Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-14-Speech-1-100-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111114.17.1-100-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, a moment ago, Ms Figueiredo talked about ‘creating employment’, as did Ms Le Grip earlier, and I noticed that Ms Łukacijewska and Ms Jazłowiecka mentioned growth.
I plan to bring greater transparency to this debate by asking all Member States to notify all the professions they regulate and to submit to an objective assessment of the reasons why they believe this type of regulation to be necessary and proportionate. After receiving their responses, we will carry out a benchmarking process to compare all the results of this exercise. I believe the Professional Qualifications Directive already guarantees professional mobility between Member States that regulate and those that do not regulate a specific profession. It provides solutions to ensure the equivalence of qualifications, which is a proposal we shall table on the basis of the clarification provided by your report.
I will conclude, Ms McClarkin, by sincerely thanking you and all those who worked with you, and by reiterating the importance of the report you have presented today. It will make a useful contribution to the Commission’s legislative proposal of 20 December.
It is precisely because we are thinking in terms of the Single Market Act – which is an agenda for renewed growth – and because mobility is one of the tools for the new growth our citizens need, that we are addressing the issue of professional qualifications today.
I would first of all like to thank you, and then speak about the professional card, which many of you have mentioned and which is a tool I very much believe in. Indeed, in the first few days after I was appointed, many of you drew my attention to this option. A voluntary card for professionals, and a compulsory card for the national authorities: if we succeed, this will certainly result in simplification, as Ms Vergnaud called it, in a shorter time frame and, above all, in the right to more efficient and faster processing for professionals thanks to the expertise of the internal market information system (IMI). I would say to Ms Regner and Ms Klass, who mentioned objectivity and transparency, that through this system, we will be able, I believe, to achieve greater efficiency, speed and also transparency and objectivity as regards professionals’ real qualifications.
I would say to Mr Pirillo that it will also mean that health professionals become mobile more quickly, while the right to safety for patients and those who call on health professionals will be protected. Ms Turunen also mentioned this issue of citizens’ right to safety.
Mr Cabrnoch and Mr Aylward mentioned continuous training. Indeed, we are going to suggest that Member States should have to at least provide an update on what they are doing in the area of continuous training.
Mr Obermayr brought up an important point when he talked about the brain drain. I think that, in countries that are having more trouble than others, mobility could be problematic, and that is why, Mr Obermayr, we need to establish a framework for cooperation and a context for this issue of mobility and the recognition of professional qualifications. May I say that I believe we need more Europe rather than less Europe on this matter. That is my conviction.
Mr Batten, to whom I would say that this is not an ideological document, mentioned – as did Ms Ford – an unusual case involving a ban, with which we are all familiar. Without going into detail, I would just like to point out that the directive contains very clear rules on language skills, particularly for doctors, and Member States must therefore be objective and rigorous in using the tools made available by this directive in order to implement measures and verify people’s skills and ability, even if, in this specific case involving a ban, there was no clear link between the problem that arose and the testing of language knowledge.
In any case, I would like to say to Ms Vergnaud, who said that mobility is not anecdotal, and to Mr Harbour, that, indeed, it is not anecdotal. It is a major issue within the single market, which is our shared space for economic and social coexistence, and I believe that by establishing a solid framework and proper verification, by facilitating the full recognition of qualifications with the tools we have discussed, and by making use of the Internet, we will achieve higher growth levels.
Finally, Ms Gebhardt, Mr Harbour, Ms McClarkin herself, Mr Kožušník and Ms Irigoyen Pérez raised the issue of regulated professions and the number thereof, as well as the problem of potentially reducing those professions. I would like to restate my conviction. The issue is not whether the number of regulated professions is too high or not high enough, but whether or not regulation, in countries with very numerous or very strict regulations for these professions, constitutes a barrier that is disproportionate to the correct functioning of the single market."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples