united kingdom - international labour organization · technical note: united kingdom /...

United Kingdom

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2016

First published 2016

Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright

Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that

the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications

(Rights and Licensing), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email:

[email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered with a reproduction rights organization may make copies in

accordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the reproduction rights

organization in your country.

The state of application of the provisions for social security of the international treaties on social rights: ILO

Technical Note: United Kingdom / International Labour Office. – Geneva: ILO, 2016

ISSN 2415-1416

International Labour Office

social security / economic and social rights / poverty alleviation / treaty / benefit administration / wage rate /

compliance / reporting system / ILO Convention / comment / EU / UN / United Kingdom / ILO pub

ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the

presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the

International Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or

concerning the delimitation of its frontiers.

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with

their authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the

opinions expressed in them.

Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the

International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a

sign of disapproval.

Available only in electronic version

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.iffro.org/

Outline

CHAPTER I. Adequacy of social security benefits: income and

poverty indicators and standards

CHAPTER II. Selection of the Article 65, 66 or 67 under

C102/ECSS and determination of the Standard Reference Wage

used for calculating the replacement level of benefits

CHAPTER III. Integrated Management of compliance and

reporting obligations of the United Kingdom under social

security provisions of the ratified international treaties on

social rights

Chapter IV. Concluding observations of the supervisory bodies

concerning provisions of the ratified international treaties on

social rights and statements of other international bodies

reviewing national economic and social policy

International Labour Standards Department (NORMES), Social Security Unit

Social Protection Department (SOCPRO)

ILO Production Team:

Alexandre Egorov – Head of Social Security Unit (Editor)

Margarita Lysenkova – Labour economist

Svetlana Mandzhieva – Legal specialist

Valeria Nesterenko – Statistician

Olena Vazhynska – Research officer

List of international abbreviations: CAS Committee on the Application of Standards, International Labour Conference CEACR Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and

Recommendations CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights COE Council of Europe CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ECSR European Committee of Social Rights ECSS European Code of Social Security ESC European Social Charter EU European Union EUROSTAT Statistical Office of the European Union GC Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and European Code

of Social Security ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ILS International Labour Standards IMF International Monetary Fund MISSEO Mutual Information System on Social Protection of the Council of Europe MISSOC Mutual Information System on Social Protection OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development SSI Social Security Inquiry

National abbreviations:

SSP ESA ASHE HSE SMP MA OMP

Statutory Sick Pay Employment and Support Allowance Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings Health and Safety Executive Statutory Maternity Pay Maternity Allowance Occupational Maternity Pay

The information and data contained in the Technical Note is taken from the Government reports, on-line databases of the National Statistical office, official web-sites of the government departments, MISSCEO, MISSOC, SSI, ILOSTAT and EUROSTAT.

CHAPTER I. Adequacy of social security

benefits: income and poverty indicators and

standards

Country profile by Eurostat indicators, National indicators and

ILO minimum standards

Fig. 1. Income and poverty – single person, 2013

Fig. 2. Structure of population in poverty (Eurostat poverty

threshold of 60%) by the most frequent employment status,

2013

Fig. 3. Social benefits in comparison to Eurostat 40% and 50%

poverty thresholds, 2014

Fig. 4. Income and poverty indicators by type of household,

2012

Fig. 5. Comparison of monthly wages and pensions (40%

replacement rate) to the Eurostat poverty thresholds in 2013-

2014, by decile

Fig. 6. Test on precarious employment: share of employed

population by different job security situation, as % of total

employment, 2012

Fig. 7. Theoretical Replacement Rates for low and average wage

earners, retiring in 2053 at statutory pension age (67) with 30

years of contributions between 2013 and 2053

Social security and reduction of poverty. Extracts from the

2015 Government report on the European Code of Social

Security

Country profile by Eurostat indicators, National indicators and ILO minimum standards

Eurostat EU-Avg 2013

2005 2012 2013 2014

At-risk-of-poverty threshold (40%, single person) € 462.3 € 618.0 € 638.9 € 623.2 € 686.1

At-risk-of-poverty threshold (50%, single person) € 577.8 € 772.5 € 798.6 € 778.9 € 857.7

At-risk-of-poverty rate - 50%, before social transfers 19.5% 24.2% 23.7% 24.5% 23.3%

At-risk-of-poverty rate - 50%, after social transfers 10.2% 11.8% 9.2% 9.0% 9.5%

At-risk-of-poverty rate for children under 18 y.o. - 50%

thrd 12.4% 13.5% 8.6% 9.3% 10.2%

In-work poverty rate - 50% threshold 5.2% 5.0% 5.2% 4.9% 4.8%

At-risk-of-poverty rate for pensioners - 50% threshold 6.0% 14.6% 10.3% 10.1% 10.4%

Aggregate replacement ratio 0.55% 0.42% 0.5% 0.53% 0.5%

Severe material deprivation (% of total population) 9.6% 5.3% 7.8% 8.3%

Persistent at-risk-of-poverty rate - 50% threshold 5.2% 3.8% 2.5%

Social protection expenditure as % of GDP 25.0% 25.8% 30.8% 30.3%

Gini coefficient before social transfers 36.1% 42.9% 40.7% 39.8% 40.1%

Gini coefficient after social transfers 30.5% 34.6% 31.3% 30.2% 31.6%

National indicators

Basic Living Cost (London) € 1331.7 £ 1131.0 2013, Greater London Authority, Living Wage Unit

Living wage (London) € 1613.5 £ 1369.9 2013, Greater London Authority

Minimum wage € 1165.3 £ 982.3 2013, the UK government website

Full Basic State pension

(maximum) € 579.3 £ 491.8 2013, the UK government website

Average wage (gross) € 2637.9 £ 2240.3 2012, Office for National Statistics

Average state pension € 943.9 £ 801.6 2013, Office for National Statistics

Government Report under the ECSS submitted in 2015

Standard benefits amounts to be provided in the detailed report 2016.

The Office refers to the Government Report under the ECSS submitted in 2014 :

Reference wage of unskilled

worker

Article 66: Ordinary male labourer, £302.1 per

week (x52 weeks/12) € 1541.5

£

1309.1 2011

Standard old-age pension Unskilled worker, £97.65 per week

(x52weeks/12) € 498.3 £ 423.2 2011

Replacement rate

Man with wife of pensionable age

The rate of pension comprises £97.65 basic

Retirement Pension payable to a man plus

£58.50 in respect of a wife of pension age (total

£ 676.7 monthly). The Child Benefit when

calcaulating the rate.

66.4% 2011

Fig. 2. Structure of population in poverty (Eurostat poverty thresholds of 60%)

by the most frequent employment status , 2013

Fig. 1, Income and poverty- single person, 2013

Benefits/payments Amount per

month Sources

Minimum wage € 1251.1 Eurostat, 2014

Legal minimum pension (state) € 149.0 MISSOC, 2014

Standard beneficiary pension € 498.3 Pension for average case worker,

Government Report 2014

Average pension (state) € 943.9 Office for National Statistics, 2013

Survivor benefit € 149.0 MISSOC, 2014

Unemployment insurance benefit (UI - 3 months) € 378.5 MISSOC, 2014

Maternity insurance benefit € 726.5 MISSOC, 2014

Disability Insurance (permanent) € 530.7 MISSOC, 2014

GMI (single) € 378.5 MISSOC, 2014

GMI (per adult living in a household) € 298.0 MISSOC, 2014

Fig. 3. Social benefits in comparison to Eurostat 40% and 50% poverty thresholds , 2014

Household composition: Average net income At risk of poverty rate

(60% threshold)

2 adults € 2119.0 12.8 %

1 adult, 1 child € 1277.7 29.5 %

2 adults, 1 child € 2118.3 12.1 %

2 adults, 2 children € 1941.9 13.3 %

2 adults, 3 children € 1467.8 23.9 %

Fig. 4. Income and poverty indicators by type of household, 2012

Fig. 6. Test on precarious employment: share of employed population by different job

security situation, as % of total employment, 2012

Fig. 5. Comparison of monthly wages and pensions (40% replacement rate)

to the Eurostat thresholds in 2013-2014, by decile

NET

Replacement

rate total

GROSS

Replacement

rate total

GROSS

Replacement rate

Statutory pension

(DB or NDC)

GROSS

Replacement

rate Statutory

(DC)

GROSS

Replacement rate

Occupational

pension

low average low average low average low average low average

2053 84.5% 70.3% 69.1% 54.8% 44.1% 29.8% - - 25.1% 25.1%

2013 82.3% - 65.3% - - - - - - -

Source: The 2015 Pension Adequacy Report: current and future income adequacy in old age in the EU, Volume I

Male, 20 years work from age 25 - career break until 10 years prior to SPA - 10 years work.

10 years of career break in the middle of the career

Fig. 7. Theoretical Replacement Rates for low and average wage earners, retiring in 2053 at

statutory pension age (67) with 30 years of contributions between 2013 and 2053

Social security and reduction of poverty.

Extracts from the 2015 Government report on the European Code of Social Security.

The Committee asked the Government to explain the difference between relative low income and absolute low income in more detail. Households Below Average Income - An analysis of the income distribution (1994/95 – 2013/14) – Statistics on the number and percentage of people living in low-income households - published 25 June 2014 (United Kingdom) This latest report in the “Households Below Average Income” (HBAI) Series, published on 25 June 2015, presents information on living standards in the United Kingdom. It provides annual estimates on the number and percentage of people living in low-income households. Figures are also provided for children, pensioners, working-age adults and individuals living in a family where someone is disabled. Key findings:

The average (median) household income in 2013/2014 (both before and after housing costs) is unchanged from 2012/2013.

The percentage of individuals in relative low income has been decreasing gradually since 2008/09, and is at its lowest level since the 1980s.

The percentage of children, pensioners and families where at least one member is disabled, who were in relative low income has remained relatively stable.

The report provides detailed information on how relative and absolute low income are defined (see via link below). To summarise:

Equivalisation. Relative and absolute low income are both calculated using equivalised incomes. Equivalisation adjusts incomes for household size and composition, taking an adult couple with no children as the reference point. For example, the process of equivalisation would adjust the income of a single person upwards, so their income can be compared directly to the standard of living for a couple. The equivalisation factors used in Households Below Average Income are:

o First adult 0.67 o Other adult 0.33 o Children 14yrs and over 0.33 o Children under 14 years 0.2

Relative low income measures the number and proportion of individuals who have household incomes below 60% of the median in that year - and is used to look at how changes in income for the lowest income households compare to changes in incomes near the ‘average’.

Absolute low income measures the proportion of individuals who have household incomes below 60% of the median in 2010/11, adjusted for inflation (using the retail price index). It is used to look at how changes in income for the lowest income households compare to changes in the cost of living.

Median. The median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having above that amount and half having below that amount.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-19941995-to-20132014


For the full report visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-19941995-to-20132014 In respect of the Government’s previous Report, the Committee noted that “Persistent poverty is where someone lives in a household where income is less than 60 per cent of average household income for at least three out of the last four years; some variations of relative and absolute low income – where someone lives in a household that receives less than 50 or 70 per cent of the average household income. Relative low income, absolute low income, persistent poverty, and variations of relative and absolute low income are measured both before housing costs and after housing costs. Housing costs include: rent (gross of housing benefit); water rates, community water charges and council water charges; mortgage interest payments; structural insurance premiums (for owner occupiers); ground rent and service charges. Among other poverty indicators, the report mentions material deprivation for pensioners, and combined low income and material deprivation for children – where a child is in material deprivation and lives in a household where income is less than 70 per cent of the average household income. The Committee requests the Government to explain how these indicators are taken into account when determining the minimum amounts of the social benefits and allowances described in the report. Please refer in this respect to the infographs prepared by the Office in the attachment to the present conclusions and update the statistical and legal information on which they are based. As the Committee will be aware, the UK system, which is a combination of contributory, insurance based social security and income related social assistance benefits, is based on the traditional Beveridge approach involving universal, mainly flat rate, benefits, as opposed to the earnings related benefit approach adopted by other European countries under the Bismarkian model. UK Benefits are not set with reference to any “reference wage” – the way earnings are featured in benefits are through uprating (where it is only the annual change that matters and which is now measured through Average Weekly Earnings index – please see the explanation on benefit uprating in Part I of the main body of the Report above), or at an individual level (i.e. earnings brought to account in a means tested benefit calculation), or by use of the minimum wage in some contexts. It is not clear that the committee’s question is particularly relevant to the UK position. With respect to key measures aimed at reducing poverty The Committee requests the Government to explain in more detail those elements of universal credit and the minimum income floor for the self-employed, Universal Credit and the self-employed Universal Credit supports people to be self-employed where self-employment is the best route for them to become financially self-sufficient. Self-employment covers a wide range of activities. For some people it is their main occupation. Other people undertake small amounts of part time or occasional self-employment, which is not their main occupation. For self-employed claimants who are expected to look for work, we will determine whether the self-employment is their main occupation or whether it is essentially a part time or occasional activity. Gateway Interview & Gainful Self Employment For people who are self-employed and in a group expected to look for and be available for work while in receipt of Universal Credit, the start of their journey is a gateway interview. At the gateway interview, a Work Coach determines whether the claimant is gainfully self-employed for Universal Credit purposes. By that we mean self-employment is the claimant’s main



employment, their earnings are self-employed earnings, and it is organised; developed; regular and carried out in expectation of profit. The adviser also looks at the relationship between the self-employed person and the people or companies they do work for. To do this the adviser considers a number of factors, for example, was income tax deducted at source, is the claimant’s work supervised, does the claimant have the powers of appointment and dismissal and can they employ a substitute, for example to cover holidays or sickness. If the claimant can’t appoint or dismiss others, for example, this may indicate the claimant should not be considered gainfully self-employed but instead classed as employed. Claimants are required to provide a range of evidence, examples - Previous Tax Returns and business accounts details, to enable a Work Coach to make this determination. The interview is also used to determine eligibility for a start-up period; set the claimant’s Minimum Income Floor level; agree the ‘Claimant Commitment; and signpost the claimant to available support. There is guidance in place to support this. Where a claimant is not gainfully self-employed, the minimum income floor is not applied and they are required to meet work search conditions. Someone’s expected available hours may be reduced to take account of self-employment activity provided the adviser agrees it is appropriate. It is not our intention to disrupt any business that someone may be running, provided it is the best possible route for them to become self-sufficient. If they are deemed to be gainfully self-employed, they are exempt from work search and work availability requirements so that they can focus on their business. The Minimum Income Floor The Minimum Income Floor is designed to address flaws in the current system which allows self-employed claimants to receive full state support while declaring low or zero earnings and to prevent people from under declaring earnings. This situation is unsustainable and unfair on the taxpayer. The Minimum Income Floor, an assumed level of income, was created to encourage individuals to increase their earnings through developing their self-employment. The Minimum Income Floor level is determined by multiplying the number of hours the claimant can reasonably be expected to work or be looking for work by the relevant national minimum wage for their age, minus notional income tax and National Insurance contributions, to produce a net figure. A claimant’s expected hours of work depend on their circumstances. For someone who has no limitations on their expected hours of work, this is 35 hours per week. Where a person has limitations on the hours they can reasonably be expected to work their Minimum Income Floor level is reduced. Therefore, the level of the Minimum Income Floor matches the work expectations of other claimants in similar circumstances. Where a Minimum Income Floor is applied, claimants are exempt from having to search for or carry out any other work, allowing them to concentrate on making a success of their business and maximising their returns up to and beyond the level of their Minimum Income Floor. Only claimants who have a work expectation and are gainfully self-employed have a Minimum Income Floor applied to their Universal Credit award. Claimants who are moved by the DWP from legacy benefits to Universal Credit whose circumstances otherwise remain the same will not receive less money, however will have a

