Lobbying !

[cooperlola]

Funny how this has happened after one of us had to point out to a conservative MP a couple of days ago, that we could actually vote in the UK!  Guess they're feeling a bit daft that they've let the Labour and Lib Dem MEPs steal the march with Mary H's declaration.[Www]

[cooperlola]

From the Telegraph on line today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/11/05/cmfrance05.xml

[Ron Avery]

Quite accurate summary up to the last sentence ( not sure the five year thing is a fact or not though ) but then he let himself down with this. 

"British Members of the European Parliament are lobbying the French over the issue, but for now the country's hospital doors remain firmly closed to thousands of British expats." 

 or should that be open until March 2008?

[Joshua]

I've written and emailed about 40 MP's and MEP's and David Cameron was the only one to email back.

The letters may follow, what with addresses  being c/o the Houses of  P.............. etc

I've put my case forward at the Conservative Website you suggested. Coops

Anyway some progress !

Joshua[:D]

[rothrugby]

Just posted comments on the Conservatives Abroad website as suggested

[Suninfrance]

Can't see anything similar on the Labour Party website - maybe we write to remind them also, that we can vote abroad. 

Also noticed that as yet, there are no comments on the Conservative website.  Will be adding mine soon.

[cooperlola]

Lots of comments this morning.  Can't think who that woman at the top is who can't tell her they're from her their![Www]

[Sunday Driver]

She was obviously having a bad 'there' day........[;-)]

 

[cooperlola]

Groan.[:D]

[makfai]

Am sending the below message out today.  Anyone wanting to copy it to their own lobbying 'targets' is welcome to do so and put their own name to it...or change it to say whatever they want.

There are indications that the French Government is considering a change in its policy to exclude some existing residents from the need to seek private healthcare (see: ‘Point d'information: Affiliation à la CMU pour les ressortissants britanniques inactifs’ at http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm).  For more information please see: http://www.french-property.com/newsletter/2007/11/5/

 

However, there are concerns that the criterion to be adopted will be that a person must have become affiliated to the CMU [part of the French healthcare system] on or before 30 September 2007.  Whilst this would be a welcome relief to many it would create a serious inequality which could be addressed before the announcement was made.

 

If the criterion is to be based on affiliation to the CMU and not residence then those resident in France on ‘E’ forms (e.g. E106; 121; 109) will not be included. Once the cover of their E form becomes invalid (e.g. E106 expires or E121 eligibility on incapacity grounds is lost) then those residents would have to seek commercial health insurance.  This could create a situation where, for example, a person resident in France for two-and-a-half years on an E106 would not be entitled to French state healthcare while someone who had not qualified for an E106 because of inadequate UK National Insurance contributions and had only arrived in France in the autumn of 2007 and had then affiliated to the CMU on or before 30 September 2007 would be entitled to state healthcare. This would be inequitable.

 

The remedy to this would be to persuade the French Government that the criterion should be based on RESIDENCE in France on or before 30 September and not affiliation to the CMU.

 

This would not only be equitable but logical as the French legislation 

 

• ‘LOI no 2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 relative à l’immigration et à l’intégration’

and

• ‘Décret n° 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007 relatif au droit de séjour en France des citoyens de l'Union européenne, des ressortissants des autres Etats parties à l'Espace économique européen et de la Confédération suisse ainsi que des membres de leur famille’

and

• the original EU Directive 2004/38EC

 

are all RESIDENCE related legislation and not ‘healthcare’ legislation. It is, therefore, more logical to create a criterion based on residence rather than access to ‘healthcare’.

 

It is felt that it would be a more constructive approach to lobby the French Government on this issue BEFORE any official announcement is made rather than afterwards and your support in doing this now is sought as a matter of urgency.

 

[cooperlola]

FHI has now also added some template letters which you can use to send to your CPAM and French government ministers, if your E106 is due to expire in January.

http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/lobbying/lobbying_letters_1.htm

[makfai]

[quote user="makfai"]

Am sending the below message out today.  Anyone wanting to copy it to their own lobbying 'targets' is welcome to do so and put their own name to it...or change it to say whatever they want.

'There are indications...' etc

[/quote]

 

I have just heard from one of the Labour MEPs for my region (Brian Simpson) and he has forwarded the above message on 'E' Form holders to

Commissioner Markos Kyprianou
Commissioner for Health & Consumer Protection
European Commission
Rue de la Loi 200
B-1049
Brussels

Such a rapid response is refreshing!

[cooperlola]

Great stuff.  Might I suggest that anybody writing on this subject, copies Mr Kyprianou in on all the correspondance?

