EUROPEAN COMMISSION Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG Social Protection and Integration Coordination of Social Security Schemes, Free Movement of Workers ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS Brussels, 26 February 2010, 10:00-18:00 1. Welcome The Commission representative (Mr Jackie Morin, Head of Unit), welcomed the Committee members and explained the language arrangements for the meeting. He outlined the major EU developments since the previous meeting of the Advisory Committee, i.e. the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon; the start-up of the new European Commission; the state of play of the Europe 2020 initiative; and the impending entry into force of the new Regulation on social security on 1 May 2010. 2. Adoption of the draft agenda The representative of ETUC said that the situation regarding the transitional arrangements should be discussed. She also pointed out that the draft agenda included mainly points of information, instead of reinforcing the consulting role of the Advisory Committee. She would like the Committee to be consulted on more documents, and for these documents to be sent in advance. An effort should be made to improve the practical working conditions of the members of the Committee. The representative of Business Europe supported the argument that all the documents should be sent in advance where appropriate. The representative of the Luxembourg trade unions supported the need to improve the working conditions of the Committee with regard to its facilities. The Commission representative took note of the comments on the Committee s working conditions and promised to look into it. Concerning the topics for the Committee s agenda, he invited all members to propose possible future subjects of discussion under the agenda item Any other business. He also agreed that the issue of transitional arrangements could be raised under Any other business. The draft agenda was adopted with a change to the order of items. 3. Approval of the draft minutes of the previous meeting The representative of Romanian employers said that he had been present at the previous meeting but did not appear on the list of participants.
The representative of ETUC asked for a change in point 5 of the draft minutes. The apparent ETUC statement on the need for trade unions to get more involved into the work of EURES, something which has not been done should be corrected to express the opposite. In his view the trade unions participation needed to be better acknowledged than it is at present. The representative of the Austrian trade unions commented that point 7 of the draft minutes did not accurately reflect his position on the possibility of a multiannual permit for circular migration for seasonal workers. He said that he would submit his comments in writing. The Commission representative took note of the various suggestions, and will wait for the comments from the representative of the Austrian trade unions. 4. Presentation by the Commission on EURES 2010 2013 A Commission representative gave a presentation on EURES guidelines for the period 2010-2013 and on the state of play of the ongoing reform of its Charter. The Commission representative explained that the social partners were currently being consulted and that their reaction was expected to be submitted to the Commission by 19 March 2010. The representative of ETUC asked for more information on the consultation procedure, and announced that they would send their comments in writing. She emphasised that ensuring mobility should appear in the revised version of the Charter as a vital feature of EURES. In her view it would be helpful to have more information on what was planned to remove obstacles to the recognition of qualifications. She stressed that ETUC fully supported cross-border partnerships and was satisfied with the progress being made. New contractual relationships were being started, there was much enthusiasm, and she hoped this progress would be sustainable in time and not simply linked to the availability of financing. The representative of Cyprus trade unions asked if EURES does or should include specific national information. In his view citizens going to work in Cyprus (who are especially from PL, RO, and BG) were not fully aware of the labour situation in Cyprus, including for instance its collective agreements. He said that EU migrant workers might be signing contracts without proper information, leading to lower wages and impaired working conditions. He emphasised that the trade unions were making great efforts, but that the EU as a whole should play its part. He asked whether there was information on how EU migrant workers were being treated in Cyprus, and whether they were suffering any sort of discrimination on grounds of nationality or in getting their professional diplomas recognised. He complained that he could not find this information on the EURES website. The representative of the Polish trade unions stressed that the revision of the EURES charter could be an opportunity to set up a database clearly indicating the remaining obstacles to work mobility. In his view the problem of the recognition of qualifications related not only to certificates and diplomas but also to the need to adapt to different systems. He said that there was no uniformity as regards training, and asked when there would be a vocational training system at EU level, and what role EURES could play on this issue. 2
The representative of Belgian employers asked where precisely an employer should go to get information when searching for a particular skilled worker. He also wondered how best to inform workers on the minimum labour conditions when they work in another country. The Commission representative thanked members for their comments and queries. He pointed out that he considered job seekers to be the main clients of EURES, but added that employers concerns should also be covered. Not doing so would reduce EURES to a simple information provider, which he said it was not, stressing that it was more a jobmatching instrument. He informed the representatives of the Cyprus trade unions and Belgian employers that they could find information on the EURES website, and in the brochures financed by EURES, about the living and working conditions in the host country. He said he would ask the Cyprus EURES experts whether their information was being updated, and remind them of the need to contact the national public employment services. He