Jim Murphy

Dear JimbrThank you for your comments at last. I have been in touch on a daily basis with the British Embassy in Paris. They have responded but I am concerned that none of you really realise how serious this situation is.brWe went to our Perigueux CPAM office yesterday and had an in-depth discussion with the floor manager. We had been invited to fill in forms before christmas to apply for the CMU base. When we tried to present these forms they did not want to take them. We said it was important so that we could appeal. They then said they would hold the papers in case there was a change in the furure. She made it very very clear to us thatbr1 We had no health care cover of any sort in Francebr2 Anyone affiliated to the CMU who was inactive would be ejected after 31 March this year.br3There is no emergency treatment available for us.br4 We will not be allowed access to the CNU despite our pre-existing conditions.br5 The fact that we were resident in France and paying taxes on Jan 1st 2006 and the law was not actually passed in France until 21 Mars 2007 was not to be considered.brShe then issued us with our letters of refusal .brbrWe are clearly in a desperate position as we have no health care provision either from the UK or France, and yet pay taxes to both!!brWe have been told that there will be a 3 month delay when we apply for private health insurance from the time we are accepted if we are accepted to the time we can be treated for any condition. this means that the earliest date that we could possibly be covered for a life threatening condition like stroke, heart attack,cancer etc is mid May. This is totally unacceptable I am sure you will agree?brThe retrospective withdrawel of the right of British nationals to pay for healthcare in France is something which you originally agreed was wrong and I will remind you of your words on the 16th November : " My main argument was that British citizens living in France had moved there under a set of entitlement rules that were pretty clear at the time - those rules should stay in place for those UK citizens already living there"brYou have been totally misled by thye French government.brI thank you for all you have done so far and I trust you will continue to work towards an outcome which we and you will find acceptable.brBest WishesbrNeville Davies

Posted by Neville on January 11, 2008 at 05:35 PM GMT #

Mr. Murphy, have you asked for, or received, any clarification on what 'essential immediate healthcare provision' actually means? What about routine healthcare? The issue is surely that E106 holders must be entitled to at least the same rights as non-E106 holders, and not be penalised for having paid NI contributions in the UK. What questions have you asked about this?brbrTo say that those of us who have been left without health cover are fed up is an understatement. We not only have the worry of recurring health problems without sufficient means to pay for them, we now face having been made illegal residents and the possible consequences of this.brbrI have no argument with the British government over our E106 cover, but its defence of our rights is lacking to say the least.brbrWe look forward to the announcement. This, you will recall that the embassy previously announced, was imminent 'in the next few days' following the December announcement. From this experience, 'in the next week' should mean sometime around the middle of March. I won't hold my breath. brbrMr. Murphy, we are not going to go away. Give us the representation that we deserve. We have done nothing wrong and should not be made into criminals without a hearing.

