Rue Ducale/Hertogstraat 67, 1000 Brussels, Belgium PLEASE REPLY TO 45 Mount Anville Park, Mount Anville Road Dublin 14 Ireland 14th March 2011

AEEBC RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION BY DG INTERNAL MARKET AND SERVICES ON THE PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIRECTIVE Introduction AEEBC “Expert Européen du Bâtiment et de la Construction” was established in 1990 and represents Building Surveyors and Construction Experts who are professionally qualified in the technological and management processes by which buildings are designed, constructed, renewed and repaired in accordance with the national codes and regulations of each member state. AEEBC is comprised of seventeen organisations from fourteen member countries ranging from Finland in the North to Italy in the South of Europe. It is estimated that each country, through its national associations, represents an overall membership in excess of 350,000 members across Europe. All AEEBC member organisations meet the academic requirements of the previous EU First General Directive 89/48 and members typically have 240 E.C.T. s. AEEBC consists of a combination of organisations many of whom are regulated by title, while others are regulated by function and some operate in a non-regulated environment While sharing a common professional equivalence and professional standards, AEEBC members have different titles (“labels”) and these titles are not always readily universally recognisable throughout European countries. These titles include Building surveyor, Technical architect, Constructing architect, Building engineer, Chartered builder, Building manager, Construction manager, Construction engineer, Civil Engineer, Project manager, Arquitecto Tecnico, Rakennusmestari, Bygginjeniör, Experts Construction, Geometre, Chartered Architectural Technologist, bygningskonstruktør. While regulation of professions is ostensibly based on consumer protection and other laudable reasons, it is important not to create barriers to recognition and free movement, and especially so when many professions have different titles. Many AEEBC member organisations are designated competent authorities in their member states as they either regulate their professions, e.g. RICS in UK for Surveying, CIOB in UK for Building and CIAT in UK for Architectural Technology, are listed as competent authorities in their respective areas, or are designated authorities under national legislation, i.e. SCS in Ireland (in compliance with the transposition of the EU PQD Directive 2005/36/EC) is the designated competent authority

1

for registration of titles for Building & Quantity Surveying and is in the process of compiling a National register for these categories. Mobility of construction professionals is compounded by the very significant downturn in European and Global construction activity which is disproportionally affecting construction professionals in some countries like Ireland, Spain and other regions within Europe, some of whom experience over 40% unemployment (or underemployment). Because of the relatively higher mobility of construction related personnel throughout Europe, AEEBC is conscious of the need to assist its members to respond to members’ needs (recognition and freedom of establishment) and facilitate an efficient mechanism to assist migrant construction professionals’ rights to practice in other countries and assist employers/clients and national authorities in other member countries by assuring an appropriate level of capability to provide a professional service in relation to quality, security, consumer protection and safety. In the absence of an agreed Common Platform AEEBC has developed a professional card (EurBE) which was designed to facilitate recognition of its members to work in other European member states. In approaching the development of this card AEEBC adopted a “bottom-up” approach based on mutual trust and transparency by producing a professional card with Information to provide a quality assured process of determination of professional capabilities in agreed professional construction areas. Professional cards developed by pan-European professional associations provide the basis to involve industry organisations, as a first step, in promoting an understanding of the educational/professional structures in other member states and assisting the competent bodies in assessing the suitability of a profession migrating from another member state. The EurBE card was developed to facilitate migration between EU member states by assisting competent authorities to recognise appropriately qualified migrant professionals thereby assisting competent authorities to waive compensation measures. We hope this will assist National legislators to move to a more convergent process. This will be available to qualifying members of each country associations making up the AEEBC (for Building Surveyors & Construction Experts) and will extend to other European professionals who meet the professional standards. AEEBC has invested significant resources in terms of manpower and financial expenditure in relation to the development of an online registration system from within its own resources and has developed a framework over the past seven years within its member organisations. AEEBC has consulted broadly within its own organisations and with external stakeholders. Professional qualifications are a combination of academic achievements at the highest level, complemented in many cases, by competency-based evidence of professional performance demonstrated in the workplace and to stakeholders. We set out below our response to the consultation by DG Internal Market and Services on the Professional Qualifications Directive