recognised that some Member States put more emphasis than others updating the national websites. Replying to the questions about the consultation procedure, he said that the current legal basis required this consultation, and that the Charter was a Commission document. Consultation took place at various stages and involved various bodies, such as the working parties, the two free movement of workers committees, and the High Level Strategic Group meeting that would take place in Spain this year. He noted and accepted the proposal to add the word fair when referring to the objectives in the Charter. He reminded members that EURES was not in fact responsible for recognition of qualifications, and that it was the only instrument designed to support labour matching at EU level. It did not offer information on how EU migrant workers would be treated in Cyprus. A key figure for EURES was that only about 2 % of EU citizens live and work in a different Member State. EURES also had figures on the number of people who had been contacted. As regards the evaluation of EURES, he mentioned the restrictions linked to the budget, which is allocated by the European Parliament, and the fact that the Commission could not run the whole system alone, as there were differences between national employment practices that were beyond its reach. Another problem was that encouraging professional mobility could be politically sensitive in some countries: it might be difficult for a politician to encourage emigration. He emphasised that this was the reason why they referred to mobility rather than migration as it is traditionally called. He added that EURES often had low visibility on national websites, but that it promoted information campaigns to underline the existence of mobility rights. On the question of recognition of qualifications, and the fact that it is outside the scope of EURES, a Commission representative gave an overview of the specific legal framework under Directive 2005/36/EC. The representative of Romanian employers asked whether EURES had contacts with private employment agencies. The representative of Swedish employers stressed the importance of the regulatory bodies, especially in the field of health care. He thanked the Commission for mentioning the role of national authorities, which he too considered very important. 3
The representative of Finnish employers asked whether EURES could be used when an employer wanted to engage a worker from a non-eu country. He also pointed out the difficulties encountered in Finland, where a national preference existed in practice, for example because job vacancies were only advertised in Finnish. The Commission representative replied to the Romanian employers that EURES creates links between public employment services, but there is some cooperation with private agencies. The cooperation appeared to be better when the two sectors were not in competition (he mentioned the case of Italy). He said that EURES did not cover non-eu nationals, except when they were entitled to move to different Member States of the EU. He mentioned that he was aware of the situation described by the Finnish employers representative, and referred to a recent decision on this subject by the Finnish public employment service in January 2010. The Chairman thanked the Commission representative for his presentation and clarifications. He took note of the interest in this topic, and suggested discussing it further at future meetings. 5. State of play on the Communication on free movement of workers The Commission representative gave a presentation on the background and goals of this initiative. He also outlined the current situation and the timetable for adoption. The representative of ETUC said that this initiative should go beyond a mere description of the situation and should identify problems and issues requiring further discussion. She agreed with the approach that EU migrant workers rights should be strengthened.. The representative of CEEP asked whether this document would be user-friendly, for instance giving examples to illustrate the various situations. The representative of the Portuguese trade unions asked whether the Communication would just include updated information or would also take a wider view of free movement of workers issues. He expressed his concern about so-called social dumping, and asked if action was envisaged to combat it. He recognised the importance of creating a list of rights, but felt this was not enough: there was a need for more impetus. In his view the situation encountered by job-seekers, for instance, reflected the need for greater coordination at EU level. He stressed the need to promote European integration in this field. The representative of CEEP agreed that this Communication was extremely interesting, especially as regards the situation of access to the public sector. She also asked if this new Communication would include the valuable points mentioned in the 2002 free movement of workers Communication. The Commission representative stressed that this Communication was not just a list of rights. He pointed out that developments in Court of Justice case law had led the Commission departments to reflect on the future of this fundamental freedom. An indepth debate had taken place internally on ways to guarantee and reinforce the rights granted by EU legislation in this field. He pointed out that this legislation was directly binding and individuals could invoke it in national Courts. This Communication reflected 4
the concern for effective application of the fundamental principle of free movement expressed in the recent opinion of this Committee. Further clarifications were given on posted workers, pointing out that this issue was outside the scope of free movement of workers, and on the rationale of the Communication, which was to provide legal certainty, to raise awareness, and to help citizens exercise these rights, in line with the ambitions expressed in President Barroso s political guidelines. The Communication would be accompanied by a Commission Working Document on the specific topic of the public sector and free movement of workers. He said that the Communication would be sent to Committee members as soon as it was adopted. 