During David Burrage’s first encounter with Consul Russell Thomson, and the subsequent exchanges that followed, the Consul made extremely offensive remarks about U.K. State pensioners. further, he has furnished inaccurate information over, not only the entitlement to free health care in the Valencian Communidad, but also the regulations concerning driving on British driving licenses. Both David Burrage and Peter Woodall, the co-founders of ther British ExPats Assocaition (Spain) took deep exception to his inaccurate remarks.
He also expressed the view, which clearly amounted to his opinion, that non-employed and non-State pensioners should not be entitled to ‘free’ health care. This was a most impertinent remark to make, since this entitlement, as we all now know, was decreed by the Government of the Generalitat of Valencia, (vide Circular 1/2002). As the British Consul, it was not a matter for him to comment upon, merely to ensure that ExPats were made aware of this facility - he failed to do so.
Indeed it is accurate to state that we have received no active assistance from our Consul since Peter Woodall and I founded this Association two years ago. We have, on occasion, received minimal replies from his Vice Consul, but not the necessary up-to-date information that an effective and caring Consul should provide to those he is legally responsible for looking after.
David Burrage now relates his dealings with the Consul (It is therfore written in the first person)
I shall deal with my initial encounter with Mr Thomson, over the telephone on 19th July 2004 in greater detail later, but I will first tell you that I had advised our Consul that my enquiry was being made on behalf of the British Expatriates Association (Spain). When asked as to whether he was aware of us I received the curt reply, “Yes I am,” Indeed the only other communication I have ever received from him was an arrogant and offensive e-mail of the 28th July 2004. This is despite a number of e-mails sent by me to his vice Consul, seeking assistance and advising them that their Consulate were giving inaccurate advice to the public. We are able to fully substantiate what we have stated and will do so later.
Now equate the Consul's totally negative response, made on behalf of our membership, with the congratulations for our work from his senior at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, when in an e-mail to us on 21st March 2005 an Official, Mr Taylor, stated, “ The last thing we wish is to be an enemy of your organisation. We appreciate the work you do for the British ex-pat community.” This was made following a formal complaint by us. Mr Taylor then went on to describe the limited numbers of the members of the Consular Staff in Alicante and then stated, “Organisations like yours are invaluable in helping us to help others.” Of course he said more. However, this attitude has never been expressed or adopted by Mr Russell Thomson.
During a further exchange of e-mails with the F.C.O. London, Mr Taylor again concluded his e-mail with, “good luck with your continued work.”
Thus, one can determine that Mr Thomson's superiors in London appreciate the work we do on behalf of expatriates. It is to the great shame of our Consul that he felt unable to recognise us, let alone take a similar view. Our members and other visitors to our web site will be well aware of the voluntary work we carry out on behalf of British Citizens and we have achieved many successes since we first started late in 2003. We have been deluged with e-mails requesting help and amongst our membership we have a Knight of the Realm, a two former magistrates, a lawyer, a former ‘Treasury’ official, eminent surgeons and other physicians, former bank managers, teachers, policeman, firemen, social workers. The list is endless. Mostly, when giving advice on our web site we also include the relevant law in order that you may test the veracity of the information we provide.
Why the delay in the Consul's inclusion into our Hall of Shame?
Many of those of you who have visited our ‘Hall of Shame’ page will no doubt have wondered, as to why, the ‘Headstone’ of Mr Thomson, had been in place for many months, without any information being included. This is because, even at this late stage we had held out the ‘Olive branch’ to Mr Thomson, both through his Vice Consul and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, when we had requested a simple apology from Mr Thomson and hoped for some undertaking that he would work with us, so as to better assist expatriates.
Mr Thomson has clearly shown that he is not man enough, even to apologise, when most clearly he should have done so. Not only to us, but also to the British expatriate pensioners he so offensively reviled.
Our position now is that we wish to see Mr Thomson withdrawn as our Consul and he might like to, “Do the decent thing and arrange his own departure.” Why do we say, “Do the decent thing?” This was an expression he used to me in an e-mail when offensively referring to our old age pensioners. He had inferred that many were failing to register their Forms E.121 (European health care entitlement for EU. State pensioners). We had put him on ‘proof’; through the London F.C.O., to substantiate that statement, but to date he has not done so. You may ask why? We say that it is because he cannot do so, as the failure by State pensioners to register their ‘Special’ health care entitlement only serves to disadvantage them, where they become entitled to all free medication and all treatment when traveling throughout Europe, not merely ‘emergency’ treatment only (Article 31 of E.U. Regulations 1408/71.) You can find more information about this entitlement on this web site, as the European Court of Justice ratified this right on 25 February 2003.
