Lobbying !

[Cat]

Right, I've joined the other thread to this one, changed the post titles, and unlocked the thread.

[mnottingham]

Dear All,

Firstly can I apologise for not responding personally to all those who have written in with their details. I am away from my office at Labour Party Conference but do please keep the flow of information coming.

Mary Honeyball MEP is doing a number of press interviews to publicise the current concerns and this has featured in this mornings Daily Telegraph.

Mary is also in the process of submitting a question to the European Commission today seeking the EU to take action on this matter.

Please keep th e-mails coming to [email protected]

many thanks

Mark Nottingham
Political Manager
Mary Honeyball MEP

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/25/nexpats125.xml

[cooperlola]

And may I add all our thanks for the work you are doing on our behalf, Mary and Mark.  It is good to know that there is somebody who will speak up for us, particularly those who have health problems for whom this is a most distressing time.

[ams]

No problem.

 

Just talked with the secretary of Kathy Sinnott MEP chairperson of the committee on petitions. Basically she has told me that if the same regulations must apply to French citizens, if that is not the case then the French Government will be in breach of EU regulations on the basis of discrimination. The matter will be raised by K Sinnott in Strasbourg today and hopefully she will get back to me.

 

 

Apparently any EU citizen can petition the EU at no cost to themselves.

 

ams

[ali-cat]

Great news re the Telegraph article.

I've been digging around a little on the original Directive which prompted all of this.  The impression I've had to date is that the new French regulations are aimed at discouraging inactives from moving from member state to member state.  In reality it appears that there was a corpus of existing  EU legislation to ease the movement of workers and that EC 2004/38 is aimed at consolidating the existing legislation and making it easier for all EU citizens, whether active or inactive, to move by for example removing the requirement for residence permits etc.  The only requirement for inactives is that they are not a burden and therefore the requirement for private health insurance ; See link

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:AMq0Oby9kD0J:www.ecas.org/file_uploads/1008.pdf+directive+2004/38&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk

Also see page 8 of the attached discussion of Directive 2004/38

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:9HkW9WzTfioJ:www.ecas.org/file_uploads/1209.pdf+directive+ec+2004/38+health+gap&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

One of the key elements of the Directive was to introduce a permanent right to residence in a host member state which generally applies after 5 years residence and which thereafter is not subject to conditions of health insurance or self-sufficiency.

This presumably is where the 5 year issue originates and would suggest that the requirement of inactives to hold private health insurance lapses once the permanent right of residence kicks in. 

This seems to suggest that existing residents need to 'only' bridge the 5 year gap although I fear the issue of existing medical conditions was not anticipated in these provisions. Is it in compliance with other EC law that citizens can be left without any access to healthcare as a result?     Presumably thereafter we assume the same rights as French citizens - but I don't know enough about CMU to know if this means inactives can then join?  I was led to believe by a local (i.e. French) that a person with full contributions who is early retired is entitled to remain in the system for 5 years only and thereafter would presumably have to find work again if they haven't reached state retirement age?

Finally I've had some limited experience of transposing EU Directives in my previous life back in Northern Ireland.  Standard procedure is to carry out comprehensive consultation on the policy and draft legislation required to transpose the Directive into national legislation.  Additionally (perhaps NI specific) an equality impact assessment (EQIA) must be carried out to ensure that no group is disproportionately impacted by the proposals.  Given the previous lack of knowledge of these proposals here and on other forums is it reasonable to assume that this disproportionately affected group was not adequately consulted?

 Mr Cat

 

[ams]

Just in to my mail box,

 

Initial question tabled to the Commission.

 

Written question by Proinsias De Rossa MEP.

Subject Directive on Rights to Residency and France.

 

Can the commission indicate whether it is examining whether France has correctly transposed and is correctly applying Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of residence, to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States into French law, particularly in relation to the entitlements of EU nationals from other Member States to state health care.?

 

What is the current status of its investigations into this matter.?

 

What action will it take if it concludes France is failing to meet its obligations under EU legislation.?

[londoneye]

I have emailed Ms Honeyball.    Still willing to lobby anyone else who should be ..........   have contacted a few people who do not belong to this forum and sent them Ms Honeyball's email also.   Hopefully they will also contact her.

 

[cooperlola]

Londoneye, I think that it is worth getting your own MEPs on side as well as Ms Honeyball.

