Main Green Paper questions for discussion - ukipg

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Option 1: Extending the alert mechanism as foreseen under the Services Directive toall professionals, including health professionals? The initiating Member State woulddecide to which other Member States the alert should be addressed.)Option 2: Introducing the wider and more rigorous alert obligation for MemberStates to immediately alert all other Member States if a health professional is nolonger allowed to practise due to a disciplinary sanction? The initiating Member Statewould be obliged to address each alert to all other Member States.)• (Other professions group): Problems if profession doesn’t have a competentauthority, problems defining a profession, how can it work for unregulatedprofessions• (Professional services): IMI is not always used because of the low volume oftraffic. There is room for improvement, as it is sometimes quicker to makecontact outside IMI.• Alerts: there are other regulatory means to do this for other professions• (Environment and animal welfare): IMI is slow, some problems• No function to send general question to all Member States – alert notpossible• Option 2 for alerts is much better, sending a message to all 27 MemberStates.• Alerts should apply to more broadly than narrowly defined healthprofessionals• (Health group 2): alert mechanism is needed, IMI must be mandatory• UK health regulators have alerts in place already• Difficult to define what is meant by fitness to practise: Criminal convictionsdiffer in different MS.• When should alerts be mandatory? When a person is suspended/removedfrom register; or also when person is under investigation?• (Construction group) IMI not working for engineers? Feeling that this is asystem to solve what is at root a human problem. IMI depends on users• (Health): option 2 is best for an alert system, alerts should cover changes to aprofessional’s registration but also other concerns• Other Directives: need to clarify how these interact.• Data protection prevents sharing certain information in some MS, EU Dataprotection Directive is also being reviewed, and this needs tying in.(General discussion):• Danger of too much information coming in through alerts. E.g. HPC has 600-700 fitness to practice hearings per year – there is a balance to be struck.• Differences between net exporting and net importing professions bringsdifferent perspectives: UK has more inward movement in many professions.
• Focus groups: mandating cooperation between authorities / professionalgroups in certain areas, could be done through a different Directive?Cooperation is needed, not necessarily focus groups, but in a structured way• Enforcement is difficult; changing the culture is more important. E.g. Mutualevaluation – peer judgment on different ways of working, could influencepractice.• Sharing best practice through informal networks can be helpful, butinformality means that problem countries don’t attend. Encouragement byCommission is needed without excessive formalising of focus groups.• IMI and professional card: use of IMI as a repository of information could beproblematic?Discussion 5: Other QuestionsLanguage requirementsQuestion 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 havingdirect contact with patients and benefiting from automatic recognition.• Where there are health and safety impacts of profession, language tests canbe needed; but to what level? What is proportionate – different for differentprofessions• (environment and animal welfare) There is a need for language testing(especially vets), on case by case basis? Concern about only having one-offlanguage testing – can employer also test?• (Health group 2) – when could you do testing? Not straightforward. E.g. HPC– no problems under current regime, evidence needed. E.g. Boots –employers do test (for some), reputational impact needs to be considered• Regulator needs to check fitness to practise, but need to be careful to beproportionate. Case by case testing for self-employed professionals. One-offtest only? Clarity from the Commission would help.• UK SI implementing Directive does not mention current Article 53 (onlanguage testing)• Other UK laws have an impact, which leads to misinformation problems.CPDQuestion 15b) Is there a need for the Directive to address the question of continuingprofessional development more extensively?(Construction): CPD would be too complicated to include in the Directive, though wewould want to encourage its use. Perhaps it is outside the scope of the Directive,since the Directive is about registration not professional practice?
Page 1 and 2: BIS Green Paper Consultation event,
Page 3 and 4: • (environment and animal welfare
Page 5: • (Health group 2): the requireme

Main Green Paper questions for discussion - ukipg

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?