CMNT_TITLE_CAS



A Government representative wished to clarify certain issues relating to social security minimum standards raised by the Committee of Experts, which should be seen in the context of the recession and austerity policies adopted in the last four years in order to ensure the sustainability of the economy in general, and of the social security system in particular. Recent policies and legislative reforms sought to achieve the latter goal by granting and securing adequate benefits for the insured population, as well as maintaining the beneficiaries and their families “in health and decency”, as referred to by Article 67 of Convention No. 102 and the European Code of Social Security. While emphasizing the Government’s efforts to shield low-income pensioners from further reductions, it should be noted that the rate of social security benefits was determined according to a scale fixed by the competent public authorities in conformity with the rules prescribed in the Convention. Therefore, while there was no question of a lack of conformity from a legal point of view which would fall within the scope of competence of the Committee of Experts, he wished to share certain information on the social policy measures taken along with the austerity measures since 2010 in order to guarantee an adequate level of benefits in line with the Convention and the Greek Constitution. He recalled that the Greek social security system had been designed to provide social protection to all citizens, and especially to vulnerable groups. Over time, however, undeclared work and contribution evasion had negatively affected the sustainability of the social security system. Thus, having as a main objective the viability of the system, and in accordance with the terms of the economic adjustment programme set by the “Troika” (that is, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund), the Government had decided to elaborate the necessary political measures and apply them aimed at the rationalization and sustainability of the system. It was absolutely necessary in the current economic environment for the system to remain sustainable and for the State to fulfil its obligations towards its citizens and its international obligations.

He observed that the pensions granted to all workers were above the rates provided for in Articles 65–67 of Convention No. 102. Since 1 January 2013, no further reductions had been imposed on pensions up to €1,000. Reductions had been imposed on higher pensions and the reduction was scalable, distributed according to the income of pensioners. Socially vulnerable groups, such as persons with disabilities, were excluded from these reductions. Furthermore, the viability of the system was ensured through actuarial studies conducted by the National Actuarial Authority every three years for the entire social security system. These studies were submitted to the Ageing Working Group of the European Commission of the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, when so required by national law or memoranda commitments. The National Actuarial Authority applied the models set by an ILO group of experts to conduct actuarial studies, with ILO technical assistance since 2008. Following the same model, the second actuarial study would be conducted in 2014. The Government had successfully cooperated with international organizations and received their assistance with a view to addressing critical situations, taking into account the possible financial implications of such cooperation. Furthermore, in order to preserve the viability and the long-term sustainability of the insurance system, the competent public authorities had developed and applied IT systems to avert abuses against the social protection system, which was extremely important for the financial sustainability of the system without any further reduction of benefits. As a result of the establishment of IT systems such as “Ergani”, “Arianne” and “Helios”, the percentage of uninsured labour had fallen within a year from an estimated 38.50 per cent to 23.61 per cent; valid “snapshots” of demographic and personal changes in the status of beneficiaries were immediately updated; and control and monitoring of payments was secured, so that pensions and welfare benefits were safeguarded, while averting any abuse or fraud. At the same time, efforts were made to further improve the sustainability of the social security system by collecting contributions through a new unified mechanism, the Social Security Contributions Collection Centre (KEAO), as well as by establishing an Insurance Fund for Generations Solidarity (AKAGE).

Regarding the reference to the impoverishment of the population, he observed that, according to the Committee of Experts, the Government had included in its report data from a study by the Small Enterprises Institute of the Hellenic Confederation of Professionals, Craftsmen and Merchants (IME GSEVEE). However, this was not accurate, since the statistical data used by the competent authorities of Greece, and considered valid by the European Union (EU) and internationally, were only those produced by Eurostat, the National Statistics Authority and the National Actuarial Authority. The prevention of poverty was one of the top priorities for the Government, which was aware of the social consequences associated with the increasing rates of poverty in Greece. Special efforts had been made in the design and application of policies within the financial capabilities of the country aimed at the prevention of poverty. Firstly, the Ministry of Finance had taken the decision to dispose of a part of the primary surplus of the general government budget in 2013, equal to €450 million, for the payment of a “social dividend” as a support for families and individuals based on income criteria, which was paid as a lump sum, tax-free and subject to no deduction, or confiscation, or offset by any debts to the State or credit institutions, and would not be included in the income criteria for the payment of the Social Solidarity Allowance (EKAS) or any other social or welfare benefit. Moreover, actions or policies associated with services for providing housing, food and social support for the homeless were funded through the same budget. In an effort to shield low-income pensioners from poverty, an exemption from monthly pension cuts for those receiving low main pensions, as well as certain cases of invalidity pensioners or family members, had also been provided for. In addition, income tax reductions for low incomes and for specific categories of disabled or war victims, as well as tax exemptions for certain categories of salaries, pensions and allowances, had been provided for. Secondly, a guaranteed minimum income had been established in collaboration with the World Bank. The programme was addressed to individuals and families living in conditions of extreme poverty, providing beneficiaries with income support in combination with social reintegration policies and policies to combat poverty and social exclusion when applied when necessary. It was a pilot programme applied in two regions of the country with social and financial criteria in 2014, the results of which would be taken into account so as to expand it throughout the country within the following year. To this end, a working group had been established with the participation of officials from the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Finance, the Council of Economic Advisers, the European Commission Task Force for Greece and the World Bank. The pilot implementation of the programme would be launched in the last quarter of 2014. The budget for the programme was set at €20 million. Thirdly, a long-term unemployment benefit had been established for persons aged between 45–66 years who had already exhausted their right to the regular unemployment benefit. In conclusion, he said that the Ministry of Labour, Social Security and Welfare had established three national targets in October 2010 which were incorporated in the National Reform Programme 2011–14: (i) reduction in the number of persons at risk of poverty and/or social exclusion by 450,000 by 2020, which meant a reduction of the relevant rate from 28 per cent in 2008 to 24 per cent in 2020; (ii) reduction in the number of children at risk of poverty by 100,000 by 2020, which meant a reduction of the relevant rate from 23 per cent in 2008 to 18 per cent in 2020; and (iii) development of a “social safety net” against social exclusion, including access to basic services, such as medical care, housing and education, which represented a non-quantified objective highlighting the need and willingness of the State to increase access to basic services in the framework of the third pillar of the active inclusion policy. He emphasized once again that, despite the dire economic crisis and the loan agreements commitments, the Government was taking every necessary action to maintain decent living standards for the entire Greek population.