[londoneye]

Great stuff both of you.

Will start emailing / writing tomorrow.

[makfai]

Here's one which I know you will all enjoy.[:D]

I have posted it on the Conservatives Abroad site so that people visiting the site will see the level of support they might expect!

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [email protected]

To: .............................

Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:53 PM

Subject: French Healthcare

Dear......................

 

Many thanks for your informative response which I discussed with my Conservative colleagues and which elicited the following view:

 

As Conservatives understand the proposal, it would cover foreign residents who retire early to France and it does not affect people who have retired at retirement age.  President Sarkozy apparently said that he had no objection to people retiring early, but that they could not expect French taxpayers to pay for them to do so.

 

It is not dissimilar to the rule in the UK, where non-British citizens are expected to pay for treatment they have in this country – or to have insurance that covers this. The problem is that British hospitals and clinics have often not bothered to claim from such patients.

 

Meanwhile, although the French decision is highly unhelpful to people such as yourself, and in my view has been singularly badly handled, the French Government is fully within its legal right to change its legislation in the way that it has. It does not go against EU law, and therefore there is to be honest nothing that MEPs can do – other than try and get some cheap “brownie points” with constituents by pretending that they can. I personally do not think it is fair to you to kid you along like this.

 

The best way for you to press your case is to ask the UK Government to urge the French Government to reconsider further adjustments to the legislation. It is a long shot, but it is in my view the correct route to follow. 

 

On a separate point, the Commission will shortly be coming forward with new and fuller proposals to cover EU citizens who go to another Member State with health needs in future.  The old E111, E112 and E121 systems have been overtaken by the Judgements of the European Court of Justice and there now needs to be legal certainty and clear guidance on what people’s rights are.

 

Kind regards

 

The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins MEP

[makfai]

I have replied to my concerned Conservative MEP as follows:

To:    The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins MEP

 

Thank you for your illuminating correspondence.

 

Clearly you do not see this as an EU issue.  I feel that is a pity at a time when the Conservatives Abroad website has just launched an initiative to enlist comments on the subject. 

 

Of course the French, like any Member State can,as you say change laws but that has not always resulted in such changes being held to be compatible with EU legislation and interpretation. To dismiss the issue simply because a Government has the authority to change legislation misses the point.

 

It is also equally rather surprising that you state so positively that  'It does not go against EU law'.  Legal advice has been sought from the EU Signpost Service on whether or not the French legislation conflicts with Article 24 (on Equality) of the EU Directive .  The French legislation does not extend the rules reflected in Article 7 of the EU Directive in a like fashion to its own nationals in France and clarification was sought over whether this contravened Article 24.  The legal advice was as follows:

 

'Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 states that:

“Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty. The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the right of residence or permanent residence.”

This means that any derogation to the principle of equal treatment must be explicitly stated in the Treaty or in secondary law which includes EU legislative measures such as Directives, Regulations and Decisions as interpreted by the case law of the European Court of Justice.

An example of such a derogation is contained in Paragraph 2 of Article 24, which limits the right to equal treatment as regards “entitlement to social assistance during the first three months of residence or” and assistance by way of “student grants or student loans”.

Article 7 of the Directive lays down a right to residence for periods in excess of 3 months for students, workers and self-sufficient persons. It does not lay down any exceptions other than paragraph 4 of Article 7 in respect of family members who qualify for a right to reside with a student.'

 

Frankly, I am rather surprised with your confidence in the legality of the issue in the face of these concerns widely expressed to several EU Citizens by the EU Signpost Service. If the Signpost Service IS correct then I would have expected MEPs in my region - of whatever party - to be aware of this legal possibility and to press this issue further and with vigour.

 

However, you say you are reflecting the position 'as Conservatives understand' it so I assume you have all satisfied yourselves that the position of the EU Signpost Service and others who hold the same view is wrong.  In which case, maybe we will just have to look elsewhere than the Conservative Party for support.

 

From my own point of view, I have to say that I am disappointed with the overall position of the Conservatives as reflected in your reply. One of the main pieces of legislation in the EU is the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2000/C 364/01). I would draw your attention, in particular, to the following Articles

Article 1

Human dignity

Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.

 

Article 35

Health care

Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.

