Lobbying !

[cooperlola]

[quote user="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!

[/quote]As I'm a member of, er, shall we say, a different party.., I 'm not sure that my own input would be welcome.[Www]  However, I think this is a good point.  I have already written to my own MP (Anne Widdecombe) but nothing thus far.  I may well give her a nudge (plus the Tory MEPs I have written to ) and mention this at the same time.

Apart from Mary Honeyball and one other MEP who really shouldn't be a part of the European community, let alone one of its representatives - judging by his ranting response to our concerns - I too have had little thus far.  Still, you never know.  I continue to watch my inbox....

[makfai]

[:(] Reply from one of the MEPs to whom I wrote:

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

From: DOVER Den

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

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:45 AM

Subject: RE: French Healthcare

Thanks for your latest letter. This new proposed move by the French government needs to be checked at all stages . I cannot see it being retrospective and I note the period of grace. UK citizens can always opt to return to the UK as you say. I accept that the French private medical system is not up to speed yet.

I can assure you that the MEPs for the UK will watch this most carefully in view of its high importance. UKREP [Edit: see explanation below] will keep us informed on the attitude of the UK government and we will take all necessary action.

Regards

Den Dover MEP

I have written back to him [Www]:

Mr Dover

 

Thank you for that.  Just a couple of points.

 

The ruling has been made retrospective in so far as the requirements for health insurance have been made to apply to people who are existing residents.  I would have thought it only equitable that those accepted for residence under the previous legal terms could continue under those terms.

 

As regards the period of grace, this only applies to those who are in the CMU but not to those whose cover via an E106 will expire in the next sixth months.

 

If any of these people are compelled to return to UK then I believe that this change in policy will be seen as having an unreasonable and disproportionate effect and would, therefore, be unjust.

 

I understand that the policy is based on an EU Directive which has also been adopted in UK. Could you clarify what the position is in UK in regard to enforcement of the UK law on this (see below)?  As UK has the same provision and I would be interested to compare how this is being applied in UK with how it is being applied by our EU neighbours.

 

Paragraph 4 (1) (c) of the Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1003 The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (to be 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;

Once again thank you for your reply.

 

Regards

 

EXPLANATION OF 'UKREP'  (found at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EUInstitutionsLegislation.pdf)

United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union (UKRep)

UKRep is essentially the Brussels arm of the Government Departments in Whitehall and elsewhere. The main job of its staff is to represent the UK in day-to-day negotiations. They are in close and regular contact with the Commission, the European Parliament and other EU institutions, the Council Secretariat and the Permanent Representatives of the other Member States.

UKRep staff can offer up-to-date advice on current Commission activities and the progress of specific Commission proposals in the Council decision-making process. UKRep also provides information on commercial opportunities for British firms under EC programmes and Community export promotion campaigns.

Staff responsibilities are organised around the composition and subject-matter of the different specialist Councils.

[cooperlola]

At least he's replied!

[Chassaing]

Hi everyone!  Like you we have been lobbying MEPs and UK MPs and started Lobbying our insurance company today and have a meeting on Monday. 

What response has the EC questions had, if any?  Does anyone know?

Regards

[makfai]

Another reply. I am putting these up only so people can gauge the reaction for themselves and  to demonstrate that we need as many people to write as possible.  If the Mods think they are taking up too much space then let me know and I will stop posting them.

Arguably I have less credibility than some in this matter as I have not yet taken up residence so a few personal stories to your own MEP could only help.

 

--- Original Message -----

From: ATKINS Robert ASSISTANT

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

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:58 AM

Subject: RE: French Healthcare

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

 

Thank you very much for your recent letter about the French Government’s decision to restrict access to free health and social security benefits. 

 

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

 

I think this is compatible with EU law.  It is similar 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. In many EU countries, you will be expected to sign the appropriate form to take responsibility for payment before you are treated.

 

In practice the British rule has also been that, if someone presents with an infectious disease, it is in our national interest that they should be treated without charge but for a non-infectious disease or condition they should be expected to pay.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

 

Kind regards

 

The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins

 

My reply

 

Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Atkins

 

Thank you for your reply and for your invitation to contact you again.