The easiest way to do this is to use Makfai's link here

http://www.writetothem.com/

where you can "blanket" e-mail all your Euro MPs. 

Clair is kindly working on some French wording so that those who vote for MEPs here, can contact them also.  If you do write to them, then I suggest that you mention that Mary Honeyball is working on this - the more representatives whom we can get on side, the more clout I imagine she will have, but maybe she and Mark should give their views on this as a strategy.

Don't forget your own MP either.  I have e-mailed Anne Widdecombe (mine) and await a reply.

[cooperlola]

Re the Dutch and other Europeans who may be affected.  I have had some response and a few people are looking at this for me

http://www.clubarnage.com/forum/index.php?topic=7704.msg101378#msg101378

specifically Paddy, whose parents live here.

[Clair]

[quote user="cooperlola"]Clair is kindly working on some French wording[/quote]

This is a translation of Cooperlola's email to Mary Honeyball MP. I have done this relatively quickly and I am happy with it, but please feel free to have it checked...

Please edit if/as required for your own use.

[quote]Madame, Monsieur,

Comme vous pouvez le voir par cette discussion http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1029167/ShowPost.aspx, certains

d'entre nous,

cherchent à obtenir des clarifications concernant la réforme des conditions d'affiliation à la CMU pour les ressortissants inactifs britanniques et, par la suite, s'il y a manière de contester ces

décisions.

Plusieurs points doivent être éclaircis:

1 - Les informations contradictoires et manquant de précision, venant de diverses sources officielles :

a. Notre

propre ambassade à Paris a annoncé,

dans plusieurs Émail aux membres du forum et à d'autres personnes,

qu'ils avaient été assurés par le

Ministère français de la Santé que les résidents britanniques déjà

affiliés à la CMU seraient pas concernés par la réforme . Un article

dans

le quotidien Daily Telegraph l'a également confirmé: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&targetRule=10&xml=/global/2007/09/18/healthcare-in-france.xml

De son côté, le communiqué officiel français donne une version bien différente: http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm. Le paragraphe 3 déclare que ceux déjà affiliés à la CMU en seront exclus après 6 mois.

b. Il

n'y a aucune

clarification concernant la manière dont ceux qui bénéficient à présent de

la couverture E106 du Royaume-Uni

seront touchés par cette réforme. Pour beaucoup d'entre eux, la date d'expiration de leur couverture E106 est

fixée à janvier 2008. Personne n'a indiqué s'ils seront en

mesure de s'affilier à la CMU pour 6 mois supplémentaires ou juste

jusqu'à la date butoir donnée à ceux qui sont déjà affiliés de plein

droit, à savoir le 31.3.2008.

c. Si on accepte le communiqué français

comme étant le communiqué final, le terme inactif

n'est pas clairement défini. Beaucoup de ceux qui vivent sur des

retraites privées ne sont ni salariés ni travailleurs indépendants,

mais ils contribuent en France par le biais de l'impôt sur

le revenu, frais de santé etc... En fait, un certain nombre d'entre eux

ont déjà atteint l'âge français de la retraite pour

leurs secteurs professionnels. Ces personnes sont-elles inactives, retraitées ou pensionnées ?

2.

En supposant que le communiqué français soit final, ce

qui est toujours en doute, de nombreuses personnes ont des états

préexistants de santé - liées au diabète, au cancer, aux accidents cardiaques ou autres - nécessitant

des soins continus. Elles vont se trouver sans aucune couverture

médicale, sachant que les conditions existantes ne sont pas couvertes par

les assurance privées.

Il

est important de signaler que, avant ce changement, ces personnes étaient obligées par la loi

de joindre la CMU.

En d'autres termes, ils enfreignaient la loi en souscrivant une

assurance médicale privée. Le gouvernement français nous dit

qu'on leur a permis de joindre la CMU « par erreur ». S'il y a eu une erreur,

elle n'a pas été commise par ces personnes. Pourquoi doivent-elles en faire les frais?

3. Si le le communiqué français est correct, les nouveaux arrivants en France ne sont pas couverts. Ceci est clair. Cependant,

le site web de la CPAM

n'a pas encore été mis à jour pour refléter ces

changements. Il est donc certain qu'il y a, en ce moment même, des

personnes en pleine démarche d'achat ou d'aménagement, peut-être en

train  de signer des compromis ou des contrats de ventes, que se soit en France ou au Royaume-Uni, qu'ils ne pourront pas honorer.