How did the incompetence of our Consul come to our notice?
This began with the matter over the right to ‘free’ health care for EU. Expatriate citizens, who were legally registered as residents within the Community of Valencia.
When was "free" health care first made available in the Valencian Communidad?
Well for all minors, and this included the children of EU. Expatriates resident in the Community of Valencia, it was as early as the beginning of 2001, when my own children were so registered. Were you so informed by our Consul? A CATAGORIC “No” . So those who had this entitlement carried on paying private health insurance. In early 2002 this entitlement was further extended to include all residents legally registered within this same autonomous Community. We attempted to bring this entitlement to the notice of all expatriates and included this very important information onto our web site, but because we had been wrongly advised by a member of the British Consular staff at Alicante, that the right was of national origin. We had caused inaccurate information to be included.
This inclusion had, not only caused us considerable embarrassment, but also had detracted from the credibility of our voluntary work to keep you advised over your rights. This alone was deserving of an apology. Have we ever received one? No.
Some Members contacted us and questioned this matter; also in the meantime, when relying upon the information I was given by a member of staff of our Consulate, I then caused an article to be published in the main expatriate English newspaper i.e.The Costa Blanca News. This article, dated 1 July 2004 was also inaccurate, where I had referred to the right of health care for residents to be of national origin and available to all EU. Expatriate citizens, who were lawfully resident in Spain. I had caused this publication as the result of information I was given by a member of the Consular staff. (I do not name the lady in question at this time, as I know this lady well. I think highly of her and have had many previous courteous and friendly dealings with her and I consider she had been let down by others).
However, we are all entitled to receive reliable and accurate information from, both the Consul and his staff. Despite this, there was still no public release of this most important information about free health care to all lawful residents in the Community of Valencia from our Consul. Indeed the first published release from our Consul appeared in the Costa Blanca News, 10 – 16 September 2004 edition. Which was after my complaints, not only to Alicante, but also to the F.C.O. London. You may well ask why we did not receive such information prior to my intervention. That can be determine by what the Consul rudely had to say to me during our initial encounter and the subsequent e-mail he forwarded me on 28th July 2004. His response showed quite clearly that he did not agree with the right afforded by the Valencia government and was therefore not intent upon passing it on to you. In this matter we do not rely upon guessing games, but properly analyse the facts. Finally we leave it for you, our members, to come to your own conclusions.
Subsequent events have disclosed a very serious lack of knowledge, by both the Consul and or his staff over most general matters, that affect our day-to-day lives whilst resident in Spain. Had the Consulate joined forces with us and worked with cooperation, most of this woefully inaccurate information could have been avoided, particularly were we could have given him legal advice about your rights.
In order to clarify this matter further during the period end June to 19th July 2004 I made three telephone calls to our Consulate and on one occasion the same member of their staff telephoned me. I was informed that the authority for this general health care was vide Circular 1/2002 from the Generalitat of Valencia, who had committed this ‘right’ to health care into their own autonomous law from National law. With the feedback we were receiving from my newspaper article, it became clear to us that something was amiss. Hence I made further enquiry.
On the 19 th July I again telephoned the Consulate and was yet again informed that this right to health care was on a national basis. The person, with whom I was speaking, abruptly terminated the conversation, stating the Consul would speak with me.
The Consul advises that I lived in Spain by choice and that he cannot understand my emails
I was then treated to an outpouring of shouting me down and during the early part of that conversation Mr Thomson was extremely aggressive. He was shouting and preventing me from speaking and amongst some of his abuse I was told, “Why should the Spanish tax payer pay for your health care”. He also shouted several times, “You are here by choice”. I attempted to inform him that I was a European citizen and was in Spain by right of law. When told that I was enquiring on behalf of our Association I asked him, as to whether he was aware of us. I received a very curt reply, “Yes, I am.” Well had he properly visited our web site he would have learnt much to the advantage of his office. Particularly where we also mostly include the relevant law in support of the information we set out.