 

I am concerned that you may have received incorrect advice about the application of this policy in France. I have taken the liberty of including (below) a copy of the information posted by the French Government on their site at http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm You will see that this is unambiguously headed 'Affiliation à la CMU pour les ressortissants britanniques inactifs.' - i.e. this is for 'The Inactive British Residents'

 

As you point out, the rules (as I stated in my original letter) do indeed mirror an EU Directive (details in my previous letter) but this directive is designed - as it says in its title - to set out rules 'on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.'  This clearly indicates that it does not apply to French Nationals in their own country.

 

I fully agree, and have never disputed, that the legislation is compatible with EU law but it is its application which is the issue which I wished to raise with you. 

1. The legislation has been applied to UK Citizens who have already been lawfully accepted for residence under the existing legislation - this retrospective application is 'unreasonable' and likely to create a disproportionate effect.

2. There have been no arrangements to provide E106 holders with a grace period.

3. The publicity required by Article 34 of the directive was non-existent and has left citizens with little time to prepare and, of significant importance, has not allowed the insurance industry to prepare products to meet the demand for private health insurance - a market which did not exist prior to this change in legislation. 

4. The details of the sanctions required by Article 36 of the Directive have not been made known and there appears to be no thought given to people with chronic conditions which may preclude them from obtaining health insurance.

5. 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 am concerned that there is a danger that the significance of this development to overseas voters may be underestimated.  I am aware that the Conservative party actively seeks support from overseas voters (http://www.conservativesabroad.org/) and the change in healthcare provision in France is seen by those overseas voters in France as being a major crisis.  Clearly, the level of support for the problems of those affected will be an influence on the voters at the next election.

 

Once again I thank you for your reply and hope that you will be able to see your way to reconsidering some or all of the issues raised in my correspondence. The copy of the French Government's information document is below.

 

 

Regards
 

 

[makfai]

[quote user="makfai"]

Reference my post re Den Dover MEP above

[/quote]

 

I have received another reply

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

From: DOVER Den

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

Cc: [email protected]

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:21 PM

Subject: RE: French Healthcare

I will discuss this whole matter with my Conservative colleague John Bowis MEP who was a Health Minister in the House of Commons when I was MP for Chorley from 1979 to 1997. John is our health matters expert and serves on the appropriate Committee (Environment).

Regards

Den Dover MEP

 

I have written back with encouragement

 

Mr Dover

 

Thank you for your prompt reply.

 

It is reassuring to know that you are looking into this matter.

 

It has been an associated concern of mine that there is a danger that the significance of this development to overseas voters may be underestimated.  I am aware that the Conservative party actively seeks support from overseas voters (http://www.conservativesabroad.org/) and the change in healthcare provision in France is seen by those overseas voters in France as being a major crisis.  Clearly, the level of support for the problems of those affected will be an influence on the voters at the next election.

 

Thank you once again for taking the matter up and for replying so quickly

 

Regards

 

[Tony F Dordogne]

These are some of the same Torys who voted to bring similar rules into place in the UK to stop immigrants getting benefits from the British State?

[makfai]

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"]These are some of the same Torys who voted to bring similar rules into place in the UK to stop immigrants getting benefits from the British State?[/quote]

Could well be! I have lived out of the UK for so long that I don't know the individual's track records.  I am also not that concerned. I will try to lobby anyone who can help.  I wrote to all 9 of the MEPs who represent the area in which I live. The 9 includes all parties it is just that these 2 have replied. Whether they do anything or not I am still prepared to give all avenues a shot.

What I find disconcerting is the superficial way this is looked at by these official representatives.  For example, the reply suggesting that hospitals don't check is nonsense. This is an immigration matter not a health matter.  The health insurance is a condition of residence.  The MEP misses the point that there is no system in the UK to require potential residents from the EU to show that they have health insurance BEFORE reaching the satge that they need health care. 

[Tony F Dordogne]

When we were discussing the hooky driving licence scam here ages ago, it was John Bowis who actually took the fraud up and wrote me a long letter outlining what he would do so perhaps he does have something about him where lobbying on Euro issues is concerned.