Yours faithfully

Kevin Sheridan MSc CEnv, PEng, FRICS FCIOB FSCS FCInstCES FIBCI MICE EurBE President AEEBC

2

Question 1: Do you have any suggestions for further improving citizen's access to information on the recognition processes for their professional qualification in another Member State? While in recent times improvements are apparent in some jurisdictions in relation to National contact points, we are informed that there is still a requirement for greater dissemination of information to citizens and coordination of activities is required in this area. There is still some work to be done to address the concerns reported in the E.U Report (Ref PE 416.238) It would appear that some of the National contact points are still either unclear of EU expectations, under- resourced or lack an effective support network and many require further guidance/support. Citizens would benefit from more proactive communications and support mechanisms by way of publicised and advertised guidelines and encouragement from the EU internal Market and other agencies to assist effective implementation. Greater communications between Professional Associations and Governmental agencies should be encouraged. Information must be easy accessible via the Internet, and in the major languages of EU. The idea of a central web page with links to local contact points is good, but today the links, in several cases, lead to the front page of a Ministry or an organisation in one language only, and with no easy link to the requested information. EU’s database of regulated professions is welcomed but needs to be improved. Currently there is often poor and misleading translations of national titles resulting in confusion and effectively results in misinformation. Professional organisations need to be encouraged to take part in the translation of their own titles. Where the scope of professions varies, the title is not enough to identify the profession, and the database should contain information on the functions carried out by the particular profession, especially if these functions are regulated. Question 2: Do you have any suggestions for the simplification of the current recognition procedures? If so, please provide suggestions with supporting evidence. The Directive is intended to encourage the free movement of professionals throughout the European Union. It acknowledges that standards and content differ between countries and it seeks to establish some equivalence between those trained in the countries of the European Union. The transposition of the directive requirements so far, merely refers to the process by which the member states give force to the directive by passing appropriate implementation measures. The implementation of the “non-sectoral ” General system, on mutual recognition of professionals by a willingness to develop and enforce workable solutions, has been frustrated by a combination of lack of enthusiasm on the part of many member states, who don’t believe or trust the system or are protectionist by nature. This would not be a problem if implemented with integrity and the public interest, as the guiding principle and provides a general assurance of minimum standards of professionalism leading to a greater assurance of service level provision. This is exacerbated by the current Common Platform requirement to achieve a 2/3 majority of “buy-in “by member states and the related requirement to engage with multiple competent authority stakeholders thereby resulting in an effective veto by those who wish to protect the protectionist status quo. We note that implementation in practice tends to favour specific traditional titles and it is difficult to get competent authorities to look at competencies as distinct from reliance on

3

traditional titles. We welcome the fact there is now a recognition that while the Sectoral Directives were interpreted on the understanding that professions were primarily the same in all countries of Europe, the consultation paper acknowledges that this is not the case, and that there is now a general awareness of problems with the non homogeneous nature of the professions and differences in the regulation of professions. The differences in titles can be a hindrance to free movement of otherwise competent professionals.