The Employer members said that the present case resembled the case concerning the Greek Government’s implementation of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), which had been examined by the Conference Committee in 2013, as both cases focused on the economic and social situation in the country and involved extensive discussions on austerity measures and the influence of the Troika. Although the observations under both Conventions should have addressed compliance with international labour standards, that was overshadowed by a discussion on the general economic and social situation of the country. The policy discussion was overwhelming and did not note the Convention’s provisions with which the Government had not complied. The Committee was not intended to deal with issues of political economy and the Employer members were concerned with the nature of the observation. The opinions of the Committee of Experts had a certain amount of authority as they were written by a neutral and impartial body of labour law experts and were generally very helpful to the Conference Committee. However, the present observation was persuasive rather than objective. Firstly, certain terminology, such as the term “austerity policy”, was not as objective as the term “fiscal consolidation”, which had been used in the ILO’s 2013 tripartite Oslo Declaration “Restoring Confidence in Jobs and Growth”. Secondly, the observation was unnecessarily exaggerative, such as referring to the term “programmed impoverishment of the population”, which was not objective and not related to the Government’s compliance with Convention No. 102. Finally, the observation called on both the Government and the Troika to prevent the collapse of the social security system, but only governments were bound by ILO Conventions, and therefore asking the Troika to deal with the observation seemed to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

The observation analysed three broad areas: (1) protection of the social security system against continuous austerity; (2) stopping the increasing impoverishment of the population; and (3) establishing a national social protection floor. Concerning the first area, the observation implied strongly that matters could have continued unchanged without the Troika’s involvement, which was not accurate. The Government was experiencing a tremendous economic crisis based on structural causes, which was not only an economic cycle. The Government had an enormous budget deficit which was not sustainable and required unprecedented fiscal measures. The observation failed to note that the social security system had been facing pressure even before the crisis, as had been illustrated in the 2007 ILO actuarial study on the prospects for Greece’s main social security and pension funds which had demonstrated significant financial gaps at that time. Nevertheless, the Committee of Experts had not made an observation during the critical years from 2000 to 2010. Concerning the second area, the Committee of Experts had criticized the reduction of monthly pensions. The Employer members understood that this was a temporary measure that affected only one-third of pensions, and the goal of that temporary reduction was to stabilize the system so that it did not collapse. That was not prohibited by Convention No. 102. The observation was also not clear when it called for the Government to prepare “the necessary policy corrections”, as the term was vague in that context. If the term meant that the Government should correct the pension system through structural reform, the Employer members could agree, since the Government seemed to be taking steps in that respect. If, however, it meant that the Government should return to the past, the Employer members did not agree. Concerning the third point, while the establishment of a social protection floor was generally desirable, the ratified parts of the Convention did not require that and the observation did not note any provisions with which the Government was not in compliance. The Government did have forms of social protection, including free health care, so it was unclear how that issue under Convention No. 102 deserved a double footnote. The Employer members were willing to consider discussion on the matter.

The Worker members considered that the case of Greece provided an opportunity for considering the principles and values that had to be respected when a country was in the grip of the economic crisis. That country was a member of the EU and the Eurozone. As a result, it was under the supervision of three institutions, the Troika, of which two, the European Commission and the Central European Bank, were EU institutions. As pointed out by the Committee of Experts, the issues raised did not fall uniquely under the responsibility of Greece, but also concerned the principles and methods of the EU. The observation of the Committee of Experts noted that drastic measures on pensions accounted for half of its budgetary savings in 2013. It also noted that because of the financial difficulties of enterprises, the collection of contributions had almost ceased, further compromising the viability of the system. It was clearly the principle of austerity itself that was at stake. According to the observation, some retirees now only had pensions well below the poverty threshold, and even the subsistence threshold, all in the absence of a minimum safety net to address the shortcomings of social security. The restrictions also affected the health sector, which was a significant item of expenditure for older members of the population. The supervisory bodies of the Council of Europe endorsed the criticisms of the Committee of Experts. In December 2012, the European Committee of Social Rights had noted violations of the European Social Charter following complaints from retirees’ associations. The Committee of Experts endorsed the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the application by Greece of the European Code of Social Security. The Committee of Ministers considered that those who were better off should bear a larger share of the burden, but that the opposite was happening in Greece. It noted that Greece gave greater importance to its financial responsibility to its creditors than to its social responsibility towards its people. The European Commission, which was a member of the Troika, seemed to have taken into account the calls from the Council of Europe and the ILO for socially responsible measures for structural adjustment. It was to be hoped that this would soon be reflected in practice, with the support of other institutions and the EU Member States.

The Worker members fully agreed with the three recommendations of the Committee of Experts. First, the Committee of Experts called on the Government to adopt instruments allowing it to assess the impact of the measures taken on the application of international standards and on the sustainability of the social security system. Second, it recommended the introduction, in a supplementary capacity, of a basic social security scheme for those who were no longer entitled to social security benefits. In supporting this recommendation, the Worker members were not proposing that social security be replaced by social assistance, which would be an unacceptable backwards step. However, as recalled by the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202), social protection should be universal, with social security being supplemented, if necessary, by a social assistance component. Finally, the Committee of Experts recommended to the Troika and Greece’s partners within the EU to take these social security concerns into account more fully. In that respect, it should be recalled that, under the Oslo Declaration, the tripartite constituents had considered that the measures contained in the Global Jobs Pact were relevant and should be effectively implemented. They had also agreed to promote employment, as well as adequate and sustainable social security systems, and called upon the Office to promote synergies and policy coherence with international and regional organizations and institutions, particularly the IMF, OECD, the World Bank, and the EU, on macroeconomic, labour market, employment and social protection issues. The Oslo Declaration might inspire the conclusions of the Conference Committee.

