Question 1: Do you have any suggestions for further improving citizen's access to

The Architects Registration Board welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Public Consultation on the Professional Qualifications Directive carried out by the European Commission. The Architects Registration Board (ARB) is the UK s statutory regulator of architects. ARB was established by Parliament in 1997 to regulate the architects profession in the UK. ARB is an independent, public interest body and its work in regulating architects ensures that good standards within the profession are consistently maintained for the benefit of the public and architects alike. ARB is the UK s competent authority for architects under the Professional Qualifications Directive. 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? ARB Response: ARB occasionally finds that the Commission s website is restructured and that dead links are problematic when restructuring has taken place. It would be helpful if key information could be served from a fixed or separate site that competent authorities could reliably reference in their application documents. ARB would also suggest that the Commission recommends to authorities handling applications that a clear link to the SOLVIT website and an explanation of its functions in this area be provided. Question 2: Do you have any suggestions for the simplification of the current recognition procedures? If so, please provide suggestions with supporting evidence. ARB Response: ARB finds that links to national information points (Points of Single Contact) from where a migrant may secure centralised information are helpful: these could possibly be more broadly disseminated by the Commission, National Governments and Competent Authorities themselves. 1

ARB would find it helpful if Annex V (5.7.1) was fully updated and mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the Annex remains fully up to date on a timely manner. It would be useful if the Commission could produce consolidated versions of Annex V (5.7.1) at more regular periods. ARB s experience of the General System has proven difficult. A number of formalities are not clear which make it difficult for both the migrant and the competent authority: ARB finds that it is extremely difficult to assess what may be regarded as specific and exceptional reasons to qualify to make use of the route. Anecdotally, ARB believes that interpretation of this part of the Directive may vary significantly. ARB also finds that, the majority of migrants do not qualify to be considered through the General System as they have not completed the necessary three years experience on the territory of the Member State which initially recognised the migrant s qualifications. Migrants expectations are difficult to manage. There is no guidance published by the Commission to indicate how or why a migrant qualifies or does not qualify to make use of the General System as there is no guidance published to demonstrate what specific or exceptional reasons may be. The General System mirrors provisions which ARB has had in place for a number of years and therefore creates mandatory duplication without clarity. ARB s existing system Prescribed Examination offers a straightforward approach through which migrants may apply to be considered, underpinned by clear, unambiguous guidance on who does or who does not qualify as well as the nature of the evidence required. In summary, the General System sets out a scheme which is not fully formed. The administrative approach is not backed by clear guidelines, the 3 phase process described (i.e. consideration of information, test and compensation measures) is inherently costly to implement (costs are normally borne directly by migrants), and fettered by a lack of transparency for migrants. 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. ARB Response: The Code of Conduct is a useful tool. ARB is striving to deliver its duties under the Qualifications Directive with best practice as much as possible and where not possible, it delivers acceptable practice as a minimum standard. If the Code of Conduct was to become enforceable, it should be for acceptable practice only as what is 2

proportionate for one profession may not be proportionate for another. However, ARB believes that there should be a clear distinction between the Directive, which is enforceable, and the Code, which should not be. The non binding character of the Code of Conduct assists to promote administrative cooperation while allowing flexible standards for the recognition procedures. It would be useful that the Code of Conduct be more prominent and accessible in order to ensure that all competent authorities deliver acceptable standards under the Qualifications Directive. It would be helpful if the Code of Conduct could also reflect the implications of the Services Directive on competent authorities. 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? Question 5: Do you support the idea of developing Europe wide codes of conduct on aptitude tests or adaptation periods? 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? 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. 3

ARB Response: Each Member State will have arrangements in place to promote mobility but this is often unclear and potentially can cause unequal treatment. Member States do not always make clear whether they will recognise practical experience that has been obtained in another Member State towards their access to market requirements. ARB would welcome a clarifying statement from the Commission to confirm that having satisfied the requirement for a qualification referred to in Annex V (5.7.1) a migrant may choose to satisfy the access to market in a state other than that in which the evidence of their qualifications was issued. Ultimately, mobility should be enhanced at each level. ARB has had reports of some UK qualified migrants holding Annex V (5.7.1) listed qualifications being required to undergo further checks (e.g. in tectonics/earthquake measures) which undermines the automatic recognition regime. A clear statement about looking behind listed qualifications not being compatible with the objectives of the Directive would be welcomed. 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. ARB Response: Member States should have mechanisms in place to consider supervised practice secured in other Member States within their own access to market requirements. For example, where a migrant has completed experience in another Member State but has not established, UK schools of architecture, in line with the ARB s guidance on practical training requirements, are permitted to consider that experience directly towards the final UK access to market requirement of An Architects Registration Board Part 3 Certificate of Architectural Education. 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. 4

