Συνεδρίαση 13 Ιουνίου 2006, Βρυξέλλες
ΗΜΕΡΗΣΙΑ ΔΙΑΤΑΞΗ
Information and Communication
Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) – Secretaries General (SGs)
Notes of the meeting held on 13th June 2006 – Brussels
Ref: 201/06/AJ/dd
Present:
Tuomo Sirkia, SAFA, (FI)
Frederic Segers, CNOA, (BE)
John Graby, RIAI, (IE)
Ian Pritchard, RIBA, (UK)
Marie-Helene Cornips, BNA (NL)
Rafael Pellicer, CSCAE, (E)
Anton Bauch, BAK (DE)
Necip Mutlu, CAT (TUR)
Tugce Selin Tagmat, CAT (TUR)
Alain Sagne, ACE Secretary General
Adrian Joyce, ACE Senior Adviser
Excused:
Olga Kajanova, SKA, (SK)
Hans H. Halvorsen, NAL, (NOR)
Richard Hastilow, RIBA (UK)
Staffan Carenholm, SA (SE)
Thenist Trangilas, SADAS (GR)
Suzanne Jenner, BAIK (A)
Isabelle Moreau, CNOA (FR)
Pierre Hurt, OAI (L)
Katka Ruzana, cka 5Czech Rep°
1. Apologies and new participants
Alain Sagne read out the list of those who had sent their apologies and he noted the new participants at the meeting.
2. Introductions and adoption of the agenda
A quick “tour de table” took place during which each participant introduced themselves and their professional background.
The Agenda for the day was adopted as tabled with A. Sagne noting that due to the relatively poor attendance, the main business of the day would be centred around a working session on the Sector Study and the draft questionnaire that had been circulated ahead of the meeting by the Secretariat.
3. Adoption of notes of meeting of 6th October 2005
The Secretariat reported that no comments have been received on the notes of the previous meeting but as so few participants at the present meeting were present at the previous meeting it was agreed that the draft notes should be circulated to those who attended seeking their approval within a short space of time and that the notes could then be formally adopted by written procedure.
4. Day of the Liberal Professions
4.1. Report on the Event
Anton Bauch reported on the Event saying that he was surprised that there was more than 50 % attendance from Germany and Austria and that the main issues discussed related to lawyers and legal services. He felt that there is a need to ensure better and broader representation of the liberal professions at the next Event and that the direct confrontation approach adopted by the German lawyers will not be of benefit to them; rather it will encourage the Commission to concentrate its efforts on them. He reported that the Commission Official Rudiger Dohms made a good presentation and a strong defence of his position in relation to Competition in the Liberal Professions. Anton Bauch noted that there had been no direct attack on Chambers and, in fact, their role was supported by the debates during the day and by the Commission. He was encouraged to see that it appears that the DG Competition will now stop its work on Competition in Professional Services and leave it to the National Competition Authorities to take action at national level. In Summary he reported that the event was positive and that he supports the notion that it becomes an annual Event.
Alain Sagne supplemented the report by saying that a high representation from the Club Profile Group of professions was present and involved in the organisation of the Event. He agreed about the shortcomings of the Event and he expressed the hope that it will become the legacy of the Presidency of Anne-Marie Sigmund and an annual Event. Finally Alain Sagne reported that practically all speakers criticised the IHS Study on regulation in the liberal professions.
John Graby reported that there was a clear message from the Commission at the Event which was that there is no tolerance for fixed or scale fees for the professions and that this will be something that the National Competition Authorities, through the European Competition Network, will shortly be addressing. He also highlighted the strong theme of self and co-regulation that occupied a part of the day saying that this is a theme for the future. Tuomo Sirkia who was also present at the Event expressed the view that it was valuable and impressive and that the presentation by John Graby was the best and the clearest on the day.
4.2. Discussion on outcome and pertinence to the ACE
In the discussion that ensued a number of points arose such as the fact that consumer issues were not seen by the audience as particularly relevant during the day – a matter which the ACE does not agree with. The Event could provide some elements for input to the preparation of the proposed ACE Summit in 2007 on the threats of the free market to quality in the built environment. It was suggested that may be a sub theme of the Event could be that regulation is good for quality.
Adrian Joyce suggested that a few words on the output from the Event could be included in an ACE response to the current public consultation on the future of the internal market for which the deadline is the 15th June 2006. Anton Bauch reported that the BAK had prepared a draft response to this consultation and that he will send it to the ACE.
In relation to self and co-regulation Ian Pritchard reported that a draft paper reacting to the work of the EESC had been prepared by Humphrey Lloyd in 2004 and might contain some useful hints for an ACE Statement on the topic in the Public Consultation.
5. Reports on current policy issues
A number of issues were raised by the participants of the meeting as follows:
Ian Pritchard asked whether the meeting was aware of the Commission’s Study currently underway on the impact of EU Legislation on the Competitiveness of the construction sector and the fact that a review of a similar nature is currently under way in the UK. Adrian Joyce reported that the Secretariat was aware and he reported that there is a questionnaire prepared by the study team to which it is easy to respond and which will be included in the July issue of the ACE Info and which should be answered by as many Member Organisations as possible.
Anton Bauch brought up the subject of the transposition of the Qualifications Directive at National level asking if any other countries had met with their Responsible Ministries. Ian Pritchard said that in the UK the RIBA is involved in a Committee that is looking at the implications of transposition of this Directive and he reported that the current view is that it may be necessary to have separate legislation for sectoral professions.
John Graby reported that similar contacts have been made by the RIAI with its Responsible Ministries and that a number of questions have arisen that may be brought up at the forthcoming meeting of the Regulatory Committee of the Directive on the 19th of June 2006.