Posted by Pam Djordjevic on January 11, 2008 at 08:31 PM GMT #

Jim brbrIt is nice to know that your officials remain in close contact with the French Authorities. The situation is clearly now intolerable for all UK early retirees living in France and not just for the poor desperate '106'ers. brbrWould you please agree to give us all a clear indication of what concrete action you will be taking when the promised 'more details within a week' from the French authorities fail to materialise?brbrYou must be aware of the dire position of all of us who have lost or are still under threat losing health cover with no prospect of securing fomerly illegal private health cover and being rendered illegal immigrants in the process. We need to know what practical steps are being taken restore our legitimate rights beyond just polite diplomatic insistence.brbrYou will be aware of the excellent work of the French Health Issues team, who's arguments are lucidly presented on our behalf in the letter below, brbrFrom FHI to the British Ambassador to France:-brbrbrThe following letter was sent on 9th January 2008 brbrSir Peter Westmacott KCMG, LVO brBritish Ambassador to France. brThe British Embassy br35 Rue du Faubourg St Honore br75383 Paris Cedex 08 Dear Sir brbrThank you for your response of 20 December 2007 addressed to XXXXXX of French Health Issues regarding the changes in access to healthcare,for inactive EU citizens under retirement age, as a result of the changes made to the laws regarding immigration and residence. brbrFrench Health Issues, on behalf of the thousands of non-French EU nationals affected, is grateful for the support received from the Embassy and UK government departments to date. The French Health Ministry statement of 14 December 2007 appears to contain welcome relief for those already affiliated to CMU and offers some hope for those E106 holders with medical conditions. The details of these latter concessions remain to be clarified, however, as does the rationale for denying access to E106 holders who have also been legally resident in France. I will return shortly to the general issue of denying access to CMU to E106 holders. brbrDespite the public statement by the French Health Ministry, it is clear from our correspondents that these new policies are not being applied on the ground by the CPAM regional offices. We have received many e-mails from those affected that confirm that many CPAM offices are: a refusing to acknowledge that those already affiliated to CMU before 23 November 2007 may continue to be so; b refusing to acknowledge the ‘5 year residency rule’; c are refusing to accept or acknowledge appeals from those, whose E106s have now expired, who have existing medical conditions and who will be unable to find or afford full private health insurance. brbrWe have now received information that, despite the public statement, CPAM offices will not act on the new policies until CNAM publishes a technical guidance note. That is, the guidelines about how to put the already published policies into action. We understand that this document is not yet completed and/or published and that the document may not be circulated until the end of February at the earliest. We also understand that this apparent lack of urgency results from a belief that those who were to be affected by the original changes were to remain within CMU until 31 March 2008. brbrClearly the belief that no one will be affected until 31 March 2008 refers to the ‘period of grace’ originally granted to those already contributing to CMU. However, as stated above, many of those already contributing to CMU, who should under the new policy be unaffected, have been asked to return their Cartes Vitales and have been refused the opportunity to appeal these decisions. More urgently, those whose E106 forms have now expired, including those with chronic and/or serious medical conditions, now have no medical cover whatsoever nor apparently any recourse to CPAM until a technical guidance note has been issued. brbrIt is now a matter of urgency that the Embassy clarifies any interim arrangements for E106 expirees with medical pre-conditions as it now appears likely that there will be a period of some 6 to 8 weeks before CPAM offices will even consider processing any applications from them. brbrAs regards denying access to CMU to those who were covered by E106 forms you may be interested in the following text and translation from the French Health Ministry’s circular DSS/DACI/2007/418 du 23 novembre 2007 Section 3B : brbr‘En effet, en ce qui concerne les ressortissants communautaires qui, en contradiction avec le droit en vigueur, ont bénéficié de la CMU de base à un moment où la question de la régularité de leur séjour était considérée comme a priori résolue, revenir sur cette affiliation reviendrait à remettre en cause un droit au séjour qui leur a été de facto reconnu.’ brbrIndeed, as regards nationals who, contrary to the legislation in force, have benefited from access to basic CMU at a time when the matter of the legality of their stay was seen as pre-agreed, any refusal to continue their affiliation is tantamount to a challenge to their already-recognised right to reside. brbrAs you are aware, the changes to access to state healthcare in France were introduced to comply with new conditions of residency required, the French authorities claim, to transpose EU Directive 2004/38 EC. The new laws underpinning these changes relate to immigration and residency. As you are also aware, an E106 form may be issued for a period of up to 30 months depending on an individual’s UK National Insurance contribution record. They offer a limited period of protection, by ensuring that the UK government contributes to healthcare costs while that cover is valid. Under the previous legislation, it was a requirement that, on expiry of the E106, residents had to affiliate to CMU. There is no difference, that we can see, between the residency status of an individual living legally in France for 2 years - under cover of an E106 - and a similar individual whose cover had expired after one year and was admitted to CMU. Holding a valid E106 is no more than a technicality, in the respect that holding or not holding a valid E106 has no bearing whatsoever on the legality of residence in another member state. brbrAs the legality of stay of an E106 holder was also not in dispute, likewise, any decision to refuse their affiliation to CMU is tantamount to a challenge to their already-recognised right to reside. It is therefore inequitable that new conditions of residency should be applied retrospectively to one group of legal residents and not to another. We would hope that the Embassy continues to contest the unwarranted exclusion of E106 holders from CMU. brbrUnfortunately, as you can see, the new policies announced by the French Health Ministry have not been translated into action on the ground. Those whose E106’s have expired and many who, by right, should be automatically accepted within CMU are now left in an impossible position without access to health cover and are thus, if one takes the legislation to its logical conclusion, living here illegally. brbrIt is imperative that any interim arrangements are agreed and implemented as a matter of great urgency. We would be grateful if you would provide us with details of these arrangements once agreed in order that we can respond to the many enquiries received at our website. brbrYours sincerely brbrThe French Health Issues Team brbrbrThank you FHI. Please take these arguments on board Mr Murphy.brbrDerek Wood. Desperate of Dordogne.br

Posted by Derek Wood on January 12, 2008 at 11:51 AM GMT #

Your assurances for people with E106's continuing to receive cover are just not true. My E106 expired 5/Jan and my CPAM have already taken and destroyed my Carte Vitale, told me I have no cover from them, will not get allowed into the CMU and cannot at the moment take out private insurance. so what do I do. Certainly the FCO are providing no help. I have no health cover whatsoever and all you can do is say "wait". Unbelievable. If I behaved like that in business I would have got the sack years ago !!