During that conversation I was informed for the first time that the right to health care for EU. an expatriate citizen was not of National origin and only included the Communities Valencia plus, he thought! Cataluña and Andalucia.
Following e-mails from myself to our Vice Consulate in Alicante. On the 28th July 2004 I received a reply from Mr Thomson. In which he offensively opens his address to me with such expressions as, “I am sorry to say that I have had the greatest difficulty in understanding your e-mails.” He then requested that I make my points again, “but in a lucid and coherent way, then I will try to address them.” I found this introduction offensive.
His e-mail then further commenced, “But first some facts:” I now make reference to the facts to which he refers and for convenience I have numbered them. You will see that I am able to identify most of what he then said as rubbish and not facts, according to the law.
(1) He refers to difficulties being experienced by expatriate residents when attempting to obtain their registration within the certain areas of the Community of Valencia. This matter we do not dispute, as it was quite apparent from the complaints we had received, that proper information, had either not been passed to the various health centres, or that the information, if received, was not being properly addressed. Where we do take issue with our Consul is where, had he addressed this matter from the very outset, such difficulties may not have arisen, or would have been lessened.
(2) He then continues with his belief that health care was available in Cataluña and Andalucia, informing me that he had spoken with the respective Consulate General and Consulate and that health centres in these Communities were also allowing expatriate residents to register for health care where registered on the ‘Padron’. It is difficult to understand as to where such information came from, as it was totally inaccurate. We quarrel with whom so ever this information had been obtained, due to its most obvious inaccuracy. We also received an e-mail from the Vice Consul at Alicante the previous day, supplying us with the addresses and telephone numbers of the respective Consular Officers inviting us to make further enquiries of them ourselves. This matter was clearly the responsibility of the various Consular Offices to resolve and amounted to, “If you don’t like what we say. Do it yourself.” Well, in truth we did not like what we were being told and events have proved us to be right.
Health care is NOT FREE he advises
(3) Mr Thomson continues by stating, “Such health care is not ‘free’. It is paid for by Spanish taxpayers.” Firstly this was a very impertinent remark to make, as the decision to embrace expatriate residents into the Spanish health system, as we are all used to in the United Kingdom, is one for the autonomous governments of the Communities of the Kingdom of Spain and most certainly not a matter to attract comment from a foreign Consul. His remark clearly indicated that he was of the opinion that expatriate residents should not receive health care in Spain. This is further borne out by his reluctance to make any public announcement from the outset. Secondly a great many expatriates, including myself, pay substantial income tax.
He advises that British State pensioners should do the decent thing
(4) Mr Thomson then launched into the abusive attack on State pensioners when he stated. “British state pensioners should, I believe do the decent thing by their (our) hosts and obtain a Form E121 (State pensioners entitlement to ‘free’ health care within the EU.) from the department of Work and Pensions in Newcastle and so obtain their SIP (Entitlement to health care card in Spain) on the basis of a transfer of health care cover from the British system to the Spanish one. That means our hosts get, from the UK, a resource transfer to help with the provision of health services and so ease the burden of massive immigration on the Spanish taxpayer. I have already said how offensive we found this unsubstantiated remark, directed at pensioners, and the reasons for it. Mr Thomson quite clearly has lost direction when he refers to the burden on the Spanish taxpayer, as in effect he goes on to contradict himself when he refers to mass immigration. This mass immigration is the single largest contribution to the Spanish economy. It is tourism. It means the investment of £Billions. He also overlooks the fact that Spain has received some £80 Billion, mainly from Germany and the UK. via Brussels, since her entry into the EU, 1 January 1986.
(5) On 13 August 2004 the Valencia Health Authority changed the rules over applying for a S.I.P. card (Health card) and demanded a certificate/letter from the Overseas Benefits Agency Newcastle. This document had to show that the applicant was no longer entitled to normal health care in the U.K. and was also not entitled to the issue of Form E.106 (Residual cover).