N'y a-t-il pas un devoir de diligence entre les Etats Membres de l'EU pour que les nouveaux arrivants soient mis au courant des dispositions légales concernant les obligations relatives à leurs frais de santé?

4. Le communiqué français se réfère spécifiquement aux Britanniques. Sommes-nous traités de manière particulière ou d'autres Européens sont-ils

pareillement touchés ? Notre savoir limité nous mène à croire que les citoyens

n'appartenant pas à l'UE peuvent et pourront toujours joindre la CMU.

Est-ce vrai

? Et dans l'affirmative, pourquoi sommes-nous ainsi discriminés ?

5. Notre

propre gouvernement n'a-t-il pas une obligation -

légale ou morale - de soutenir ces personnes ? Et plus

spécifiquement, les personnes décrites ci-dessus sous le point 2, qui

pourraient être sous une menace, dans certains cas mortelle, et dans

d'autres cas, dans la mesure où leur

maison et leur subsistance sont sous risque grave. Bien qu'ils aient physiquement abandonné le Royaume-Uni, ils auront contribué à la National Insurance pendant les 30 ans jugés statutaires et, s'ils ont des retraites du secteur public,

continuent à payer leurs impôts sur le revenu au Royaume-Uni.

Notre position est claire. L'application

rétrospective de ce changement est injuste et pourrait

véritablement menacer l'habilitée de nombreuses personnes à continuer à habiter en

France. Elles pourraient se trouver forcées de retourner au Royaume-Uni et devenir

un fardeau pour l'état.

Pour

le Royaume-Uni cette possibilité pourrait être plus coûteuse que le

prolongement de la couverture E106 jusqu'à ce que

l'éligibilité au E121 soit atteint. Étant donné que les nouveaux

arrivants en France seront informés des changements, le coût serait

défini par le nombre des pré-E121 et serait également limité.

Pour le gouvernement français,

ces personnes cesseraient de contribuer à l'économie française,

et en fait dans certaines régions, le prix de logements ainsi que l'économie locale pourraient être

sévèrement déstabilisés.

En outre, étant

donné que des contributions de CMU sont payées par le Royaume-Uni une

fois l'âge de la retraite atteint, de nombreux inactifs apportent beaucoup plus à

la  CMU

qu'ils n'en reçoivent. Cette contribution aux coffres de l'état

français de santé

cessera. Elle ira directement dans les coffres du secteur privé et plus

spécifiquement, dans les coffres des assurances britanniques, car peu

ou pas de compagnies françaises offrent des contrats d'assurance

médicale adéquats.

Merci d'avoir pris le temps de lire ce message. J'attends vos commentaires avec grand intérêt.

[/quote]

[suein56]

Gosh Clair what a star you are!!!

*******************

Sue

edit: and Coops natch! [:)][:)]

 

[cooperlola]

Thanks so much Clair!  Agreed, you are a star.

Get e-mailing your French MEPs now.

You can find them here

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch/zoneList.do?country=FR&language=EN

Ooh, thanks SPG [:$]

[LisaJ]

And we have just made it onto the one o'clock news on BBC!

regards

Lisa

[cooperlola]

I have always been a great believer in speaking up (I was a union rep' for years back when I was a humble railway clerk) for yourself, and for others, and for the power of lobbying - the more people who shout - the better they will be heard.  Personally, I'm in the "not badly affected" bracket as I have no pre-existing conditions (I haven't seen a doctor for 15 years - and then it was for a broken leg) and we can afford the insurance premiums with the odd little bit of belt-tightening.  But this is really important and potentially life-threatening or life-changing for some.

Our voice is beginning to be heard so, please, please, even if this is not directly affecting you, please join in.  Speak up for what you believe in and defend your rights, and those of others. (And might I add, not just for this, but on every subject that it close to your heart - if anything proves that politics is about you - this does.)

Gets off soap box.

[Clair]

[quote user="spg"]Gosh Clair what a star you are!!! [/quote]

Thanks you Sue and Coops [:$]

[Ninthace]

Cooperlola, I think you may be missing a trick by thinking you are in "not badly affected bracket".  Like you, I may be able to get through next year with a bit of belt tightening but what if sometime next year I have a medical problem?  First of all I will hesitate to go to the doctor because of the potential impact of any treatment on the following year's premium.  Secondly, if it is something serious, could I continue to get insurance?  In either case this could radically affect my position and force my return to UK.  As result, I may end up shelling out the premium for a policy that I am reluctant to use just so I can stay in France.  I am now off to join the lobby!