Posted by Ian on January 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM GMT #

Dear JimbrIf I had chosen not to follow the advice of the CPAM to be considered as my wife's healthcare dependant from Jan 06 until Jan 07 on the expiry of my own E106 cover, I would now be already affiliated to the CMU and my wife would now have also been entitled to healthcare cover.brMy wife and I have only had to visit the doctor once each in the last 2 years of living here and are in good health. Therefore, it seems ludicrous that we could be financially enhancing the CMU along with other healthy expatriots, whilst people with pre-conditions are under the new rules, allowed to continue with the CMU. I am fully supportive of the fact that their entitlement should continue but consider us to be less of a drain on the French healthcare resources.brSince we are now living here illegally as we have not yet found affordable private healthcare, it seems our best option is to hand ourselves in to the Gendarmerie hoping to be imprisoned and receive free healthcare that way!!

Posted by Roger Fortt on January 14, 2008 at 12:17 PM GMT #

French Health Issues has today, as it does every day now, received letters from people who are suffering from life threatening illnesses who are being refused treatment as they no longer have health cover here. Please, please, tell us what we are supposed to suggest to these people now? Because, to be frank, we are running out of ideas. They are working through the convoluted appeals procedures here when, in theory, they should have been accepted back into the CMU under the rules of the French Health Minister's revised statement issued at the end of last year. But their local offices deny the very existence of the these new rules, whilst Embassy staff and the Ministry's officials continue to say that this will be sorted out "soon". Appeals take at best weeks, and at worst years. How long is this going to take? Is somebody going to die first before anything happens? br"Next week" may be too late for some. This is a modern Europe, for goodness sake, something which we presume you stand for. Help to make it a humane Union, if nothing else. This is at least in part your responsibility, make no mistake. Stop fobbing us off and do something.br

Posted by Deborah Dudley on January 14, 2008 at 09:53 PM GMT #

brDear JimbrI note your comments with interest but I have concerns regarding the first paragraph of your statement; and requested before Christmas a fuller explanation of the arrangements for E106 holders. Once again we have impressed on the Health Ministry the urgency of the situation.br I therefore have to ask ask; Is ther FCO just waiting for clarification? Or is it actually fighting for fairness for those people who's E106 have run out and now forced to stay illegally . brbrWhen my daughter, who is now 15 and I moved to France we received full NI entitlement, the 30 months 106 cover. Our cover ran out on the 1st Jan. Friends who retired at the same time but only received 12 months cover, because they hadn’t made sufficient NI contributions have been in the French health system for 18 months and are now OK. I who had full NI entitlement are not. Surely this is unfair. brI pay tax on my pension in the UK and of course if I return to the UK would receive medical care paid by the UK Government fully paid up NI contributions Therefore if the French will not move from their current position surely the UK Government could cover the cost of health care for those that moved to France on the existing rules. If we all lived in the UK the government would be paying for us anyway; brbrWe are clearly in a desperate position as we have no health care provision either from the UK or France at the moment.brMy options are to either take out a very expensive private insurance, which I cant really afford or to return back to UK!

Posted by Sue on January 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM GMT #

Come on JIM - Time to Put up or Shut Up - as Fionna Ashmore posted here on 12 January 2008 18:53 - set an example to the French Government and extend all E106s for a defined period - preferably THREE YEARS!