The Worker member of Greece indicated that the report of the Committee of Experts had exposed the real circumstances of non-compliance of the Convention by the Government of Greece, which was paradoxical. When the crisis had dramatically increased the demand for social protection, the adjustment programme had not only reduced its supply, but also state resources for that purpose. While the Government assured that the social protection system was viable, that monthly pensions up to €1,000 were maintained, and that the pensions of persons with low incomes were shielded, the minimum standards of the Convention were not being observed. The regular and sustainable provision of benefits, the enhancement of confidence by the insured in the national social security administration and a socially responsible system, which were required under the Convention, did not exist in Greece. The country’s universal social protection system was rapidly being transformed into an individualized and privatized system through the identification of the social protection system as one of the targets for structural adjustment under the loan agreement, along with wages. The reduction in social protection expenditure was entrenched in the state budget and the Midterm Fiscal Strategy Framework (MTFS) 2015–18. The reduction included pension, maternity and child benefits. These measures would take effect in 2014. The Bank of Greece had indicated in its monetary policy report of 2013 that, based on an assumption that the State’s financial capacity would be reduced, the main benefits would be significantly reduced after 2020 by up to 50 per cent, leaving as the only certainty the basic pension of €360 a month, which was below subsistence level and contrary to the Convention.

The impact of the adjustment programme on the social protection system and on the economy was extreme. The Labour Institute of the General Confederation of Greek Workers (INE/GSEE) estimated that, after 2015, the social protection system would urgently require new resources due to falling contributions, rising unemployment and the reduction in State funding for the system. It was estimated that it would take two decades for unemployment to revert to the 2009 level and for revenue to be generated for the social security system, provided that the economy grew at 3.5 to 4 per cent annually, which was not very likely. Some 1.1 million workers were suffering wage arrears ranging from three to 12 months. According to the labour inspectorate, one out of two employers was not paying workers on time. Those workers were invisible to the social security system in terms of unemployment benefits and contributions, and were at risk of losing access to health care. Moreover, the so-called “zero deficit clause”, agreed between the Government and the Troika for social security funds, scheduled to take effect as from 1 July 2014, would affect some 4 million people with their auxiliary pensions being reduced by 25 per cent. The abolition of many taxes would deprive the social security system of €1.7 billion. In that connection, she noted that pensions constituted the main source of income for 48.6 per cent of households. One in two households were supported by pensions as retired parents increasingly supported their jobless children and their families, according to a study by the Small and Medium Sized Enterprises’ Institute of the IME GSEVEE. With regard to the governance of the social protection system, the Government had failed to address contribution evasion and the need to increase the resources of the system. The social security system owed the main public health-care provider €421.4 million in contributions which it had collected but had failed to distribute. Alternative anti-crisis measures could have allowed Greece to pursue difficult reforms, while preventing social devastation. There was no inherent contradiction between social and economic efficiency. Social security was not only a basic human right, but also an economic necessity that provided income security and enhanced productivity, employability and growth. It could effectively mitigate the economic and social impact of downturns, and speed up inclusive recovery. In conclusion, she called on the Committee to deliver a strong message that the rights and social objectives enshrined in the Convention were inextricably linked to economic objectives and were a requirement for effective recovery. The Committee should urge the Government to comply with the Convention in order to combat poverty, ensure effective recovery and guarantee the financial viability of the social security system, based on frank and effective social dialogue.

The Employer member of Greece recalled that the Federation of Greek Industries had stated, well before the crisis, that the Greek pension system was not viable, mainly owing to high levels of benefits and generous conditions for granting them, the ageing population and tax evasion fostered by the absence of computerized systems and an inefficient administration. Unfortunately, it had not been heeded and the crisis had taken the country by surprise. The measures taken, which were necessarily brutal, were aimed primarily at the organization of a viable system: computerization, elimination of fraud and undeclared work, adjustment of the age of retirement to life expectancy and strict actuarial oversight. Deferred for too long, those measures were not temporary, but aimed to guarantee the viability of the system and the Government should be congratulated for them. Furthermore, temporary measures responded to immediate budgetary priorities, such as the reduction in pensions above €1,000 which, as it did not affect the 67.5 per cent of pensions below that level, should not entail “impoverishment”. That amount was higher than the commitments made by the Government under both Convention No. 102 and Article 12, paragraph 2, of the European Social Charter. In that regard, the European Committee of Social Rights had rejected the appeal of the Federation of Employed Pensioners of Greece (IKA–ETAM) and had found that the reduction measures did not contravene the applicable provision in the Charter, while the European Court of Human Rights had ruled, in its decisions of 7 May 2013, that the reduction of pensions was not disproportional to the general interest objective. Those measures had not entailed “impoverishment” since, through the reductions or exemptions of tax on the lowest incomes, it was principally high or medium-level pensions which had been reduced. With regard to the consequences of austerity on the capacity of social assistance to protect the population from poverty (an issue which did not fall directly under Convention No. 102), it should be noted that, already before the crisis, the Greek social protection system was not efficient. With the prolonged recession and increasing unemployment, the demand for social benefits had risen as part of the population approached the poverty threshold. Although the level of spending appeared comparatively weak, the following facts should be taken into account: the guarantee by the national health system of access to hospital and outpatient care; the high proportion of home owners; a guaranteed pension of €360; unemployment insurance of 12 months combined with specific benefits for young people and long-term unemployed persons; the allocation of a large part of the 2013 primary surplus to social measures; and the replacement of various family allowances with a one-off allowance subject to family income. The above non-exhaustive list illustrated that, despite the absence of a guaranteed minimum income, poverty reduction measures had been strengthened, particularly through income-related benefits. Social protection was, nevertheless, related to economic development and prospects for recovery from the crisis, through support measures for enterprises and productivity. The solution to the issue of poverty could not be based solely on benefits. It also implied a development policy, reasonable taxation and a capacity to pay tax. Greece was depending on the technical assistance of the EU and the ILO to that end.