[Will]

I have seldom seen any better example of politicians talking bo****ks than the Atkins letter above.

He may be right in that the French action is OK under EU legislation, though that is, to put it mildly, debatable. But there is no evidence that Sarkozy is applying similar rules to French nationals (though it is true he is penalising employers whose staff retire early). And Atkins' grasp of the NHS is frightening for a so-called British politician, and former Conservative government minister. Contrary to what he says, the NHS is a universal service, available to all bona-fide residents. The whole point of the argument against the French changes is that they are withdrawing the service to many who have taken up stable residence in France.

With people like him representing British interests in Europe is it no wonder some people want to withdraw from the EU?

[makfai]

[quote user="Will"]

I have seldom seen any better example of politicians talking bo****ks than the Atkins letter above..............................

With people like him representing British interests in Europe is it no wonder some people want to withdraw from the EU?

[/quote]

I couldn't agree more!  It is frightening to think that these people represent our interests when they are so out of touch.  Equally alarming is that he was happy to display his lack of knowledge in writing.

Reference having been made to UKREP in one of the MEP's replies I have emailed them a copy of my letters to the MEPs but I suspect that they are not the type  of group which deals with lobbying - we can but see   http://www.ukrep.be/index.html

[ali-cat]

I fear that the Atkins response is likely to be typical unless we can't point out the specific problems and apparent inconsistencies surrounding this issue.  We all know that the new rules were introduced in accordance with European directive and that the UK has followed suit (although they may not implement in fact) however :

As the Directive was drawn up to facilitate movement of all categories of citizen between member states,  why is it now being applied retrospectively i.e. to existing residents?;

Are citizens of other member states living in France affected.  I haven't heard anything definitive on whether Dutch etc can transfer their healthcare coverage to the French system;  are UK citizens unique because the NHS is residence based? - was this anticipated when UK reps helped to draft the Directive?

Why are citizens of non EU states not affected by these changes? This contradicts the stated puspose of the Directive;

What is the status of the '5 year rule' as detailed in the Directive.  Why have the French authorities not mentioned this? Does this mean UK citizens (inactive) can join the French system after 5 years?;

What is the status of current E106 and E121 holders?  Are they currently affiliated to CMU?

Is it consistent with the Directive and European law generally that existing residents may be unable to afford or obtain by any means healthcare cover for existing illnesses?

Why were citizens not informed of these proposals well in advance.  Until the recent press coverage no-one (including the ex-pat community,  relevant magazines,  internet forums,  immobiliers,  the British Embassy) etc were aware that these changes were in the offing.  This information would likely have prevented a significant proportion of those currently affected from making a costly and possibly life threatening decision;

Why are the British Embassy still issuing information which is either not confirmed or contradicted by the French Authorities?

Enquiring minds need to know!

PS UKREP is a mid level civil service working as liaison between the European Commission and HM government.  He/She should direct queries to the correct UK department and will feed back (to HM government) information on discussions within the Commission but possibly not more than this.  They act on behalf of the Government - not citizens - which is an interesting distinction in itself!

Mr Cat

 

 

 

 

 

[Chassaing]

[quote user="ali-cat"]

What is the status of current E106 and E121 holders?  Are they currently affiliated to CMU?

[/quote]

The answer to this one is 'NO'.  WE know this to be true as we spent an hour with CPAM yesterday trying to join CMU for 6 months ahead of March 2008. 

This is why the problem is hidden, people think they have until March 31 2008.  Those in the CMU drop out at the end of March.  If you are a E106 holder you will need health insurance from the expiry until you get a E121.  That could be tomorrow.....   (and they might not even know!)

Wake up people and start shouting harder.......

[Chassaing]

[quote user="ali-cat"]

Why were citizens not informed of these proposals well in advance.  Until the recent press coverage no-one (including the ex-pat community,  relevant magazines,  internet forums,  immobiliers,  the British Embassy) etc were aware that these changes were in the offing.  This information would likely have prevented a significant proportion of those currently affected from making a costly and possibly life threatening decision;

[/quote]

IMHO, I believe there wasn't a thought of taking this action, but the 'NEW' French Government has had to act quickly in response to the budget deficits. Either way, it hasn't been thought through.  I just hope no one dies as a direct result, which could be a real possibility if the MEPs don't start looking into this closer and more quickly. (Wakey wakey!)   Furthermore, I'm not sure that this is a health issue, it may be a 'Immigration Issue.' Only time will tell.