Posted by NICK GREENWOOD on January 15, 2008 at 03:27 PM GMT #

JimbrbrBloggers to this page might also like to know that your website a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.jimmurphy.labour.co.uk"http://www.jimmurphy.labour.co.uk/a helpfully suggests:brbr7 Ways to contact Jim Murphy...brbr1.You can WRITE to Jim : brbrJim Murphy MP, Eastwood Parliamentary Office br1st Floor, 238 Ayr Road brNewton Mearns, G77 6AAbrbr2. You can E-MAIL Jim: jimmurphymp@parliament.uk brbr3. You can attend a SURGERY: For details of surgeries click here >> [perhaps not a realistic option for most of us until we are chucked out of France]brbr4. You can TELEPHONE Jim: brbrHis Constitunecy office: 0141 577 0100 brHouse of Commons: 0207 219 3000brbr5. You can TEXTPHONE Jim on: 0141 616 3612 brbr6.You can FAX Jim at: 0141 616 3613 brbr7. You can visit Jim's WEBSITE at www.JimMurphyMP.combrbrPerhaps bloggers frustrated at the lack of concrete action on the plight of those of us losing our health cover might also want to take advantage of these other additional routes to reinforce their pleas.brbrDerek Wood

Posted by Derek Wood on January 15, 2008 at 04:02 PM GMT #

Dear Jim,brWhat a sad state we are all in now! The new comments on your latest posting are already up to 18. We seem to be in a repeat of the situation which occurred during November when all “inactive” early retired UK national French residents were being ejected from the CMU. The main difference is that all had until 31 March 2008 to arrange private health insurance. Now all of us on an expired E106 cover have no time to arrange private health insurance because our stay here from January 2008, is now irregular and we have to obtain private health insurance in order to remain here legally and to start a period of regular uninterrupted residence before we can gain access to the CMU. Even though we have been legally resident in France for 2 years and of course paid all taxes to France and UK, we now have a catch 22 situation which is intolerable.brIf we try and obtain private insurance, it will not cover us for the conditions which we already had when we moved here, which were fully covered at the time under the old rules. If we pay say £8000 for this cover it only covers new conditions which develop from now…however the insurers will not cover anything major for at least 3 months after you start payment as they say you could have taken out this insurance just to get cover for a condition you already knew you had! brThe French say that if your stay becomes irregular due to lack of PMI then you can apply for Aide Medicale d’Etat, which is for people on very low income….the problem here is that part 2 of the conditions for legal stay is that one has to show that one has “sufficient resources not to become an unreasonable burden on the social system of the host Member State”…….so if you demonstrate you do have sufficient resources then you can’t qualify for this fictitious Aide Medical dEtat that they claim, you claim and the Embassy claim we ex E106 people will benefit from in an emergency whilst waiting for this clarification. The AME is administered from the CPAM I think ?? and they are the ones who told us last week that we are definitely NOT going to be able to apply for AME !!brOne thing I forgot to tell everybody was that the manager told us that the problem existed for all EU citizens EXCEPT the Dutch. She said to us that the Dutch government were paying for their nationals resident in France now. I do not know if this is true but it is what we were told with a little smile. Can anybody confirm this claim?brThe situation is clearly reaching a crisis point and though I believe the staff of the British Embassy are doing as much as they can to support us now, they are clearly in need of further help at Prime Ministerial level. You came here to Paris ,Jim and you were perhaps misled or perhaps you misunderstood what was going to happen. You stated clearly on this blog the following statement :br“I raised our concerns about the effect that changes in the French healthcare system will have for some UK citizens living in France. My main argument was that British citizens living in France had moved there under a set of entitlement rules that were pretty clear at the time - those rules should stay in place for those UK citizens already living there. Although neither I nor M. Jouyet are health Ministers, he took these concerns very seriously and I am optimistic that a way forward can be found.”brbrYou have worked very hard to get our rights restored and for this we are all very grateful but we are in fact in a worse position than before, as I believe the French now consider that our time with e106 cover does not constitute residency. Our CPAM said “ When your E106 runs out in January it is as though you have just arrived in France” I believe the French are about to claim I have to reside for a further 5 years before I can claim regular residence, and this seems to be from the time I will take out private insurance that will not cover me for the conditions that could reoccur .brbrLook at the coverage in the Telegraph newspaper where Pam has been forced to expose her situation to try and get some resolution. This is degrading and she should not have to do this. She has appealed to you on this blog and nothing is done about it!brbrMy letter to Gordon Brown in November has been ignored. I am appalled at the way the British government are treating its UK nationals and I appeal to you to act today to resolve this issue in the favour of all expired E106 holders.brbrI will send a copy of this to the Embassy and the British Prime Minister.brbrThank YoubrNeville Daviesbr