 

[mnottingham]

Dear  All,

Many thanks for the e-mails, please keep them coming which will be answered in duec ourse. Do also feel free to cross post my posts into more relevant threads as I am sorry O do not have time to follow all of you. The story was on BBC1 TV 1pm news and is scheduled but not guaranteed to appear on the 6pm and 10pm bulletins. Mary is now working with European Colleagues whose nationals are also affected, in particular Proinsas de Rossas from the Irish Labour Party.

Mary's question submitted to the Commission says

"Is the Commission aware that as of 30th September 2007 the French government is going to require all British ex-pats living in France who are under the age of 65 and not working to take out private medical insurance at great expense?

 

This matter has been brought to my attention by a former constituent who is unable to work due to a disability and may be forced to move her family back to the UK as they are unable to meet the high costs of private health insurance? Due to a pre-existing medical condition it will be virtually impossible for her to obtain reasonably priced health insurance.  Would the Commission accept that an exception should be made for those with pre-existing conditions?

 

Does the Commission see this requirement to purchase private health insurance as a restriction on the free movement of citizens within the EU and the rights to reside in any member state, and will it consider taking action to rectify this?"

 

Any suggestions for further relevant questions please e-mail suggestions to [email protected]

 

We are expecting further media coverage tomorrow. Keep on campaigning!

 

Best regards

Mark Nottingham

Political manager to

Mary Honeyball MEP

 

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Ninthace"]

Cooperlola, I think you may be missing a trick by thinking you are in "not badly affected bracket".  Like you, I may be able to get through next year with a bit of belt tightening but what if sometime next year I have a medical problem?  First of all I will hesitate to go to the doctor because of the potential impact of any treatment on the following year's premium.  Secondly, if it is something serious, could I continue to get insurance?  In either case this could radically affect my position and force my return to UK.  As result, I may end up shelling out the premium for a policy that I am reluctant to use just so I can stay in France.  I am now off to join the lobby!

 

[/quote]Of course that has occured to me, but I guess my point is that just because you feel "OK" and that you'll cope, it doesn't mean that you should just lie down and ignore this.  As you say, and as I've said before on more than one occasion, "There but for the grace of whomever, go all of us.."

It is also one of the reasons that I'm trying to come at this from the other direction at the same time, and am talking to possible healthcare providers to see if we can get some cover for the unfortunate ones in all this - should all else fail.  If this happens then all of us who have the kind gift of 6 months more CMU cover will have to ask ourselves whether we should take the cheap option, or pay for more expensive private care just in case something dire happens to us in the meantime.

[cooperlola]

I have had a response from one of the UK MEPs who represents me (for my sins!) and who was swept up in the multiple e-mail system.  As it is pretty much a political rant, and not helpful, I will not publish it here, but anybody who is interested in seeing it, should pm me.

[Benjamin]

If there are negatives coming out and providing the MEP's reply and you posting it stays within the forum code then let's have a look at so we know what we're up against.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Benjamin"]If there are negatives coming out and providing the MEP's reply and you posting it stays within the forum code then let's have a look at so we know what we're up against.



[/quote]It is not negative in terms of advice exactly, but is most certainly contrary to forum rules in that it is highly political in nature.  I'll pm you a copy, Benjamin so you can let me know what you think.

[Benjamin]

I personally don't think it infringes the forum code one bit as this person makes his living from being a "politician" but I certainly wouldn't give airtime to such rantings which is probably one of a few standard responses he uses because he can't be bothered to look at people's real concerns and answer them accordingly.

File 13 I think is probably the best place for it but thanks for sending it over. I haven't read such a load of political bigotry in quite some time although he clearly garners support from some or else he wouldn't be where he is today plying his trade.

[makfai]

[quote user="ali-cat"]

Finally I've had some limited experience of transposing EU Directives in my previous life back in Northern Ireland.  Standard procedure is to carry out comprehensive consultation on the policy and draft legislation required to transpose the Directive into national legislation.  Additionally (perhaps NI specific) an equality impact assessment (EQIA) must be carried out to ensure that no group is disproportionately impacted by the proposals.  Given the previous lack of knowledge of these proposals here and on other forums is it reasonable to assume that this disproportionately affected group was not adequately consulted?

