What is a pre-retirement scheme?

These are early retirement schemes.

That is before 60 or whatever?

Yes. There is an active policy of retiring workers earlier. We have some private schemes entered into between employers and employees in certain undertakings. The effect of the pre-retirement proposals would be to ensure that benefits under schemes which do not require the beneficiary to be available for work can be exported without restriction if the beneficiary moves to another Member State. At the moment it appears that under the existing private schemes in Ireland there is not any restriction of the payments of benefit for persons who wish to move to another country. That is a co-ordinating proposal and it does not appear that it will have much effect here.

Paragraph 12 refers to the question of other kinds of benefit such as health services benefit which would be available. Our position with the UK is different from that with the other Member States.

Because of the reimbursement arrangements we have with the UK.

We have reimbursement arrangements with the UK because there is a significant number of workers involved. We do not have reimbursement arrangements with other Member States because at the moment the cost of administering them would be disproportionate to the sums involved. If there were to be a change in this, it is possible for bi-lateral reimbursement schemes to be entered into with other Member States. They are not considered to be necessary at the moment.

The Joint Committee welcomes this proposal and notes that there is a very high unemployment level in the European Community with seven million at present unemployed. It is important that the social benefits and the freedom to move from one Member State to another which have been acquired by employed workers be similarly extended to unemployed workers. We are assured that it would not cause either serious administrative problems or any noticeable financial burden on the State. It was just hard to estimate what the cost would be in real terms, although it was thought that it would be insignificant.

In the case of a pre-retirement scheme, am I correct in thinking that in that case if a person moves the whole cost is borne by the country to which he moves?

No, by the country which is funding the pre-retirement scheme.

It is the same as the others.

But the person would be able to avail of it even if he moved. Persons who had the benefit of a pre-retirement scheme in a country like Germany could, if they moved to Ireland, have the benefit of the scheme funded by the Member State which set up the scheme.

I thank Senator Robinson for her report and I formally propose its adoption.

Sections 8 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Draft Report, as amended, agreed to.
Barr
Roinn