Such complete information on the Website of the competent authority would also help very much.

Transcription

1 1 Response to the Public Consultation on PQD by the Austrian Federal Chamber of Architects and Chartered Engineering Consultants (representing approx Architects and Chartered Engineering Consultants) Q1. Do you have any suggestions for improving citizen s access to information on the recognition processes for their professional qualification in another Member State? A1. In the field of architecture there is an ongoing European cooperation of competent authorities, therefore professional organisations in the member states of origin usually know the relevant contacts in other countries personally and can inform their members accordingly. When there is no personal contact the access to information gets more difficult. Especially problematic is the situation for engineers, as there is a huge amount of different authorizations for engineers existing and the profession is organized and structured very differently in different member states. So getting all the right information is often an extreme challenge, especially when there is no personal contact existing. Unfortunately the websites of the points of single contact are not much help: It is extremely difficult to find relevant details / contact points via those websites. Only some of them are structured in a way that makes it possible to actually find the relevant information for a certain profession. Therefore it would be an important step to improve those websites. Their structure should be similar in all countries so that service providers know where to find which information on all of them. At the moment each of them has its own system which is often not very practical. As a minimum standard it should be easy to find a certain profession and some basic information about the recognition requirements and all necessary contact details for that certain profession. English translation would be extremely helpful. Such complete information on the Website of the competent authority would also help very much. The quality of the national Contact Points under the PQD is very different. In some countries they are very helpful and competent, in others it is hardly possible to get through to them. We have even made the practical experience in some countries that it is not possible to get through the telephone switchboard when the person there is not able to understand any other language than the home country language. Problem is also, that in some countries there is no flow of information between the

2 2 national Contact Points and the national professional representatives / competent authorities who have all the necessary information. It should be a minimum standard that Points of Single Contact and National Contact Points are willing and able to communicate in English. The user guide on PQD is a very helpful instrument as it enables the professional who seeks recognition to contradict if a competent authority is asking more from him than what is acceptable. Q2. Do you have any suggestions for the simplification of the current recognition procedures? If so, please provide suggestions with supporting evidence. A2. If the recognition procedure would actually comply with the Directive and the Code of Conduct in every country this would lead to a considerable simplification. The experience of our members (architects and chartered engineering consultants) shows that in some cases the requirements are still more extensive than it is allowed according to the Users Guide of the Professional Qualifications Directive and the Code of Conduct for competent authorities. So when implemented correctly the recognition procedure for sectoral directives is already quite simple and therefore displays no room for further simplification. But in view to make professional recognition for EU architects possible also outside the EU it would be extremely important to raise the duration of required minimum training for architects from four years to the international standard of five years. In view to international recognition it would also be helpful to reintroduce the two years of pre-recognition professional experience. For chartered engineers a new version of the common platform-concept could definitely simplify the procedure (see ECEC (European Council of Engineers Chambers) document which was submitted to Mr Tiedje in November 2010). As language requirements have proved to be a barrier to mobility it would be an important step to ease them: It is of course necessary that service providers are able to provide good communication with their clients, but it should be clarified in the directive that it is sufficient to provide it through other persons, e.g. an employee, a partner, a translator. But actually the main problem is that professional recognition does not automatically give market access. There are a lot of additional barriers which undermine the professional recognition making it practically impossible to use the recognition and actually work as an architect /chartered engineer due to national

3 3 regulations e.g. in building laws. This occupational ban happens also very much in countries with no regulated professional recognition. It would therefore be necessary to screen interrelating laws, not only those which actually regulate the recognition procedure. Very important barriers to market access can also be found in requirements/criteria public procurement procedures (hopefully his problem will be tackled also during the current review of European procurement policies). Due to differences in standards, differences in software systems and especially differences in the specification books it is almost impossible - or only possible with an immense effort that is not affordable for KMU - to participate in procurement procedures in other countries! Q3. Should the Code of Conduct be enforceable? Is there a need to amend the contents of the Code of Conduct? Please specify and provide reasons for your suggestions. A3. The best way to make the essential principles enforceable is to make them as clear as possible in the Directive directly. Nevertheless, the Code is an important guideline for competent authorities and in combination with the users guide - also for professionals who seek professional recognition in their argumentation towards competent authorities. Q4. Do you have any experience of compensation measures? Do you consider that they could have a deterrent effect, for example as regards the three years duration of an adaptation period? A4. Compensation measures in Austria mainly used in the general system for engineers - in case of establishment are a practicable instrument to compensate substantial differences in the professional education of service providers. They do not have a deterrent effect. On the contrary they can be helpful in building up mutual trust and confidence which is extremely important in view to enhance mobility and therefore serve the service providers as well as the clients.

