With the European Union in the midst of the worst economic crisis for over a generation, reforms are needed that cost little, while also having the greatest positive effect on growth and job creation. Recent evidence suggests that there is significant untapped potential in EU services, both in terms of productivity and employment. Reforms that improved the single market in services could have a significant impact on growth within the EU. Reforming the process for mutual recognition of professional qualifications in the EU is a key achievable priority in improving the single market in services, and creating growth.

The system for the recognition of professional qualifications has already made vast improvements in the single market for professionals, providing a better climate for business. Harmonisation has been possible in a number of professions which practice similar tasks across all Member States. Nonetheless, the general system remains a complex piece of regulatory architecture. Creating a more effective single market for professionals will require cooperation between all parties.

The complexity of the system is perhaps unsurprising given how the system is formed. The first layer is a Member State decision to regulate a profession in its territory, based on a national view that professional standards are needed. The second layer is the need to recognise equivalent professionals from elsewhere in the EU in order to widen the labour market. A third level is added by the creation of a general system for the recognition of professional qualifications across a vast range of sectors of employment.

We might start by looking at the first layer: are there some professions which no longer need to be regulated, or regulated as heavily? The EU has a vast array of best practice on how professionals can operate without regulation, and this best practice should be shared (recognising that access to certain professions should be regulated to protect the public).

We could simplify the second layer by identifying synergies between similar regulated professions in different Member States, to reduce the need for complex comparisons. Third, we should make the general system for recognition as simple as possible, as well as modernising the system for automatic recognition.

This leads us to a summary of the main suggestions raised in this response:

1. A mutual evaluation process (for professions other than healthcare professions) with the aim of reducing the number of regulated professions (discussed under question 16)
2. Facilitating focus groups for professions where Competent Authorities can share information about their national systems, discuss best practice and investigate possibilities for aligning their practices(discussed under section 3)

3. Simplifications to the general system (discussed under question 2)

4. Modernise the system for automatic recognition, especially by revision of minimum training requirements (discussed under questions 21-24).

The Directive has very close synergies with the Services Directive. The Services Directive mutual evaluation process revealed major difference in the ways Member States had interpreted the relationship between the recognition of professional qualifications Directive and the Services Directive. The UK would like the Commission to publish an interpretative communication on the interface between the Services Directive and the Directive on professional recognition.

Full response