Legal or not as the French action may be - if it is your and your party's view that the effects of this French legislation supports or advances those two Articles then we do not share the same view of the Charter's principles.   I would draw your attention to just one 'real-life' example: http://www.totalfrance.com/france/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35338

 

'Some of you will know our situation via my discussion threads but we are now too close for comfort to the end of our E106. Keith is in St Junien hospital again for his 9th operation since June this year I have told the consultant he cannot have the next lot of surgery needed as our E106 expires 5th January 2008 and we will not be part of the system, he does not believe our situation, has not heard of the new directive and says the Prise en charge a 100% pour affection de longue duree will cover us. CPAM say come and see them when the E106 runs out and our bank credit mutual in confolons say they do not understand why I am asking for 100% cover to replace my top up. We have a nurse who visits daily consultant visits weekly and tests galor all of which cost money so I am trying to get some kind of cover in place but am failing. Is anyone else in this situation? How can I get the message across that we need continuity of care?'

 

I hope this example makes the situation more clear and highlights the desperate plight of some caught in this particular E106 'trap' which I drew to your attention on 6 November 2007.  If these people had never been granted an E106 by the UK they would have been already in the CMU and would then have received the 6 month extension and (hopefully, if rumours are correct) enjoyed continued coverage under the CMU.

 

Who cannot but see that this decision is wrong on the grounds of equality and humanity? In fact even the UK Government could help here by extending the E106 cover at least until the end of March to give E106 holders parity with residents in the CMU who have received the 6 month extension.  However, I see that even that aspect has not been given support.

 

I do not see why lobbying by MEPs on the issues raised with you since this matter first arose is not merited.

 

 

 

Regards

[Lenht1951]

Absolutely bl00dy brilliant. [:D]

[:P] to the Conservatives abroad

[Russethouse]

Perhaps some one should forward the correspondance to Jeremy Vine ahead of his broadcast from France next week.

Maybe that would concentrate this MEPs mind !

[makfai]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Perhaps some one should forward the correspondance to Jeremy Vine ahead of his broadcast from France next week.

Maybe that would concentrate this MEPs mind !

[/quote]

 

If anyone has a contact for him I would be happy to do so!

[cooperlola]

Makfai, I have contacted them and asked to be on the show!  If you want his details, the contact is on the Jeremy Vine thread.

Edit here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio2_aod.shtml?radio2/r2_vine

[makfai]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

Makfai, I have contacted them and asked to be on the show!  If you want his details, the contact is on the Jeremy Vine thread.

Edit here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio2_aod.shtml?radio2/r2_vine

[/quote]

 

Emailed him.  Hope all goes well.....your public will be listening![:-))]

[Deimos]

One thought.  No personal experience of MEPs but in other aspects of life people have been known to say they will do something and then just not do it (for whatever reason).

As Mary Honeyball and Bill Newton Dunn presumably hold and also encourage MEPs to sign, is it worth forwarding positive responses to then so they can "make sure" that people who say they will sign actually do and they can "make some phone calls" if those people delay "getting round to it".

Just a thought.

Ian

[makfai]

[quote user="makfai"]

I have replied to my concerned Conservative MEP as follows:

To:    The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins MEP

 

Thank you for your illuminating correspondence.

 

Clearly you do not see this as an EU issue...............................................

 

 

 

Regards

[/quote]

I have received an email this morning from Sir Robert's assistant saying

Dear Mr .............

Many thanks for your informative response

I am pleased to inform you that after due consideration of your arguments Sir Robert has decided to sign the European Parliament's Written Declaration on health care provision for European Citizens residing in another Member State, which reads:

– having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure -

A. whereas EU law upholds the right to freedom of movement and freedom of residence across the European Union,

B. whereas access to health care is fundamentally important to all citizens

1. Recognises the fundamental principle of reciprocity of health care provision across the European Union,

2. Expresses grave concern that some EU citizens not born in France but legally resident there are being denied state health care provision despite paying all relevant taxes,

3. Recognises that private health care may not be available or affordable for citizens with disabilities or those with existing conditions,

4. Calls on Member States to uphold the principle of reciprocity of health care provision; further calls on Member States not to make changes to health care provision that will deny EU citizens, who are non-nationals access to state health care,

5. Calls on the European Commission to undertake a review of the manner in which Member States generally are operating the principal of reciprocity of health care provision to ensure that all Member States are complying with their obligations under the Treaties in this regard,

6. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States."

Kind regards.

Paul Laffin (Political Assistant)

[LisaJ]

Well done you! The power of informed lobbying...

regards

Lisa

[Benjamin]

 I thought your response to Sir Robert Atkins' original response was brilliantly and succinctly put together.

Taking one of his comments in his first response and since he seemed quite happy to speak on behalf of other Conservative MEPs (which I discussed with my Conservative colleagues) it would be interesting to know how many others have decided to sign the European Parliament's Written Declaration.

Perhaps another burst of emails is in order.