MFPA Response to Green Paper – Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive – 23/09/2011

The Malta Federation of Professional Associations (MFPA) is pleased to have had the opportunity to respond to a Consultation regarding the Green Paper – Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive. MFPA put forward its views to the Commission on this important and delicate subject. The Federation trusts that its views will be taken constructively and that the contribution will serve to help evolve the Professional Qualifications Directive into a legislative instrument that will both develop and safeguard the delivery of high quality professional services to the benefit of the economic growth of Europe as a whole and to the well being of its citizens.

The following are the MFPA replies to the specific questions put forward in the Green Paper.

Preamble:

Throughout the Green Paper and in the Directive itself, there is a wide definition of professional qualifications and the Directive lacks adequate distinction between a profession which requires a University qualification or qualification at level 4 or higher and a ‘profession’ which is a trade and requires vocational training at levels lower than level 4 in the Malta Qualification Framework (MQF) of the Malta Qualification Recognition Information Centre (MQRIC) – or EU equivalent recognition. Provisions for mutual recognition therefore become more complex.

Question 1:

Do you have any comments on the respective roles of the competent authorities in the Member State of departure and the receiving Member State?

We support the roles as presented as long as the competent authorities are apolitical and have as their primary objective the safeguarding of the citizens interests and not the interest of any individual stakeholder. We therefore recommend that any revision of the Directive that establishes new roles for the competent authorities should also establish a framework governing the composition and operation of such Authorities. There should be a minimum of standards for competent authorities to be set up and recognised as such, given necessary IT infrastructure and administrative setup. Competent authorities should be viable without being commercial.

Question 2:

Do you agree that a professional card could have the following effects, depending on the card holder’s objectives?
a) The card holder moves on a temporary basis (temporary mobility):
– Option 1: the card would make any declaration which Member States can currently require under Article 7 of the Directive redundant.
– Option 2: the declaration regime is maintained but the card could be presented in place of any accompanying documents.
b) The card holder seeks automatic recognition of his qualifications: presentation of the card would accelerate the recognition procedure (receiving Member State should take a decision within two weeks instead of three months).
c) The card holder seeks recognition of his qualifications which are not subject to automatic recognition (the general system): presentation of the card would accelerate the recognition procedure (receiving Member State would have to take a decision within one month instead of four months).

a) Where the card holder moves on a temporary basis (temporary mobility), we are of the opinion that the declaration regime is maintained but the card could be presented in place of any accompanying documents.

b) and c) Where the card holder seeks automatic recognition of his qualifications, we are concerned that the reduced timeframes being proposed are substantial in nature and cannot be achieved realistically given the complexity of a number of the professions and the operational capacity of the competent authorities. We understand that the Commission has received a number of complaints related to the current timeframes not being adhered to. Reducing these timeframes will compound the problem which needs to be addressed through better procedures and proper structuring of the competent authorities. Additionally we are of the opinion that there should be mechanisms introduced to safeguard the validity and verification of the Card to protect against fraud and falsification.

Question 3:

Do you agree that there would be important advantages to inserting the principle of partial access and specific criteria for its application into the Directive? (Please provide specific reasons for any derogation from the principle.)

We are of the opinion that partial access to the profession should not be encouraged as it gives rise to a possible lack of clarity of competency and confusion for the end users. Ensuring qualifications and competence is safeguarding of service users and in the interest of society in general.

Question 4:

Do you support lowering the current threshold of two-thirds of the Member States to one-third (i.e. nine out of twenty seven Member States) as a condition for the creation of a common platform? Do you agree on the need for an Internal Market test (based on the proportionality principle) to ensure a common platform does not constitute a barrier for service providers from non-participating Member States? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) Professional qualifications in regulated professions

We are not in favour of lowering the current threshold of two-thirds of the Member States (MS). A common platform by its very name needs to be applicable across the larger majority of the MS. Rather we would suggest that a concerted effort, driven by the EU in collaboration with the representative professional organisations, be undertaken to establish more common platforms. In addition we would suggest that the professional competency requirements established by common platforms should be recognised as a benchmark across Europe as a means of ensuring quality standards.

Question 5:

Do you know any regulated professions where EU citizens might effectively face such situations? Please explain the profession, the qualifications and for which reasons these situations would not be justifiable.

While we do not exclude the possibility that in some MS, there could be instances where qualification requirements may be disproportionate, we strongly recommend that any such conclusion be established only after a thorough and in depth review of the specific cases.

The safeguarding of public safety/interest has to come before any other consideration and it is far more recommendable to err on the side of caution that to relax requirements and increase a public safety risk.

Question 6:

Would you support an obligation for Member States to ensure that information on the competent authorities and the required documents for the recognition of professional qualifications is available through a central on line access point in each Member State? Would you support an obligation to enable online completion of recognition procedures for all professionals? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach).

We support the introduction of an obligation for MS to ensure that information on the competent authorities and the required documents for the recognition of professional qualifications is available through a central on line access point in each MS.

We also support the introduction of an obligation to enable online completion of recognition procedures for all professionals as long as appropriate measures are in place for the authentication of identify and documents.

Question 7:

Do you agree that the requirement of two years’ professional experience in the case of a professional coming from a non-regulating Member State should be lifted in case of consumers crossing borders and not choosing a local professional in the host Member State?
Should the host Member State still be entitled to require a prior declaration in this case? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.)

We are of the opinion that professional standards established in a MS should apply to all persons in that country including consumers coming from third countries. We therefore, with regards to the first question within the question 7 statement, do not agree that any professional can provide services in a country without meeting the national professional standard. In addition the proposal put forward can easily give rise to confusion and abuse.