The Worker member of Spain said that the adjustment policies of Greece constituted a major attack on the country’s citizens and on Convention No. 102. The unfair and disproportionate reduction (30 per cent from 2009 to 2013) in the amounts of pensions had driven thousands of pensioners into poverty. The State had shirked its responsibility for the social security of its citizens and had confiscated resources designed for pensioners to reduce the public debt. Moreover, owing to the conditions of the Troika, which had imposed drastic cuts in pensions, the future viability of the Greek public pension system had been seriously compromised. The cuts affected people who, because of their age or disability, were not in a position to remake their lives or return to the labour market. Nevertheless, the Government was unwilling to restore the standard of living which retirees had lost. On the contrary, from 2015, it would not even be guaranteeing an acceptable minimum level, and everything suggested that it was seeking to turn the system based on contributions into one increasingly dependent on assistance. The conditions imposed by the Troika in the areas of labour and pensions had increased unemployment, reduced wages and pensions and made precarious and undeclared employment more widespread. Together with the ageing population, such deplorable conditions were the real problem for the Greek pension system. In addition, the raising of the retirement age, when living and working conditions were worse for older workers, was reducing expectations in relation to pensions even more. In 2012, the financial situation of the public pension system had worsened even further, since it had been decided that the cost of eliminating the Greek debt would basically be borne by the Greek pension funds. As a result, it was necessary, firstly, to guarantee a minimum pension to provide a decent standard of living. Secondly, the amounts of pensions that had been excessively reduced should be restored to the pensioners concerned. Thirdly, for pensions to be adequate, secure and predictable, they should not be subject to constant revision, and the pension system should not be used in connection with issues unrelated to its purpose.

The Government member of the Russian Federation recalled that the Declaration of Philadelphia provided that “Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere”. In that respect, the situation in Greece could not be ignored. It was characterized by a contraction of GDP by 25 per cent, an unemployment rate of 27 per cent, more than 1 million people without jobs or income, lower pension levels, an increase in the retirement age, and the curtailment of social protection to meet the demands of international creditors. Similar circumstances in Spain and Portugal in recent years had led to a surge in the number of representations under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. The ILO paid great attention to the fate of the Eurozone because, as pointed out by the Director-General, massive youth unemployment created the risk of a lost generation who would never know decent work. The Government should be guided by the Oslo Declaration and Recommendation No. 202. It should take the concrete step of seeking technical assistance from the Office.

The Worker member of France wished to draw attention to the dramatic consequences of the structural adjustment policies in Greece. Poverty affected the middle class, homelessness was growing and crime was increasing. The suicide rate was following the level of long-term unemployment. Children were particularly affected by the withdrawal of the State from its social responsibilities. Infant and perinatal mortality was increasing. A recent UNICEF report indicated that one in three children in Greece was at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Malnutrition was now affecting school children. There was a resurgence of the abandonment of children by families who had fallen into extreme poverty. The abandonment of the fundamental right to social security was a result of the choice to give priority to economic freedoms over human rights. That choice was unacceptable.

The Worker member of the Netherlands considered, referring to the Declaration of Philadelphia, which set out the fundamental objective of the ILO and its responsibility to examine international policies in light of that objective, that it was appropriate for the Committee of Experts to assess the social impact of the economic and fiscal austerity policies in light of Convention No. 102, without expressing its view on the austerity measures as such. The result of this assessment revealed that the country was no longer in compliance with the Convention. For example, while the unemployment rate was very high, particularly among youth, the number and percentage of those receiving unemployment benefits had decreased to only 10 per cent of the registered unemployed due to the stricter eligibility criteria and to the short duration of protection. This situation amounted to non-conformity with Article 21 of the Convention concerning the composition of the persons who must be protected. Even persons who were seriously ill and pregnant women could no longer count on the health-care benefits provided for under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. For those reasons, the austerity measures had been implemented without sufficient consideration to their impact on the country’s social security system, which had been reduced to a level far below the protection required under the Convention. She therefore urged the Government and the Troika to assess the policies and to take measures with a view to preventing the collapse of the social security system and to bring it in line with the Convention.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom agreed with the concern of the Committee of Experts that the Greek social security system had been undermined and could not achieve the objectives set out in Convention No. 102. Social protection was at the heart of the ILO’s mission, was set out in the Preamble to the ILO Constitution, and was required under the international minimum standards set out in the Convention. In recent years, Greece had reduced and withdrawn its social security provision. Under the conditions imposed by the Economic Adjustment Programme of the Troika and the MTFS since 2010, the health service had suffered crippling cuts, benefits and pensions had been slashed, and many benefits had fallen below the poverty threshold. The statement by the Government representative seemed to indicate that the Troika’s requirements were given higher priority than the obligation to meet the social security needs of citizens. Further cuts under the MTFS were having the cumulative effect of increasing unemployment and a deepening recession. The number of people who had access to social security was falling as changes either removed protections wholesale, or made the conditions so stringent that few remained eligible to qualify for assistance. Citing the statistics concerning Greek small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as reports concerning the number of entrepreneurs and self-employed workers who claimed to have no hope of recovery, she indicated that a majority of small businesses expected that they would not be able to meet social security and tax obligations, and expected to dismiss staff and close down. Contrary to what some had indicated in the Conference Committee, the matter extended far beyond economic policy and was both properly and essentially before the Committee, because the requirements of the Convention were not being met. The social protection envisaged under Convention No. 102 was being transformed into a financial transaction of limited benefit to a narrowing range of individuals. There was an urgent necessity for provision for old age, protection of the young, protection against sickness and prevention of hardship. The Government was in breach of its obligations under Convention No. 102 and further urgent action was required.