Minimum Income Floor applied after six months. This gives them time to develop their business before a Minimum Income Floor is applied. Start-up Period The government recognises the need for claimants who are setting up a business to be given time to establish themselves and develop their business and customer base. Claimants who are gainfully self-employed, are within one year of starting out in self-employment, and are taking active steps to increase their earnings, are eligible for a 'start-up period.' This is one year during which the Minimum Income Floor is not applied and the claimant is not required to look for or take up alternative employment. Claimants are allowed a new start-up period for a new business every five years. Published Guidance – please see Universal Credit and self-employment The Committee also requests the Government to explain in more detail those elements of universal credit that are aimed at people in absolute low income and permit to raise their individual incomes above this threshold in real terms. The committee might find of interest two published reports: Universal Credit at Work (published in October 2014 and Spring 2015): progress reports on the implementation of Universal Credit: how the Government is restoring work incentives, renewing fairness and transforming lives. The October 2014 report explains the philosophy and policy behind UC, including to improve take-up of the new benefit and to promote entry into, and progression in, work. Chapter 4 on costs and benefits, and chapter 5 on emerging evidence are of particular interest. The introduction to the Spring 2015 report states: “In improving people’s prospects, the evidence has always held that work is the best way for individuals to lift themselves and their children out of poverty.” This report says more on early positive analysis and evaluation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432807/uc-and-self-employment-june15.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368805/uc-at-work.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/405921/uc-at-work-spring-2015.pdf

CHAPTER II. Selection of the Article 65, 66 or

67 under C102/ECSS and determination of the

Standard Reference Wage used for calculating

the replacement level of benefits

Fig. 1. Article 65: Type of social security schemes and method of benefit calculation



Extracts from the Government Reports (2011-2015) on the ECSS concerning the Reference Wage

Table 1. Calculation of the reference wage under all options permitted by Articles 65-66 of the ECSS/C102

ILO assessment of the options offered by Articles 65-66

Fig. 4. Share of employed males by economic activity in total male employment and share of males in paid employment by economic activity in total number of males in paid employment

Fig. 5. The average wages of a typical skilled/unskilled manual male employee determined by cross-tabulating of the two classifications

Fig.6. Average monthly wages of skilled employees by economic activity

Fig.7. Average monthly wages of unskilled employees by economic activity

Fig.8. Average monthly wages of employees by economic activity

Fig.9. Average monthly wages of male and female skilled and unskilled employees in the 2 sectors (Manufacturing and Wholesale and retail trade) with the highest number of male employees, in comparison to other wage indicators in the United Kingdom

Fig.10. Comparison of the reported reference wage to other wage indicators in the United Kingdom

Extracts from the Government Reports (2011-2015) on the ECSS

concerning the Reference Wage

Report of the United Kingdom under Article 74 of the ECSS (1 July 2014 - 30 June 2015)

The Committee requests the Government to specify which option (a) or (b) in Article 66 is selected, and review the methodology used for determining the reference wage in the light of the information contained in the technical note prepared by the Office and attached to the present conclusions, which sets out and calculates for the United Kingdom all the options allowed by the Code for determining the reference wage on the same time basis for which comparable data are available (2010). Please update the statistics used in the note indicating the precise source of the data to be used for future reference. In regard to the ILO technical note provided on the UK, Option 4 [Article 66(4)a] refers to ISIC Rev 4, Division 28 (Manufacture of Machinery and Equipment N.E.C). ISIC Rev 4 and UK SIC (2007) are identical at the two divisional level. In addition, Division 28 excludes manufacture of electrical machinery, and therefore meets the requirement specified. The requirement also states "a person deemed typical of unskilled labour". The best match for this criterion is SOC 2010 Sub-Major Group 91 (Elementary Trades and Related Occupations). So, from a Classifications point of view, using SOC 2010 Sub-Major Group 91 in conjunction with UK SIC (2007) Division 28 would, in the Government’s view, provide the closest match to the requirement specified. Statistics based on this Classification have now been produced and published1, but unfortunately are available only from 2011 onwards. Details of the relevant wage are as follows: Median gross weekly earnings (excluding overtime) for full-time male employeesa who are classified as unskilled labourersb in the manufacture of machinery other than electrical machineryc, UK, April 2011 to 2014 £ (current prices) Year (April) Median

2011 348.7

2012 357.2

2013 375.2

2014 p 373.4

Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), Office for National Statistics

Notes: (a) Estimates are based on employee jobs, which are defined as those held by employees and not the self-employed. Figures relate to employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was not affected by absence. ASHE is based on a 1% sample of jobs taken from HM Revenue and Customs' Pay As You Earn (PAYE) records. Consequently, individuals with more than one job may appear in the sample more than once. (b) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 2010 Sub-Major Group 91 - Elementary Trades and Related Occupations. (c) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007 Division 28 - Manufacture of Machinery and Equipment N.E.C. p. 2014 data are provisional.

1 http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/published-ad-hoc-data/labour/june-2015/index.html (004242 Table 2 Full Time 09 June 2015)

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/published-ad-hoc-data/labour/june-2015/index.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/about-ons/business-transparency/freedom-of-information/what-can-i-request/published-ad-hoc-data/labour/june-2015/index.html

Guide to quality:

All estimates in the table have a coefficient of variation (CV) of greater than 5% and less than or

equal to 10%.

The CV indicates the quality of an estimate; the smaller the CV, the higher the quality. The true

value is likely to lie within +/- twice the CV. For example, for an estimate of £200 with a CV of 5%,

we would expect the true population value to be within the range £180 to £220. This is given by

200 +/- ({2*0.05}*200).

The Technical Note refers to the clarification in the UK’s 44th Report, in which the Government

pointed out that two key methodological changes had taken place in 2007, affecting the collection

and processing of ASHE data that also impacted on the earlier releases, but the link to the

publication was broken. For future reference, if needed, a fully operative link is given in the

footnote below2.

The Government proposes to complete the forthcoming 2016 detailed periodic reports on both the

Code and ILO Convention No. 102, on the basis of a reference wage to be established in line with

the above described Classification (i.e. in line with Option 4). However, in keeping with the

consensus view of the states’ party to the Code during the discussions on this issue at the Council of

Europe’s Governmental Committee in May 2015, and given that such UK statistics are available

only from 2011 onwards, the Government does not propose to attempt to revisit the detailed

calculations in the UK’s previous detailed (43rd) Report.

43rd report of the United Kingdom under Article 74 of the ECSS (1 July 2010 - 30 June 2011),

p.14, 16

(Article 66)

The reference wage of an ordinary adult labourer for the purposes of Article 66 of the Convention

is £302.10 per week, being the median earnings figure for Elementary Occupations [22-29 Code 9]

Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) 20103.

The Committee of Experts’ Conclusions on the UK’s 43rd Report

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 66

The Committee notes that the passage from the average wage to the median earnings prevents any

comparison of the data and does not reflect the dynamics of the reference wage over the reporting

period (2006–11). The Committee asks the Government to supply in its next report the updated

statistics on the reference wage comparable with that of 2006, that is the Winter 2009–10 average

gross rate of wages in the SOC for Elementary Occupations. The Committee also asks the

Government to explain to what extent the methods of determining the reference wage, which it has

used for reporting purposes in 2006 and 2011, are compatible with the methodology prescribed in

paragraphs 4 to 7 of Article 66 of the Code.

2http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/annual-survey-

of-hours-and-earnings/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/changes-to-ashe-in-2007.pdf

3 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2010/tab20-1a.xls

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/changes-to-ashe-in-2007.pdf

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/changes-to-ashe-in-2007.pdf

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2010/tab20-1a.xls

44th Report of the United Kingdom under Article 74 of the ECSS (1 July 2011 - 30 June 2012),

p.24

2005 and 2007 data for Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) suggest that what was

provided in 2006 was the median full-time gross weekly rate for Elementary Occupations (2005

rate rounds to £290). This was reported as the ‘average’, but the average used looks to have

been the median.

The same figure for 2010 (not excluding overtime) would be £330 (rounded).

The Government would also point out that two key methodological changes took place in 2007,

affecting the collection and processing of ASHE data that also impacted on the earlier releases.

The changes are described in more detail in: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide...of.../changes-to-ashe-

in-2007.pdf4 (link does not exist)

Conclusions of the Committee of Experts on the UK 44th Report, p. 40

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 66. The Committee

understands from the reply of the Government to its previous conclusion that the Government

intends henceforth to determine the reference wage of an ordinary adult male labourer under

Article 66 of the Code as the median full-time gross weekly rate for elementary occupations

established by the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE). This figure for 2010 (not

excluding overtime) would be £330 (rounded). The Committee wishes to recall in this respect that,

in accordance with Article 66(7) of the Code, the wage of the ordinary adult male labourer shall be

determined on the basis of the rates of wages for normal hours of work fixed by collective

agreements, by, or in pursuance of, national laws or regulations, where applicable, or by custom,

including cost-of-living allowances, if any.

4 Methodology described here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide...of.../changes-to-ashe-in-2007.pdf

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide...of.../changes-to-ashe-in-2007.pdf

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/method-quality/specific/labour-market/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/index.html

Table 1. Calculation of the reference wage under all options permitted by articles 65-66 of the ECSS/C102

Articles in the ECSS/C.102 Comments

Reference wage: amount ILO

calculations5-2010

Government6

Article 65 (para 6): a skilled manual male employee

Op

tio

n 1

Art.65 (6)a: a fitter or turner in the manufacture of machinery other than electrical machinery

occupations of fitter and turner can be found among skilled employees of ISCO 087 (group 7)

N/A

Op

tio

n 2

Art.65 (6)b: a person deemed typical of skilled labour

a skilled employee of the ISIC rev.48 group with the highest number of male employees: typical skilled male worker in manufacturing

2629 euros9

Op

tio

n 3

Art.65 (6)c: a person whose earnings are equal to 125 per cent of the average earnings of all the persons protected

in countries where all employees are protected average wage is normally used

3050 euros10 (full-time and part-time employees)

Article 66 (para 4): an ordinary male labourer

Op

tio

n 4

Art.66 (4)a: a person deemed typical of unskilled labour in the manufacture of machinery other than electrical machinery

an employee of the ISIC rev.4 Manufacture of machinery (2-digit level of the classification: ISIC Rev.4 Section C. Manufacturing, code 28)

N/A

Op

tio

n 5

Art.66 (4)b: a person deemed typical of unskilled labour

an unskilled employee of the ISIC rev.4 group with the highest number of male employees: typical unskilled male worker in manufacturing

2009 euros11

43rd Report: Median earnings figure for Elementary Occupations [22-29 Code 9] £302.10 per week (*52.2 weeks / 12 months=1309.1) 1541.5 euros12 (exchange rate of 2010) 44th Report: median full-time gross weekly rate for elementary occupations £330 per week (*52.2 weeks / 12 months=1435) 1689 euros13 (exchange rate of 2010)

* Gross wages are used unless stated otherwise

5 ILO calculations based on EUROSTAT data from Labour Force Survey - LFS-2013 and SES-2010 (see detailed information further) 6 Reference wage reported by the Government on the application of ECSS and C.102 7 ISCO 08 – International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (detailed explanation to follow) http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/ 8 ISIC rev.4 - International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4, 2008 http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/isic-4.asp 9 Structure of earnings survey (SES)– Eurostat, 2010 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses10_48&lang=en 10 Structure of earnings survey (SES) – Eurostat, 2010 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses_monthly&lang=en 11 Structure of earnings survey – Eurostat, 2010 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses10_48&lang=en 12 43rd Report of the United Kingdom under Article 74 of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol (1 July 2010-30 June 2011), p.14, 16 1344th Report of the United Kingdom under Article 74 of the European Code of Social Security and its Protocol (1 July 2011-30 June 2012), p.24

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/isic-4.asp

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses10_48&lang=en

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses_monthly&lang=en


ILO assessment of the options offered by articles 65-66:

OPTION 2 - a typical manual male employee is found in the sector with

the highest number of employed males = Manufacturing

Fig.4. Share of employed males by economic activity in total male employment and share of males

in paid employment by economic activity in total number of males in paid employment (ISIC rev.4,

2013, LFS)

Source: Eurostat LFS - http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lfsa_egaps&lang=en

Fig 5. The average wages of a typical skilled/unskilled manual male employee are determined by

cross-tabulating of the two classifications

ISCO 08 – International Standard Classification of Occupations (group 7- skilled and 9 – ordinary)

ISIC rev.4 - International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, Rev.4, 2008

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Manufacturing

Wholesale and retail trade

Construction

Transportation and storage

Public administration and defence

Professional, scientific and technical activities

Human health and social work activities

Education

Information and communication

Accommodation and food service activities

Administrative and support service activities

Financial and insurance activities

Arts, entertainment and recreation

Other service activities

Water supply; sewerage, etc

Electricity, gas, etc

Real estate activities

Mining and quarrying

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

Self-employed+paid employed Paid employed only

%

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lfsa_egaps&lang=en

Fig.6. Average monthly wages of skilled employees by economic activity, SES-Eurostat,

2010 (new survey in 2014)

Source: Eurostat SES - http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses10_48&lang=en

Fig.7. Average monthly wages of unskilled employees by economic activity, SES-Eurostat,

2010 (new survey in 2014)


2,629

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500


Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply



Construction




AVG wage of skilled employees

Manufacturing

Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation…



Public administration and defence; compulsory social security



Education

Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles


total

male

€

RW of a skilledmale manual

worker

2,009

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500



Construction



Manufacturing




Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles


AVG wage of unskilled employees



Education





total

male

€

RW of an unskilled male manual worker



Fig.8. Average monthly wages of employees by economic activity, SES-Eurostat, 2010 (new

survey in 2014)


