Main Green Paper questions for discussion - ukipg

• (second Health group)– a plastic card would be problematic; making IMIstronger would help, but the jury is out on the card• The card might add value for the temporary provision of services, though thetemporary movement of workers can cause problems in some professions• Noted the Lords inquiry on health professions and the professionalqualifications Directive.• A type of card already exists for nurses, but it may be removed because ofproblems it is facing• (Construction group): Possibly some benefits for some people; not in mostcontexts. Sectoral professions already appear to have mechanisms• Overlapping professions, different regulations etc. cause complications; howoptional would the card be? Important that it is optional for profession andprofessional• The problem is obstruction in the host state, not so much information:authorities are likely to want to revisit information about the professional,and will not be persuaded by a card.• (General discussion): The Commission’s position has moved on this -European Parliament also has a major influence• The proposals for a card have not been proposed by the Commission’ssteering group. Each scenario could work through IMI without the need for acard [PS: this refers to the PPT diagrams used in Mr Tiedje’s presentations]• A professional card might help where it is very difficult to get recognised inpractice, e.g. for ski instructors, though their qualifications have broadly beenagreed.• Automatic recognition processes should be easy without a card• General system: what if a national authority doesn’t recognise the card? i.e.some Member States issue the card but not others.Discussion 2: Changes in the General SystemQuestion 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).Question 10: If Article 11 of the Directive is deleted, should the four steps outlinedabove be implemented in a modernised Directive? If you do not support theimplementation of all four steps, would any of them be acceptable to you? (Pleasegive specific arguments for or against all or each of the steps.)• (Construction group) – Q9 – Article11 useful mechanism, no need to removeit; this would make Q10 irrelevant• (Second Health group): Art 11: effects unclear, more people would comeunder Gen system. CION study on use of EQF yet to be published – this willhave an impact. [PS: This refers to the ‘Educational Reforms’ Study]