An observer representing Public Services International indicated that so-called “rescue” packages were presented as an extreme remedy to save the Government from bankruptcy without taking into account critical issues of social cohesion and protection. Pensions were severely affected by those measures. Both the Committee of Experts and the European Committee of Social Rights had pointed to the Government’s repeated and continuous violations of core principles and binding obligations enshrined in the European Social Charter, the European Code of Social Security and Convention No. 102. As a result, the responsibility of the State, namely universal access to health-care services, was no longer met, social insertion or re-insertion was no longer provided and the principles of equality of treatment and solidarity were not being complied with. The Government was also in full violation of the right to social security enshrined in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any changes to a social security system should maintain in place the pre-existing level and ensure growth towards a sufficiently extensive system of compulsory social security. Any such change should not exclude entire categories of workers from the social protection provided by this system, especially if those categories had been covered previously. Yet, the public health system had become increasingly inaccessible, in particular for poor citizens and marginalized groups, due to increased fees, co-payment and the closure of hospitals and health-care centres. An increasing number of people were losing public health insurance coverage, mainly due to unemployment. The Troika had pressured the Government since February 2012 to cut 150,000 public sector jobs by 2015. Cuts in wages and pensions were pushing young medical staff out of Greece, which was likely to have an impact on the Greek health-care system for decades to come. In conclusion, in view of the upcoming measures and cuts stipulated in the MTFS 2015–18, measures should be adopted to: (a) effectively prevent and reverse the collapse of the social security system in Greece; (b) maintain the social functioning of the State to at least the level to ensure the population was “in health and decency”, in line with Article 67(c) of the Convention; and (c) establish a basic social income security scheme, in line with the Convention and Recommendation No. 202.

The Government representative expressed appreciation of the comments made and said that the Government would take serious note of all the remarks. There was no question of lack of conformity from a legal point of view, that would fall within the scope of competence of the Committee of Experts with regard to Convention No. 102 or the non-binding guidelines set out in Recommendation No. 202. Concerning the points that had been raised, times were extremely difficult and the Government had been repeatedly called upon to ensure the necessary balance between meeting the commitments assumed within the framework of loan agreements and taking measures that would drastically restructure the institutional framework of the national social security system, while at the same time ensuring social protection standards. The effectiveness and scope of the Government’s efforts had been limited due to the impact of the crisis and social budget limitations. Well-designed adequate income support schemes could be powerful tools to reduce poverty and increase labour market participation and, therefore contributed to achieving the European objective of reducing the number of people in poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 per cent by 2020. The Government, within the limits set by the implementation of the economic adjustment programme, was taking serious measures to relieve vulnerable population groups so that they were exempted from, or burdened as little as possible, by the current austerity measures. In addition, he placed emphasis on the following measures: (1) the granting of the EKAS to pensioners provided that they received a low pension and they fulfilled specific income criteria. The same applied to persons suffering 80 per cent invalidity regardless of their age and orphan children who were eligible to the pension of their deceased parents; (2) the granting of old-age pension of €360 to uninsured persons (at the age of 67) who fulfilled certain criteria. That was a purely non-contributory benefit, granted to persons who did not receive any other pension, and was financed from the State budget. Beneficiaries were granted free medical coverage, and that was not related to the minimum pensions provided for in section 3(3), of Act No. 3863/2010; (3) the payment of family allowance; (4) the granting to families residing in mountainous or disadvantaged areas, including single-parent families, of an annual payment of up to €600 per family, depending on their annual income; (5) the granting to families with children in compulsory education, with an annual income of €3,000, including single-parent families, of an annual payment of €300 for each child; (6) favourable adjustments for the payment of the special property tax (reduction or exemption) for vulnerable groups, including people living in poverty or threatened by poverty, families with many children, disabled persons, the long-term unemployed and unemployed persons receiving regular subsidies; (7) reductions in income tax for persons with low incomes and a decrease of €200 of the amount of tax for specific categories of persons with disabilities or war victims; and (8) tax exemptions in specific cases for wages, pensions and benefits, such as pensions of persons with disabilities and war victims, salaries and pensions of totally blind persons, non-institutional allowances and the EKAS solidarity benefits, etc. Finally, concerning IKA, the main social security fund, he said that out of 1.2 million IKA pensioners, some 200,000 received pensions under €400, but the majority of the low pensions concerned persons receiving two pensions, or who were co-beneficiaries of the same survivors’ pension. That was in line with the European Code and Convention No. 102, as well as national law. The Government had reviewed, particularly since 2010, specific social assistance schemes to ensure that the established minimum amounts remained in all cases above the physical subsistence level for different age groups of the population.

The Worker members thanked the Government for its explanations. They recalled that governments had a duty to maintain their social security systems, including by adjusting it in the event of economic and financial crisis, provided that the measures taken for that purpose were proportionate and conformed to international standards. As had already been emphasized, those standards were not only the cornerstone of social justice, but also encouraged economic recovery. Unfortunately, the explanations provided had not refuted the conclusions of the Committee of Experts and other authorities regarding the Government’s disregard for its international commitments, particularly with respect to Convention No. 102. In her statement, which was rather ambiguous, the Employer member of Greece had stated that the Council of Europe had exonerated Greece from any shortcomings, which was not exactly true. The European Committee of Social Rights had made a similar statement to that of the Committee of Experts which, in turn, the Conference Committee should endorse. It should also support the call by the Committee of Experts for a statistical tool to measure the impact of policies in relation to the aims of the Convention. For the rest, effect should be given to the Oslo Declaration and the missions it had assigned to the Office. In particular, the Conference Committee should request the Government to make use of technical assistance from the Office to ensure the implementation of a social policy, taking into account the Convention and the observations of the Committee of Experts. It was also the responsibility of the Office to enter into contact with the IMF, the European Commission and the European Central Bank, as called for by the Oslo Declaration, on the issues of social policy and, more generally, employment policies. It was hoped that these initiatives would encourage the discussion of alternative measures, this time in line with Convention No. 102 and defined, as advocated in Recommendation No. 202, with “tripartite participation with representative organizations of employers and workers, as well as consultation with other relevant and representative organizations of persons concerned”. Due to the urgency and significance of the case, it should be placed in a special paragraph of the Committee’s report.