Fig.9. Average monthly wages of male and female skilled and unskilled employees in the

2 sectors (Manufacturing and Wholesale and retail trade) with the highest number of

male employees, in comparison to other wage indicators in the United Kingdom, SES –

Eurostat, 2010 and EU-SILC, 2010

Source: Eurostat SES - http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses10_48&lang=en and

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses_monthly&lang=en– 125% of average wage (include both full-time

and part-time employees)

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000






Construction




Manufacturing

Education

AVG wage of employees






Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and…


total

male

€

2,6292,009

3,010

2,1321,721

2,505 2,622

1,754

2,975

3,719

17711589

21921664 1487

1778 18511371

18922365.0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

skilled unskilled AVG in thesector

skilled unskilled AVG in thesector

skilled unskilled AVG in theeconomy

125% of avgwage

Manufacturing Wholesale Total economy

UK, male wage UK, female wage

Euro

14.1 % of all male employees

16.1 % of all male employees




Fig.10. Comparison of the reported reference wage to other wage indicators in the United

Kingdom, 2010

Source: Eurostat SES - http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses10_48&lang=en and

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=earn_ses_monthly&lang=en– 125% of average wage (include both full-time and

part-time employees)

31853010

2505 2622

1754

2629

3050

2009

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

AVG male wage AVG male wagein manufacturing

AVG male wagein wholesale and

retail trade

AVG male wageof skilled worker

AVG male wageof unskilled

worker

Wage of skilledmale worker inmanufacturing -

ref. wage (option2)

125% of averagewage - ref. wage

(option 3)

Wage ofunskilled male

worker inmanufacturing -

ref. wage (option3)

€ C.102 - art.66 - reported RW = 1689 euros (2010 ex. rate)



CHAPTER III. Integrated Management of compliance and reporting obligations of the United Kingdom under social security provisions of the ratified international treaties on social rights

Table 1. Up-to-date social security standards in force

Table 2. Pending comments of the supervisory bodies

Table 3. Up-to-date standards on which reports are due in 2016


Next detailed report of the United Kingdom under Article 74 of

the ECSS. (Extract from CEACR 2015 Conclusions)

Coordination of reporting between the ECSS and C102. Form for

the annual report on the European Code of Social Security

Fig. 1. Time management of the 5 years reporting cycle (2011-

2016/17) on international and European social security

standards

Fig. 2. Time management for reporting on social security

standards in 2016

Table 1. Up-to-date social security standards in force

Social Human Rights

International treaties

Rig

ht

to

he

alt

h

Rig

ht

to

wo

rk

Rig

ht

to j

ust

co

nd

itio

ns

of

wo

rk

Rig

ht

of

the

fa

mil

y a

nd

ch

ild

ren

to

p

rote

ctio

n

Rig

ht

of

mo

the

rs t

o

pro

tect

ion

Rig

hts

of

pe

rso

ns

wit

h

dis

ab

ilit

ies

Rig

ht

to a

n

ad

eq

ua

te

sta

nd

ard

of

liv

ing

Fin

an

cin

g &

O

rga

niz

ati

on

ICECSR

Right to Social Security Art.9

Art.12 Art.6 Art.7§b Art.10§1§3 Art.10§2 Art.7§a§ii,

11§1 Art.2§1,

4, 5

UN Conventions

CRPD CRC CEDAW CRPD

ESC (1961)

Art.11, 13§1

Art.1§1§3 Art.3§1§2,

15§2 Art.16 Art.8§1 Art.15§1

Art.4§1, 13§1§2§3,

14

Right to Social Security Art.12§1

Art.12§2§3

Protocol II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Schedule to XI

ECSS Medical

care Part II

Sickness benefit Part III

Unemployment benefit Part IV

Old-age benefit Part V

Employment injury benefit

Part VI

Family benefit Part VII

Maternity benefit

Part VIII

Invalidity benefit Part IX

Survivor's benefit Part X

Level of benefits Part XI

Financing& Organization

Part XII

C102 Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part VII Part VIII Part IX Part X Part XI Part XIII

ILO Conventions

C121 C121

Art.19-21 C121

Art.22-26

C128

Part III

C128 Part II

C128 Part IV

C128 Part V

C128 Part VI

C130 Part II

C130 Part III

C130

Part III C130

Part IV

C168 C183

Art.6,7

C168 Art.15,16

C168 Part VIII

Social Security Standards in force for the United Kingdom Social Security Standards not in force

Table 2. Pending comments of the supervisory bodies

Social Human Rights


Rig

ht

to

he

alt

h

Rig

ht

to

wo

rk

Rig

ht

to j

ust

co

nd

itio

ns

of

wo

rk

Rig

ht

of

the

fa

mil

y a

nd

ch

ild

ren

to

p

rote

ctio

n

Rig

ht

of

mo

the

rs t

o

pro

tect

ion

Rig

hts

of

pe

rso

ns

wit

h

dis

ab

ilit

ies

Rig

ht

to a

n

ad

eq

ua

te

sta

nd

ard

of

liv

ing

Fin

an

cin

g &

O

rga

niz

ati

on

ICECSR


Art.12 Art.6 Art.7§b Art.10§1§3 Art.10§2 Art.7§a§ii Art.2§1,

4, 5 Art.11§1

UN Conventions

CRPD CRC CEDAW CRPD

ESC (1961)

Art.11, 13§1

Art.1§1§3 Art.3§1§2,

15§2 Art.16 Art.8§1 Art.15§1 Art.4§1

Art.13§1§2§3, 14


Art.12§2§3


ECSS Medical

care Part II





Part VI


Maternity benefit

Part VIII





Part XII


ILO Conventions

C121 C121

Art.19-21 C121

Art.22-26

C128

Part III

C128 Part II

C128 Part IV

C128 Part V

C128 Part VI

C130 Part II

C130 Part III

C130

Part III C130

Part IV

C168 C183

Art.6,7

C168 Art.15,16

C168 Part VIII

Pending comments of the supervisory bodies critical comments or non-compliance


Social Human Rights


Rig

ht

to

he

alt

h

Rig

ht

to

wo

rk

Rig

ht

to j

ust

co

nd

itio

ns

of

wo

rk

Rig

ht

of

the

fa

mil

y a

nd

ch

ild

ren

to

p

rote

ctio

n

Rig

ht

of

mo

the

rs t

o

pro

tect

ion

Rig

hts

of

pe

rso

ns

wit

h

dis

ab

ilit

ies

Rig

ht

to a

n

ad

eq

ua

te

sta

nd

ard

of

liv

ing

Fin

an

cin

g &

O

rga

niz

ati

on

ICECSR



11§1 Art.2§1,

4, 5

UN Conventions

CRPD CRC CEDAW CRPD

ESC (1961)

Art.11, 13§1

Art.1§1§3 Art.3§1§2

Art.16 Art.8§1 Art.15§1 Art.4§1

Art. 15§2

Art.13§1§2§3, 14


Art.12§2§3


ECSS Medical

care Part II





Part VI


Maternity benefit

Part VIII





Part XII


ILO Conventions

C121 C121

Art.19-21 C121

Art.22-26

C128

Part III

C128 Part II

C128 Part IV

C128 Part V

C128 Part VI

C130 Part II

C130 Part III

C130

Part III C130

Part IV

C168 C183

Art.6,7

C168 Art.15,16

C168 Part VIII

Report in 2016


Social Human Rights


Rig

ht

to

he

alt

h

Rig

ht

to

wo

rk

Rig

ht

to j

ust

co

nd

itio

ns

of

wo

rk

Rig

ht

of

the

fa

mil

y a

nd

ch

ild

ren

to

p

rote

ctio

n

Rig

ht

of

mo

the

rs t

o

pro

tect

ion

Rig

hts

of

pe

rso

ns

wit

h

dis

ab

ilit

ies

Rig

ht

to a

n

ad

eq

ua

te

sta

nd

ard

of

liv

ing

Fin

an

cin

g &

O

rga

niz

ati

on

ICECSR



11§1 Art.2§1,

4, 5

UN Conventions

CRPD CRC CEDAW CRPD

ESC (1961)

Art.11, 13§1

Art.1§1§3 Art.3§1§2,

15§2 Art.16 Art.8§1 Art.15§1

Art.4§1 Art.13§1§2

§3, 14


Art.12§2§3


ECSS Medical

care Part II





Part VI


Maternity benefit

Part VIII





Part XII


ILO Conventions

C121 C121

Art.19-21 C121

Art.22-26

C128

Part III

C128 Part II

C128 Part IV

C128 Part V

C128 Part VI

C130 Part II

C130 Part III

C130

Part III C130

Part IV

C168 C183

Art.6,7

C168 Art.15,16

C168 Part VIII

Report in 2017

Next detailed report of the United Kingdom under Article 74 of the ECSS

(Extract from CEACR 2015 Conclusions)

In accordance with the reporting cycle on the Code, in July–August 2016 the Government

shall submit a detailed report covering the period of five years from 1 July 2011 to 30 June

2016. In accordance with the reporting cycle on Convention No. 102, in June–August 2016 the

Government shall also submit a detailed report for the period from 1 June 2011 to 31 May 2016.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the alignment of the reporting obligations

under the Code and Convention No. 102 and to the similarity of the report forms on both

instruments, the objective of which is to reduce the administrative workload and avoid

duplication of reports. For this purpose, the report form on the Code expressly stipulates that, if

a Government is bound by similar obligations as a result of having ratified ILO Convention No.

102, “it may communicate to the Council of Europe copies of the reports it submits to the

International Labour Office on the implementation of this Convention”. The Committee points

out that this simplified procedure can be used next year to report on all accepted Parts of the

Code. Conversely, the information provided by the Government in its annual reports on the

Code is regularly taken into account by the Committee in assessing the application of

Convention No. 102.

Furthermore, by 31 October 2016, the United Kingdom will also report on the application

of the accepted provisions of the European Social Charter, 1961, under the thematic group

“Health, social security and social protection”, which include the right to protection of health

(Article 11), the right to social security (Article 12§1), the right to social and medical assistance

(Article 13) and the right to benefit from social welfare services (Article 14). The Committee

observes that these Articles of the Charter are directly related to many provisions of the Code

and ILO social security Conventions and form a single legal space of the international social

security law. Taking into account that the reference period for the report on the Charter

(1 January 2012–31 December 2015) falls inside the reference periods for detailed reports on

the Code and Convention No. 102, the Government is invited to coordinate the fulfilment of its

compliance and reporting obligations under these instruments in order to improve the quality

and consistency of the information provided.

With regard to coordination of compliance obligations, the Committee recalls that, in

formulating its country conclusions on the application of the Code, it takes account of the

relevant observations made by other supervisory bodies, such as the European Committee of

Social Rights and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. To

facilitate the integrated management of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the social

security provisions of the main European and international treaties on social rights, the

Committee refers the Government to the coordination tables and reporting timelines presented

in the attached ILO technical note, together with the compilation of the comments made by their

supervisory bodies in relation to social security matters. The Committee hopes that such a

holistic vision will help the Government to apply the rights-based approach to its fiscal

consolidation policy and complement it by the legal consolidation of all international obligations

binding the United Kingdom to the full respect of social security rights.

Coordination of reporting between the ECSS and C102

Form for the annual report on the European Code of Social Security (as modified

by the Protocol additional thereto)

If a Government is bound by similar obligations as a result of having ratified the Social

Security (Minimum Standards) Convention adopted by the 1952 General Conference of

the International Labour Organisation, it may communicate of the Council of Europe

copies of the reports it submit to the International Labour Office on the implementation

of this Convention.

Council of Europe, Strasbourg 1967

Fig. 1. Time management of the 5 years reporting cycle (2011-2016/17) on international and European social security standards

Fig. 2. Time management for reporting on social security standards in 2016

Chapter IV. Concluding observations of the supervisory

bodies concerning provisions of the ratified international

treaties on social rights and statements of other

international bodies reviewing national economic and

social policy

Table 1. International treaties on social rights ratified by the

United Kingdom

Table 2. Monitoring Mechanisms of State Party Compliance and

Reporting Obligations

1. United Nations

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women

Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities

2. Council of Europe

European Social Charter

European Code of Social Security

3. International Labour Organization

Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952

(No.102)

4. EU Country-Specific Recommendations: 2015

Table 1. In force international treaties on social rights ratified by the United Kingdom

Body International Treaty

Entry into force

for United

Kingdom

Next report

due on

United Nations

ICESCR 20 May 1976 Submitted 17 Jun

2014, tbc in 2016

Convention on the Rights of the Child 16 Dec 1991 Submitted 23 May

2014, tbc in 2016

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Discrimination against Women 7 Apr 1986 1 Jul 2017

Convention on the Rights of People with

Disabilities 8 Jun 2009

Submitted 24 Nov

2011

Council of

Europe

European Code of Social Security 13 Jan 1969 1 Jul – 31 Aug 2016

European Social Charter 11 Jul 1962 31 Oct 2015

International

Labour

Organization

Convention 102 27 Apr 1954 1 Jun - 1 Sep 2016

Convention 103

Convention 121

Convention 128

Convention 130

Convention 168

Convention 183

European

Union Country-Specific Recommendation of 14 July 2015

Table 2. Monitoring Mechanisms of State Party Compliance and Reporting Obligations

Instrument Supervisory body Type of a State party report/Reporting cycle

Comments of the supervisory body

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)

Periodic reports – every 5 years; initial report – within one year after the entry into force (Art.17)

Concluding observations of the CESCR

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

Periodic reports – every 5 years; initial report – within two years after the entry into force (Art.44)

Concluding observations of the CRC

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

Periodic reports – every 4 years; initial report – within one year after the entry into force (Art.18)

Concluding observations of the CEDAW

Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

Periodic reports – every 4 years; initial report – within two years after the entry into force (Art.35)

Concluding observations of the CRPD

European Code of Social Security (ECSS)

ILO Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR); European Committee on Social Rights (ECSR); Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and the European Code of Social Security; Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Full reports – every five years in conjunction with the ILO Convention 102; Annual reports every year (Art.74).

Conclusions of the CEACR; Report and recommendations of the GC; Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers.

European Social Charter/ Revised European Social Charter (ESC)

European Committee on Social Rights (ECSR); Governmental Committee (GC) of the European Social Charter and the European Code of Social Security; Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Normal reports – annually on one of four thematic groups; simplified reports – every two years in case of acceptance of the collective complaints procedure.