4 4 Q5. Do you support the idea of developing Europe-wide codes of conduct on aptitude tests or adaptation periods? A5. A Code of Conduct for all professions could be problematic to use in view to national and professional characteristics. Nevertheless it could be interesting to enhance the exchange of information with a collection of best-practice examples for different professions. Q6. Do you see a need to include the case-law on partial access into the Directive? Under what conditions could a professional who received partial access acquire full access? A6. Partial access to the profession as a principle would complicate the recognition system considerably and is in many countries not foreseen in the professional regulations. It can also lead to a fragmentation of markets that cannot be wished for. Q7. Do you consider it important to facilitate mobility for graduates who are not yet fully qualified professionals and who seek access to a remunerated traineeship or supervised practice in another Member State? Do you have any suggestions? Please be specific in your reasons. A7. Yes, professional practice in another country is an important asset for the professional lives of architects and chartered engineering consultants. It can enhance mobility in the profession as a whole. Exchange programmes are helpful. Q8. How should the home Member State proceed in case the professional wishes to return after a supervised practice in another Member State? Please be specific in your reasons. A8. The home member state professional regulator would assess the evidence of achievement in the same way in which the professional practice in the home country is assessed.

5 5 Q9. To which extent has the requirement of two years professional experience become a barrier to accessing a profession where mobility across many member States in Europe is vital? Please be specific in your reasons. A9. The requirement of two years of professional experience in case that a profession is not regulated in the home country is not deterrent. Especially as - concerning the profession of architects and chartered engineering consultants in many countries professional access on national level can only be gained after at least two years or even a longer period of professional experience. Q10. How could the concept of regulated education be better used in the interests of consumers? If such education is not specifically geared to a profession could a minimum list of relevant competences attested by a home Member State be a way forward? A10. A better use of the concept of regulated education requires a clearer definition. In principle a list of competences attested by a home Member State could be a starting point. In view to the fact that in many countries like in Austria universities are completely free to generate curricula, regulated education can not replace a common system of agreed standards. It can also not replace the principle of compensation. Q11. What are your views about the objectives of a European professional card? Should such a card speed up the recognition process? Should it increase transparency for consumers and employers? Should it enhance confidence and forge closer cooperation between a home and host member state? A11. As long as scope and legal and practical situation of the profession throughout Europe are as different as they still are we think that a European professional card as it is/was discussed for quite a while now will definitely not speed up the recognition process. It has to be stressed that the existing problems are not only caused by the professional recognition procedure itself but even more so by the lack of market access. There are a lot of additional practical barriers which undermine the professional recognition making it practically impossible to use the recognition and

6 6 actually work as an architect/engineer in the host country due to national regulations e.g. in building laws. This occupational ban happens also very much in countries with no regulated professional recognition. Additionally as already mentioned in answer 2 - due to differences in standards, differences in software systems and especially differences in the specification books it is almost impossible - or only possible with an immense effort that is not affordable for KMU - to participate in procurement procedures in other countries. It would therefore be necessary to screen interrelating laws, not only those which actually regulate the recognition procedure. The card does not offer any solutions to these problems. Therefore at the moment we do not see any added value in a professional card. On the contrary we do fear that such a card could lead to a considerable amount of confusion among clients, but also among card holders and competent authorities. This would in consequence decrease instead of increase mutual trust in the recognition system. As a first step to speed up the recognition procedure itself, it might be helpful to simply create the possibility in the IMI system to form a professional certificate (formed on request of the professional who wants to be registered in another country by the competent authority of the home country) to which the competent authority in the host country gets access and which contains all the necessary information for recognition. But also this would only work in the framework of an obligatory application of the IMI system and a prior agreement of competent authorities on the relevant information which should in addition to the identity of the professional - be part of such a certificate. On request of the professional such a certificate could also be used by the professional (printed, chip ) to present to clients / in public procurement procedures. Q12. Do you agree with the proposed features of the card? A12. See answer 11 Nevertheless it has to be absolutely clear that any card/certificate etc can only be issued by the competent authority of the home country! Otherwise any document/card would have no credibility at all. As mentioned in answer 11 the obligatory use of the IMI system would be a prerequisite and any card/certificate would have to be optional for cases of planned cross border activity. A card / certificate cannot be binding for any decision of a competent authority in our suggestion it just contains the necessary information needed by

7 7 the competent authority to assess the recognition of the professional according to the legal situation. The information would have to be accepted as validated information of course - but as it can be formed only via IMI this is self-evident. Q13. What information would be essential on the card? A.13. See answers Q14. Do you think that the title professional card is appropriate? Would the title professional passport, with its connotation of mobility, be more appropriate? A14. See answer 11 Professional card would lead to confusion, wrong expectations etc IMI certificate? Q15. What are your views about introducing the concept of a European curriculum a kind of 28 th regime applicable in addition to national requirements? What conditions could be foreseen for this development? A15. For engineers we still do think that if a sectoral approach is still seen as too complicated for the variety of engineers professions - a new version of the common platform-concept could definitely simplify the procedure (see ECEC (European Council of Engineers Chambers) document which was submitted to Mr Tiedje in November 2010). The sectoral system already works with common minimum requirements of professional competences (e.g. the 11 points in Art 46 of the directive). The difference of this already existing system and the suggestion in this question is not completely clear (except that not all 27 member states have to give their consent). Anyhow it is of course evident that competent authorities /professional bodies must be involved in any case of drafting such lists of competences.