This had to be translated by an official translator into the Spanish language, or certified at the Consulate. I received this information by e-mail 25th April 2005, some eight months later, when the Vice Consul was responding to an enquiry by me, after we had been informed by one of our members that a member of the Consular staff had declared that our web site was out of date. In her e-mail to me the Vice Consul informed me that she had sent the information to a number of newspapers and also referred to an obscure magazine. As we are probably now the most widely known media in Spain for the dissemination of this type of information, we are entitled to conclude that the failure to acknowledge our existence by our Consulate was deliberate churlish behaviour. Particularly where we had exchanged considerable correspondence with the F.C.O. in London where we had also made complaints. Indeed you can determine from our web site that immediately upon receipt of this belated information we had included it. Our aim is to serve the expatriate community and not indulge ourselves. We can only go forward with help and cooperation with all agencies, whether they are government or otherwise. It does not serve the best interest of you our members to quarrel with such other agencies, as that is destructive and self-defeating. On our part we have not adopted this churlish behavior, but have kept our Consular up-to-date in matters where clearly they had little or no understanding. We also forwarded the A-Z over the latest information concerning the ‘mutual’ recognition of driving licenses. The inaccuracies on their own web site over driving licenses and health care. This we sent to F.C.O. London, where these inaccuracies were acknowledged, vide an e-mail to me dated, 12 May 2005, when it was agreed by London that their web site was inaccurate and would be amended.
(6) Our feedback reveals a lack of quality in assistance from our Consular Office in Alicante. One such complaint was when Mr Thompson gate crashed a ‘Help Mar Menor’ inaugural luncheon. In his e-mail he admits this, but then when on to describe how he had used the occasion to instruct some, “70 or so people there.” “To speak on the importance of ‘getting legal in Spain.” One should be aware that ‘Help Mar Menor’ is a very worthy organisation whose purpose we understand is to assist the elderly and the sick. The persons present were mainly ladies in their middle to late years. One is entitled to ask why Mr Thomson had invaded the lunch and then addressed those present about ‘getting legal’ in Spain? This had nothing to do with this newly formed organisation. He also stated, “It might even be that my presence there brought some extra publicity.” Perhaps here lies his problem where he lays stress upon his own ego. It is also clear from what he stated in his e-mail that gate-crashing functions of various organisations is not an unusual event, but he states he always offers to pay and when refused, buys raffle tickets!!
(7) Let us look at what he said at that luncheon about, “Getting legal in Spain”. He referred to, “getting on the Padron (The municipal electoral roll of residents). Yes, that is correct. However, he then went on to mention, “obtaining a ‘Residence’ card” What he did not say was that following the Marseille Agreement of 28 July 2000, Spain had dispensed with the requirement for all employed expatriates to apply for this card and further, at that time EU. Directive 2004/38/EC had been published on 30th April 2004, extending the right of ‘free’ movement within the EU. Including a number of other rights and requiring the abolishment of the requirement for all EU, expatriates to apply for a ‘Residence’ card. This Directive must be transposed into the national law of each Member State by 30 th April 2006 at the latest. Mr Thomson was clearly not aware of this Directive and one may be forgiven for saying that he would be better off remaining in his office at Alicante and acquainting himself with the developments taking place within the EU. He then refers to, “transferring health care.” We have already most suitably dealt with this matter, as here we assume that he is referring to State pensioners obtaining and registering Form E.121. He then mentions the need for swapping British driving licenses for Spanish ones and it is most clear that again he has little or no idea about this matter, as there is and was no need for EU. Expatriates to exchange their driving licence, issued in another EU. Member State, upon taking up residence elsewhere within the EU. (EU. Directive 91/439/EEC ‘Mutual’ recognition of driving licenses issued within the EU. As amended by EU. Directive 96/47/EC.). All forthcoming changes can readily be found on the EU. web site.
Indeed, ‘Infringement’ proceedings had already been opened before the European Court of Justice on 27th May 2002, against the Kingdom of Spain, following three complaints by the Commission. This was because Spain had failed to adopt all of the Directives into its own national law. It follows that any action in breach of those Directives rendered Spain culpable under European law, with proper right of redress by EU. Citizens. The case against Spain was heard on 9 September 2004 (Case-195/02), when the Court upheld all three complaints by the Commission.
We say to our Consul, “Mr Thomson, if you want facts. We will give them to you.” If you wish to advise others over the law, then please do not, as according to the F.C.O. London, such advice is outside your remit and most importantly you are not qualified to do so. All the law relevant to the ‘mutual’ recognition of driving licenses is sitting on our web site. We have even put it in a ‘Frequently asked questions’ and ‘Answers’ format. We have also advised the Consulate at Alicante.