The Employer members expressed appreciation of the comments, which they had considered carefully, but noted, firstly, that aside from one additional intervention by a Government representative of the Russian Federation, the Government members had remained silent. Secondly, while the Declaration of Philadelphia should always be borne in mind, research had shown that this was the first case which had been based on its principles, and not on a Convention. The present case should be supervised under the provisions of Convention No. 102, which had still not been discussed and, because the case had been double footnoted, it had not been subject to negotiation between the social partners.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted that the Government representative stressed that times were indeed extremely difficult and the Government had repeatedly been called upon to maintain the necessary balance between providing for social protection standards under Convention No. 102 and meeting the commitments assumed within the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding agreed with the “Troika” (i.e. the European Commission, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund) and drastically restructuring the institutional framework of the Greek social security system. The viability of the system was ensured through actuarial studies elaborated by the National Actuarial Authority every three years for the entire social security system based on the ILO model, the development and application of the necessary IT systems, improved collection of contributions through a new unified Social Security Contributions Collection Centre (KEAO), and establishment of an Insurance Fund for Generations Solidarity (AKAGE). The Committee noted the Government’s statement that the effectiveness and scope of those efforts were limited due to the impact of the crisis and social budget limitations incurred by the implementation of the economic adjustment programme. Nevertheless, pensions granted to the entire working population were above the rates provided for in Articles 65–67 of the Convention, while specific social assistance schemes were reviewed in order to ensure that the established minimum amounts remained in all cases above the physical subsistence level for different age groups of the population. Special effort had been made for the design and application of anti-poverty policies for the most vulnerable, which included payment of a “social dividend”, the establishment of the benefit for the long-term unemployed, setting of the minimum guaranteed income in collaboration with the World Bank, and the inclusion of precise targets for poverty reduction until 2020 into the National Reform Programme 2011–14.

With respect to the impact of the economic crisis on the social security system in Greece, the Committee recalled that the principle of the general responsibility of the State for the sustainable financing and management of its social security system expressed in Articles 71 and 72 of the Convention required the Government to establish a sound financial and institutional architecture of the social security system and “take all measures required for this purpose”, including in particular the following: maintain the system in financial equilibrium, ensure proper collection of contributions and taxes taking into account the economic situation in the country and of the classes of persons protected, carry out the necessary actuarial and financial studies to assess impact of any change in benefits, taxes or contributions, ensure the due provision of the benefits guaranteed by the Convention, and prevent hardship to persons of small means. The Committee further recalled that the Oslo Declaration of the Ninth European Regional Meeting called upon the ILO to promote adequate and sustainable social protection systems as well as “synergies and policy coherence with the international and regional organizations and institutions … on macroeconomic, labour market, employment, and social protection issues”. Acknowledging the unprecedented financial and management challenges of steering the Greek social security system through the crisis, the Committee requested the Office to give guidance to the Government on reforming its social security system in accord with the guidance in the Oslo Declaration.

The Committee observed that the continuous contraction of the social security system in terms of coverage and benefits had affected all branches of social security and in some instances resulted in reducing the overall level of protection below the levels laid down in Articles 65–67 of the Convention. In this context, the Committee invited the Government to continue to keep the functioning of the social security system under review and to adjust it, as necessary, making full use of ILO technical assistance to support the quantitative analysis of those options. The Committee recalled in that respect that the Oslo Declaration pointed out that “due to its tripartite structure and its mandate, the ILO is ideally placed to assist constituents to address social and economic crises and to help design sound and equitable reform policies”. In view of the gravity of the social crisis in Greece, the Committee urged the Government to give effect to the above recommendations and to provide full information to the Committee of Experts to ensure the appropriate follow-up to that case.

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee refers to its comments under the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), with regard to the observations communicated by the Greek General Confederation of Labour (GSEE) with the support of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) on the impact of the measures introduced in the framework of the mechanism to support the Greek economy, on the application of the Convention.

The GSEE refers to the adoption of Act No. 3845 of 5 May 2010 on “Measures to implement a mechanism to support the Greek economy by the Member States of the Euro area and the International Monetary Fund”. The appendix to this Act contains two Memorandums of Understanding concerning economic and financial policies and specific economic conditionality concluded between the Greek Ministry of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Greece on one side and the President of the Eurogroup, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund on the other side, which list a series of time-bound commitments to be undertaken by the Government, including efforts to moderate pensions. According to the GSEE these commitments resulted in the adoption on 8 July 2010 of Act No. 3863/2010 on the “New Social Security System and relevant provisions” (FEK A’115) introducing a radical reform of the pension system for all current and future employees, which provides for the withdrawal of the State from the obligation to co-fund the social security system and limits its liability only to the funding of basic pensions as of 2015, as well as for the withdrawal of the State’s guarantee as regards payment of supplementary pensions. The unified statutory retirement age is raised to 65 years by December 2015 and the retirement age of women in the public sector is raised to 65 by 2013. The Act also provides for the calculation of pensions on the basis of the entire working career; the rise of the minimum contribution period from 37 to 40 years by 2015; the restriction of early retirement and the increase of the minimum retirement age of 60 years by 1 January 2011, including for workers in heavy and arduous professions and those with 40 years of contributions; the introduction of reduced pension benefits for people retiring between the ages of 60–65 with less than 40 years of contribution; indexation of pensions on the basis of GNP and the consumer price index; the introduction of a means-tested minimum guaranteed pension for people aged above 65 years of age.

According to the GSEE, these substantial parametric changes established by Act No. 3863/2010 without adequate consultations with the social partners violate workers’ social security rights and negate their entitlements and rightful expectations, as the reform will result in a reduction in the replacement rate of pensions by 20 per cent on average. The GSEE further refers to a decision of the Greek Court of Audit which confirmed the existence of constitutional irregularities and the reversal of acquired rights in this Act. The GSEE considers that by introducing permanent reforms the Government has failed to observe the Convention and disregarded alternative ways to address the long-term viability and efficiency of the social security system, which do not inflict so much hardship on the persons protected.

The Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the general responsibility to be assumed by the State for the sustainable financing and management of the national social security system, which is set out in Articles 71(3) and 72(2) of the Convention. The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the application of each Article of the Convention in accordance with the report form adopted by the Governing Body, including as regards the concrete provisions of the new legislation and precise the basis of the calculation of the replacement level of pensions according to the new rules. The Committee will examine the comments by the GSEE, along with the Government’s observations thereto, as well as the Government’s report due in 2011, at its next session.