Conclusions (national reports) and decisions (collective complaints) of the ECSR; Report and recommendations of the GC; Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers.

ILO Conventions (C102, C121, C128, C130, C168, C183)

Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR); Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS).

Five-year cycle – simplified reports under the ILO technical conventions; detailed report – one year following the entry into force.

Observations and direct requests of the CEACR; Conclusions of the CAS.

1. United Nations

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights –

Concluding observations 2009 (the numeration of comments is kept in

accordance to the original)

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights website link, Treaty bodies database

The Committee continues to be concerned that poverty and fuel poverty, especially among

children, remain widespread in the State party, despite the level of its economic development

and the positive steps it has taken. The Committee is also concerned that poverty levels vary

considerably between and within regions and cities as well as between different groups of

society, with higher poverty levels among ethnic minorities, asylum-seekers and migrants, older

persons, single mothers, and persons with disabilities. (art. 11)

The Committee urges the State party to intensify its efforts to combat poverty, fuel

poverty, and social exclusion, in particular with regard to the most disadvantaged and

marginalized individuals and groups and in the most affected regions and city areas. It

also calls upon the State party to develop human rights-based poverty-reduction

programmes, taking into consideration the Committee’s Statement on Poverty and the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 2001

(E/C.12/2001/10). The Committee also encourages the State party to intensify its efforts

aimed at achieving its target of reducing child poverty by half by 2010.

The Committee is concerned about the chronic shortage of housing, in particular social housing,

for the most disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, such as persons with

disabilities, especially in Scotland, or Catholic families in Northern Belfast, in spite of the

financial resources provided, and other measures taken, by the State party in this regard. The

Committee remains also concerned about the extent of homelessness in the State party. (art. 11)

The Committee calls upon the State party, in line with its general comment no. 4 (1991)

on the right to adequate housing, to intensify its efforts to ensure that everyone has

access to housing and to review its policies and develop effective strategies, including a

gender impact assessment, aimed at increasing the levels of affordable housing, including

social housing. The Committee also recommends that the State party take into

consideration the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 as best practice, especially its

provision relating to the right to housing as an enforceable right.

The Committee is concerned about the persistent levels of deprivation and inequality

throughout Northern Ireland, despite the adoption of the Northern Ireland Equality Impact

Assessment. (art. 11)

The Committee recommends that the human rights framework, including the Equality

Impact Assessment, be effectively implemented in Northern Ireland, particularly in the

context of urban regeneration programmes by ensuring the participation of the affected

populations and the development of adequate policies and targeted measures to promote

substantive equality, provide for improved health care, as well as an increase in skills

training and employment opportunities for young people and adequate housing

programmes for the poor and, in particular, Catholic families.

http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=4slQ6QSmlBEDzFEovLCuW3XRinAE8KCBFoqOHNz%2fvuDNYrNRpYh4%2fXwi5mGxO4uVHSp5NkoJ82qvuCoRYrFwZPTcDMxjOFb22xm9hq%2boJq2oc5GX%2fWPPHcYPRNBddrPf

The Committee is concerned that health inequalities among various social classes in the State

party have widened by 4 per cent among men and 11 per cent among women, especially with

regard to access to health care, goods, facilities, and services. (arts. 12 and 2)

In line with general comment no. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable

standard of health, the Committee recommends that the State party intensify its efforts to

overcome the health inequalities and unequal access to health care, in particular for the

most disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups. It also urges the State

party in this regard to fulfil its commitment to reduce health inequalities by 10 per cent

by 2010, measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth as benchmarks which

the State party has set for itself. It also recommends that the State party gather

appropriate disaggregated data on an annual basis of the reporting cycle in this respect

with a view to assessing the progress made and providing such information to the

Committee in its next periodic report.

The Committee is deeply concerned that persons with mental disabilities experience

significantly poorer health conditions, including the higher probability to suffer from bowel

cancer, breast cancer and much shorter life expectancy, than those without mental health

problems. (art. 12)

The Committee recommends that the State party take immediate steps to address, as a

matter of priority, the poor health conditions for persons with mental disabilities, as well

as the regressive measures taken in funding mental health services.

The Committee notes with concern that members of the medical profession at all levels are not

sufficiently aware of the State party’s Covenant obligations. It is also concerned that health-care

professionals do not receive sufficient training in relation to the care of persons suffering from

dementia and Alzheimer’s and that there is a lack of awareness and understanding of the

diseases among the public. (art. 12)

The Committee recommends that the State party undertake:

a) training programmes for doctors and health-care professionals about the State

party’s Covenant obligations, as well as with regard to the prevention and

treatment of dementia and Alzheimer’s diseases;

b) awareness-raising campaigns about these diseases among the public at large.

Convention on the Rights of the Child – Concluding observations 2008 UN OHCHR website link, Treaty bodies database

Allocation of resources

The Committee notes with appreciation the increase in expenditures on children in recent

years. Nevertheless, the Committee is concerned that the increases are not sufficient to

eradicate poverty and tackle inequalities and that the lack of consistent budgetary analysis and

child rights impact assessment makes it difficult to identify how much expenditure is allocated

to children across the State party and whether this serves to effectively implement policies and

legislation affecting them.

http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhskHOj6VpDS%2f%2fJqg2Jxb9gncmd4%2bjhmSP9aKhBy2ULDdHS%2fYca9bANAqq8FgBuTg3GheHotHoOQ8W6WFeOP7z4UXKVjDZZbFVyd3kV1iY0Iqn

The Committee recommends that the State party, in accordance with article 4 of the

Convention, allocate the maximum extent of available resources for the implementation

of children’s rights, with a special focus on eradicating poverty and that it reduce

inequalities across all jurisdictions. In this endeavour, the State party should take into

account the Committee’s recommendations issued after the day of general discussion of

21 September 2007 devoted to "Resources for the rights of the child - responsibility of

States". Child rights impact assessment should be regularly conducted to evaluate how

the allocation of budget is proportionate to the realization of policy developments and

the implementation of legislation.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women – Concluding observations 2013 UN OHCHR website link, Treaty bodies database

Employment and economic empowerment

4The Committee recalls its previous concluding observations (ibid., paras. 286 and 287) and

appreciates the State party’s efforts to provide flexible working arrangements for women and

men and to introduce shared parental leave, envisaging new legislation in that regard in 2015.

The Committee is concerned at reports of persistent discrimination against pregnant women in

employment and their access to justice. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned at existing

occupational segregation and the persisting gender pay gap, in addition to the high

unemployment rates of women with disabilities. The Committee notes, however, that the State

party launched a voluntary, rather than compulsory, gender equality analysis and reporting

initiative and that it intends to introduce legislation requiring tribunals to order a pay audit in

the event that an employer loses an equal pay claim.

The Committee recommends that the State party:

(a) Step up its efforts to promote the use of flexible working arrangements and

introduce shared parental leave to encourage men to participate equally in childcare

responsibilities;

(b) Continue to take proactive and specific measures to eliminate occupational

segregation and to narrow the gender pay gap;

(c) Create greater opportunities for women with disabilities to gain access to

employment;

(d) Assess the effectiveness of the voluntary reporting initiative under the Think,

Act, Report framework, so as to ensure transparency of salaries in enterprises;

(e) Ensure access by women to justice in employment-related cases, including

those pertaining to discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and motherhood.

48. The Committee recalls its previous concluding observations (ibid., paras. 286 and 287) and

is concerned at the excessive costs of childcare. It is also concerned at reports that the proposed

reforms to the welfare system would exacerbate the cost of childcare for low-income families

owing to reductions in the Childcare Tax Credit.

49. Recalling its previous recommendation, the Committee urges the State party to

provide affordable childcare and to mitigate the impact of the proposed reforms of the

welfare system on the costs of childcare for low-income families and the increased

burden of care that this places on women.

http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsldCrOlUTvLRFDjh6%2fx1pWB8bSlKfa34XmmIN3lG11hwWhjFqrEprJHQfoipZTwnVkhDALmzaR6gCklPapM2exTMh89SX7GUOJHbH%2bN8Qq9U

Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities – Concluding

observations 2014

No concluding observations available yet.

2. Council of Europe

European Social Charter Official website of the European Social Charter, link to conclusions

Article 1 – Right to work – Conclusions 2012

Paragraph 1 - Policy of full employment

Employment situation

Increases in unemployment were heavily concentrated on young people: between 2007 and

2010 youth unemployment increased from 14.3% to 19.6%. The long-term unemployment rate

(as a percentage of all unemployed persons) also increased from 23.7% in 2007 to 32.6% in

2010 (below the EU-27 average of 39.9%). The Committee notes that despite a deterioration of

indicators, fall of the employment rate and increase of unemployment (in particular among

young people), the United Kingdom continued to perform well in comparison with other States

Parties.

Employment policy

The report fails again to provide information on the number of participants in the different

labour market programmes or the overall activation rate. The Committee nevertheless notes

from Eurostat that the activation rate in the United Kingdom (measured as participants in active

measures per 100 persons wanting to work) was 1.5% in 2009. This was the lowest figure

among the EU-27, where the average that year was 28.9%. Given that unemployment increased

during the reference period, the Committee considers that the number of jobseekers who

received active assistance was very low, and asks whether there are plans to make active

measures available to a larger number of beneficiaries.

In terms of public expenditure on active labour market policies, the Committee notes from

Eurostat that it amounted to 0.34% of GDP in 2010, which is below the average for EU-27

countries (where the average public spending on active labour market measures as a% of GDP

that year was 0.78%). The Committee nevertheless notes that the level of spending on active

measures has increased since the last report (0.1% in 2005)

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee defers its conclusion.

The Committee considers that the absence of the information required amounts to a breach of

the reporting obligation entered into by the United Kingdom under the 1961 Charter.

Paragraph 3 - Free placement services

The Committee asks the next report to provide a number of clarifications in respect of the work

of Jobcentre Plus: (i) the number of placements made as a percentage of the vacancies notified

to it, (ii) what is the number of staff concerned with placement activities, and the ratio of

placement staff to registered jobseekers, and (iii) how it coordinates work with the private

employment services.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in

United Kingdom is in conformity with Article 1§3 of the 1961 Charter.

http://hudoc.esc.coe.int/eng

Article 3 - Right to safe and healthy working conditions – Conclusions 2013

Paragraph 1 - Safety and health regulations

The Committee recalls that all workplaces and all activities must be covered by occupational

health and safety regulations. This also includes self-employed workers, home workers and

domestic workers (cf. Conclusions XIX-2 Luxembourg; Conclusions XIX-2 Poland; Conclusions

XIX-2 Spain). The Committee asks that the next report indicates which are the categories of

domestic workers covered by health and safety laws and regulations further to health and social

workers; it also asks to be informed on the steps taken to protect health and safety of domestic

workers without interfering with private home.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the requested information, the Committee concludes that the situation in the


Paragraph 2 - Enforcement of safety and health regulations

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the report submitted by United

Kingdom.

Occupational accidents and diseases

The Committee notes that Eurostat statistics show that in Great Britain the number of severe

accidents (4 days absence or more – not including road traffic accidents and accidents on board

of any mean of transport in the course of work) decreased from 159 650 in 2008 to 132 310 in

2010. In addition, the standardised incident rate for this type of accidents per 100 000 workers

continued to decrease during the reference period with a rate of 932 in 2008 and 901 in 2010,

one of the lowest in Europe and well under the European Union average (27 States), which was

2 269 in 2008 and 1 582 in 2010. As regards Northern Ireland, the report indicates that the

number of accidents at work decreased from 3 134 in 2008/09, with a rate of 433 per 100 000

employees, to 3 119 in 2010/11, with a rate of 447.

As regards fatal accidents in Great Britain (excluding road traffic accidents and accidents on

board of any mean of transport in the course of work), the data provided by Eurostat show that

the total number decreased from 123 in 2008 to 81 in 2009, before going up again to 97 in

2010. Similarly, the standardised incidence rate for this type of accidents went down from 0,83

in 2008 to 0,59 in 2009, before going up to 0,71. The Committee notes that this rate remain

significantly below the European Union average (27 States) which was 2,36 in 2008; 1,94 in

2009 and 1,87 in 2010. According to the report, the number of fatal accidents in Northern

Ireland went from 9 during 2008/09, with a rate of 1,24 per 100 000 employees, down to 4 in

2010/11 and a rate of 0,6. These figures confirm the positive record of the authorities in the

prevention of fatal accidents at work in Northern Ireland.

The Health and Safety Executive statistics indicate that in Great Britain 1 179 000 cases of work-

related illness were reported in 2008/09 and 1 152 000 cases in 2010/11. Detailed information

are provided with respect to the following diseases: stress, depression, anxiety, musculoskeletal

disorders, cancer, asbestos-related diseases, respiratory diseases, deafness, skin diseases,

vibration-related diseases. The report indicates that in Northern Ireland there were 72

occupational diseases in 2008/2009, 51 in 2009/2010 and 29 in 2011/2012. The Committee

notes the particularly low level of occupational diseases in Northern Ireland during the

reference period. It asks that the next report indicates whether the above-mentioned level

constitutes an indication of under-reporting. Should this be the case, the Committee asks to be

informed on the measures taken to counteract this phenomenon.

Conclusion

Pending receipt the requested information, the Committee concludes that the situation in


Article 4 - Right to a fair remuneration – Conclusions 2014

Paragraph 1 - Decent remuneration

The report provides no information on net values of minimum and average wages. According to

EUROSTAT data for 2012, the annual average earnings of single workers without children (table

"earn_nt_net") (100% of the average worker) was €44 252.58 (£35 883.09) gross and €33

216.30 (£26 934.10) net of social contributions and tax deductions; the gross annual NMW

(table "earn_mw_cur") (adults over 21 years) was €14 933.04 (£12 048.00); and the gross NMW

as a proportion of the gross average earnings (table "earn_mw_avgr") was 39.4%.

The Committee notes from the report and the EUROSTAT data that, after deductions due to

social security contributions and income tax, the NMW is below the minimum level set at 50%

of the net average wage. It therefore considers that, in spite of the relative improvement in the

situation of workers and young workers who are paid the NMW, remuneration is still manifestly

11 unfair within the meaning of Article 4§1 of the 1961 Charter. It asks for the next report to

indicate the minimum remuneration which applies to the civil service.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with

Article 4§1 of the 1961 Charter on the ground that the minimum wage applicable to workers in

the private sector does not secure a decent standard of living.

Article 8 - Right of employed women to protection of maternity – Conclusions 2015

Paragraph 1 - Maternity leave

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the report submitted by the United

Kingdom.

Right to maternity leave

The regulations on maternity leave (Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999), as

amended, provide for up to 52 consecutive weeks’ maternity leave for all employed women.