The matter over this driving licence issue came to our notice when a member alleged he had attended the Consular Offices in Alicante and complained that he had been unlawfully fined for driving whilst using his British driving licence. Well, he had been unlawfully fined. However, he alleges he was told to go away and not break the law, or see a solicitor. Mr Michael Friend (named with permission) knew he had not broken the law and contacted us. He also advised us that he had lost his job as a result.
It is also alleged by a journalist, that our same Consul stated that we were in a ‘catch-twenty- two’ situation over the replacement of a ‘lost’ or ‘stolen’ driving licence, as the DVLA at Swansea would not issue a replacement after taking up residence elsewhere within the EU. And neither would the Spanish authorities. The only observation I will make is, that if made, this statement is wildly inaccurate. Common sense dictates that there is an administrative procedure in such an event. EU. Member States, where the expatriate is resident, including Spain, have agreed to issue a replacement. I have personally confirmed this with the Commission for Transport and Energy. There is no catch-twenty-two’ situation Mr Thomson.
(8) Some time ago it was reported in the press that Mr Thomson had suggested to the Spanish authorities that they should increase the charge for expatriates ‘Residence’ cards, as the way of solving the problem over the lengthy delay when attempting to obtain this card, plus long queues, where one waited to be seen at the Spanish Foreigners Office at Alicante. I waited some two years for my last renewal. Whereas the College of Lawyers at Valencia had declared the entire matter, ‘a breach of our human rights.’ A somewhat different response! We have the right to ask, “Just who is it our Consul in Alicante represents?” Mr Thomson is a non-elected Official and has no authority to make such pecuniary recommendations to the Spanish authorities.
(9) So the bumbling and muddling by our Consul has continued. You may recall the publication he is alleged to have caused to be released in our local newspaper of 18th February 2005. This was on the front page and under the headline ‘EXPATS URGED TO VOTE’. Whilst it must be said that the information he is alleged to have furnished was accurate, it was seriously lacking in proper completeness of information and essential advice. Mr Thomson clearly showed a lack of proper understanding of a number of the various, ‘Representation of the Peoples Acts’, that have come to us over the years. What we report here is what our Consul is alleged to have reported to the newspaper in question and we attach no blame to the newspaper providing their reporting was accurate.
(a) Mr Thomson is alleged to have stated, “British citizens who have been registered to vote in the UK. within the last 15 years can apply to be an overseas voter.” What he should have gone on to say, but did not, was that after 15 years of absence from the UK. A British citizen is then disenfranchised from voting further, unless he returns to the UK. And again takes up residence. From the enquiries we have received it is quite clear that a very large percentage of our expatriate population, were not previously aware of their right to vote and many of those who were so aware, were not aware of their disenfranchisement after 15 years. Indeed in a subsequent letter published in the same newspaper the writer had expressed an opinion, when it was quite clear that he had no knowledge over this disenfranchisement. It was therefore necessary for us to cause an ‘erratum’ letter to be published in the same newspaper on 25th March 2005.
(b) Mr Thomson is then alleged to have said, “Overseas voters can apply to vote by post if they want the ballot paper sent to them.” We advise our Consul that from the dissolution of Parliament, the new election must be called within 17 days. An Electoral Officer further instructed us that it takes about 10 days to get the ‘overseas’ ballot papers prepared for sending out. This leaves you then with seven days to receive and return your ballot paper. Mr Thomson above all people should be aware of the poor standard of the postal service in Spain and therefore that postal balloting was not a viable option. I too was so advised several years ago by my own Electoral Officer. We now wonder how many of you lost your vote by adopting this course of action. Indeed soon after this announcement by Mr Thomson we were advised by one of our members, Mr Rex Chopping (permission to publish name granted), that he had lost his vote at the previous election by adopting this course of action.
(c) Mr Thomson is also alleged to have stated, “Equally they can opt to appoint a proxy to vote for them on their behalf.” Yes they may, but voting is very much a private matter and many voters prefer to maintain confidentiality. That is why we have enclosed polling booths. Also some voters may not have someone they can trust, or no one living within easy reach of their polling station of their last U.K. address. Indeed, one lady wrote to the same newspaper expressing this has her problem. We say to Mr Thomson, if only you had chosen to come to us for advice, because if you are to advise others you must deal with all aspects of the equation. You could so easily have advised ‘would be’ voters that they may nominate the candidate of their party of choice. There can be no more certain way of both achieving a confidential vote and at the same time guaranteeing that your vote will be cast.