CMNT_TITLE

Part VI (Employment injury benefit) of the Convention, Article 34, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. The report indicates that nursing care at home is provided by the Social Insurance Institute (IKA) by virtue of articles 10 and 11 of the Sickness Regulation, the English translation of which is attached. The Committee draws attention to the fact that this attachment was not received.

Article 36, paragraph 2. Since 1990, the Committee insisted on the need to re-establish in the Greek legislation the right to long-term benefit at a reduced rate for victims of employment injury with incapacity of less than 50 per cent. In its 35th report on the European Code of Social Security, the Government indicates that the actuarial services of the IKA–ETAM have prepared an economically suitable solution to this question on the basis of the estimated number of potential beneficiaries (160 persons annually), the degree of incapacity to be covered (33.3 per cent to 49.9 per cent), the possible level of the benefit (up to 40 per cent of the full amount of invalidity pension) and the overall cost of the programme (approximately 768,000 euros). In order to ascertain to what extent this solution will give effect to the corresponding provisions of the Convention, the Committee strongly hopes that the Government will take all the necessary measures to organize in 2008 technical consultations between the Actuarial Service of IKA‑ETAM and the experts of the Council of Europe and the ILO. In the meantime, taking into account the fact that cases of employment injuries resulting in invalidity of 33.3 to 49.9 per cent are not registered and monitored by the “councils of invalidity”, the Government is once again invited to consider carrying out a sociological study and statistical survey on the conditions of life and work of victims of employment injuries with incapacity of less than 50 per cent.

Part XI (Standards to be complied with by periodical payments). The Committee notes that the amount of daily sickness benefits is equal to 50 per cent of the amount of the estimated daily income of the insurance class to which the beneficiary belongs, and cannot be higher, with the increments due to family responsibilities, than the amount of the estimated daily rate of the eighth insurance class. The basic amount and the rate of increases of the old-age and disability pensions also vary depending on the insurance class. The Committee would like the Government to explain in its next report the system of insurance classes and its relation to the reference wage of the standard beneficiary selected by the Government under Articles 65 and 66 of the Convention for the calculation of the replacement rate of the benefits. Please make these calculations in such a way as to show that the maximum limit fixed for the rate of the benefits complies with the requirements of Article 65(3), while the minimum amount of the benefits attains the level prescribed in Article 66 of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Part VI (Employment injury benefit), Article 34, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the report indicates that nursing care at home is provided by the Social Insurance Institute (IKA) by virtue of articles 10 and 11 of the Sickness Regulation. The Committee notes this information and would like to receive a copy of the said Regulation together, if possible, with an English or French translation of the abovementioned articles.

Articles 36, paragraph 2, and 38. With reference to its previous comments which it has been making for many years, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the question of re-establishing the right to long-term benefits at a reduced rate for victims of employment injury with incapacity of less than 50 per cent, which was provided for in the previous legislation, shall be examined by the competent services of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, notwithstanding the large financial costs for the IKA. It hopes that this examination will be carried out in the near future and that the Government will be able to adopt measures necessary to give full effect to the abovementioned provisions of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

Part VI (Employment injury benefit), Article 34, paragraph 2(c), of the Convention. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the report indicates that nursing care at home is provided by the Social Insurance Institute (IKA) by virtue of articles 10 and 11 of the Sickness Regulation. The Committee notes this information and would like to receive a copy of the said Regulation together, if possible, with an English or French translation of the abovementioned articles.

Articles 36, paragraph 2, and 38. With reference to its previous comments which it has been making for many years, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the question of re-establishing the right to long-term benefits at a reduced rate for victims of employment injury with incapacity of less than 50 per cent, which was provided for in the previous legislation, shall be examined by the competent services of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, notwithstanding the large financial costs for the IKA. It hopes that this examination will be carried out in the near future and that the Government will be able to adopt measures necessary to give full effect to the abovementioned provisions of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government in its report concerning the implementation of Act No. 2084 to reform the social security scheme, and the statistics concerning the level and adjustment of the benefits provided under the new legislation. It also notes the statistics on the number of employees protected by the various branches of the general social security scheme in relation to the total number of employees.

Part VI (Employment injury benefit) of the Convention. (a) With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes, from the information supplied by the Government in the context of the European Code of Social Security, that victims of an occupational injury with incapacity of less than 50 per cent are awarded sickness benefit for 720 days. However, according to the Convention, in case of partial loss of earning capacity likely to be permanent, or corresponding loss of faculty, the benefit shall be a periodical payment representing a suitable proportion of that specified for total loss of earning capacity (Article 36, paragraph 2) and shall be granted throughout the contingency (Article 38). The Committee therefore hopes that the Government's next report will contain information on the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to re-establish, for victims of an occupational injury resulting in incapacity of less than 50 per cent, the right to long-term benefit at a reduced rate, as was the case under the previous legislation.

(b) Article 34, paragraph 2. The Government states in its report that the medical care provided by the IKA covers all the care envisaged in this provision of the Convention, with the exception of nursing care at home. The Committee recalls in this respect that the medical care provided to victims of employment injuries shall comprise nursing care at home, in accordance with Article 34, paragraph 2(c). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which and the provisions under which effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes the Government's reports for the periods 1990-91 and 1991-92, and notes with interest the information supplied on the changes made to the various insurance schemes by Act No. 1902 of 1990. The Committee also notes the information concerning the application of Part IV of the Convention with regard to unemployment insurance, and the statistics on the number of employees protected which were supplied with the above reports.

2. The Committee has also been informed of the adoption, in October 1992, of Act No. 2084 to reform the social security scheme. This Act mainly concerns long-term benefits and covers public servants, self-employed workers and employees insured under the Institute of Social Insurances and other special basic or complementary insurance schemes.

3. The Committee notes that this new Act makes important changes regarding the qualifying periods and conditions with respect to age required for entitlement to a pension, and also with regard to the method of calculating old-age, invalidity and survivors' pensions and employment injury benefits (permanent, total or partial incapacity and death of the family breadwinner).