Posted by neville on January 16, 2008 at 12:38 PM GMT #

Dear allbrJust need to to say that the information given to us by the floor manager of our CPAM was wrong. The Dutch are in exactly the same position as us and their citizens on expiring E106s are also now in irregular residence.brI would suggest that what is needed is joint action from both UK and Dutch governments to halt this ludicrous situation today.brThe British Embassy continues to fight for our rights and I think we deserve a statement of your intent, Jim , to also return to discuss this desperate situation with M. sarkozy....or is he just too distracted at the moment to be bothered with this?brThis is a very serious issue and I am disturbed by your continuing lack of comment...do we really need one of us to die before it is taken seriously? brbr

Posted by neville on January 16, 2008 at 06:54 PM GMT #

MinisterbrbrThe British Embassy website refers to “those who find themselves without health cover and therefore in an "irregular situation" of residency.” These are British Citizens. They are being turned into illegal immigrants by the French government’s sleight of hand. This means that they may be required to leave France and forcibly removed if they fail to go voluntarily. They are in the same position as any non-EU national who has entered or remained in France illegally. So what price EU membership now? This blog shows you to be much occupied with matters such as Kosovo, Slovenia and Ms Mussolini’s political misfortunes. I suggest that you concentrate now on the protection of your own people in France, many of whom are UK taxpayers and electors. Your performance thus far has been remarkable for its lack of vigour and urgency whilst the Embassy appears to be upholding the Foreign Office tradition of representing the host nation’s interests to London.brbrAs an afterthought, can your German counterpart confirm that the new policy applies to German inactifs in France? I would hate to think that a side deal has been cut for non British EU citizens.brbrbrWith Every Good Wish for 2008 brbrbrGeorge Smithbrbr

Posted by George Smith on January 16, 2008 at 09:45 PM GMT #

I contatcted the British Embassy in Bordeeaux about the problem of having no healthcare in France, the Paris office doesn't take afternoon calls.. The lady told me that we didn't realise how lucky we were to receive 'Free Healthcare in UK' ... I always thought that my NI contributions and taxes went towards my healthcare ? brIs the UK in the EU ? Or does it just pick and choose which issues it will get involved in ? It should be more interested in the British living in France than whether a cucumber is straight enough to be sold in Sainsburys,,br

Posted by m graham on January 17, 2008 at 09:16 AM GMT #

Further to John Southworth's posting on the 14th January 2008 and Internet postings -brbra rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.connexionfrance.com/expatriate-news-article.php?art=68"http://www.connexionfrance.com/expatriate-news-article.php?art=68/abrbrplus the French Healthissues link on -br bra rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/latest_news/new_regulations_confusion_09_01.htm"http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/latest_news/new_regulations_confusion_09_01.htm/abrbrand including the link to the French Property News where they state that there are exceptions to the shambles of implementing the revised healthcare issues, notably the Limousin and Tarn - brbra rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.french-property.com/newsletter/2007/1/9/"http://www.french-property.com/newsletter/2007/1/9//abrbrWe are in the category of having been in the system prior to 23rd Nov as have our friends who have also been resident in France for ten years. brbrWe have been into the Tarn CPAM today, 14th Jan, with our friends where we had a hostile reception, first time ever there, always have been extremely helpful. After a short phone call to her boss to ask what the situation was, we were told in no uncertain terms that our membership of CPAM ceases on 31st March, no iffs or buts.brbrWe tried to show her the circular from the official website but she did not want to see it. We were told to write in and appeal and when I said that I had already done that without any response she just became more aggressive to the point where we had to leave.brbrSo, all is not sorted for anyone and the fight continues.brbrThis has become a farce that even Brian Rix could not better . ...

Posted by Denis Turner on January 17, 2008 at 08:40 PM GMT #

The end of "next week" is now here. Where is the statement mentioned in your letter? How is the poster above to get his gall bladder operation? How are the correspondants to French Health Issues to get their MRI scan/colon cancer operation/life saving insulin?.. I could go on but your department is well aware of all these people, as they have written to you and Embassy staff about their plights.brAt FHI we know that your staff at ground level really are working hard to try to get a good outcome. However, this situation is now beyond being left to junior staff to cope with. It is time for Minister to Minister and PM to President level communication. Before somebody dies here.