Question 3: Should the Code of Conduct become enforceable? Is there a need to amend the contents of the Code of Conduct? Please specify and provide the reasons for your suggestions The Code of Conduct is not a legally binding instrument and only provides an overview of best, acceptable and unacceptable practices. It is acknowledged from feedback received from citizens and competent authorities that the Code of Conduct is not yet well known amongst competent authorities. We believe that the Code of Conduct should be enforceable and the contents should be regularly reviewed. Regular monitoring and review will ensure that it is fairly and successfully implemented. Question 4: 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? While we do not have direct experience to hand of compensation measures we believe that unfairly imposed measures could be used as a deterrent and an opportunity to impose protectionist measures on migrant professional mobility and distort competition. A compensation period , particularly a three year compensation period should only be considered in exceptional high risk areas such as medicine and this could be significantly mitigated by a properly designed and administered professional card such as that proposed by the AEEBC. (EurBE Card). Question 5: Do you support the idea of developing Europe-wide codes of conduct on aptitude tests or adaptation periods? We agree in principle with Europe-wide Codes of Conduct on aptitude tests or adaptation periods. We believe that such tests or adaptation periods should be the exception if potential professional migrants satisfy the requirements of a rigorous professional card such as the AEEBC EurBE card. Question 6: 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? We welcome the fact that the European Court of Justice has paved the way with the socalled doctrine of “partial access” to a profession. In order to ensure the provision of partial recognition and acknowledging that, member states should accept the fact that parts of the functions of traditionally recognised professions are carried out by professionals with other titles.

4

We recommend that access to activities often assumed to be solely undertaken by sectoral professions (e.g. design aspects) be given by way of partial recognition to other competent professionals in order to remove a barrier to free movement. For example, architects currently enjoy automatic recognition and are incorrectly considered to be solely responsible for leading projects from conception to completion. A significant proportion of the knowledge and skills mentioned in article 46 of the directive can be legitimately claimed to be the domain of building surveyors and construction experts, Architectural Technologists, and engineers. Partial recognition would be facilitated by the introduction of a professional card such as the proposed EurBE card. Question 7: 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. AEEBC considers it very important for national organisations, in conjunction with panEuropean organisations, such as the AEEBC and other relevant European bodies, to facilitate graduates or partially qualified professionals by enabling mechanisms such as structured educational or training courses as bridging or “bolt on” training initiatives in response to identified training gaps or country specific needs. This can be initiated in the country of origin before a migrant professional travels to the host country. These situations are likely to be particularly important for construction graduates in countries currently experiencing a significant downturn in construction activity and are unable to avail of appropriate work experience. Pan-European bodies such as AEEBC which is comprised of many regulating bodies and includes competent authorities can facilitate such initiatives and coordinate supervised practice and forge stronger links and cooperation with competent authorities. Question 8: 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. Models such as the AEEBC proposed EurBE card provides a facility for a structured mechanism to verify appropriate experience undertaken in another member state by providing a validated mechanism accepted across a broad spectrum of European jurisdictions. This is facilitated by a network of competent professionals in the countries represented and liaison with competent authorities and appropriate stakeholders.

5

Question 9: To which extent has the requirement of two years of 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. We support the requirement for two years professional experience, however the extent of the barriers may be a lesser consideration in the context of partial recognition as the scope and level of the experience has to be taken in the context of the risk level associated with the professional activity. Question 10: How could the concept of "regulated education" be better used in the interest of consumers? If such education is not specifically geared to a given profession could a minimum list of relevant competences attested by a home Member State be a way forward? The EurBE proposed professional card while rigorous and demanding allows for a combination of academic evidence supported by competence-based evidence and does not rely solely on academic duration-based evidence. AEEBC strongly contends that recognition of professional qualifications is an ongoing process through professional training and experience assisted by CPD and lifelong learning and cannot solely rely on “duration determined” primary academic qualifications as set out in the Education Qualification Framework (EQF). Other professionally validated academic and experiential qualifications must be taken into account when determining the rights of professional to enter other EU markets. The card should focus on professional capabilities and competences and should not disproportionally rely on academic inputs such as the Educational Qualifications Framework where “duration- based” or, either Primary Degrees or Masters Degrees, are an absolute prerequisite. It should recognise the totality of the competences required and focus primarily on outputs Question 11: 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 a host Member State? For a professional card to be meaningful it needs to be rigorous, fair and transparent. AEEBC supports the principle of a professional card. We support its introduction in the context of a mechanism to provide a facility to ensure the provision of a transparent and equitable mechanism to assist in freedom of establishment for professionals to work and carry out their professional practice throughout Europe. We support a system that provides a relatively simple and non-bureaucratic system and provides a rigorous facility for assessing qualifications and competences needed for formal recognition across member states and across professions. We need to ensure that neither automatic recognition (or any professional card or other EU endorsed mechanism could be usurped by any vested interest group in order to restrict legitimate access to professional areas . We believe initiatives such as our EurBE (European Building Surveyor and Construction Expert) card provides a significant tool to facilitate free movement. The card enables transparent and authenticated evidence of an appropriate qualification level, which provides an attestation of relevant professional experience, and demonstrates that the