4. The Committee notes that the above changes affect, in the first place, workers who have been insured since 1 January 1993. In view of the fact that, however, Act No. 2084 also contains provisions relating to workers who were subject to the insurance before that date and that these provisions are designed to make the reforms in question progressively applicable to the above workers, the Committee would be grateful if the Government's next report contained detailed information on the implementation of the new Act, and in particular on its application to employees who were already covered by the scheme before 1 January 1993.

5. A. The Committee requests the Government, in particular, to indicate on the basis of appropriate statistical data, established according to the report form on the Convention adopted by the Governing Body (under Article 65) (or in accordance with the statistical model recommended by the Office in the communication transmitted by the Office on 22 December 1992 to the General Secretariat for Social Security, Ministry of International Affairs), whether the level of long-term benefits provided under the new legislation which has come into force reaches the level prescribed by the Convention in the following cases:

(a) Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention (Old-age benefit). Please state the percentage of the former earnings of an insured person to which the old-age pension corresponds, when the person has completed 30 years of contribution.

(b) Article 36 (Employment injury benefit). Please indicate the percentage of the former earnings of an insured person to which the pension corresponds, in the event of permanent serious invalidity, and of the pension which is paid to the survivors in the event of the death of the insured person.

(c) Articles 56 and 57 (Invalidity benefit). Please indicate the percentage of the former earnings of an insured person to which the pension provided in the event of permanent serious invalidity corresponds, when the insured person has completed either 4,500 days or 15 years of employment subject to contributions.

(d) Articles 62 and 63 (Survivors' benefit). Please indicate the percentage of the former earnings of an insured person to which the pension corresponds which is provided to the survivors in the death of that person, if 4,500 days or 15 years of employment have been completed.

(e) Please also indicate the earnings of a skilled manual male employee (selected in accordance with Article 65, paragraph 6 or 7, of the Convention).

B. Where minimum benefits are also provided by the insurance scheme, the Government may prefer to indicate, on the basis of appropriate statistics compiled in accordance with the report form under Article 66 of the Convention, the percentage of the wage of an ordinary adult male labourer, "unskilled worker" (selected on the basis of Article 66, paragraph 4 or 5), to which the amount of the following minimum pensions corresponds: the old-age pension provided after 30 years of contributions; the pension in the event of permanent serious invalidity and the pension provided to survivors in the event of employment injury; the invalidity pension provided for permanent serious invalidity after 4,500 days or 15 years of employment subject to contributions; and the survivors' pension provided in the event of the death of the family breadwinner who has completed either 4,500 days or 15 years of employment.

Please also indicate the amount of the wage of an ordinary adult male labourer, "unskilled worker" (selected in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 4 or 5).

C. The Committee notes that by virtue of section 66 of Act No. 2084, the readjustment of pensions provided by the various insurance schemes will henceforth take place at the same date and in the same proportion as the readjustment of the pensions of public servants, which shall occur as a result of a ministerial decision. The Committee requests the Government to supply information in its next report on any adjustment of pensions made after the coming into force of the above Act (Article 65, paragraph 10, and Article 66, paragraph 8, of the Convention).

6. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to supply, for each of the Parts of the Convention which have been accepted, statistical data on the number of workers protected by the general scheme and the special insurance schemes and the percentage that this number represents in relation to the total number of employees. The Committee also hopes that the Government will make every effort to supply information on the level of the benefits provided for the contingencies covered by each of the Parts of the Convention which have been accepted and the percentage that they represent of the previous earnings of the beneficiary or of the wage of an ordinary adult male labourer (an "unskilled worker") with the same family responsibilities as the beneficiary.

7. With respect more particularly to Part VI (Employment injury benefit), Article 36, paragraph 2, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether, and if so under which provisions, periodical benefits are paid to the victims of employment injury for whom the degree of incapacity is less than 50 per cent.

8. Finally, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply the full texts of Act No. 1836 of 1989, Act No. 1874 of 1990 and Act No. 1976 of 1991.

CMNT_TITLE

I. With reference to its observation, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the following points.

1. Part IV (Unemployment Benefit). The Committee again notes that the Government's report contains no information on the application of this Part of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee can only reiterate the hope that the Government will not fail in its next report to provide the detailed information on the application of each Article of Part IV of the Convention, taking due account of the provisions of Act No. 1545 of 1985 respecting protection against unemployment, and that it will provide in particular, the statistical information that is necessary to verify that the scope and level of unemployment benefits attain the level set in the Convention.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide the text of section 5 of Act No. 2112 of 1920 and section 6 of the Royal Decree of 16 November 1920, referred to in section 7, subsection 3 of Act No. 1545 of 1985.

2. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, in all its future reports, for each of the Parts of the Convention it has accepted, the statistical data, particularly concerning the level of benefits, required by the report form adopted by the Governing Body, in addition to general information on these Parts of the Convention.

II. Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the adoption of Act No. 1902 of 11 October 1990 issuing regulations on pensions and other related matters. It would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on the implementation of the above Act as it concerns the relevant Parts of the Convention that have been accepted.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.]

CMNT_TITLE

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government's report contains no new information on certain points raised previously. Accordingly, the Committee must address the question again in a new direct request in the hope that the Government will not fail to communicate the information requested.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous direct request concerning Part III (Sickness Benefit), Article 16, of the Convention, and Part VI (Employment Injury Benefit), Article 36 (in conjunction with Article 65, paragraphs 1 and 3).

The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would supply information on the following points.

1. Part IV (Unemployment Benefit). The Committee is bound to note once again that the Government's report contains no information on the application of this Part of the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee can only hope that the Government will not fail to supply detailed information in its next report on the application of each Article of Part IV of the Convention, taking due account of the provisions of new Act No. 1545 of 1985 respecting protection against unemployment and that, in particular, it will supply the statistical information that is necessary to verify that the scope and level of unemployment benefits attains the level set in the Convention.

The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would supply the text of section 5 of Act No. 2112 of 1920 and section 6 of the Royal Decree of 16 November 1920, which are referred to in section 7(3) of Act No. 1545 of 1985.

2. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply, in all its future reports, for each of the Parts of the Convention that it has accepted, the statistical data required by the report form adopted by the Governing Body, in addition to general information on the application of these Parts. [The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1990.]