6. Presentation on the Report on Free Movement of Public Sector Workers, by Professor Jacques Ziller, University of Pavia, Italy Jacques Ziller, Professor of the University of Pavia, gave a presentation on the preliminary conclusions of an independent report, prepared for the European Commission ahead of its publication later this year, on free movement of public sector workers. The report was based on replies to questionnaires from DG Employment, Annual Reports of the Network of Experts on free movement of workers, documents from the EUPAN Human Resources Working Group, ILO and OECD documents, and official documents and literature from various Member States. The Romanian government representative asked whether a draft of this report would be sent to Committee members before publication. The Chairman said that no formal consultation was planned, but that comments could be made once the report was made public. The representative of ETUC asked about developments with regard to jobs that were still reserved for Member State nationals, and how the remaining problems could be solved. Professor Ziller stated that great progress has been made in the last 25 years, though not at the same speed and in the same manner by all Member States. He stressed that problems remained, and that nothing prevented Member States from fully opening their public sector to other EU citizens. 7. Presentation by the Commission on the results of the Eurobarometer November 2009 with regard to mobility A Commission representative gave a presentation on the first results from a forthcoming special Eurobarometer on geographical and labour market mobility. The survey would cover general attitudes towards mobility, past mobility experiences, mobility intentions, factors that encourage or discourage people to move to another country, and knowledge about the portability of pension rights and the European health insurance card. The representative of the Polish government asked whether the survey only covered the situation in Europe, or outside Europe too. The Commission representative explained that it also covered non-eu countries. He stressed that one of the findings was the significant differences between the so-called old and new Member States of the EU. 5
The representative of the Polish trade unions expressed his surprise at some of the results presented, and asked specifically about the figure reflecting past mobility experiences, indicating that only 1 % had worked, but had not lived, in another country. He asked whether the survey took account of different age groups, as he would expect the results to show major differences. In his view Poland was a good Member State to include in this type of study because of the presence of Polish nationals in other Member States. The representative of the Cyprus trade unions asked if the presentation could be sent to the members of the Committee. The representative of ETUC asked whether the survey had been compared with previous surveys in reaching the conclusions given. The representative of Business Europe stressed the importance of encouraging geographical and occupational mobility and pointed to the high number of job vacancies that existed also during the crisis. Employers are experiencing difficulties to find employees with the right specific skills. However, the shortages differ from one Member State to another. The representative of the French trade unions asked how much the survey had cost, and whether it had taken account of the different levels of qualifications, age, remuneration, and the respondents stage in their career. She asked if the Commission had taken account of the work supply when drawing its conclusions, as the absence of new jobs needed to be taken into account. She also commented that Member States should do more to support the issuing of the EHIC through the internet. The Luxembourg trade union representative expressed his scepticism as to the reliability of surveys of this kind, as he felt the way they were carried out and the questions asked were not understandable for all. In his view such surveys should focus on EU migrant workers and not on non-eu nationals. The representative of the Portuguese trade union asked for this topic to be placed on the agenda of the next meeting in order to have enough time to study and discuss it. The Commission representative thanked members for their comments, and said he was available to come back for more discussion of the survey conclusions, and would circulate them when possible. He said that the figures on cross-border commuting seemed to match the results of the EU labour force survey. The survey had covered a wide variety of factors, such as age, educational level and occupation, but stressed the limitations due to the small sample size. It was an opinion survey and had to be treated as such. He said that two factors were problematic: the overall representativeness, and the fact that some questions had to be changed for technical reasons. There was no mention of job vacancies, but there were questions about the respondents awareness of the EURES network. He emphasised that the main sources of information on jobs were still friends, families and the internet. He said he could not disclose the precise cost of the survey. It had shown that highly skilled people tended to be more mobile in the EU-15 Member States, which was in line with the outcome of the EU labour force survey. But this was not the case in the new 6
Member States, where it was low- and medium-skilled workers who were more mobile. As explained, the survey would be made public shortly. The Chairman recognised that efforts were still needed to make the EHIC better known; an awareness-raising campaign had taken place last year, and there was detailed monitoring on yearly basis. He stressed the importance of giving citizens easy access to the card. He said that the Eurobarometer results would be sent to the Committee members as soon as they are made public, as well as the presentation on Solvit and other internal market information and assistance services. 8. Presentation by the Commission on Solvit and other internal market information and assistance services A Commission representative gave a presentation on Solvit, including information on how the system worked and statistics on cases submitted and solved. Mention was also made of other services, such as the Citizens Signpost service helping citizens to find information about their rights. The representative of ETUC asked about the cooperation between Solvit and EURES. The Commission representative confirmed that cooperation between both services is needed in order to avoid overlaps. A representative of the Luxembourg trade unions said that more detailed information and statistics on a country-by-country basis were needed. The Commission representative replied that the report on Solvit, to be presented in the very near future, would include statistics on each national Solvit centre. A representative of the Bulgarian government asked whether there was a list of all the services available at EU level to help citizens. The Commission representative replied that DG Communication had a website where all the existing networks are explained and links to them provided. The Chairman proposed sending an updated list of those links. 