The European Council of the Liberal Professions (CEPLIS) is the inter-professional organisation
representing the liberal professions at the Community level. Its members are inter-professional
federations of professional bodies in individual EU Member States and mono-professional
organisations representing professional associations and regulators at EU level. CEPLIS does not
represent individual practitioners. It is their professional or regulatory bodies that are members of,
or are associated with, CEPLIS.
These bodies include the inter-professional federations of France (UNAPL), the UK (UKIPG),
Spain (UP), Italy (CUP & Confprofessioni)), Ireland (IIPA), Belgium (UNPLIB), Romania (UPLR),
Malta (MFPA), etc, who have within their membership the national organisations of most of the
professions; as well as the organisations representing at the European level the professions of Nurse
(FEPI), Psychologist (EFPA), Osteopath (FEO), Veterinarian (FVE), clinical Chemist (EC4),
Podiatrist (CLPUE), European Council of Engineers Chambers (ECEC), Council of European
Geodetic Surveyors (CLGE), International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorney's (FICPI),
European Confederation of Conservators-Restorers’ Organisations (ECCO), Fédérations des
Associations de Notaires Européen. At the same time, many national or oversight regulatory bodies
of our professions, such as those of the Italian Physicians and Dentists (FNOMCeO), the French
Accounters, the United Kingdom Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE) or the
Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) of the UK participate in the activities of CEPLIS, as
correspondent organisations.
As an example of the range of CEPLIS, its most recent work on Continuous Professional
Development (CPD) among European Professions elicited responses from 62 professional registers,
coming from 17 Member States. CEPLIS also sponsors a European Institute for Research on
Liberal Professions (centred on the University of Leeds in the UK), comprising a number of
independent universities across the member states which collaborate to mutually support and peerreview research related to professional activities.
The professions represented within CEPLIS are of course directly concerned by the evaluation
process of the European Directive relating to the Recognition of Professional Qualifications. Our
Members are grateful to the European Commission, and in particular to the Directorate-General on
the Internal Market, for involving the professional associations in the evaluation process of this very
important legal document for our sector and wish to share a number of issues that have been
identified as in need of improvement in the application of the Directive in question.
1.
Minimum Training Requirements. Although the process generally provides adequate
grounds for ensuring public protection, some aspects could be improved (such a fuller
implementation of IMI); the majority of competent authorities make use of the electronic
and other communication tools available, but there is insufficient sanction on those who do
not. However, it is not the process which causes concern as much as some of the underlying
issues, most significantly the ability of the ‘Sectoral’ system to cope with developments in
the underpinning science and practice of the professions concerned. Moreover, these
developments relate not just to the underpinning science and practice of the profession itself,
but also to teaching and assessment, quality assurance and legal certainty. Without any
effective shared mechanism for regular updating, mutual learning and QA, current
arrangements leave these requirements frozen in time and increasingly outdated.
2.
Temporary license to practice. The ‘temporary and occasional’ provisions are intended to
be a simplification of the general requirements, but cause concern because ‘temporary and
occasional’ is not well defined, and can be misused as a ‘backdoor’ to permanent
establishment. Regulators have a duty to confirm that a practitioner is fit for practice,
whether for one session or for a full working life, and the stresses of travel and working
time, of changing language, culture, business systems, etc, all potentially increase risk
factors, and must be recognized and balanced against the encouragement of cross-border
provision of services.
3.
Continuous Professional Development. Currently, systems place excessive emphasis on
original qualifications and insufficient emphasis on the need to reflect upon practice, update
skills and knowledge, and maintain adequate continuity of practice in the chosen field of
work, to assure competence to ‘today’s’ standards. As jurisdictions increasingly require
mandatory revalidation of competence, divergent standards will soon apply to nationals and
to migrants, unless professional updating, CPD, and Continuing Fitness to Practice
requirements become a universal norm.
4.
