Malta’s replies on the Green Paper on Modernising the Professional Qualifications Directive [COM (2011) 367]
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?
Competent Authorities have an important role to play in the implementation of the Directive. However, there is a clear need to strengthen the intercommunications framework between Competent Authorities in Member States. In fact, Malta supports a mandatory based IMI system to which all Competent Authorities will be linked.
It was agreed that trust is a guiding principle in recognition of qualifications which Member States benefit from. The increased mobility is therefore resulting that mutual trust is more focal to the process. This means that trust becomes the reliable factor and any abuse or breach of trust may result in collapsing the system and causing hazard to the profession and to the public.
Competent Authorities are aware that the facilitation of mobility through trust, shifts further responsibilities on their end, yet the responsibilities of the professional should be clearly highlighted in order in ensure that the Competent Authorities are able to fulfil such a role. Competent Authorities raised concerns on ensuring trust in the process of mobility in cases where more that 2 Member States are involved.
Furthermore, due to Malta’s specificity, the Competent Authorities’ limitations of financial and administrative capacities will pose a definite challenge to ensuring implementation.
Question 2: Do you agree that a professional card could have the following effects,depending on the card holder's objectives?
The Competent Authorities agreed that the use of a professional card would entail constant updating. This should be implemented through the mandatory reference to a real time database (IMI) rather than relying on the card as an actual pass.
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.
Competent Authorities agreed that prior declaration together with documents especially the accompanying Certificate of Current Professional Status is required. Article 7 can only be made redundant if there are solid assurances that the professional card system is mandatory and updated on real time basis.
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).
The deadlines currently proposed here are impossible and unfeasible. Two weeks are too short and Competent Authorities believe that the current deadline of 3 months or at least 2 months should be maintained.
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).
Same as above.
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.)
Competent Authorities related to health and safety to citizens disagreed with the principle of partial access due to the following:
- Patients/clients would not be in a position to easily identify what the professional is competent for;
- Fragmentation of warrant concept;
- Logistic problems for employers;
However a specific number of Competent Authorities highlighted that if rigorous system were to be employed this would be possible.
- Midwives agree as long as there is diversity of practice;
- Engineers agree since this is already implemented through jurisprudence
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
Since the set of criteria for professional qualifications requires clarification the Competent Authorities felt that they could not yet agree on lowering the current threshold.
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.
The Competent Authorities consulted are not aware of any regulated profession where EU citizens might face such situations.
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).
Malta supports an obligation for Member States to ensure that information on Competent Authorities and required documents for the recognition of professional qualifications are available through a central on line access point, this in turn would enhance mobility of EU citizens.
Production of fraudulent documents have become a worldwide problem and there are several signs worth watching out – lack of official stamps, poor paper quality, misalignment, wrong size and shape, blurred signatures, therefore, Competent Authorities concluded that they do not agree to support an obligation to enable online completion of recognition procedures. However, the process of recognition could be initiated but the final evaluation of such qualifications can only be presented once the original certification have been viewed and verified.
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.)
Competent Authorities do not agree that the requirement of 2 years’ professional experience should be lifted because there shouldn’t be any differences whether consumers are crossing borders or whether consumers are from the home Member States.
The protection of consumers has to be considered as central to such policies. Therefore consumers should be protected since there would be a gap of knowledge of the professional’s competences between the profession and the consumer.
Moreover, to ensure fair competition between professions in one Member State, professionals should adhere to a common system irrelevant of the nationality of their clients.
It was also pointed out that the context of the profession has to be taken into consideration as the repercussions in one profession may not be the same in another, especially in the health professions where the client is a patient and not a consumer.
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.)
As long as the regulated education and training is relevant for the profession, this should be valued. A number of transversal skills may be applicable and necessary to various professions. Some Competent Authorities stressed that competences should be identified and transparent for this system to function.
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)
Since not all Member States have implemented the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) it is not possible for the deletion of the classification outlined in Article 11. However, recognizing that the establishment of the EQF is triggering policy reform in Europe, it is fundamental that this Directive shifts towards the EQF rather than creating another set of levels of its own.
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.)
Malta supports the current justification for compensation measures for training of at least one year short, since this should address any missing skills, knowledge and competences. When Competent Authorities impose a compensation measure, Malta agrees that it is the responsibility of the Competent Authorities to identify any substantial differences and explain why these substantial differences prevent the professional to exercise his/her profession. Aptitude tests at reasonable periods should be mandatory to ensure that the professional is not hindered in terms of mobility.
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.)
The principles of the internal market should not differentiate between a graduate’s experience based on the location where it occurred, as long as it occurred within the internal market and this experience is supervised. This is also in line with the Morgenbesser ECJ case.
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.)
Option 2. Due to the sensitivity of health issues Malta supports the wider and more rigorous alert obligation. Following this the Competent Authority concerned should enquire into the details of this case.
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.
Malta supports option 2. The language requirement is a very delicate issue since Malta has 2 official languages, however not all Maltese speak both languages therefore this is creating problems especially in the health professions. This issue is further complicated when the professional working in Malta does not communicate in Maltese and is not even a fluent speaker of the English language.
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?
Malta supports a three-phase approach to the modernisation of the minimum training requirements. It is envisaged to take a legislative phase, a preparatory implementation phase and a fine-tuning phase. Phase 3 should be broadened to absorb also possible developments in credit systems and not limit itself to ECTS. There is emerging policy in European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) for VET credits which may be relevant to an array of professions. In turn by the time phase 3 comes into action there would be substantial progress recorded for ECVET.
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?
Yes this should be extended to establishment of services.
With regard to continuing professional development (CPD), it is clear that such development is of utmost importance for the relevance and update of the professional, as guided by the sector itself. Therefore due importance to the role of CPDs should be covered; even in the Directive itself.
Question 16: Would you support clarifying the minimum training requirements for doctors, nurses and midwives to state that the conditions relating to the minimum years of training and the minimum hours of training apply cumulatively? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.)
When setting these criteria there should be a clear mindset on how training hours/years of experience are accumulated and how these are recorded. If there is a clear methodology of describing accumulation then these terms can be used interchangeably. However if this is not done, then there might be different interpretations of both terms, as well as the possible abuse of citing the same experience under both terms. They can be used cumulatively, as all experiences should be given equal value irrelevant of the way they are measured – but their measure and assessed achievement of competences have to be quality assured.
Question 17: Do you agree that Member States should make notifications as soon as a new program of education and training is approved? Would you support an obligation for Member States to submit a report to the Commission on the compliance of each programme of education and training leading to the acquisition of a title notified to the Commission with the Directive? Should Member States designate a national compliance function for this purpose? (Please give specific arguments for or against this approach.)