However, only 2 weeks’ postnatal leave is compulsory, except as regards factory workers, who

are entitled to 4 weeks compulsory postnatal leave.

According to a survey mentioned in the report (research report No.777: Maternity and Paternity

Rights and Women Returners Survey 2009/10, published on 6/10/2011 by the Department for

Work and Pensions), about 87% of mothers entitled to maternity leave took more than 26

weeks off on maternity leave, and only 13% of them took a shorter leave, up to 26 weeks. The

Committee notes from another, more recent, survey (Parental Leave Survey 2014, published in

2014 by the National Childbirth Trust – NCT) that 11.5% of women took less than 12 weeks

leave, and 3.8% of women took less than the compulsory 2 weeks leave.

Under Article 8§1 of the 1961 Charter, States Parties have undertaken to ensure the effective

right of employed women to protection by providing for women to take leave before and after

childbirth up to a total of at least 12 weeks. In particular, the Committee has considered that in

all cases there must be a compulsory period of leave of no less than six weeks after childbirth

which may not be waived by the woman concerned. Where compulsory leave is less than six

weeks, the rights guaranteed under Article 8 may be realised through the existence of adequate

legal safeguards that fully protect the right of employed women to choose freely when to return

to work after childbirth – in particular, an adequate level of protection for women having

recently given birth who wish to take the full maternity leave period, e.g. legislation against

discrimination at work based on gender and family responsibilities; an agreement between

social partners protecting the freedom of choice of the women concerned; and the general legal

framework surrounding maternity, for instance, whether there is a parental leave system

whereby either parents can take paid leave at the end of the maternity leave (Conclusions XIX-4,

2011, Statement of interpretation on Article 8§1).

In the light thereof, the Committee reserved its position as to whether in the United Kingdom, in

law and in practice, the women concerned are effectively protected against any undue pressure

to shorten their maternity leave, and asked for information on the general legal framework

surrounding maternity and any relevant agreements.

In reply to this question, the report refers to legislative measures aimed at protecting women

from undue pressure from employers for reasons related to the taking of maternity leave and

which qualify any dismissal occurring on these grounds as unfair dismissal (Employment Rights

(Northern Ireland) Order 1996, as amended; Maternity and Paternity Leave etc. Regulations

(Northern Ireland) 1999). The Committee notes that the legislation referred to concerns

Northern Ireland, it asks the next report to confirm that similar provisions apply to the rest of

the country and to provide any relevant example of case-law. The Committee furthermore notes

from the government website that provisions on paternity and parental leave also exist and that

further reforms in this area were planned to come into force after the reference period. It asks

the next report to provide a comprehensive overview of the measures adopted in the field of

maternity, paternity and parental leave, which safeguard the right of employed women to

choose freely when to return to work after childbirth. It reserves in the meantime its position

on this issue.

Right to maternity benefits

Women are entitled to either Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) from their employer or Maternity

Allowance (MA) from the State. SMP can sometimes be supplemented by an Occupational

Maternity Pay (OMP) from the employer.The Committee notes from the official survey referred

to in the report (research report No.777: Maternity and Paternity Rights and Women Returners

Survey 2009/10, published on 6/10/2011 by the Department for Work and Pensions) that 42%

of mothers received SMP only, 32% received the SMP supplemented by the OMP, 4% received

OMP only, 11% received MA and 11% received no maternity benefit.

SMP can be granted, up to a maximum of 39 weeks, to women who have worked for the same

employer continuously for at least 26 weeks up to and including the 15th week before the week

her baby is due, and have earnings in the last 8 weeks such that they were paying national

insurance contributions. The amounts paid correspond, for the first six weeks, to 90% of the

woman’s average earnings, without any ceiling, while the following 33 weeks are paid at that

90% rate or, if lower, at a standard rate which was GBP 124.88 (€ 141 – rates at mid-April

2010) per week in 2010 and GBP 136.78 (€ 160 – rates at mid-April 2013) per week in 2013. In

its last conclusion (Conclusions XIX-4 (2011)), the Committee concluded that during the

reference period the rate was inadequate.

Women who do not qualify for SMP may be entitled to MA, up to 39 weeks, if they have been

employed or self-employed for at least 26 weeks in the 66 weeks up to and including the week

before the baby is due and have average weekly earnings of at least GBP 30 (€ 36 at 31

December 2013) over any 13 weeks period within the abovementioned 66 weeks. The

Committee notes that MA is paid at 90% of the woman’s average weekly earnings subject to a

maximum weekly rate equal to the above-mentioned standard weekly rate of SMP.The report

refers to the extension of the eligibility criteria to MA as from 2014; as these changes occurred

outside the reference period, the Committee will examine them during its next assessment of

the conformity with Article 8§1 of the 1961 Charter.

The report indicates that, in 2013, women in receipt of the minimum wage would receive SMP

worth 66% of their wages over the 39-week payment period for SMP. If a worker in receipt of

minimum wage received MA, her MA would be worth 62% of her wages over the 39-period.

Average female weekly wages were GBP 327.50 (€ 392.2) in 2013, while the hourly rate of the

minimum wage for workers aged 21 or more was GBP 6.31 (€ 7.5). With reference to its

Statement of Interpretation on Article 8§1 (Conclusions XX-4 (2015)), the Committee asks

whether the minimum rate of maternity benefits corresponds at least to the poverty threshold,

defined as 50% of the median equivalised income, calculated on the basis of the Eurostat at-

risk-of-poverty threshold value.

In its previous Conclusion (Conclusions XIX-4 (2011)), the Committee found that the situation

was not in conformity with Article 8§1 of the 1961 Charter on the ground that the standard

rates of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), after six weeks, and Maternity Allowance (MA) were

inadequate. It recalls that Article 8§1 of the Charter requires maternity benefit to be at least

equal 70% of the employee’s previous salary (Latvia, Conclusions XVII-2 (2005)). In view of the

set standard rates for Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) after six weeks and Maternity Allowance

(MA), the Committee considers that the level of maternity benefits continues to be too low and

therefore inadequate.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is not in conformity with

Article 8§1 of the 1961 Charter on the ground that the standard rates of Statutory Maternity

Pay, after six weeks, and Maternity Allowance are inadequate.

Article 11 Right to protection of health – Conclusions 2013

Paragraph 1 - Removal of the causes of ill-health

The Committee has received submissions from a non-governmental organisation "Working

Group Social Charter" stating that blind and partially sighted people are often, in practice

excluded from health services in the United Kingdom due to failures to provide them with

healthrelated information in accessible formats. The Committee invites the Government to

submit comments on this matter.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in the United Kingdom is in conformity with Article

11§1 of the 1961 Charter.

Paragraph 2 - Advisory and educational facilities

The provides no information on counselling and screening for the population at large. The

Committee recalls that pursuant to this provision there should be screening, preferably

systematic, for the diseases which constitute the principal cause of death. Preventive screening

14 must play an effective role in improving the population’s state of health. It therefore asks the

next report to indicate what screening activities are funded and organised by the public health

system.

Conclusion



Paragraph 3 - Prevention of diseases and accidents

The Committee asks the next report to provide information on the levels of air pollution,

contamination of drinking water and food intoxication during the reference period, namely

whether trends in such levels increased or decreased.

Conclusion



Article 12 Right to social security – Conclusions 2013

Paragraph 1 - Existence of a social security system

Risk covered, financing of benefits and personal coverage

The Committee asks the next report to explain, in the context of the reforms implemented in

2012 and also in the light of the observation of the Committee of Ministers, what are the

eligibility conditions for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) benefit and invalidity

benefit and what is their duration and their minimum level . As regards the personal coverage,

the Committee notes from the report under the European Code of Social Security that as regards

unemployment benefit 91% of all employees were covered. For sickness benefit 47% of all

residents were covered while for old-age the coverage of all residents stood at 47,5%. The

Committee asks what is the personal coverage of healthcare – i.e. the percentage of persons

covered out of the total population.

Adequacy of the benefits

The Committee notes from Eurostat that 50% of the median equivalised income stood at € 714

in 2011. In its previous conclusion the Committee held that the minimum levels of Statutory

Sick Pay, Short Term Incapacity Benefits and contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance for single

person were manifestly inadequate. The Committee notes from the report and from MISSOC

that short-term incapacity benefit stood at £ 71 (€85) and long-term incapacity benefit at £ 94

(€112) per week. ESA and Job-Seekers allowance stood at £67 per week (around €321 per

month). As regards the state pension, it stood at £102 (€ 490 per month). The Committee also

notes from the report that there are other types of benefits available, such as housing benefit. It

asks whether it is available for single persons earning the minimum levels of short-term and

long term incapacity benefits, state pension and job seeker’s allowance. The Committee holds

that even if the minimum levels of short term and long term incapacity benefits, state pension

and job seeker’s allowance may satisfy the requirements of the European Code of Social

Security, they are manifestly inadequate in the meaning of Article 12§1 of the Charter as they

fall below 40% of the Eurostat median equivalised income.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article

12§1 of the Charter on the ground that:

the minimum levels of short-term and long-term incapacity benefit is manifestly inadequate;

the minimum level of state pension is manifestly inadequate;

the minimum level of job seeker’s allowance is manifestly inadequate.

Article 13 - Right to social and medical assistance – Conclusions 2013

Paragraph 1 - Adequate assistance for every person in need

Types of benefits end eligibility criteria

As regards the employment and support allowance, people assessed as capable of returning to

work in the future are placed in the Work Related Activity Group and are expected to take part

in work focused interviews with a personal adviser, and have access to a range of support to

help prepare them for suitable work. People not satisfying these requirements may be

suspended from benefits for a period variable, between 1 and 26 weeks. The Committee

previously noted, in 2000 and 2003 (Conclusions XV-1 and XVI-1) that sanctions can be

appealed and that payment can be maintained, although at a lower rate, in cases of hardship. It

notes from the report that under the new Welfare Reform Act 2012 the sanctions will be

strengthened and the hardship payments will be granted only to those claimants in greatest

need; it asks the next report to clarify what criteria will be applied in practice to ensure that, in

conformity with the Charter, a person will not be deprived of his/her means of subsistence.

Level of benefits

To assess the situation during the reference period, the Committee takes account of the

following information:

Basic benefit: the Committee notes from MISSOC that personal allowance paid to a single

person aged 25 or over amounted to €75 per week in 2011. A lone parent aged 18 or over also

received €75 per week, while a couple both 18 or over received € 117 per week in 2011. In

response to the Committee’s question on the rate applied to a single person without children,

aged between 18 and 25, the report indicates that the weekly personal rates (as of April 2012,

outside the reference period) of income-related benefit were €68 for persons actively seeking

work (jobseekers’ allowance); the sum granted to people with limited capability for work was

€67.5, plus either €34 or €41 additional benefits (Work Related Activity Component or Support

Component);

Additional benefits: the Committee notes from MISSOC that supplementary benefits

(premiums) apply depending on the circumstances; the family premium amounted to €19; the

premium for a couple of pensioners was € 115; other premiums applied to disabled people and

carers. In addition, supplementary benefits include Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Winter

Fuel Payment (between €110 and €331, payable to people over 60) and Cold Weather Payment

(€28 paid to people receiving specified means tested benefits when the local average

temperature is 0° or below over seven consecutive days during the period from 1 November to

31 March). The Committee notes from the report that the amount of any Housing Benefit and

Council Tax Benefit varies according to the rates for the area in which the person lives and that

as from 2013 (outside the reference period) a "benefit cap" on the total weekly amount of

benefits in payment would be introduced, which would be fixed at £350 (€429, at the rate of

January 2013) per week for a single person without dependants. The Committee notes that

according to official statistical data

(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2227

29/stats_summary_mar12.pdf) as of December 2011 the average weekly amount of housing

benefit was £86.91 (€104) and the average weekly amount of Council Tax Benefit was £15.69

(€19);

Medical assistance: see above;

Poverty threshold (defined as 50% of median equivalised income and as calculated on the

basis of the Eurostat at-risk-of-poverty threshold value): it was estimated at €714 in 2011.

The Committee recalls that, under Article 13§1 of the Charter, the assistance is deemed

appropriate where the monthly amount of assistance benefits – basic and/or additional – paid

to a person living alone is not manifestly below the poverty threshold. In the light of the above

data, the Committee notes that the monthly amount of personal allowance paid to a single

person aged 25 or over amounted to €300, well below the poverty threshold, and that the

situation of single persons without children aged between 18 and 25 or of elderly people over

60 was not better. However, when considering the average amount of housing benefit (€416

monthly) and Council Tax Benefit (€76 monthly), the overall amount of assistance is compatible

with the poverty threshold. Accordingly, the Committee holds that the situation is in conformity

with the 1961 Charter.

Personal scope

In the light of the explanations and case-law examples provided, the Committee holds that the

"habitual residence" test, as applied in the United Kingdom is in conformity with the Charter. It

asks nevertheless to be kept informed of any legislative or other development in this area, as

well as of any relevant data concerning the applications accepted and rejected, in relation with

the entitlement to social and medical assistance benefits.

Conclusion



Paragraph 2 - Non-discrimination in the exercise of social and political rights

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the report submitted by the United

Kingdom. It notes that there have been no changes to the situation which it has previously

found to be in conformity with the 1961 Charter.

Conclusion



Paragraph 3 - Prevention, abolition or alleviation of need

The Committee notes that there have been no changes to the situation which it has previously

considered to be in conformity with the Charter. In particular, in response to the question raised

in the previous conclusion (Conclusions XIX-2) the report confirms that advice on all benefits

and services is available on-line (https://www.gov.uk/benefits-adviser) and that a

comprehensive range of non-governmental, voluntary and charitable organisations offer a free

welfare rights advisory service, often at community level working together with Local Authority

welfare rights services

Conclusion



Article 14 - Right to benefit from social services – Conclusions 2013

Paragraph 1 - Promotion or provision of social services

Organisation of the social services

The report indicates that in England there is currently a reform aiming at steps to modernise,

simplify and consolidate the adult social care statute. To this end, on 11 July 2012, the

Government published the White Paper Caring for our future: reforming care and support,

which provides a framework to support people to stay independent for as long as possible,

provide better information to users, improve the quality of care and support, and to ensure that

carers have the same rights as users. Besides the White Paper, the Government has also

published a draft Care and Support Bill that will enable social care professionals to undertake

their role more effectively and empower people who use care and support, their families and

carers by supporting them to understand what help is available and how they can best access

and navigate care and support. The Committee wishes the next report to provide further

information on this reform. In Wales, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Bill is currently

being reviewed. Its aim is to provide a number of new duties for the benefit of persons in need

of care and support. The Committee asks the next report to provide information on these

legislative developments as well.