Exchange of information on fitness to practice. In both the ‘General System’ and
‘Sectoral System’, competent authorities need to be assured of the continued fitness to
practice of all intended migrants, whether for permanent establishment or for the provision
of temporary and occasional services. This gives rise, not only to the CPD issue raised
previously, but also to the question of fitness based on good health and good conduct. There
must be a duty on home nation competent authorities to share with the intended host nation
competent authority all that is known about a registrant, and to be pro-active in doing so.
[It is suggested that this be reviewed not just in the context of Directive 2005/36/EU but in
the wider context of data protection legislation based on Directive 95/46/EEC (which we
understand is concurrently being updated).]
5.
Identity Verification. None of the processes for mutual recognition are any good if the
testimonials are forgeries, are issued by non-recognised institutions, or relate to a person
different from the one actually presenting for recognition. Most competent authorities have
evidence of fraudulent applications and the utmost vigilance is required, especially when the
‘qualification chain’ involves multiple institutions of learning and employment, and many
different jurisdictions and competent authorities. There must be adequate, but practicable,
quality assurance in this area.
6.
Professional Cards. One possible solution to questions of currency and provenance of
qualifications, good standing with the home nation regulator, and possible identity fraud, is
the use of appropriate Professional Cards. Such cards offer as much potential as the
provenance of the database which underpins them, and the security, maintainability and
reliability that the total system will allow. In that context we would like to reminf that
CEPLIS is currently working jointly with EUROCADRES on a European Commission cofunded project entitled “Implementing Cards for the recognition of European Professional
Qualifications – a multi-stakeholder approach to enhance mobility”. The results of the
project in question are expected in the first semester of 2011.
7.
Common Platforms. Common Platforms were part of an original proposal a decade ago,
and exist de facto in some professional areas, but the absence of qualification specifications
written in outcome or competence terms was a major deficiency at the time, and made it too
easy simply to fall back on to academic levels (as Article 11) rather than true professional
competence specifications. They could be the norm in future, given the will to update both
approach and content, perhaps based on EQF.
8.
Language Competence. Language competence is a vexed question, with difficulties
sometimes caused by national implementing legislation being more stringent than Article 53
of the Directive. Problems arise from dialect, idiom, cultural and regional differences, and
nuance, rather than from testable ‘standard’ forms of the language. Moreover, some
professionals may well travel on a ‘temporary and occasional’ basis specifically to provide a
native language professional service to expatriates living in another member state.
Moreover, for some technical work, professionals may well communicate with each other
satisfactorily using universal scientific and mathematical notation and terms, drawings and
data transfer. Any change must avoid a solution which presented as many unintended
adverse outcomes as it prevented, particularly if it provided a ‘nationalistic protectionist’
with an excuse not to recognise a genuine applicant. On the other hand, a clear
‘management of safety’ duty generates a need for the language competence necessary for
people to work safely, whether it is a doctor taking a patient’s history or a construction or
factory worker entering a ‘foreign’ work site. Induction to the work environment is always
required. The Commission is invited to take a Commission-wide view of this topic.
CEPLIS, comprising many Competent Authorities and Professional Associations across Europe,
welcomes the initiative of the Commission to evaluate the working of the current Directive, to see
how best it can be improved and updated, and perhaps balance more carefully the competing claims
of consumer protection and freedom of movement. Professional work is not just a commercial
transaction between two equal partners; it is often an asymmetric relationship which must be based
on trust in both the technical competence and ethical standards of the service provider.
The processes required to implement the Directive must unambiguous, and as simple as possible, to
minimise evasion. Whilst the professional education and formation must always be fit for purpose,
that is not enough. The processes which lead to academic levels (as Article 11) must ultimately be
matched to ‘outcome measures’ of the type which specify full professional competence in a real
professional working environment.
Whether applied to the ‘General Systems’ or ‘Sectoral’ areas of work, the key issues listed in points
1 – 8 above must be resolved during this review of the Directive. Some of thesmatters are not
simply issues of free movement or of consumer protection. They are part of a wider and bigger
picture, whether of Data Protection, E-Commerce, or Management of Safety, as well as the overall
move to remove barriers to the Single Market (in accordance with the Monti Report’s observations).
We ask that the Commission and European Institution partners take a wide ranging and forward
looking view.