Posted by Deborah Dudley on January 18, 2008 at 01:48 PM GMT #

The British government are either unable or unwilling to sort this out. The French government are either unwilling or unable to sort this out. In both cases it speaks volumes on the attitudes of politicians to their citizens and people legally living in their country to whom they have a duty of care. It is where the whole point of politicians fails and the system breaks down. Whilst they do nothing now, come next elections they will be asking us to vote for them as "they have done such a good job".brbrBritish government could sort it out by doing more than "waiting for clarification" and starting to tell the French government about things a bit more forcefully. They could start representing people suffering hardships on an individual basis, etc. loads of ways without needing to extend E106's.brbrThe French government could sort it out by obeying EU law, by telling the regional/local CPAMs how to implement the rules, by not applying retrospective legislation, by notifying people affected before the rule change - basically by treating people with just a little consideration.brbrThese governmental bodies can do this stuff easily. Its what they are there for. If they cannot then they should elect/employ people who can do it - after all it is their job.brbrPoliticians are elected and have a responsibility to their citizens and people who fall under their jurisdiction. When they ignore this duty the entire system fails. In the UK politicians all talk about greater involvement by everybody but then just ignore everybody. Pretty soon people are going to start asking why we pay so much tax, etc. for these people who then do and achieve nothing.

Posted by Ian on January 19, 2008 at 10:04 AM GMT #

JIm brbrSpeech to LSE, 9 January 08brJim Murphy MP, Minister for Europebrbr...."it isn't just the great big political challenges of the day, the nature of international diplomacy and the threats to our world and national security, it is also a quality of life, which the EU continues to deliver for its citizens." brbr ?????????????????????brbrDerek Woodbrbr

Posted by Derek Wood on January 19, 2008 at 11:13 AM GMT #

Dear allbrbrFor what its worth, see the latest British Embassy update modified 18/01/08: bra rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1059132495834"http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1059132495834/abrbrDerek Wood

Posted by Derek wood on January 19, 2008 at 12:40 PM GMT #

JimbrWhen is an 'income' not an 'income' ? it seems to be open to interpretation.brWe are early retirees caught up in the calamity of the new healthcare laws. It suits the French Authorities to clasify our pensions as 'income' for the purpose of taxation but not 'income' for the purpose of becoming affiliated to CMU.brWhat is the difference, for example, between a salary of 20,000 euros and a pension of 20,000 euros ? They are both classed as incomes and should be treated in the same way for both taxation and CMU contributions.brbrbr

Posted by Don on January 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM GMT #

Ah Yawn , another day .brStill no decision on the E106 issue with CPAM.brbr Is this SNAFU ?brbrCome on Jim , do something positive for us in sorting out this discrimination against us Brits.

Posted by Paul Dannatt on January 21, 2008 at 09:52 AM GMT #

Just to let you all who read this that I am now booked on a ferry back to UK. Can't sit here in a life threatening situation with no one to help. Rang the British Embassy in Paris and was cut off 6 times whilst waitying to speak to the person who deals with health care... does that say it all

Posted by m graham on January 21, 2008 at 12:33 PM GMT #

There has to be a better way for poor Mr Graham than this. Meanwhile, people are being sent to France from the UK by the NHS for far less urgent operations at Britain's expense. These people are left in utter limbo, and still no comment as to why the Embassy is apparently unaware that E106s have already expired.brYou and they will be well aware if this poor person dies on the boat back "home". brBon courage, by the way, m. graham.

Posted by Deborah Dudley on January 21, 2008 at 02:14 PM GMT #

Dear m grahambrI wish you the best of luck and you have our deepest sympathy. I wish we could help, the only thing I could do was to contact the Embassy in paris for you to ask for their help. I suggest you contact them by email. they said the following br"However, he can get emergency health treatment here in France via the Aide Médical d'Etat, he does not need to go back to the UK. He needs to go to his CPAM office."brI realise this is cloud cuckoo land as if you go to the CPAM they will just deny all Knowledge of AME I expect. Its just too risky for you to wait and see what the French may or may not do to help you. So much for the Embassy help, and so much for what Jim says above "We have been assured that people whose E106 forms have expired will continue to have the safeguard of essential immediate healthcare provision"brGood luckand do let us know what happens as we care!!!brBest WishesbrNeville and Barbarabr br

Posted by Neville on January 21, 2008 at 05:00 PM GMT #

Neville and Barbara : It is good to know that somebody cares about this poor person. However, if you read back you will see that he has already asked his CPAM for AME and been turned down, so Mr Murphy and the Embassy already know that this is not a viable alternative here. It seems callous to me to recommend more procedures to people when they are doomed to failure before you begin. brbrAnybody else in a life threatening position, should contact us too, please. I will go to London and hammer on Mr Murphy's door if necessary....brbrwww.frenchhealthissues.eubr