Conclusion



Paragraph 2 - Public participation in the establishment and maintenance of social

services

In the absence of information concerning the issue of discrimination, the Committee wishes to

know whether and how the Government ensures that services managed by the private sector

are effective and are accessible on an equal footing to all, without discrimination at least on

grounds of race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation and political opinion.

The Committee wishes the next report to indicate the total budget for grants from the

Department of Health to the voluntary sector.

Conclusion



Article 15 - Right of persons with disabilities to independence, social integration and

participation in the life of the community – Conclusions 2012

Paragraph 1 - Vocational training for persons with disabilities

The Committee takes note of the statistical data provided in respect of Northern Ireland but

reiterates its request for information concerning the whole country as to the number of persons

with disabilities in higher education, including university as well as the percentage of students

with disabilities entering the labour market following mainstream or special education or/and

training.

Conclusion



Paragraph 2 - Employment of persons with disabilities

According to statistics of 2010/2011, there are over eleven million people with a limiting long

term illness, impairment or disability in Great Britain. Around 15% of working age adults are

disabled (18-64 years). According to the Labour Force Survey, disabled people are now more

likely to be employed than they were in 2002 – the employment rate gap between disabled and

non-disabled people has narrowed slightly by 5.8 percentage points and currently stands at

29.9% in 2012. However, disabled people remain far less likely to be in employment. In 2012,

46.3 per cent of disabled people are in employment compared to 76.2 per cent of non-disabled

people.

In December 2010, an independent review was launched to look at the Remploy, Residential

Training Colleges and Access to Work programmes. The Committee takes note of the

consultation currently under way and of the other ongoing initiatives, detailed in the report,

aimed at raising the employers’ awareness of the issues concerning the employment of disabled

people and asks the next report to provide information on the follow-up given to the

consultation and the changes made, if any, to the employment support schemes.

Anti-discrimination legislation on grounds of disability is not yet into force in the Isle of Man.

The Committee asks the next report to indicate any progress in this respect.

Conclusion

Pending receipt of the information requested, the Committee concludes that the situation in the


Article 16 - Right of the family to social, legal and economic protection – Conclusions

2015

Social protection of families

Housing for families

England:

The Committee takes note of several developments and measures:

Publication of a guide taking stock of all the existing social housing options, including

information on how to apply for social housing;

Improvements to non-decent social housing reducing the proportion of non-decent

homes from 47.2% in April 2001 to 6.5% in April 2013 as a result of the provision of

funding of €2.25 billion to local authorities between 2011 and 2015;

Possibility for the tenants to make a formal complaint against the local authority if they

are not satisfied with the way their local authority or Private Registered Provider (PRP)

is performing against the Decent Homes Standard. They can also ask for help from their

local member of parliament or a tenant panel or submit their case to the Housing

Ombudsman;

Delivery of some 200,000 affordable homes since 2010;

Investment of over €703 million to tackle and prevent all forms of homelessness over

the spending review period (2010 – 2014).

As to particularly vulnerable families, the report states that since April 2011, the Mobile Homes

Act 1983 has made provision for local authority Traveller sites. The Government has made €84

million in Traveller pitch funding available to help councils and housing associations build new

Traveller sites. However, the Committee notes, that in 2012, the European Commission against

Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) found that the efforts of the Government to address the

disadvantages faced by Gypsies and Travellers (the terminology used in these conclusions

reflects that of the national report) when attempting to access adequate accommodation has

only been partly implemented.

In addition, on 21 January 2015, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales held that the

conduct of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in relation to certain

planning decisions amounted to indirect discrimination against Gypsies and Irish Travellers. It

found that this conduct was in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

because it could take over six months to process applications from Roma which should

ordinarily take no more than two days. No such delays had been observed for “conventional”

housing and only housing intended for Travellers had been affected.

Despite the progress made, the Committee considers, in view of ECRI’s findings and the facts of

the case mentioned above, that the situation is not in conformity on the ground that the right of

Gypsy/Traveller families to housing in England is not effectively guaranteed.

Economic protection of families

Family benefits

According to Eurostat data, the monthly median equivalised income in the UK in 2013 was

€1,558. According to MISSOC, the monthly amount of child benefits was €111 for the eldest

qualifying child of a couple and €73 for each other child. Child benefits therefore amounted to

7.12% of the above income for the first child and 4.7% for each additional child.

The Committee considers that, in order to comply with Article 16, child benefits must constitute

an adequate income supplement for a significant number of families. They Committee asks what

is the percentage of families covered.

Conclusion

The Committee concludes that the situation in United Kingdom is not in conformity with Article

16 of the 1961 Charter on the grounds that:

in England, the right of Roma/Traveller families to housing is not effectively guaranteed;

associations representing families are not consulted when family policies are drawn up.

European Code of Social Security

Resolution CM/ResCSS(2015)21 on the application of the European Code of Social

Security by the United Kingdom

(Period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 September 2015 at the 1234th meeting of the Ministers’

Deputies)

Link to adopted by the Committee of Ministers resolutions

The Committee of Ministers notes:

I. concerning Part III (Sickness benefit) of the Code, the report states that the obligation to

provide sickness benefit cover continues to be met through a combination of Statutory Sick Pay

(SSP), which is generally payable to employed workers, and contribution-based Employment

and Support Allowance (ESA), which is available to employed and self-employed earners who

are not covered for SSP purposes or whose entitlement to SSP has come to an end (usually after

28 weeks);

II. concerning Statutory Sick Pay (SSP):

a. with regard to Article 18(1), Waiting period, that according to the report, SSP is not payable

for the first three qualifying days (“waiting days”) of an absence. Qualifying days are the days

that the individual would normally work for their employer under a contract of employment

and therefore do not include Sundays and public holidays;

b. with regard to Article 71(2), General responsibility of the State, the report indicates that, with

effect from 6 April 2014, the Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold Scheme (Revocation,

Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Order 2014, abolished

the SSP Percentage Threshold Scheme and marked the end of government reimbursement of

employer SSP costs. As SSP is now funded and administered directly by employers, there is no

specific data collected on the number of employees paid SSP or the amount of SSP paid. The

Statutory Sick Pay (Maintenance of Records) (Revocation) Regulations 2014, which also came

into effect from 6 April 2014, removed the statutory record-keeping obligation on employers to

keep administrative records solely for SSP purposes;

III. concerning the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA):

a. with regard to Article 18(1), Waiting period, the report indicates that, from October 2014, the

government intends to increase the waiting day period for new claims to both contributory and

income-related ESA from three to seven days, so as to bring it into line with procedures and

proposals for jobseeker’s allowance and for universal credit, which will have seven waiting days

for all people subject to work conditionality, including most sick and disabled people, at the

outset of their claim. The report explains that waiting days are the days at the start of a claim in

respect of which a claimant (who would otherwise satisfy the conditions of entitlement) is not

entitled to benefit; the principle behind their use is to combat absenteeism and to discourage

people from claiming benefit for short periods of sickness; and that this change in policy will

generate savings which are to be invested to several new labour market measures to get people

off benefits and into work. With respect to change in policy concerning the waiting period to the

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2356847&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383

sickness benefit, the Committee of Ministers observes that the announced objectives – to

discourage sick and disabled people from claiming benefit at the outset of their claim or to

generate savings at their expense for other purposes – seem to come into direct contradiction

with the objective of social protection of Part III of the Code. Furthermore, the waiting period of

seven days allowed by the Code in respect of the unemployment benefit is applied to able-

bodied persons who are capable of work and therefore, in the logic of the Code, cannot be

extended to sick persons;

b. with regard to the regime of sanctions, the Committee of Ministers notes the detailed

explanations and statistics on the application of sanctions under the ESA regulations and thanks

the government for providing the information. It also notes that in a decision given on 4 July

2014, the High Court has concluded that the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting

Persons to Obtain Employment) Regulations 2013 (ESE) under the Jobseekers (Back to Work

Schemes) Act 2013 that sanctioned those who did not participate in unpaid “work for your

benefit” schemes by depriving them of an allowance, violated the rule of law protected by the

European Convention on Human Rights. Following that judgment, the Secretary of State

announced the intention to appeal;

IV. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit), Article 26(2), the report states that the government has

progressed plans to introduce a new single tier pension from April 2016, which is now in the

final legislative stages in the Houses of Parliament. The single tier pension is designed to pay a

higher weekly amount than the current existing State Retirement Pension. At the same time, the

opportunity has been taken to equalise the pension age of men and women and increase state

pension age to reflect increased life expectancy;

V. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 66 of the

Code, Determination of the reference wage used for calculating the replacement level of

benefits, that according to the 44th report of the government, the reference wage of the

ordinary adult male labourer under Article 66 of the Code is determined as the median full-time

gross weekly rate for elementary occupations established by the Annual Survey of Hours and

Earnings (ASHE); this figure for 2010 (not excluding overtime) stood at £330 (rounded). It

should be noted that, in accordance with Article 66 of the Code, the wage of the ordinary adult

male labourer shall be determined on the basis of the average gross monthly rates of wages for

normal hours of work excluding overtime;

VI. concerning social security and the reduction of poverty:

a. with respect to criteria for determining real poverty in comparison with relative poverty, the

report states that relative low income is where someone lives in a household that receives less

than 60 per cent of the median equivalised net household income (“average income”), while

absolute low income is where someone lives in a household that receives less than 60 per cent

of the average household income adjusted for inflation;

b. that persistent poverty is where someone lives in a household where income is less than 60

per cent of average household income for at least three out of the last four years; some

variations of relative and absolute low income – where someone lives in a household that

receives less than 50 or 70 per cent of the average household income. Relative low income,

absolute low income, persistent poverty, and variations of relative and absolute low income are

measured both before housing costs and after housing costs. Housing costs include: rent (gross

of housing benefit); water rates, community water charges and council water charges; mortgage

interest payments; structural insurance premiums (for owner occupiers); ground rent and

service charges. Among other poverty indicators, the report mentions material deprivation for

pensioners, and combined low income and material deprivation for children – where a child is

in material deprivation and lives in a household where income is less than 70 per cent of the

average household income;

c. with respect to key measures aimed at reducing poverty, the report mentions the introduction

of universal credit, which is estimated to reduce the number of individuals in relative income

poverty by some 600,000, including around 250,000 children and around 350,000 adults. The

average impact of universal credit across all households is estimated to be an increase in

entitlement of £18 per month. Around 75 per cent of the households who gain are in the bottom

40 per cent of the income distribution;

Finds that law and practice in the United Kingdom continue to give full effect to the provisions

of all accepted Parts of the Code, except Part III where provisions establishing the waiting

period for benefits should be reviewed;

Decides to invite the Government of the United Kingdom:

I. concerning Statutory Sick Pay (SSP):

a. with regard to Article 18(1), Waiting period, to explain in its next report whether, in case the

above-mentioned non-working days fall inside the waiting period of three qualifying days, the

total duration of the waiting period would be longer than three days of suspension of earnings

authorised by the Code;

b. with regard to Article 71(2), General responsibility of the State, to specify in its next report

whether it still accepts the general responsibility for the proper administration of the SSP

scheme, in accordance with Article 71(2) of the Code;

II. concerning the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA):

a. with regard to Article 18(1), Waiting period, to give appropriate attention to Article 18(1) of

the Code which limits the number of waiting days to sickness benefit to three, as provided for in

the existing ESA regulations. The government is also asked to explain in its next report whether

a sick person who claims ESA after SSP has to accomplish the respective waiting periods

separately under each benefit scheme;

b. with regard to the regime of sanctions, taking into account the alignment of the ESA scheme

with the jobseeker’s allowance scheme, to indicate in its next report whether the above-

mentioned decision might have an impact on the regime of sanctions imposed under the ESA

and indicate the outcome of the appeal;

III. concerning Part V (Old-age benefit), Article 26(2), to explain in its next report whether, in

taking the decision to increase state pension age beyond 65 years, due regard was given to the

provisions of Article 26(2) of the Code and to the working ability of elderly persons in the

United Kingdom, and to supply corresponding data on the health status of people in retirement

age demonstrating that increased life expectancy is accompanied by longer life expectancy in

good health;

IV. concerning Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 66 of the

Code, Determination of the reference wage used for calculating the replacement level of

benefits, to specify in its next report whether option (a) or (b) in Article 66 is selected, and

review the methodology used for determining the reference wage in the light of the information

contained in the above-mentioned “Technical note”, transmitted to the government, which sets

out and calculates for the United Kingdom all the options allowed by the Code for determining

the reference wage on the same time basis (2010) for which complete and comparable Eurostat

data are available. The government is also asked to update the statistics used in the above-

mentioned “Technical note” indicating the precise source of the data to be used for future

reference;

V. concerning social security and reduction of poverty:

a. to explain, in its next report, the difference between relative low income and absolute low

income in more detail;

b. to explain how the above-mentioned indicators are taken into account when determining the

minimum amounts of the social benefits and allowances described in the report. The

government is invited to refer, in this respect, to the infographs in the above-mentioned

“Technical note” and update the statistical and legal information on which they are based;

c. to explain in more detail, in its next report, those elements of universal credit and the

minimum income floor for the self-employed, also mentioned in the report, that are aimed at

people in absolute low income and permit to raise their individual incomes above this threshold

in real terms.

CEACR 2015 Conclusions on the application of the European Code of Social

Security and its Protocol by the United Kingdom

As a result of its examination, the Committee finds that law and practice in the United

Kingdom continue to give full effect to the provisions of Parts II and VII of the Code and that

they also ensure the application of Parts III, IV and V, subject to demonstrating that the level of

benefits attains the minimum rate guaranteed by the Code.

Part III (Sickness benefit) of the Code. The Committee recalls that, in the United Kingdom,

income security in case of sickness is ensured through a mix of measures comprising employer

liability provisions, contributory social insurance benefits and non-contributory income-related

benefits, which together seem to offer the level of social protection comparable to that

guaranteed by the Code. The report specifies in this respect that the obligation to provide

sickness benefit cover continues to be met through a combination of statutory sick pay (SSP),

which is generally payable to employed workers by their employers, and contribution-based

employment and support allowance (ESA), which is available to employed and self-employed

earners who are not covered for SSP purposes or whose entitlement to SSP has come to an end

after the maximum duration of 28 weeks. The report also states that under the Government’s

welfare reforms the new Universal Credit (UC) is to replace income-based ESA and jobseekers’

allowance (JSA). In view of the reconfiguration of the national welfare system through the

introduction of the UC on the basis of a “uniform approach” to all those who are out of work,

irrespective of whether they are unemployed or ill, the Committee asks the Government to

explain how the risk of sickness will be differentiated from the risks of unemployment and

invalidity, and how the UC should be taken into account for the purpose of application of

Part III of the Code. Please also specify the complementarity of the SSP, ESA and UC in terms

of scope, qualifying and waiting periods, duration, level of benefit, and the regime of

sanctions, bearing in mind that, taken together, these benefits should ensure the required

level of income security in case of a morbid condition for at least 26 weeks in each case of

sickness or until the onset of invalidity, if it comes earlier (Articles 16 and 18 of the Code).