 Mr Cat

[/quote]

Article 34 of the Directive also said there should be 'awareness-raising campaigns'....don't remember them!

Article 34

Publicity

Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted through national and local media and other means of communication.

[makfai]

This is not a UK party political matter and I am not affiliated to any party but I noticed that certainly the Conservatives are trying to attract expat voters to their cause - see their site at http://www.conservativesabroad.org/ and wondered of we could use this to increase pressure.

I thought that we could use this site to publish our concerns (there are message boards/blogs) but could also, if writing to Conservative MPs or MEPs, mention the Conservatives Abroad initiative and emphasise that how they deal with our problem will be a good test of whether the expat should vote for them or not!

[makfai]

I have sent a further letter (copy below for those who may be interested) off to my coterie of MEPs but have been underwhelmed by their response so far!  Only Mary Honeyball from my list has done anything!

 

FOR THE ATTENTION OF:

Brian Simpson MEP
Den Dover MEP
John Whittaker MEP
Gary Titley MEP
Arlene McCarthy MEP
David Sumberg MEP
Sajjad Karim MEP
Robert Atkins MEP
Chris Davies MEP

Mary Honeyball MEP

 

Dear David Sumberg, Den Dover, Gary Titley, Arlene McCarthy, Sajjad Karim, Robert Atkins, Chris Davies, Brian Simpson, John Whittaker, and Mary Honeyball

 

FRENCH HEALTH CARE

 

I refer to my previous letter of 22 September 2007 in which I dealt predominantly with the retrospective aspect of the application of the latest rules on French health care. As indicated, I am writing to you again to provide more detail.

 

E106 holders - Equitability

The information we have from the French Government is contained in a statement available on-line at http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

 

Paragraph 3 of that statement says:

3) Pour les personnes inactives qui bénéficiaient déjà de la CMU du fait de la réglementation antérieure, il leur est accordé un délai pour 6 mois, à compter du 1er octobre 2007, pour s'affilier à une assurance privée. Pendant cette période, ils continueront à être couverts par la CMU.

In summary, this means that residents whose E106 has expired but are already registered with the CMU have 6 months from 1 October 2007 to find private health insurance

 

The French Government could obviously see the need for a grace period in regard to CMU holders but it appears to be unconcerned about those E106 holders who are faced with similar difficulties. I believe the 6 month's grace period granted to people in the CMU is inequitable as it does not apply to those whose E106 might expire before 1 April 2008.

 

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter how your health care is being funded now (via CMU or via E106) it is all about the practicalities of finding an alternative provider in the future. If those in the CMU category need a grace period then surely those in the E106 category require the same. Once again it is relevant to point out that the French do not have an active, competitive insurance industry in the health care field because it has never been needed.  People had by law to join the state system.  This means that the French (and other) insurance companies are still gearing-up to produce marketable policies.

I appreciate that the plight of the E106 holders might have appeared to be a difficult problem for the French administration to address as it could mean signing someone up for the CMU for just a month or so – but some arrangement should have been made. 

 

Article 37 of the EU Directive which gives rise to this legislation (which can be found on-line at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_229/l_22920040629en00350048.pdf) says:

 

Article 37

More favourable national provisions

The provisions of this Directive shall not affect any laws, regulations or administrative provisions laid down by a Member State which would be more favourable to the persons covered by this Directive.

 

This clearly gives the French Government latitude in making temporary arrangements which could address the problem for these E106 holders.

 

However, the UK Government may also be able to help here by agreeing to extend anyone's E106 until the same extension date for people already in the CMU. This would be in order not only on the grounds of equitability but also practicality - it would give time for the insurance industry to come up with products. With this in mind I would recommend that consideration be given to the plight of those whose E106 cover will expire before 1 April 2008.

 

Publicity

Article 34 of the EU Directive says:

 

Article 34

Publicity

Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted through national and local media and other means of communication.

 

It is clear that this matter was not given the publicity it deserved particularly bearing in mind that the Directive was signed in April 2004.  

 

This lack of publicity aggravates the situation for all concerned as it has failed to promote a timely response from insurance providers who are now scrambling to prepare products.

 

In addition, it has left those residents who are affected with less than a reasonable amount of time to make plans.  Once again it has to be emphasised that the Directive was signed over three years ago in April 2004.