6

holder meets a range of professional capabilities. The card is renewable on a regular basis and allows for updating mechanisms for validating continuing professional development. The EurBE card presents a professional benchmark level for our members to allow comparisons across professional organisations, and thus enables AEEBC member organisations and other competent authorities to define compensating measures for membership of the profession. The EurBE card is a simple system which provides a robust facility for the assessment of qualifications and competences. We are confident that that this relatively simple and non-bureaucratic system provides a rigorous facility for assessing qualifications and competences needed for formal recognition across member states and The EurBE card could be used instead of declarations in connection with temporary access. As national validation is determined by the AEEBC national monitoring committees in consultation with relevant stakeholders who are fully au fait with the educational and professional requirements, this ensures the principle of subsidiarity in the validation process. The proposed AEEBC/EurBE process provides a mechanism to prevent problems associated with falsification of evidence. Question 12: Do you agree with the proposed features of the card? We believe that the professional card should be available to all EU professionals on a voluntary basis and should not just be confined to interested migrating professionals as the lead in processing period for qualifying professionals could result in unnecessary delays should members’ circumstances change at short notice. We contend that the card should be open to all interested professionals, even if they come from a Member State where the profession is not regulated and wish to move to a Member State where it is regulated. For some professions it may be appropriate for the card to be issued by the competent authority in the home member state. Equally we contend that the card should be issued by the professional organisation/association in the home member state, particularly where there is no competent authority and provided that it is endorsed, where appropriate by the over-arching pan-European organisation. The card could facilitate the temporary mobility of professionals replacing the current declaration regime. The card should have the following features: • It should be voluntary and available to all interested professionals and should be binding on competent authorities. • It could be issued by designated European Pan European Professional Associations or by agreement by the competent authority in the home Member State of the professional, i.e. the Member State of establishment or the Member State awarding the qualifications. • The authority best placed to assess and certify the qualifications of the professional is the designated pan-European Association who may delegate this authority to the national competent authority or national professional organisation. This could even be applied in situations where the home Member State does not regulate a profession but the host Member State does.

7

Question 13: What information would be essential on the card? How could a timely update of such information be organised? Name of Card Holder Issuing authority/ details of legal establishment Country of origin Descriptor Title/Profession/ Qualifications obtained Training/Specialist training experience (where appropriate) Expiry Central Web Database address: The information should be accessible on a central web site. Maintaining the web site should be one of the conditions required of the issuer, i.e. the pan-European professional organisation. Question 14: Do you think that the title professional card is appropriate? Would the title professional passport, with its connotation of mobility, be more appropriate? While ideally the Professional Card could be a passport to practice, we recognise that this is more likely to be aspirational than achievable in the short term as National Member States are unlikely to harmonise professions in the short to medium term. . Our view, based on our identified needs, is that the title professional card is appropriate, at present. A passport is considered to give access to another country but it is also considered to be a mandatory instrument. The professional card does not, in itself, give universal access but demonstrates that the holder is at a specific professional level. This is a benchmarking instrument that can help ease the recognition process – whether partial or full and assist temporary and occasional mobility. Question 15: What are your views about introducing the concept of a European curriculum – a kind of 28th regime applicable in addition to national requirements? What conditions could be foreseen for its development? While European training programmes for specific modules can complement National training curricula and provide added value for intending migrant professionals. European curricula for various professions could be developed on the basis of common sets of core competences. This would enable greater convergences to be achieved and facilitate the learning objectives to be met through a combination of academic qualifications to be underpinned by professional experience. For very specialist (minority) professions or professions that are not currently widely distributed throughout Europe, it would be important not to set a minimum number of states to qualify for EU endorsement of a Professional Curriculum. .