In view of the innovative trends in the development of the United Kingdom’s social security

legislation, the Committee would expect the Government’s next report to contain the

necessary details and statistics.

Statutory sick pay. According to the report, SSP is payable for periods of interruption of

work because of sickness from the fourth normal working day for which earnings have been

suspended, including any such day on which a public holiday falls. If a second period of sickness

absence occurs within eight weeks of a previous absence, for which SSP was paid, no waiting

days apply and SSP is payable for all qualifying days in the second period of sickness absence.

SSP counts as earnings and is paid as part of a worker’s wages via the employer’s payroll,

through which pay as you earn income tax and national insurance (social security)

contributions are deducted and remitted to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

Employer’s payroll schemes are policed by HMRC officials and inspectors who carry out risk-

based enquiries and compliance checks to ensure that employers are correctly making

deductions as well as statutory payments, for example, for sickness, maternity, paternity and

adoption. The report underscores that though payment of SSP is the employers’ obligation, the

Government retains general responsibility for ensuring the proper administration of the SSP

along with other statutory payments by employers, in accordance with Article 71(2) of the Code.

The Committee takes due note of these statements provided in reply to its previous comments.

Employment and support allowance. Article 18(1) of the Code. Waiting period. The

report states that the Social Security (JSA and ESA) (Waiting Days) Amendment

Regulations 2014 extended the waiting days’ period for new claims to ESA from three to seven

days from 27 October 2014. This policy change was in line with an equivalent change to JSA

regulations to ensure that all people subject to work conditionality – and this includes most sick

and disabled people – serve a seven-day waiting period at the outset of their claim. The

principle behind this change is to combat absenteeism and to discourage people from claiming

benefit for short periods of sickness. The report underscores that the extension of waiting days

is an important part of the Government’s welfare reform agenda and the introduction of the

new UC, which is to replace income-based ESA and JSA. The alignment of the waiting day rules

for all three benefits was an integral part of the new benefit design and roll-out. The

Government considers that if ESA were to be exempt from this change, a perverse incentive

could have been created, whereby people claim ESA first before claiming JSA in order to gain an

additional four days benefit and to avoid more stringent work conditionality rules in JSA.

The Committee observes that what the report calls “a perverse incentive to gain an

additional four days benefit” is the legitimate desire of the persons protected to enjoy an

acquired right guaranteed by the international treaty ratified by their country. What indeed may

appear perverse in terms of the Code is the announced objective to discourage sick and disabled

people from claiming benefit at the outset of their claim and gain the financial incentive of

additional savings at their expense for purposes which come into direct contradiction with the

objective of Part III of the Code of social protection in case of sickness. Perverse in terms of the

Code would also appear the logic of the alignment of the shorter waiting day rules applied for

sick people incapable of working with the twice longer waiting period permitted for able-bodied

persons who are capable of, and actively seeking, work, ignoring the difference in the

contingencies of sickness and unemployment covered by Parts III and IV of the Code. The

Committee notes that these arguments, expressed by the Committee of Ministers in its 2015

Resolution on the application of the Code by the United Kingdom, were not retained by the

Government in the new benefit design under its welfare reform where the extension of waiting

days plays an important role. Nevertheless, the Government should be given credit for expressly

acknowledging in the report that “the measure to extend waiting days to seven for ESA is not

compatible with Article 18(1) of the Code”. In such situations where welfare reforms are bluntly

violating certain provisions of the Code, the Committee of Ministers might wish to remind the

contracting parties that common European social security standards may be effective only so

much as they are being respected and fulfilled by all and every member State. This being said,

the Committee of Experts however wishes to draw the attention to the Government’s indication

in the report that the change in waiting days did not affect SSP and that the Government does

not regard this difference between ESA and SSP as a fundamental concern and does not plan to

align both. The Committee observes that, for the purpose of applying Part III of the Code, SSP

may be considered as the main benefit covering the great majority of the persons protected

during the whole period of the payment of sickness benefit prescribed by Article 18(1) of the

Code (26 weeks), while ESA in this period plays a supplementary role protecting only those who

are not covered by SSP. As stated in the report, anyone claiming SSP continues to serve only

three waiting days and if they subsequently claim ESA within 12 weeks of a previous SSP award,

no further waiting days will be served. Referring to the previously asked question concerning

the configuration of the benefit package to be taken into account for the purpose of

application of Part III of the Code, the Committee considers that, subject to confirmation by

the Government, the protection ensured by this arrangement of complementary SSP and

ESA benefits is compatible with Article 18(1) of the Code.

Part V (Old-age benefit) and Article 26(2). In its previous conclusion, the Committee asked

the Government to explain whether the decision to increase state pension age (Spa) beyond

65 years was taken with due regard to the working ability of elderly persons in the United

Kingdom in the light of Article 26(2) of the Code and of Convention No. 102. In reply, the report

indicates that legislation to increase Spa beyond 65 was first passed in 2007 and set out a

timetable for gradually increasing it to 68 by 2046. The 2011 and 2014 Pensions Acts brought

forward the rise to 66 and 67, respectively, ahead of the timetable because of the rapid growth

in life expectancy and the old-age dependency ratio nearing the value of 30 per cent. Growing

longevity however was accompanied by significant increases in healthy life expectancy (HLE)

which pertains to life spent in good health, and disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) which

corresponds to life free from a limiting chronic illness or disability. These indicators are globally

used to compare the health status of populations through time and in the assessment of healthy

ageing and fitness for work. Between 2000–02 and 2009–11, life expectancy at age 65 went up

by 2.1 years for men and 1.6 years for women. In the same period, HLE at age 65 went up by 1.2

years for men and 1.3 years for women, while DFLE increased 1.7 years for men and 0.8 years

for women. In other words, every one-year increase in men’s life expectancy was accompanied

by a 0.6 year increase in HLE and a 0.8 increase in DFLE. For women, a one-year increase in life

expectancy was followed by a 0.8 year increase in HLE and a 0.5 year increase in DFLE.

The 2014 Act also introduced a review framework, which means that future governments

must consider Spa, each Parliament, taking into account up-to-date life expectancy data and the

findings of an independently-led review, which will consider wider relevant factors. These

factors are to be determined by the government of the day but are likely to include healthy- and

disability-free life expectancy. The Government has also taken action to support older workers,

abolishing the default retirement age and extending the right to request flexible working. The

participation rate of older workers (aged 50 to Spa) in the United Kingdom labour market has

gone up over the past two decades, from close to 69 per cent in the last quarter of 2004 to

around 75 per cent in the last quarter of 2014. The participation rate of those over Spa has also

increased in this period – from around 8 per cent to close to 12 per cent. Trends in

worklessness for people aged from 50 to Spa show a decrease in the proportion of people out of

work due to sickness or disability. For men, this percentage fell from over 16 per cent in 1998 to

around 10 per cent in 2013, whereas for women it decreased from over 14 per cent to around

10 per cent in the same period.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s explanations and the statistical data

justifying the increase of the Spa beyond 65 years. It notes that while statistics on life

expectancy, HLE and DFLE are calculated for people at age 65, those on the participation rate in

the labour market and worklessness of older workers are given for people aged 50 to Spa who

hardly belong to the category of “elderly persons” mentioned in Article 26(2) of Convention

No. 102. The Committee points out that, within the legal framework of Part V of the Convention,

the working ability of the elderly persons in the country concerned should be determined with

respect to those persons who would have duly acquired the right to the old-age pension at the

level guaranteed by the Code at 65 years, but have now to wait for its realization until such

higher pension age as was fixed by the national law. Statistically speaking, the categories

concerned should be taken from among the persons protected under this Part who are aged 65–

67 (new Spa), and fulfil the qualifying conditions as to the period of employment (30 years) and

the level of previous earnings applied to the standard beneficiary established under this Part.

The Committee recalls in this respect that the scope of coverage of Part V of the Code was

defined in the latest detailed 43rd annual report of the Government under option (b) of Article

27 by reference to the prescribed classes of the economically active population, which

constitute about 42 per cent of all residents, and the level of earnings of the standard

beneficiary – by reference to the wage of an ordinary adult male labourer determined under

Article 66, which in April 2014 amounted to £373.40 per week (see under Part XI below).

Ordinary labourers and workers in manual occupations thus constitute the bulk of the persons

protected in the United Kingdom for the purpose of Part V of the Code. Consequently, the

indicators of life expectancy, HLE and DFLE of elderly persons as the measure of their

capacity for work beyond 65 should be calculated not for the general population but with

respect to the abovementioned categories of workers engaged in manual operations and

physical labour, including in onerous and hazardous occupations entailing premature

physical ageing. These categories could be obtained by using the Standard Occupational

Classification (SOC) 2010 Sub-Major Group 91 – Elementary Trades and Related Occupations.

From the labour market point of view, postponing retirement to a later statutory age would be

justified only if such categories of elderly workers conserve not only their physical ability but a

fair chance to stay in the labour market and maintain their employability. The Government is

therefore asked to include in its next report the statistics on the participation rate and

worklessness for people aged 65–67 years and belonging to the abovementioned SOC Sub-

Major Group 91. Finally, the Government is asked to specify the reasons for abolishing the

default retirement age and the lower retirement ages previously established for certain

particularly arduous occupations. Taking into account that the move towards higher pension

age is followed by a number of European countries, the Committee will appraise the legal

implications of higher pension age on the application of Part V of the Code after having studied

the experience of other countries.

Article 28(a). Level of the old-age pension. In its 2010 Resolution on the application of

the Code by the United Kingdom, the Committee of Ministers noted that the rate of retirement

income provided by the Basic State Pension (BSP) and the Second State Pension (SSP) for a

standard beneficiary represented about one third of the reference wage and that to attain the

minimum replacement level of 40 per cent prescribed by the Code, the Government counted on

private pension generated from savings accrued in the personal accounts. The Government

stated in the 41st annual report in 2009 that around 47 per cent of “pensioner units” in the

United Kingdom already had an income above the 40 per cent threshold taking into account

BSP, SSP and private pensions. Once pension credit has been factored in, this figure rose to

49 per cent.

The Committee notes that since 2009 the Government has progressed plans to introduce a

new single tier pension from April 2016, which is designed to pay a higher weekly amount than

the current state retirement pension, and has taken steps to restore people’s trust in the private

pensions lost in the period of financial and economic crisis. The Committee hopes that the

measures taken by the Government to reform the pension system would have permitted the

new single tier pension, alone or together with pension credit and private pensions, to

move over half of pensioners above the 40 per cent threshold fixed by the Code. To show

compliance with this key provision of the Code, the Government is asked to include in its

next report all the necessary explanations and data.

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments), Article 66 of the Code.

Determination of the reference wage used for calculating the replacement level of benefits. The

47th annual report of the Government states that the reference wage of an ordinary adult male

labourer is determined under Article 66(4)(a) of the Code as the median gross weekly earnings

(excluding overtime) for full-time adult male employees who are classified as unskilled

labourers in the manufacture of machinery other than electrical machinery. Classification as “a

person deemed typical of unskilled labour” is obtained by using the SOC 2010 Sub-Major Group

91 – Elementary Trades and Related Occupations – in conjunction with United Kingdom

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007 Division 28 – Manufacture of Machinery and

Equipment N.E.C. The median gross weekly earnings are given in the Annual Survey of Hours

and Earnings (ASHE), Office for National Statistics, and in April 2014 amounted to £373.40 per

week. The Government proposes to complete the forthcoming 2016 detailed periodic reports on

both the Code and ILO Convention No. 102, on the basis of a reference wage to be established in

line with the above explanation. The Committee takes due note of this information, the details of

which are included in the attached ILO technical note.

Article 66(8). Adjustment of benefits in payment. The report indicates that the uprating

of social security benefit rates in each financial year is normally based on inflation in the

preceding September. Since 2011, the inflation measure used by default is the Consumer Price

Index (CPI). From 2013–14 to 2015–16 inclusive, two main factors have been used to increase

benefits: (i) benefits for disabled people and pensioners (not including the basic state pension)

are increased in line with the CPI inflation (resulting in a 1.2 per cent increase from April 2015);

and (ii) most benefits and tax credits for working-age people are increased by 1 per cent. The

financial year 2015–16 is the third consecutive financial year in which working-age benefits

generally are being limited to a 1 per cent increase (exceptions are disability/carer benefits and

premiums and the ESA support component). The application of the 1 per cent limit in 2014–15

and 2015–16 was legislated in advance by the Welfare Benefits Up-Rating Act 2013, passed in

March 2013. Under the Act, the orders implementing these 1 per cent increases are not subject

to any parliamentary procedure. From 2012–13 onwards the basic state pension has been

uprated in line with the “triple guarantee” (or “triple lock”) which ensures that it increases by

the highest of: the increase in earnings; price inflation (as measured by the CPI); or 2.5 per cent.

For the purposes of the 2015–16 uprating, 2.5 per cent was the highest of these three

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/16/enacted

benchmarks. The pension credit standard minimum guarantee (a means-tested social assistance

benefit) is required to be increased at least in line with earnings; the relevant earnings

benchmark (the change in average weekly earnings to July each year as measured by the

average weekly earnings series) rose by 0.6 per cent in 2014. However, for the fifth year in a

row the Government decided on an above-earnings increase so that recipients of the pension

credit guarantee receive the same cash increase as those on the basic state pension. The

Committee notes from this information that different adjustment rules apply to different

benefits and are subject to frequent changes, which complicates the understanding of the

overall revaluation of benefits over the five-year period since the last detailed report of the

Government. It would ask the Government to explain its policy of maintaining the

purchasing power of the benefits in payment as well as giving the pensioners a fair share of

the resumed growth of the national economy after the crisis. The Committee expects the

Government’s next detailed report to contain full information and statistics on the

adjustment of benefits under each accepted Part for the period 2011–16 requested in the

report form on the Code under Title VI of Article 65.