 

In the same vein the British Embassy has been out of touch with the reality of the French position since the news first broke towards the end of August 2007 that something was in the offing.

 

On the 11 September 2007 the Embassy wrote to me saying that

‘For info, reassurance from the Health Ministry that the tightening of rules on healthcare provision will not be retrospective, so early retiree Brits already residing in France will be unaffected - they can continue to access healthcare. But the rules are different for newcomers - they will need medical cover pre-arrival (eg through the E106 form or if they don't qualify, then private insurance) and to cover any gap between the expiry of their E106 form and the time they turn retirement age.’ 

The statement about existing residents was totally wrong!

 

I queried this and on 14 September 2007 the Embassy wrote to me saying that

‘However, the French Ministry of Health have assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.’

Again this was totally inaccurate! I queried it again.

 

On the 19 September 2007 the Embassy wrote to me saying that

‘However, the French Ministry of Health has assured us that the provision of healthcare to people already resident in France and subscribed through the French system will not be affected.’ 

This was not only wrong but contradicted the French statement which the Embassy in the same email had drawn my attention to. The Embassy did not amend its position until it emailed me on 24 September 2007.

 

Even now, in their email to me of 24 September 2007 (extract below) the Embassy quotes arrangements for people with over 5 years residence.  This arrangement is not covered in the French statement on the subject so, bearing in mind previous errors, I am concerned about its accuracy.

 

Extract from email

‘All inactive EU citizens already accessing CMU healthcare coverage will continue to do so until 31 March 2008 after which they will be required to have their own personal medical insurance, unless their inactive status changes in the meantime. All inactive EU citizens under retirement age (i.e. those already resident in France and those planning to move in future) who are not entitled to healthcare reimbursement (through the E106 or E109 forms), will be required to have their own personal medical insurance until they reach UK retirement age (and therefore qualify for entitlement to the E121 form), or until they qualify as a French resident (which is after 5 years of regular, uninterrupted residence). People already over retirement age who are holders of an E121 which is registered with the French authorities will remain unaffected.’

 

Sanctions

Article 36 (see below) of the Directive says that sanctions for breaches of the rules should be notified to the Commission by 30 April 2006.  There has been no publicity given to what these sanctions are or to the procedures by which they will be administered and appealed.  This further reinforces the allegation that the French Government has failed to afford those affected reasonable publicity about changes.

 

 Article 36

Sanctions

Member States shall lay down provisions on the sanctions applicable to breaches of national rules adopted for the implementation of this Directive and shall take the measures required for their application. The sanctions laid down shall be effective and proportionate. Member States shall notify the Commission of these provisions not later than 30 April 2006 and as promptly as possible in the case of any subsequent changes.

 

Private Insurance and Chronic Conditions

I wonder what happens to people who will take out private insurance and subsequently develop chronic problems.  Insurances are normally designed only to cover acute problems and the initial treatment of newly identified chronic problems.  The insurance companies are not obliged to renew and people could find themselves without insurance down the line.  Surely it cannot be fair that these people would then simply have to sell up and return to UK?

 

E106 and Chronic Conditions

Similarly, someone could arrive in France on an E106 and during the 2 year cover this provides they could be diagnosed with a chronic problem.  This would create a pre-condition which would prevent them getting insurance.  Once again they would then be forced to leave.  Can this be fair?

 

Application of Rules in France

I am still not clear why the French statement applies only to ‘les ressortissants britanniques inactifs’.  Are the rules different for non-British residents and if so why?  I have posed this question to the British Embassy in Paris but although they replied to my email they did not address this question.

 

Application of Rules in UK

What is the position in regard to Health Care in UK?

 

Paragraph 4 (1) (c) of the Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1003 The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (found on-line at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061003.htm#13)

contains a similar provision to that which the French have introduced but using the term ‘self-sufficient person’ rather than the French ‘inactive’.  Such a person is defined as:

 

(c) "self-sufficient person" means a person who has—

(i)                  sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the United Kingdom during his period of residence; and

(ii)                comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the United Kingdom;

 

 I would like to know what action we take in respect of the enforcement of this legislation.

 

Final Comment

 

This very serious issue appears to have been poorly handled by the French and also the British Embassy staff.

 

We certainly need clarity on the issues and we need support in attempting to address those issues which have posed an unreasonable burden on existing residents.

 

I thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

 

Yours sincerely