9. Presentation by the Commission on the conclusions of the Role of Member States in the organising and functioning of professional sport activities A Commission representative gave a presentation on the main conclusions of this study. The representative of ETUC wondered what connection there was between sport and the Advisory Committee on free movement of workers. The Commission representative explained that free movement rules also applied to professional and semi-professional sportspeople and it was therefore a subject of interest for the Advisory Committee. A representative of the UK trade unions supported this view. 7
A representative of the Luxembourg trade unions emphasised the need for a dialogue in order to bring together the legal principle of non-discrimination and the public s views on this issue. The Chairman took note of the comments, and announced that the Communication on free movement of workers would include specific points on the sports sector. 10. Presentation by the Commission on the new legal Network on Free Movement of Workers A Commission representative gave a presentation on the general characteristics of the new legal Network of academics, the reasons for setting up a renewed Network, its tasks, and the activities planned for the current year 2010. The representative of ETUC expressed her interest in being closely involved in the activities of the Network, and recommended creating links with other existing Networks. The Commission representative explained that the Network on free movement of workers already took account of the work done by other relevant Commission Networks in order to avoid overlaps and reinforce synergies, and that the Committee would be kept informed of its various reporting and awareness-raising activities. 11. Any other business A Commission representative informed the Committee of two Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 23 February 2010 in cases Ibrahim C-310/08 and Teixeira C-480/08. The Court confirmed that the protection given to EU migrant workers and their family members under Regulation 1612/68 could not be undermined by any other EU provision regulating access to (residence and social) rights. The representative of the Polish trade unions asked whether workers from outside the European Union were covered by these rulings. The Commission representative explained that non-eu nationals were covered insofar as they were family members of EU migrant workers. The representative of Business Europe welcomed the fact that an update of case law had been put back on the agenda. The Chairman said that Court of Justice case law would not always be on the agenda of the Committee, but only when its importance warranted it. He announced that it would be on the next meeting agenda. A Commission representative reported on the current state of play of the transitional arrangements. The representative of UK trade unions suggested that the UK had not sufficiently justified maintaining its restrictions after 1 May 2009 with regard to EU-8 Member States. The Commission representative explained that Member States could only maintain restrictions on access to their national labour market during the final third phase of the 8
transitional arrangements if they notified the Commission of a serious disturbance of the labour market or a threat thereof. The UK had notified such a labour market disturbance to the Commission before 1 May 2009. Although it had admitted that any impact of removing its restrictions would be small, it considered it sensible to keep the restrictions because otherwise there could be adverse effects on the labour market, making a bad situation worse. The Commission accepted the UK notification because the economic crisis has clearly been having a severe negative impact on employment, and because in this situation additional inflows from EU-8 mobility as a result of removing restrictions were a valid justification for maintaining restrictions. A Commission representative informed the Committee of plans to launch a call for tender by DG Employment for a study including the issue of returning migrant workers to their countries of origin, as this had been one of the topics mentioned in the Opinion of the Advisory Committee of June 2009. The study would cover 25 countries (not all of them belonging to the EU), and would include an analysis of responses to the impact of the crisis in terms of the increasing number of returnees. The study would last 18 months, and the Committee would be informed of its outcomes. The representative of the Luxembourg trade unions considered it unacceptable for the Commission to finance the return of migrant workers. This idea was contrary to the grand plan of Europe, possibly leading to misunderstandings. The Commission representative stressed that it was a study on social exclusion, and that there were some groups more vulnerable to exclusion. The representative of the Polish trade unions agreed that the topic was important, and asked when the study could be available for the members of the Committee, and more specifically the statistical data included. The Commission representative said the study would be circulated when it was completed. The Chairman asked for topics to be dealt with at the next meeting. He indicated that the follow-up on EURES would be a point of information. The representative of ETUC announced that at the next meeting they would present the results of the project Workplace Europe. He felt that EURES should probably be more than a point of information, depending on the results of the ongoing consultation. The representative of Business Europe asked if some information on the Directive on seasonal workers could be included, in view of a future Directive on seasonal employment. The Chairman said the Committee would be informed about this issue when there was new information. The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will take place on 28 October 2010. 9