Tuomo Sirkia reported that the SAFA has met with Ministries in Finland and that they have been invited to make a proposal on how transposition should take place for the architectural profession. He suggested that further reporting on this matter should take place at future meetings.
Anton Bauch thanked those who gave inputs and reported that in Germany there is much difficulty in transposing the Qualifications Directive and significant attention is being paid to a co-operation between the various Land and the Federal level.
Anton Bauch then reported on the upcoming report of Mr. Ehlers in the European Parliament on the liberal professions. He reported that it is scheduled for debate at the Economic Affairs Committee on the 20th of June and that his information is that approaches made by German lawyers has left Mr. Ehlers not well disposed towards the liberal professions. He recommended that attention must be paid to this report.
6. Sector Study
6.1. Report on current status
Alain Sagne, before giving a presentation on the circulated documents, referred to the two tabled documents which are a commentary from the BAK (Germany) and a completed questionnaire by SAFA. He invited comments on the BAK commentary from the table. In the ensuing discussion it was generally felt that the objectives of the Sector Study are not yet clear enough and that the draft questionnaire circulated is really just a start. There was an agreement on the need for the Study and on the need to better know the profession within Europe. It was also acknowledged that the collection of reliable information is always difficult and that it is the movement of services across borders that is probably more important that the movement of people but also more difficult to survey. The meeting also agreed that there is a need to avoid duplication with other existing work such as the COAC database carried out for the UIA. Finally it was noted that the collection of information will be difficult for those countries with a federal/regional structure and that there is always a risk that any published material can be misused by third parties for their own interest.
Alain Sagne then reported that the ACE Secretariat has carried out the work to prepare the Briefing Note and draft questionnaire that were circulated ahead of the meeting. He emphasised that the current work is to be considered as a first phase in which a general overview and adequate indications can be gathered in order to specify the requirements for a more detailed phase two, which will undoubtedly be carried out by independent consultants.
6.2. Presentation of Phase 1 questionnaire
In making this presentation of the questionnaire Alain Sagne reported that there is a need to gather at the same time any existing information of survey results that may have been carried out by the Member Organisations of the ACE. He emphasised that the questions set out in the draft questionnaire take account of the information available on the COAC website and that a question for the meeting is whether or not these aspects should be modified or whether the COAC should be left to update its questions itself. He reported that Section 1 of the questionnaire contained questions not covered by the COAC questionnaire.
After this introduction, a number of CEOs reported that they have carried out Members Surveys which gathered a significant amount of the Economic information that this questionnaire seeks to find out.
In fact, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, Ireland and Finland have all gathered similar information for their Members.
Tuomo Sirkia who had completed the draft questionnaire reported it was found to be clear and straightforward and that they had little difficulty in answering the questions. Where questions are not answered he reported that this was because time did not allow the gathering of the information in the format set out in the questionnaire but that the information does exist.
6.3. Detailed debate on content and proposed procedure
A long and detailed debate on the actual questions in the document was undertaken and the Secretariat took note of the detailed comments made.
The Secretariat undertook to revise the structure and content of the questionnaire in full accordance with the comments received and a copy of the revised questionnaire is attached to these notes for further comment.
The meeting agreed that a second round of written comments from the participants in the meeting should be sought prior to the circulation of the questionnaire to Member Organisations for completion. In relation to the procedure, the meeting expressed the strong wish that the answers from the COAC questionnaire should be written into the forms for each Member Organisation so that it is a question of verification and not a question of research for Member Organisations. Furthermore it was agreed that the Survey must be carried out on a country-by-country basis and that therefore the ACE Member Organisations in countries with multiple representation in the ACE must co-ordinate internally on their answers. Finally it was agreed that a Briefing Note on how to complete the questionnaire that clearly sets out the expectation of the ACE of its Members must accompany the circulation of the questionnaire. This Briefing Note should also highlight that any Member Organisations having difficulty providing the requested information should describe why it is difficult to give the information and should give the likely source of the information in their country so that, in Phase 2, the ACE has the information to hand as to on where to enquire for difficult questions. Also an open question inviting comments will be included at the end of the questionnaire.
Alain Sagne indicated that it would be reported to the Executive Board at the end of June, for validation and decision on further steps.
7. Interface between the ACE and its Members
7.1. Nominations to ACE Work Groups – progress
Alain Sagne briefly presented the organisational chart of the new working structure of the ACE giving emphasis to those parts, which were not yet finalised at the time of the ACE General Assembly, particularly the Procurement issue. Following this presentation and brief discussion he called on the CEOs present to ensure that they each respond to the recent request of the Secretariat to reconfirm the nominations or to make new nominations for the Work Groups of the ACE.
7.2. Nomination of correspondent to receive/forward information
Alain Sagne explained that in the nomination form there is a line for a correspondent to be nominated in each Member Organisation. The idea is that this correspondent will be an informed person through whom the ACE can circulate documents to the relevant persons in each Member Organisation. A second crucial task of the correspondent will be to assess actions at National level for European relevance and to circulate a summary note in English or French of those actions to each correspondent in other Member Organisations and to the ACE itself. The objective is to greatly increase the networking and exchange of information within the ACE structure and to enhance the visibility of ACE activities towards architects.
7.3. Questionnaires – Private Procurement; Cost Information Systems
Alain Sagne reported that the CEOs should be aware that other questionnaires in addition to the Sector Study questionnaire are currently being prepared by Work Groups or are being proposed. In particular, he mentioned Private Procurement and Cost Information Systems.
8. Any other business
There was no other business on the agenda nor notified prior the meeting
9. Next Meeting
The date of the next meeting was not set and will be notified in due course.
End of the Notes