Social Security Coordination (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Council Regulation (EC) No 859/2003) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 — House of Lords, 2019-03-05
Topic: International Affairs
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As we have heard, they seek to address deficiencies in retained law caused by the UK withdrawing from the EU. They amend the retained EU regulations comprising the co-ordination regulations, which currently co-ordinate social security systems throughout the EU Given that the changes these regulations cover potentially create new imposts and a move away from the status quo, it seems to us that there is a case for an impact assessment and some consultation. Change is necessary, as we have heard, because the current system relies on co-operation and reciprocity from other member states and that cannot be guaranteed when we withdraw in all respects. It will not be possible, for example, to impose reciprocal obligations on member states when correcting deficiencies, or say when co-ordinating rules relate to individuals moving to or from the UK. We understand and accept that The regulations will amend retained co-ordination regulations covering provisions that will not apply to the UK, confer functions on EU entities that will no longer have functions in relation to the UK, and make provision for reciprocal arrangements between the UK and other European Union member states. According to the Explanatory Memorandum: "The instruments aim to ensure that citizens’ rights are protected as far as possible in a no-deal scenario" How? It is asserted that this is about maintaining the status quo, but will the Minister say to what extent the instrument varies from the maintenance of the status quo in practice? How does she characterise this The legal framework, as we have heard, for co-operation and enforcing reciprocal obligations in a no-deal scenario will cease. The Explanatory Memorandum states that: "These instruments aim to maintain the status quo on a unilateral basis", but there will be arrangements which are inoperable. These include the denial of membership of such bodies as the administrative commission, the advisory body and the audit board. Will the Minister say in more detail what the implications of this are? It is noted that the ability to make provisional payments in the event of an unresolved dispute will no longer exist, although it is understood that these are in fact little used The approach to amending the co-ordination regulations is to focus on circumstances where the UK legislation does apply. Will the Minister please expand on that assertion? The Explanatory Memorandum identifies that the change, "may give rise to occasions where an individual becomes subject to the legislation of more than one state at a time", and possibly to the legislation of two or more states. This is noted as being an unavoidable consequence of a no-deal exit which cannot be managed using powers in the withdrawal Act, but has any assessment been undertaken of the consequences? On what basis does the Minister conclude that the changes, "do not give rise to any new costs or any financial or economic impact"? Further, it is understood that fixes for deficiencies relating to healthcare are not provided for in these SIs. How and where are they to be provided for? We know that, by virtue of the EEA agreement and the Swiss free movement of people agreement, the co-ordination regulations also apply in the EEA. Will she outline the full consequences of that for us tonight? I am conscious that there were one or two technical questions there, but this is a technical document and we are entitled to ask them, although I do not believe that we will have undue problems in supporting the regulations.