8

A European organisation of professionals could define their profession and put it forward to the Commission for endorsement based on the robustness and acceptance by competent authorities (where appropriate), industry, employers, professionals, etc. in the member states involved. This is to ensure that if a profession is regulated in two member states, movement between these two member states should also be facilitated. Question 16: 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. While it could be argued that the marketplace by virtue of its own natural dynamic has a propensity to fragment anyway, this is likely to be as a consequence of the ever increasing demands and rapid changes in processes and procedures and the associated complexity with some industries requiring broader high tech professional specialisations, this does not need to result in excessive numbers of regulated professions. The proposed EurBE Card recognises that there are variations in the range of competences (and titles) of its members and has identified minimum academic attainments and core competencies to which the majority of its membership can map against. When one considers the current state of play where some member states regulate certain professions or specific activities it is important to provide a rigorous and transparent mechanism to allow ease of access in a non discriminating way to appropriately qualified EU citizens. The proposed AEEBC Professional Card is offering such a solution where there is confusion about the level and scope of individual national professions who have different titles but similar competencies. Question 17: Should lighter regimes for professionals be developed who accompany consumers to another Member State? In such cases where professionals accompany consumers and based on the principles of proportionality and minimum risk to public safety regulations should be relaxed. Question 18: 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 online without declaration? Is it necessary to clarify the terms “temporary or occasional” or should the conditions for professionals to seek recognition of qualifications on a permanent basis be simplified? Annual declarations can be burdensome and unnecessary and requirements to submit multiple declarations to different competent authorities is , on the face of it unnecessary. The declaration regime requires simplification. AEEBC contends that a professional card, based on education and capabilities/competences would help to simplify and accelerate the mobility process for temporary and occasional mobility. It is important that the definition of what is temporary is not too closely defined in terms of time, as a construction project can take several years and still be temporary. An example of required simplification might state that the Directive should be in accordance with other Directives relating to construction: E.g. Directive 92/57 on Health and Safety at Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites defines “temporary or mobile construction sites” as “any construction site at which building or civil engineering works are carried out”. The Professional

9

Qualifications Directive should enable a building professional to work on a defined project as long as the project lasts. This means there will be a different understanding of the term “temporary” from sector to sector, therefore and should take account of the specifics pertinent to each industry/activity. If the EU were to set a prescribed definition, we would need assurance that the MS defines the period, for the migrant and for the sector, in a positive way Question 19: Is there a need for retaining a pro-forma registration system? The question of whether there is a need to retain the pro-forma registration system that allows authorities to check qualifications in advance, and the need to simplify annual declarations can result in unnecessary bureaucracy and delays that can be addressed by replacing this with a professional card that has broad acceptance. The requirement to be a member of an organisation/profession as the sole prerequisite for providing of service, is often just another barrier to overcome when professionals want to exercise their right to free movement: In many MS, e.g. architects organisations act as competent authorities at the same time as they define their membership in accordance with the directive’s article 46. Professionals who, in other MS, are qualified to offer architectural services, but are not covered by the access to automatic recognition, in the form of diplomas mentioned in Annex V or acquired rights in Annex VI; have difficulties gaining membership of the organisation that will be the prerequisite for the providing of service. Therefore, if registration with an organisation is a prerequisite for the provision of services, any proforma registration system, if deemed necessary should be sensitively implemented. The fee for pro-forma registration must be kept on a reasonable level compared to the fee paid by the member state’s own professionals and should not be used as another barrier. Question 20: Should Member States reduce the current scope for prior checks of qualifications and accordingly the scope for derogating from the declaration regime? Adoption of a Professional Card such as the proposed EurBE Card would provide some assurance to competent authorities that prior checks were carried out and could facilitate established rights to practice including temporary mobility. This should satisfy the underlying assumption on the European Court of Justice is that a professional who lawfully exercises his profession in a Member State is deemed sufficiently qualified to pursue this profession on a temporary or occasional basis in any other Member State. Question 21: Does the current minimum training harmonisation offer a real access to the profession, in particular for nurses, midwives and pharmacists? Automatic recognition to date is confined to seven professions (namely doctors, general care nurses, dentists, midwives, veterinary surgeons, pharmacists and architects). While the directive acknowledges that a significant number of migrant professionals belong to these professions it ignores the fact that other professions are competent by function such as building surveyors, Chartered Architectural Technologists, technical architects and engineers , many of whom are represented by the AEEBC. It is anomalous that such a distinction requires compliance with an unworkable set of criteria (so far) set down under

