---

Summer Recess Adjournment

The House should not rise for the summer recess without addressing and resolving a situation facing a small but significant number of citizens of the United Kingdom who are being denied their right to "exportable benefits" . In October 2007, the European Court of Justice determined that aspects of disability living allowance, attendance allowance and carer's allowance were sickness benefits, rather than "special non-contributory benefits" and were therefore exportable and payable to United Kingdom claimants living in other EU states and Switzerland. That decision has, potentially, a profound effect on the incomes and well-being of those who, having left the United Kingdom to take up residence in other EU states, had benefits to which they had previously been told they had an entitlement for life, summarily withdrawn in 1992. Let us be clear: these are not rich people who have chosen to leave the United Kingdom to take their money with them and live in large villas with swimming pools; they are, by implication, all suffering from advancing disability, and most are elderly and drawing United Kingdom pensions. They have, throughout their working lives, paid UK taxes and national insurance contributions and have earned the right to those continuing benefits to which the ECJ says they are entitled. It would appear that there are about 2,000 to 3,000 such people and their moving abroad has probably saved the UK taxpayer significant sums in continuing health care costs. Although the ECJ ruling was issued in October 2007, it was not until 24 February 2009 that the Department for Work and Pensions finally issued its eligibility criteria for the payment of exportable benefits. First, the Department has imposed a condition that claimants must have resided in the United Kingdom for 26 out of the previous 52 weeks before claiming—inevitably, many people who moved abroad before the ECJ ruling have found their claims rejected on those grounds. Secondly, claimants are told that their applications for reinstatement fall because they did not appeal within the time limits set following the original decision to terminate benefits. Given that the ECJ ruling was not announced until October 2007, that is clearly a condition designed to facilitate the rejection of claims for reinstatement, rather than to facilitate them. Indeed, in a letter to me dated 14 April 2009 the relevant Work and Pensions Minister said:""Where no appeal was made, decisions made before the ECJ ruling on 18th October 2007 cannot now be revised because it was not until that court ruling that these decisions were shown to be errors in law"." In other words, the Government were saying, "We acted erroneously in law but you should have known that before the ECJ ruling and lodged an appeal. Because you did not do that your claim is now out of time and we don't have to pay you the money that the ECJ says is lawfully yours." What an honourable Government should have done, as swiftly as practicably possible following the ECJ ruling in October of 2007, is to have written to every known claimant whose payments had been terminated by the Department and advised them that, following the ECJ decision, their claims were being reinstated and backdated. There should have been no requirement on the claimants to instigate action to regain that to which they were and are entitled. One claimant, who has had his application rejected, is my own constituent John Hamilton, now resident in France. Mr. Hamilton has 44 years of United Kingdom national insurance contributions behind him, paid during a long career in teaching and civil engineering. He had his eligibility to receive disability living allowance confirmed for life on 17 June 2002 while still resident in the UK. His last full payment of DLA was made, after he advised the DWP of an impending move to France, on 23 May 2006. Mr. Hamilton and his wife left to live in France on 9 June of that year. On 13 March 2008 my constituent found on the internet a reference to the October 2007 ECJ ruling and wrote to the Department requesting reinstatement of his benefits. He was told that the exportability team were""awaiting confirmation of the eligibility criteria"." Following the publication of the long-awaited criteria in February of 2009, Mr. Hamilton received a letter telling him that a decision maker had rejected his claim. My constituent then submitted a request for an appeal hearing before an independent tribunal. To date he has received no date for a tribunal hearing and no satisfaction. What Mr. Hamilton—and many others in a similar situation—should have received is an apology from the Department for the chaotic mismanagement and delay following the ECJ ruling, immediate reinstatement of his benefits and, in his case, backdated payments from the date of termination in May 2006. John Hamilton was claiming DLA before he left the UK. He was awarded it for life. The ECJ has ruled that he is entitled to this benefit, and he and others like him want and deserve their money without further delay. If this Government and this Minister seek to prevaricate further at the expense of a few elderly and infirm UK citizens and their carers who have paid their dues to the United Kingdom, it will be to their eternal shame. I hope that when she comes to respond, the Minister will feel able to announce that all of those who have had their benefits terminated will now, and without further argument or appeal, have them reinstated along with reparation in the form of back payments. Nothing less will suffice.