[cooperlola]

Mr Cat, I have been asking all these question wherever I can.  The answers so far are unhelpful or non-existant.  I'm afraid unless real numbers of people take up these issues then we will get nowhere.  A few tiny voices won't be enough - we must all SHOUT!

Here is a copy of my most recent letter, to the Guardian Abroad

"Recent changes to the French attitude towards what is now seen by the new government here as a group of wealthy foreigners moving in and taking advantage of its renowned - but heavily in debt - health care system, are set to bring misery to many over the coming months.

 

In the past, early-retirees were required by law to contribute to the French CMU (Couverture Maladie Universelle), whereby they contributed 8% of their incomes to the French system, in return for rights equal to those of French nationals.  From 1st October, this is to change, and anybody living or moving here, who is not covered under an E106 (which normally lasts for two years, from the date of taking up residence in France) or an E121 (for those on full disability benefits, or those who have reached state pensionable age), whereby the UK government contributes a per capita sum to cover healthcare,  will be expected instead to take out private health cover.

 

Because this has never been required before in France few, if any, companies here even provide full cover.  The UK companies who do provide it, exclude all pre-existing conditions and treatments for ailments already diagnosed such as diabetes, asthma, high blood-pressure, and cancer related treatments.  The result is that many here now find themselves, or shortly will, in the terrifying position of having no access to health care.  Because they are French residents, they cannot return home to the UK for treatment, unless they move back permanently, which - if it is an option - could be costly and stressful at a time when they are in the worst position to have to cope with this.

 

For others who can afford the cost of private insurance, and who are currently healthy, there is the worry that, should they develop any serious illness or condition before reaching UK state retirement age, costly insurance would not continue to cover them beyond a year or more.

 

In effect, those who have made the move from the UK, are now becoming, "stateless" in terms of healthcare.  Many are, undoubtedly, very fortunate in having been able to retire early and because of this do not appear sympathetic to the majority "at home."  However the reality is that there are many early retired people still living in Britain, and they are not asked to fund their own healthcare. They have paid their taxes and national insurance contributions all their lives, and are now getting the healthcare they paid for in return.  All British residents (no matter where they were born) can use the NHS free of charge, particularly if they have paid in this way.

 

As a community of an estimated 200,000 Britons currently living in France, we have been poorly informed of what is going on.  A few fora for ex-pats and immigrants to France have been discussing this issue but apart from an ill-informed and sketchy piece on the BBC news, and a couple of small references to this in newspapers and websites, little is being said or done.  Mary Honeyball, a London MEP, is taking up our cause but this situation needs to be better understood and these facts better disseminated.  How many TV programmes, magazines and news features continue to extol the virtues of a life over here, whilst not bringing these important changes to everybody's attention?

 

Our own government and MP's have, in the main, been slow to react in spite of our bringing this to their attention, even with a potentially huge number of votes in the balance (we all still vote in the UK).  There is a serious problem developing here for many, and it requires a fuller and broader understanding, and help from the British government and the European Community.  We have paid our dues in the UK, and in France, throughout the whole of our working lives, and still pay taxes on our pensions.  We are willing to contribute towards universal state healthcare systems, but are no longer being allowed to.

 

Something needs to be done soon.  It may shortly be too late for some.

 

Yours faithfully"

 

I'm currently writing to more newspapers to see if we can't get a higher profile on some of this.

[Chassaing]

[quote user="ali-cat"]

Why are the British Embassy still issuing information which is either not confirmed or contradicted by the French Authorities?

[/quote]

If they were a 58 year old lady with cancer waiting for her treatment, on a 'E106' that is about to run out they would know and be telling everyone. 

Or are they waiting for someone to die before the subject becomes high profile enough?

All credit to Mary Honeyball MEP!!!!!!