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? 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? ARB Response: The objectives of a European professional card could assist many professions but it would be probably more helpful to the professions which fall under the general system than the sectoral professions like architect. The Internal Market Information System (IMI) already enhances confidence and administrative cooperation between a home and host Member State, therefore the value of developing a professional card should be considered and balanced against this existing system which works effectively under the Qualifications Directive. The costs of developing, implementing and running such a card should be carefully considered as they should not be disproportionate against the number of individuals who will benefit from the card. A professional card for temporary movement would not be cost effective for architects as temporary movement is little. Just to note also that if there was to be a card, a plastic card would not be environmentally friendly so other options should be pursued. It is important that if there was to be a professional card, it should not be a mandatory tool. This would ensure that a card was not imposed in a way that increased costs with little benefit. This may particularly be the case for the sectoral professions, where online applications are increasing and a card may be unlikely to speed up an already prompt process. 5

Question 12: Do you agree with the proposed features of the card? ARB Response: See response to Question 11. Question 13: What information would be essential on the card? How could a timely update of such information be organised? ARB Response: If there was to be a card, in order for the card to speed up the recognition procedures, access to live data would be necessary. Data protection risk issues that a professional card could generate should also be carefully considered. 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? 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? 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. Question 17: Should lighter regimes for professionals be developed who accompany consumers to another Member State? 6

ARB Response: The temporary regime for providing services in another Member State should not be onerous. It should be ensured that it operates smoothly in each Member State. 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? ARB Response: ARB has limited experience in this area but finds, however, that declarations are not unduly burdensome and a less robust alternative would reduce consumer confidence in the profession. Question 19: Is there a need for retaining a pro forma registration system? Question 20: Should Member States reduce the current scope for prior checks of qualifications and accordingly the scope for derogating from the declaration regime? Question 21: Does the current minimum training harmonisation offer a real access to the profession, in particular for nurses, midwives and pharmacists? 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? 7

ARB Response: ARB believes that this is an area which requires careful consideration. ARB would support the modernisation of the minimum training requirements, but believe any changes to these for architects should allow flexibility and be capable of reflecting the ongoing and future modernisation of higher education qualifications in all Member States so that they do not require constant revision in the future. 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? ARB Response: ARB believes Member States should be obliged to be more transparent and provide more information regarding the future qualifications which will benefit from automatic recognition. ARB believes the prompt notification of qualifications is essential so that graduates and the relevant authorities are fully aware of the qualifications which can be used for the purposes of automatic recognition. 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. ARB Response: ARB believes that significant progress has been made in relation to the current scheme for the notification of new diplomas in architecture. ARB welcomes the changes that the Commission introduced in April 2010 and supports the Consultation Procedures which were issued to all Member States. Notwithstanding this, some further adjustments could be made in terms of streamlining the process, e.g., ensuring that Member States are not permitted to raise doubts or concerns in relation to qualifications at Sub Group meetings if these have not previously been raised in writing within the consultation period; ensuring that correspondence is acknowledged and responded to within reasonable timeframes; publishing the Commission s deadlines for the publication of approved qualifications in the Official Journal so that Member States can submit timely notifications etc. ARB believes that prompt and early notification of new diplomas should be required so that those selecting a course of study, graduates and relevant authorities are aware of the qualifications which can be used for the purposes of automatic recognition. 8

Question 25: Do you see a need for modernising this regime on automatic recognition, notably the list of activities listed in Annex IV? Question 26: Do you see a need for shortening the number of years of professional experience necessary to qualify for automatic recognition? 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? 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? ARB Response: ARB strongly agrees that the IMI become mandatory to ensure uniform support and experience for migrants when moving to or providing services in all Member States. ARB also strongly agrees that this should include a proactive alert mechanism under both, the Services Directive and the Qualifications Directive. The IMI was instrumental in providing information that allowed ARB to bring a successful prosecution against a Danish national who attempted to become registered as an architect with the ARB by fraudulently creating and falsifying documents. Whilst ARB feels this information would be vital to other competent authorities, ARB cannot disseminate it through IMI under the current criteria used to validate alerts. ARB would like to see work done in this area to ensure alerts are triggered and would be happy to assist further with by sharing its experience. 9

Question 29: In which cases should an alert obligation be triggered? ARB Response: ARB would like alerts to be triggered in particular in the instance referred to in Question 28 to prevent such an applicant pursuing the profession in another Member State. ARB is mindful, however, that such alerts may need to be removed once a conviction has been spent or expired in order to comply with data protection. Question 30: Have you encountered any major problems with the current language regime as foreseen in the Directive? ARB Response: No comment. 10