10

the Common Platform applying to the General Provision as distinct from the Sectoral scheme for automatic recognition. We note that some concerns have been expressed by some competent authorities related to the scope of automatic recognition, the need to update training requirements, the lack of transparency regarding the contents of the training programmes and the means of dealing with new diplomas. In contrast the proposed EurBE Professional Card addresses many of these concerns. Question 22: 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? AEEBC supports the need to review and update minimum requirements on a profession by profession basis but rejects the suggestions that it be based on the minimum duration at undergraduate level or post graduate academic basis that measures only learning outcomes. We support the requirement for lifelong learning supported by the requirement for appropriate continuing professional development. The proposed AEEBC Professional EurBE card is based on an assessment of primary professional qualifications supported by evidence of an agreed set of competences acquired in the workplace. We believe such a combination is more appropriate to consumer protection than notional academic qualifications. AEEBC supports a stronger focus on output based training and the need to consider the reform of the national higher education systems, generated primarily by the Bologna process. Question 23: 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? Member States should at all times be transparent in the provision of information to other member states. Question 24: 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. Member states that are slow in notifying new diplomas may be prejudicing their own graduate’s rights to practice in another country and should therefore be obliged to do this at the earliest possible opportunity. Question 25: Do you see a need for modernising this regime on automatic recognition, notably the list of activities listed in Annex IV? The list of activities in Annex IV should be modernised as e.g. in the case of construction they are too general and refer primarily to industry activity groupings as distinct from identifiable professional activities.

11

Question 26: Do you see a need for shortening the number of years of professional experience necessary to qualify for automatic recognition? AEEBC believes that the lengthening or shortening of the number of years of primary academic professional contact time focuses disproportionally on inputs and does not take enough account of outputs. While inputs are important they do not take account of the totality of professional development which is important to protect consumers particularly when the professions have a significant health and safety or public health aspect. Question 27: Do you see a need for taking more account of continuing professional development at EU level? If yes, how could this need be reflected in the Directive? CPD is no longer optional or discretionary in the modern climate with regular changes occurring in technologies, processes and legislation and many of our member organisations are now “policing” this process in the interest of quality assurance and consumer protection. We see great merit in requiring that all members demonstrate that their CPD is both appropriate and maintained with ongoing verification of CPD in the interest of lifelong learning and consumer protection. We therefore propose that CPD be linked to the professional card. It will be up to the European professional organisations to define what is required for renewal of the card. Question 28: Would the extension of 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? Construction services come within the scope of the services directive. We welcome closer cooperation between competent authorities of the home and host Member States to work in close collaboration and to provide mutual assistance in the interest of migrant professional mobility. This should permit national administrations to identify the relevant competent authorities in other Member States and improve communication. Question 30: Have you encountered any major problems with the current language regime as foreseen in the Directive? We have not encountered any major problems with the current language regime and feel that the marketplace is the best determinant of the extent of language skills for migrant professionals. It should be up to the employers of the professional, or to the consumer of a service, to determine if requirements for language skills are met. General requirements for language skills must not constitute yet another barrier, especially in sectors where language skills are not important.

12