Posted by Deborah Dudley on January 21, 2008 at 05:33 PM GMT #

Mr Murphy,brIt looks as though you've misunderstood what a blog is. It's supposed to be a place on the web where you log updates to a particular situation. So far, we've seen precious few i.e. no updates from you at all. brI've looked at your other 'blogs':brbrChild protection in the EU - 4 postsbrBusiness Priorities for a global Europe: 1 postbrNew Year's Resolutions for the EU: 2 postsbrbrYet this one has over 40 posts, plus there were at least two other blogs - equally vociferously commented upon - that I know of, on the same subject . Doesn't that tell you something? Are there no bounds to your insensitivity? brbrWhy did you feel it necessary to split this subject's blog? Was it because the embarrassingly high number of opinions only serves to highlight your embarrassingly low level of reply? Or because the shamefully long length of elapsed time between your first blog and today only serves to highlight your shameful level of inactivity on this issue? You don't even reply to emails sent to your office, let alone this blog.brbrI am sure that M. Graham is not the only person to be suffering as a result of this, and my heartfelt sympathies are with him or her, and all those who are in a similar situation. brbrRegardless of the outcome of all this, at least we can all say that we tried our utmost to fight injustice and tried to help those who are not in a position to help themselves. What can you say? brbrCall yourself Minister for Europe???? I'd call you something else entirely.br

Posted by Pam Djordjevic on January 21, 2008 at 07:44 PM GMT #

Pam, brPlease note that the child protection you quote as 4 comments includes one from me making the same point as yours. I hoped Jim or his department might read, and respond, to a comment in this 'new' area!! brBut not with much confidence given the track record! brGood luck to all fighting this dangerous nonsense and the 'apparent' lack of effective action from the responsible politicians who should represent us all.brRegards, David.

Posted by David Watkinson on January 22, 2008 at 08:53 AM GMT #

Email to FCO today, sent three times in the hope they might see it .. -brbra rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/jim_murphy/archive/2008/01/11/15734.aspx"http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/jim_murphy/archive/2008/01/11/15734.aspx/abrbrFrench Health Care - URGENT ACTION NOW REQUIRED ..brbrI know that you have received numerous emails on the subject but it appears that no action is being taken to resolve the problem that is now getting very serious for some and remains extremely worrying for others. The above 'blog' has many emails castigating the apparent lack of concern/action by the FCO and Jim Murphy and it is time that the minister or his nominated spokesperson replied to the comments and concerns raised. I do not expect any reply to this email as many have already written in without a response but I would like see the old adage implemented - "ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS" With thanks, in hope......

Posted by Denis Turner on January 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM GMT #

I'm becoming increasingly worried that no information is being passed to the various CPAM offices and I'm concerned that it won't be until well after the 31st March, when people will be obliged to organise 100 private health insurance to safeguard their health and indeed, in order to remain legally in France. brbrDespite reassurances that all will be well, the French administrators seem to be remarkably reluctant to actually impliment their own December communique.brbrFrance has a history of manipulating EU legislation to its own advantage and I suspect that this could be so on this occasion.brbrThe "on going talks" about those covered by E106, will probably be just that, "on going" until sick people move back to the UK or start to die.brbrGame, set and match to Mr Sarkozy.br

Posted by Clementine on January 22, 2008 at 11:55 AM GMT #

Hi Jim . I didnt expect or get an email from you or the FCO. But it would be nice if the UK government took some responsibility. We all know that we are being fed with a load of old tosh by the FCO. The French government isnt likely to change its position. If the Uk government wanted to sort it they could; How difficult would be for you to cover us all by extending all E106's until discussion are successful.

Posted by SUE on January 22, 2008 at 02:17 PM GMT #

LizbrbrFrom this blog, feels more like we are trying to get a response from Sarko's Poodle than drawing on the Bulldog Spirit.

Posted by Derek Wood on January 23, 2008 at 04:56 AM GMT #

a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/latest_news/embassy_email_23_01.htm"http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/latest_news/embassy_email_23_01.htm/abrbrThank you. Thank you FHI. brbrDerek Wood xxx

Posted by Derek Wood on January 24, 2008 at 01:15 PM GMT #

THANK YOU SO MUCH brXXXX

Posted by Jan on January 24, 2008 at 03:54 PM GMT #