8 8 Q16. To what extent is there a risk of fragmenting markets through excessive numbers of regulated professions? Please give illustrative examples for sectors which get more and more fragmented. Should lighter regimes for professionals be developed who accompany consumers to another Member State? A16. Even if the question tries to imply this, we don t see fragmented markets in the engineering field/architectural field due to professional regulation. Regulation can and should ensure quality of service and protection of the client. The much greater risk at the moment seems to be that of fragmenting a well functioning regulatory system by ad hoc changes and therefore demolish consumer protection and mutual trust. Q17. Should lighter regimes for professionals be developed who accompany consumers to another Member State? There is no need for such a lighter regime in view to the professions of Architects and Engineers. The current system serves as well the clients as the service providers quite well. Q18. How could the current declaration regime be simplified, in order to reduce unnecessary burdens? Is it necessary to require a declaration where the essential part of the services is provided on-line without declaration? A18. In Austria no more declaration is necessary in case of cross-border provision of services. We think that this system is functioning well. Q19. Is there a need for retaining a pro-forma registration system? A19. See answer 18 Q20. Should Member States reduce the current scope for prior checks of qualifications and accordingly the scope for derogating from the declaration regime? A20. See answer 18

9 9 Q21. Does the current minimum training harmonisation offer a real access to the professions, in particular for nurses, midwives and pharmacists? - Q22. Do you see a need to modernise the minimum training requirements? Should these requirements also include a limited set of competences? If so, what kind of competences should be considered? A22. For Architects: The 11 Points of Art 46 are still in line with scientific progress and professional needs. In point (i) the aspect of sustainability could be added. But in order to make professional recognition for EU Architects possible also outside the EU it would be extremely important to raise the duration of the minimum training for architects from four years to the international standard of five years. The minimum now is lower than in most EU member states, is clearly against the UIA/UNESCO recommendations and is therefore clearly hindering the mobility of EU architects outside of Europe. In view to international recognition it would also be helpful to reintroduce the two years of pre-recognition professional experience. Q23. Should a Member State be obliged to be more transparent and to provide more information to the other Member States about future qualifications which benefit from automatic recognition? A23. Yes mutual confidence in other Member States systems is vital. This is best achieved by transparent, cooperative information. Q24. Should the current scheme for notifying new diplomas be overhauled? Should such notifications be made at a much earlier stage? Please be specific in your reasons. A24. It is difficult to see, from the point of view of this Directive, why notification is required prior to the first graduates seeking recognition. The reorganization of architectural studies leading to Bachelor and Master degrees according to the Bologna process imposed an additional workload on the notification process. This situation is partly due to bad communication and information on several levels. At the beginning of the so called Bologna Process, most of its authors

10 10 were national ministries as well as the (architects') schools, who were badly informed about the consequences of their changing the complete university education system. Even today, schools ignore to a high degree their responsibility for the notification process, and especially to young students, because it is ultimately the schools task to start (and to provide the information for) the notification process. Although most universities do check in advance the compliance of each new architectural study course with the minimum competences stipulated by article 46 of the PQD, there is no guarantee that all newly developed courses respect and fulfil the compliance. So as to create trust in a system of automatic recognition the notification process must be retained, and not unduly overhauled. Q25. Do you see a need for modernising this regime on automatic recognition, notably the list of activities in Annex IV? A25. This question does not pertain to the architectural profession. Q26. Do you see a need for shortening the number of years of professional experience necessary to qualify for automatic recognition? A26. This question does not pertain to the architectural profession, but rather to those covered by PQD Annex IV. Q27. Do you see a need for taking more account of continuing professional development at EU level? If yes, how could this be reflected in the Directive? A27. Continuous Professional Development is of course a very important aspect of architects and engineers qualification. Nevertheless it cannot be a requirement for automatic recognition. The situation in view to CPD is very different in the member countries and there is no European standard for CPD yet. Therefore for the moment the provisions in the Directive (recital 39 and Art. 22 (b)) on continuous professional development are adequate and do not need any further specification.

11 11 Q28. Would the extension of the IMI to the professions outside the scope of the Services Directive create more confidence between Member States? Should the extension of the mandatory use of IMI include a proactive alert mechanism for cases where such a mechanism currently does not apply, notably health professions? A28. Actually the IMI for the Services Directive is very rarely used, the IMI for the PQD more often. But to make the system really work obligatory use would be necessary. It should also be improved and made more user-friendly. Q29. In which cases should an alert obligation be triggered? A29. Q30. Have you encountered any major problems with the current language regime as foreseen in the Directive? As language requirements have proved to be an extremely relevant factor to practically hinder mobility (even if they are not seen as part of the recognition but as prerequisite for the provision of the service) it would be an important step to further ease them: It is of course necessary that a service provider is able to provide good communication to the client, but it should be clarified in the directive that it is sufficient to provide it through other persons, e.g. an employee, a partner, a translator.