With regards to the second question within the question 7 statement, we are in agreement that a prior declaration be required, as such activity is governed by Local law and no exceptions should be made as this may lead to malpractice.

Question 8:

Do you agree that the notion of “regulated education and training” could encompass all training recognised by a Member State which is relevant to a profession and not only the training which is explicitly geared towards a specific profession? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.)

We do not agree as opening up would not ensure that all requirements for practise are actually covered in training and this can lead to ‘professionals posing as specialists in a specific field without actually having the full generic notion of the profession’ eg specialists in Autism without having a professional preparation as Speech Language Pathologists and therefore without having a full notion of other conditions and normal development – this can lead to confusion amongst service users and mal practise by these service providers.

Professional experience is also an integral part of professional development and is necessary to follow on the theoretical regulated education. This gives a professional the practical experience required to provide a holistic professional service.

Question 9:

Would you support the deletion of the classification outlined in Article 11 (including Annex II)? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach).

Educational preparation is a fundamental prerequisite to delivery of an professional service, we are therefore strongly against the removal of the classification outline which serves to establish the competency level of a profession and facilitates the required comparative assessment between different educational programmes.

Question 10:

If Article 11 of the Directive is deleted, should the four steps outlined above be implemented in a modernised Directive? If you do not support the implementation of all four steps, would any of them be acceptable to you? (Please give specific arguments for or against
all or each of the steps.)

We do not support the deletion of Article 11 however we are still providing our views on the four proposed alternatives.

Article 14 1 is still justified as the basis of any profession is educational preparation.

Experience of a qualified individual under the supervision of a professional is another fundamental requirement for the attainment of professional status, we therefore do not support the removal of the two year professional experience requirement.

We are not against any requirement for competent authorities to justify their decisions, we consider this important for transparency.

The mandating of the code of conduct should not be limited to compensation measures.

Question 11:

Would you support extending the benefits of the Directive to graduates from academic training who wish to complete a period of remunerated supervised practical experience in the profession abroad? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.)

We are in favour of the proposal to support extending the benefits of the Directive to graduates who wish to complete a period of remunerated supervised practicalexperience in the profession abroad, as long as mechanisms are put in place that can support the validation of the level of supervision provided and the final practical competence attained.

Question 12:

Which of the two options for the introduction of an alert mechanism for health professionals within the IMI system do you prefer?
Option 1: Extending the alert mechanism as foreseen under the Services Directive to all professionals, including health professionals? The initiating Member State would decide to which other Member States the alert should be addressed.)
Option 2: Introducing the wider and more rigorous alert obligation for Member States to immediately alert all other Member States if a health professional is no longer allowed to practise due to a disciplinary sanction? The initiating Member State would be obliged to
address each alert to all other Member States.)

Safeguarding public interest is paramount and we therefore support the introduction of Option 2 and the wider and more rigorous alert obligation for Member States to immediately alert all other Member States if a health professional is no longer allowed to practise due to a disciplinary sanction. This should apply also to cases under disciplinary review, and such professionals should be barred from providing their service elsewhere until the case is closed.

Question 13:

Which of the two options outlines above do you prefer?
Option 1: Clarifying the existing rules in the Code of Conduct; Option 2: Amending the Directive itself with regard to health professionals having direct contact with patients and benefiting from automatic recognition.

We are of the opinion that the two options should be implemented:

clarification of the existing rules of the the Code of Conduct ; and

at the same time the Directive should state that for those professionals, and not only healthcare professionals, who require a knowledge of the language in order to ensure a safe and proper service, the competent authorities should be allowed to carry out the necessary language skills tests.

Question 14:

Would you support a three-phase approach to modernisation of the minimum training requirements under the Directive consisting of the following phases:

– the first phase to review the foundations, notably the minimum training periods, and preparing the institutional framework for further adaptations, as part of the modernisation of the Directive in 2011-2012;
– the second phase (2013-2014) to build on the reviewed foundations, including, where necessary, the revision of training subjects and initial work on adding competences using the new institutional framework; and
– the third phase (post-2014) to address the issue of ECTS credits using the new institutional framework?

We agree with a final system based on ECTS credits and are therefore in favour of the proposed three phased approach.

Question 15:

Once professionals seek establishment in a Member State other than that in which they acquired their qualifications, they should demonstrate to the host Member State that they have the right to exercise their profession in the home Member State. This principle
applies in the case of temporary mobility. Should it be extended to cases where a professional wishes to establish himself? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.) Is there a need for the Directive to address the question of continuing professional development more extensively?

The same principle demanding that a professional goes through the recognition procedure of the home member state in order to obtain temporary mobility should be applied in the case of someone seeking to establish himself. In the case of health professionals this would avoid the risk of professionals who come to exercise their profession in a member state without having practised for a long period of time, it helps to ensure they are up to date with current knowledge and practise. Continued professional Development (CPD) is absolutely crucial and it should be carried out throughout one’s career to ensure and maintain adequate competency to practice. It would be recommended that a general principle applies for health care professionals and other professionals not yet having such a requirement, where they have to prove/fulfil CPD requirements on a national level before they are allowed to benefit from automatic recognition in the host member state.

Question 24:

Do you consider it necessary to make adjustments to the treatment of EU citizens holding third country qualifications under the Directive, for example by reducing the three years rule in Article 3 (3)? Would you welcome such adjustment also for third country nationals,
including those falling under the European Neighbourhood Policy, who benefit from an equal treatment clause under relevant European legislation? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.)

Where 3rd country nationals meet criteria of adequate training and practise as EU citizens these should be allowed to participate in the EU economy, however all the current requirements should be maintained as a safeguard for adequate practise and protection of EU citizens.

-END-