[powerdesal]

Coop,

May I suggest that the words "were required by law " be highlighted in (say) bold in your letters. Most (All????) retirees have fully complied with the law as it stood. They had no choices to make, private medical cover was Illegal (as you, of all people know). Perhaps that point could be stressed in the letters, to bring home the fact that Brit retirees were NOT trying to get something "on the cheap".

Only a suggestion.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="powerdesal"]Coop,

May I suggest that the words "were required by law " be highlighted in (say) bold in your letters. Most (All????) retirees have fully complied with the law as it stood. They had no choices to make, private medical cover was Illegal (as you, of all people know). Perhaps that point could be stressed in the letters, to bring home the fact that Brit retirees were NOT trying to get something "on the cheap".

Only a suggestion.


[/quote]All are gratefully received, P/D![:)]

[Chassaing]

Good letter Coop!

I have been plugging away for the last 2 weeks with Times online, only a few posts have made it to 'print'  (I'm not sure if they are on board)

Perhaps someone else would have more luck:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2368553.ece

[ali-cat]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

Mr Cat, I have been asking all these question wherever I can.  The answers so far are unhelpful or non-existant.  I'm afraid unless real numbers of people take up these issues then we will get nowhere.  A few tiny voices won't be enough - we must all SHOUT!

[/quote]

I know.  I e-mailed Mary Honeyball making similar points but from our own personal perspective.  The only point I was making was that if we just highlight the fact that changes have been made without spelling out to our esteemed politicians the impact that this will have on REAL PEOPLE (and still UK nationals) we're likely to get the same mealy mouthed pro-forma responses already seen (with one honourable exception).  No doubt awareness amongst the political class is probably restricted to those who caught the BBC news piece and they are probably not too concerned about the plight of retired diplomats.   

I suspect your lobbying the press is more likely to get their attention as in my experience its only when  politicians are faced with negative publicity that they get the finger out.  Can we spin this to include a sensationalist, racist, xenophobic or 'celebrity' element?  That would guarantee some coverage!

Mr Cat

 

[Cat]

[quote user="lebois"]Good letter Coop!
I have been plugging away for the last 2 weeks with Times online, only a few posts have made it to 'print'  (I'm not sure if they are on board)
Perhaps someone else would have more luck:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2368553.ece

[/quote]

Oooh, I've just read some of the comments there.  I really can't say what I'm thinking, or I would have to report myself [6].  Let's just say that one of the posts there, by a Brit who really should know better, got right up my nose. 

 

[Chassaing]

[quote user="ali-cat"]

I suspect your lobbying the press is more likely to get their attention as in my experience its only when  politicians are faced with negative publicity that they get the finger out.  Can we spin this to include a sensationalist, racist, xenophobic or 'celebrity' element?  That would guarantee some coverage!

Mr Cat [/quote]

I don't suppose Jeremy Clarkson would be much good then......

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy_clarkson/article2326687.ece

[Chassaing]

[quote user="Cat"]

[quote user="lebois"]Good letter Coop!

I have been plugging away for the last 2 weeks with Times online, only a few posts have made it to 'print'  (I'm not sure if they are on board)

Perhaps someone else would have more luck:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2368553.ece

[/quote]

Oooh, I've just read some of the comments there.  I really can't say what I'm thinking, or I would have to report myself [6].  Let's just say that one of the posts there, by a Brit who really should know better, got right up my nose.  

[/quote]

If you are talking about the Estate Agent in Angouleme, I was the same!

[ali-cat]

Just a couple of links that might be useful :

Europa website setting out clearly the rights of EU citizens.  Under retirement there is a strange reference to those wishing to settle permanently need to 'claim their right' within 2 years?

http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/nav/en/citizens/services/eu-guide/rights/index_en.html#14134_10

Telegraph article discussing how the UK have implemented the Directive requiring non-nationals to 'pay' for healthcare.  NB I am not making a personal point here - just highlighting the fact that there is hard data on the comparative lack of rigour in the UK applying these rules.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2374072.ece

Mr Cat

[Chassaing]

We are just about 'lobbied out', no where else to write! 

If anyone hasn't yet, here is another point of entry to help.

http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-health/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=28955