Level of contribution-based and income-related benefits. The Committee recalls that the

system of social protection in the United Kingdom comprises contribution-based and income-

based social security benefits, as well as various tax credits and a range of means-tested social

assistance benefits, which offer additional protection against poverty. Contribution-based

benefits are payable at a flat rate to anyone who has paid the requisite amount of national

insurance contributions. Income-based benefits replace or supplement contribution-based

benefits and are available to all who meet the eligibility criteria as to their income. While the

level of contribution-based and income-based benefits shall be measured according to the

different methodologies laid down in Articles 66 and 67 of the Code, in both cases the amount of

the periodical payment granted to the standard beneficiary in case of sickness and

unemployment shall be sufficient (together with other means, in case of Article 67) to maintain

his/her family in health and decency and not less than 45 per cent of the reference wage of the

ordinary adult male labourer. Before the global financial crisis the Committee observed that,

though this amount was largely attained by the income-based ESA and JSA, the contribution-

based ESA and JSA fell short of the minimum level prescribed by the Code. The Committee

regrets to note that the situation has not changed and the rate of the contribution-based

benefits has been consistently kept below the minimum standard established by the Code.

According to the statistics given in the 47th annual report, in 2015 the contribution-based ESA

and JSA for claimants of 25 years and over were paid at the flat rate of £73.10 per week and

represented only 19.6 per cent of the reference wage of an ordinary labourer instead of 45 per

cent guaranteed by the Code (£73.10:£373.40 * 100 per cent = 19.6 per cent). The replacement

rate of 45 per cent will still not be reached even if the ESA flat rate is increased by the work-

related activity component (£29.05) and the support component (£36.20), reaching only 37 per

cent. The replacement rate of the SSP standard rate £88.45 stands only at 23.7 per cent. These

benefit rates being much below the EUROSTAT at-risk-of-poverty threshold of 40 per cent of

median equivalized income, the European Committee of Social Rights concluded in 2013 that

“the minimum levels of short-term and long-term incapacity benefits, state pension and JSA …

are manifestly inadequate in the meaning of Article 12§1 of the European Social Charter”. This

Committee cannot but confirm this conclusion in the meaning of Article 66 of the European Code

of Social Security as well.

To understand why flat rate amounts of contributory benefits are established below the

poverty threshold, it has asked the Government to explain what poverty indicators were taken

into account when determining these benefit rates. The 47th annual report replied that “the

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/july-2014/table-earn01.xls

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/july-2014/table-earn01.xls

United Kingdom system, which is a combination of contributory, insurance-based social security

and income-related social assistance benefits, is based on the traditional Beveridge approach

involving universal, mainly flat rate, benefits, as opposed to the earnings-related benefit

approach adopted by other European countries under the Bismarkian model. United Kingdom

benefits are not set with reference to any ‘reference wage’ … . It is not clear that the committee’s

question is particularly relevant to the United Kingdom position.” To make its question more

relevant to the United Kingdom realities, the Committee wishes to underscore that the flat rates

of contributory ESA and JSA as well as the standard rate of SSP are manifestly inadequate not

only in comparison with the minimum rate calculated in relation to the reference wage under

Article 66 of the Code, but also in comparison with the lowest poverty threshold calculated by

EUROSTAT. The Committee finds that the logic and basic principles of social insurance are being

twisted when persons entitled to contribution-based benefits receive benefits so low that they

would be better off on social assistance. With these clarifications, the Committee once again

requests the Government to explain whether by following “the traditional Beveridge

approach” in determining the flat rate amounts of the contribution-based social insurance

benefits, the Government takes into account their role in preventing in-work poverty.

With regard to the non-contributory income-based ESA and JSA, the Committee has

previously noted that their amounts exceeded the level set by Article 67 of the Code and that

consequently the level of protection required by Parts III and IV of the Code has been largely

attained and surpassed by the combination of income-based and contribution-based benefits,

where the former constituted the dominant form of protection for the great majority of the

persons protected. For example, in November 2008, out of a total number of

1,036,500 claimants of JSA, 207,700 persons claimed contribution-based JSA, 706,100 persons

claimed income-based JSA and 19,500 persons claimed both contribution- and income-based

JSA. In order to be able to maintain this conclusion, the Committee would like the

Government to furnish in its next report comparative statistics of coverage and calculations

of the level of contribution-based and income-based ESA and JSA in accordance with the

rules established by Articles 66 and 67 of the Code. Please provide the same calculations for

SSP.

Article 74. Next detailed report on the Code. (See above under Chapter III)

3. ILO Conventions

Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) -

United Kingdom (Ratification: 1954) Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Link to pending comments by the ILO supervisory bodies, NORMLEX

The Committee’s comments below are based on the Government’s report on the Convention

received in August 2011 containing its reply to the Committee’s previous observation of 2008,

as well as on the ongoing dialogue with the Government in the framework of its annual reports

on the European Code of Social Security for the period 2009–12. The Committee would like to

thank the Government for the detailed explanations of the current innovative reforms of the

United Kingdom’s welfare system, which are often breaking new grounds in the development of

contemporary social security thinking and help the Committee to understand similar trends in

other countries. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the present comments on

the Convention, which reproduce questions raised by the Committee in its 2012 conclusions on

the European Code of Social Security, and invites the Government to consider preparing a single

reply for both instruments.

Part III (Sickness benefit) of the Convention. Article 17. In reply to the Committee’s 2011

conclusions on the Code concerning the reasons for changing the qualifying condition for the

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the Government’s 44th report on the Code indicates

that the Welfare Reform Act 2009 and the Social Security (Contribution Conditions for

Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) Regulations 2010 amend the

national insurance contribution conditions from 1 November 2010 so that the number of tax

years in which a person needs to pay national insurance contributions to qualify for ESA is

reduced from three years to two. This aligns the period for ESA with that of Jobseeker’s

Allowance (JSA). For each of the previous two tax years, claimants must have paid class 1 or

class 2 contributions on earnings of 50 times the lower earnings limit for that tax year (£97 a

week in 2010/11). This differs to the previous rules where people could qualify for a lifetime of

contributory ESA by paying contributions on earnings from around 12 weeks’ work at the

national minimum wage, or just three weeks’ work at higher-rate taxpayer income levels.

The Committee understands from these explanations that changes in the contributory period

for ESA were motivated, on the one hand, by the need to align the qualifying conditions of ESA

with that of JSA and, on the other hand, by establishing a fairer contribution requirement for

obtaining a benefit which may last a lifetime. The Committee notes however that the

Government’s next move consisted in transforming the contributory ESA from a “lifetime” into a

short-term benefit, by reducing its duration to only one year – a period even shorter than the

qualifying period of two tax years in which required contributions have to be paid. Indeed, the

Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduced a one-year time limit on entitlement to contributory ESA

for those in the work-related activity group. This change has been introduced from 30 April

2012 and has immediate effect on people who are currently claiming contributory ESA as well

as those making new claims. Explaining this move, the Government states that people could

previously qualify for many years of benefit on the basis of national insurance contributions

paid over a relatively short period of time. This is no longer acceptable in the current fiscal

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312247:NO

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:13100:0::NO:13100:P13100_COMMENT_ID:3084450

climate, where the Department for Work and Pensions sees the need to review the balance

between contributions paid and indefinite entitlement to support. Introducing a limit on the

length of time people in the work-related activity group can claim contributory ESA underlines

the principle that they are expected to move into work. According to the Government, ESA is

thus made more consistent with the rules for contributory JSA, which has a time limit of six

months.

Reflecting on the explanations of these changes to ESA given in the 44th report on the Code by

reference to the “current fiscal climate”, the Committee observes that they have a direct impact

on the application of Part III of the Convention. Toughening the qualifying conditions for the

entitlement to ESA on the one side, while drastically reducing its duration on the other side,

leads to a straightforward reduction of protection offered by the sickness benefit, which, though

well explained by the Government, could hardly be seen as keeping with the objective of Article

17 of the Convention. All the more closer alignment of ESA with JSA confirms the Committee’s

previous conclusions that, by subjecting ESA to a mandatory work-related activity regime, the

UK system was moving away from the traditional concept of sickness and invalidity benefits

towards a “workfare” regime. In this respect, the Committee has previously concluded that the

minimum duration of sickness benefit of at least 26 weeks guaranteed by Article 18(1) of the

Convention is not observed to the extent that the work-related activity regime of ESA imposed

after the 13th week of benefit comes into conflict with the conditions of entitlement to the

sickness benefit admitted by the Convention. The Government disagrees with this view in its

44th report and believes that claimants should engage with the conditionality regime as part of

their claim for sickness benefits in order to receive help and support to return to work where

possible. The conditionality regime depends on the claimant’s prognosis: claimants with a

three- or six-month prognosis are usually referred to the work programme and those with a 12-

month or more prognosis are usually subject to mandatory work-focused interviews (WFI) and

work-related activity (WRA). Alternatively, these claimants can choose to enter the work

programme. The Government believes that these arrangements are not incompatible with its

obligations and requirement to provide sickness benefit under the Convention. The Committee

recalls in this respect that to substantiate its point of view, the Government has been invited by

the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the 2012 resolution on the application of

the Code by the United Kingdom to explain in detail, with reference to corresponding legal and

administrative provisions, the sanctions applied for refusal to engage in the work-related

activity regime, including WFI, WRA and the work programme, and the discretionary powers

conferred in this respect on the advisers by the 2011 Work-Related Activity Regulations. The

Committee hopes that, in its next report on the Convention, the Government will also be

able to show that the obligations and sanctions under the work-related activity regime are

of such a nature as not to unduly limit the protection afforded by Part III of the Convention

to sick persons after the 13th week of sickness. In doing so, the Government should take into

account the cases of the suspension of benefits admitted by Article 69 of the Convention.

Part V (Old-age benefit). Article 28. The 44th report on the Code indicates that on 12 July 2012

the Minister of State for Pensions announced details about the single-tier reform of state

pensions and a review of state pension age. These reforms would lead to a simpler and fairer

system, reducing the need for means testing and rewarding saving. The single-tier pension

would be set at a level above the standard minimum guarantee in the (means-tested) pension

credit. This will help to ensure that those of working age will be able to save for their retirement

with confidence. The reforms would be introduced early in the next Parliament. The Committee

would like the Government to specify whether the new single-tier pension, when

introduced, would be sufficient by itself to ensure the 40 per cent replacement level

required by the Convention or would need to be complemented for this by the product of

individual savings.

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). Article 66. The Committee

understands from the reply of the Government to its 2011 conclusion on the Code that the

Government intends henceforth to determine the reference wage of an ordinary adult male

labourer under Article 66 of the Convention as the median full-time gross weekly rate for

elementary occupations established by the annual survey of hours and earnings (ASHE). This

figure for 2010 (not excluding overtime) would be £330 (rounded). The Committee wishes to

recall in this respect that, in accordance with Article 66(7)of the Convention, the wage of the

ordinary adult male labourer shall be determined on the basis of the rates of wages for normal

hours of work fixed by collective agreements, by or in pursuance of national laws or regulations,

where applicable, or by custom, including cost-of-living allowances if any.

Social security and reduction of poverty. In its previous 2011 conclusions on the Code, the

Committee asked the Government to supply the most recent and comprehensive statistics on

the dynamics of poverty in the country. In reply, the report indicates that the latest national

statistics on households below average income (HBAI) produced by the Department for Work

and Pensions were released on 14 June 2012 and give an insight into the standard of living of

the household population in the United Kingdom, focusing on the lower part of income

distribution, for the period up to the end of 2010–11. Compared to 1998–99, the number of

children and pensioners who were in households in the United Kingdom with incomes below 60

per cent of contemporary median net disposable household income before housing costs (BHC)

and after housing costs (AHC) has notably decreased, while the number of working-age adults

increased in the last ten years by 0.5 million on a BHC basis and 1.1 million AHC. The

Committee wishes the Government to explain what measures it is taking to reverse this

long-term trend of the spread of poverty among the working-age population in the UK and

to explain in particular the fact that, compared to 2009–10, the number of working-age

adults in such low-income households has indeed fallen by 1 percentage point.

4. EU Country-Specific Recommendations: 2015 (the numeration of comments is kept in accordance to the original)

Council Recommendation of 14 July 2015 on the 2015 National Reform

Programme of the United Kingdom and delivering a Council opinion on the 2015

Convergence Programme of the United Kingdom (2015/C 272/06), (18.08.2015, C

272/21, Official Journal of the European Union).

Official Website of the European Commission

(10) The United Kingdom's labour market has performed well in recent years and is set

to remain strong. The employment rate reached 76,5 % in 2014 while the unemployment rate

continued to fall, to 6 %, and is projected to decline further in 2015. Despite the positive trends

in relation to labour market outcomes, social challenges persist. The rate of people living in

households with very low work intensity increased slightly, from 13 % in 2012 to 13,2 % in

2013, compared with the EU average of 10,7 %. The difference in the share of part- time work

between women (42,6 % in 2013) and men (13,2 % in 2013) is one of the highest in the Union.

The percentage of women who are inactive or work part-time due to personal and family

responsibilities (12,5 %) was almost twice as high as the EU average (6,3 %) in 2013. Youth

employment and employer engagement in the area of apprenticeships are further challenges.

Another area to focus on, linked to youth employment, is education and skills. A large

proportion of young people have comparatively low levels of basic skills. The implementation of

measures to address welfare reform and childcare has been limited. The proportion of children

living in jobless households in the United Kingdom is still one of the highest in the Union. In

addition, even if supply in the childcare system has increased recently, the availability of

affordable, high-quality, full-time childcare remains a key issue.

The European Union has set up a yearly cycle of economic policy coordination called

the European Semester in 2010. Under the European Semester, the European Commission was

given a mandate by Member States to check whether they take action on reform commitments

they have made at EU level. The European Semester starts when the Commission adopts

its Annual Growth Survey which sets out EU priorities to boost job creation and growth for the

next year.

Each year, the Commission undertakes a detailed analysis of EU Member States' plans of

budgetary, macroeconomic and structural reforms and provides them with the country-specific

recommendations basing its decision on the submitted by each country National Reform

Programme and Stability Programme. These recommendations provide tailor-made policy

advice to Member States in areas deemed as priorities for the next 12-18 months. The

European Council endorses the recommendations after the discussion.

Where recommendations are not acted on within the given time-frame, policy warnings can be

issued. There is also the option of enforcement through incentives and sanctions in the case of

excessive macroeconomic and budgetary imbalances.

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2015/csr2015_council_uk_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/annual-growth-surveys/index_en.htm

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the United Kingdom take action in 2015 and 2016 to:

3. Address skills mismatches by increasing employers' engagement in the delivery of

apprenticeships. Take action to further reduce the number of young people with low basic skills.

Further improve the availability of affordable, high- quality, full-time childcare.

united kingdom - international labour organization · technical note: united kingdom /...

Documents