Προηγούμενη σελίδα

Συνεδρίαση Θεματικής Περιοχής 2
26 Μαϊου 2006, Βρυξέλλες

ΗΜΕΡΗΣΙΑ ΔΙΑΤΑΞΗ

 

Thematic Area no. 2 (Practice of the Profession & Trade in Services)
Minutes of Co-ordination meeting held in Brussels on 26.05.06

Present:
John Wright, Coordinator
Rob Budding, Vice-coordinator
A Bauch
P Boille
J Graby
W Haack
G Pendl
I Pritchard, Rapporteur
M Proces
A Sagne, Secretary General
1. Apologies for absence
Apologies for absence were received from J Ketelaer and I Moreau.
2. Introduction
A Sagne summarised the recently approved working arrangements:
- Executive Board now directly responsible for monitoring work groups;
- work is organised into three Thematic Areas, each with a Co-ordinator and  Vice-coordinator;
- “standing” work areas will focus on political targets (interface with EU   Institutions), and make both reactive and proactive submissions;
- work groups/areas in the EU policy interface are task-orientated, with strict deadlines;
- debate groups are more proactive and bottom-up in nature, with flexible deadlines;
- there will also be a focus on developing tools to assist architects, also with deadlines set by the Executive Board.
- all groups will have terms of reference.
While the new structure may need some fine-tuning, it is important to avoid past problems where the General Assembly often acted as a work group. It is essential, therefore, to ensure
- proper co-ordination between work group chairmen and rapporteurs within a given Thematic Area;
- proper co-ordination between the three Thematic Areas;
- democratic input from the Member Organisations
- effective monitoring of the decision-making process by the Executive Board.
Co-ordination meetings will take place when necessary. Typically, the Co-ordinator might call for a meeting a few weeks before an Executive Board meeting. It is noted that the annual co-ordination meeting for all work groups and all Thematic Areas will take place in September, around 2 months before the November General Assembly. 
3. Terms of reference for “standing” work areas (political targets)
3.1. Services in the Internal Market
The draft terms of reference were noted – for submission to the Executive Board (subject to the amendments called for hereinafter) for approval.
AS then gave an up-date on the current state of play, which had not changed significantly since the April General Assembly. Work continued in the Council of Ministers (meeting in Graz on 20-21/4), while the COREPER was holding weekly meetings. It is hoped that informal agreement may be reached on 29/5 (and failing that, on 30/6). Once a common position is reached, it will be sent to the Parliament for the Second Reading (within c.3-4 months i.e. not likely before September). The Directive could be adopted by the end of the year, or early 2007.
Key issues:
Article 16 – while now called “freedom to provide services, the legal principal remains unchanged (i.e. while the professions covered by the Qualifications Directive would benefit from a derogation from the Country of Origin principle with regard to professional qualifications, the derogation does not extend to other areas e.g. PII).
Article 27: the Austrian presidency is planning to table a compromise (to remove the Country of Origin principle from this article on PII; there are also on-going differences of view as to whether insurance should be mandatory or not.
3.1.1.Competitiveness
The current work of the old Competition Policy work group, which will be a revised Discussion Policy Document and possibly also a Policy Statement, will be submitted to the General Assembly in November for approval. 
One of the key tasks of the new group is to focus on cost-information systems. A meeting is scheduled to take place in Paris on 29/5.  WH reported that Rafael Pellicer had produced an analysis of various types of fee-scales, with a commentary on their limitations and any problems experienced in relation to Competition Law (binding, non-binding etc.). AS encouraged the group to consider the Irish example (where independently researched scales based on historical data were accepted as guidance for clients). JW thought it would be worth ACE highlighting this as an acceptable method, but also called for the group to consider other models e.g. a resource-based approach (looking a the Austrian, Swiss and Finnish experience). Philip Ridgway, who will lead the work in this area in liaison with the Competitiveness group, will also input French experience.   WH
In conclusion, it was agreed that it would be useful for the group to produce
- a methodology demonstrating how projects may be costed (to include assessment of overheads, salaries, profit, re-investment etc.);
- a methodology for researching fee-scales based on historical data (cf. the Irish model) – ideally approved by Consumer organisations. WH
JG recommended that any survey include the full range of fees (i.e. from highest to lowest) offered for different types of work (rather than just average percentages). He also highlighted an important linkage with health & safety legislation (Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive) where it could be established that failure, by the client or project advisor, to provide the architect with sufficient resources will lead to errors. JW underlined that insufficient resources were often at the root of problems, and recommended that abnormally low fees should also be investigated as part of any professional conduct/disciplinary process looking into project failures and the performance of architects.  
3.1.2. Codes of Conduct
JW reported that, at the request of J-F Susini, he and A Joyce would be refining the ACE Code to include references to sustainable design. JW
3.1.3. Dispute Resolution/Redress
It was agreed that rather than treat this question as part of the SIM agenda (cf. arts. 32 and 39), an amendment should be made to the ACE Competition Policy document.
JG underlined the importance of Redress as a key area of consumer protection, the main elements of which are:
- qualifications
- CPD
- clear, jargon-free agreements (to address the asymmetry of information)
- information on charges
- PII insurance
- recourse to informal and affordable systems of dispute resolution - (mediation, arbitration etc.)
- recovery of damages (redress)
With regard to redress, JW suggested that it might be consider the creation of  to create a fund (cf. the ABTA fund for Tourist Agencies) to provide instant redress for small consumers.
It was agreed that the ACE Competition Policy document be expanded to  advocate the development of “non-litigious systems for the settlement of disputes”.  WH/ JG
3.1.4. Quality Assurance
It was agreed that the ACE could usefully produce a simple (non-technical Quality Charter), promoting highest outcomes in terms of quality of services, quality of construction and quality of architectural design (and environmental quality). GP agreed to set down key elements and send to IDP for cirulation to MP and others.
3.1.5. Certification
Items deferred for the time being (as it relates to the voluntary, chapter
3.1.6. PII/liability
AS reported that there was no blockage with FIEC, though it considered that it was not timely to re-visit the GAIPEC study (but was prepared to consider a further PII survey of member states).
AS further noted that ACE/EFCA were to produce a joint paper listing concerns, for informal consultation with FIEC and UPEC, prior to taking a second step, to establish a wider group. Key issues would include:
- project-based insurance (the object) rather than individual insurance (the person);
- identification of a cap/ceiling, and
- removal of the Country of Origin principle.
It was noted that the insurance industry was seeking the deletion of art. 27, advocating a voluntary and a sectoral approach. WH recommended seeking a requirement for the whole construction sector to be insured, while JW stressed that the failure to deal with the insurance issue impacted negatively on the cross-border movement.
3.1.7. Single Points of Contact
It was noted that this subject was being addressed in Thematic Area 1. Much confusion remained regarding terminology (Single Points of Contact, Competent Authorities and Coordinators in relation to the SIM Directive and the Qualifications Directive).
AS noted P Brumter’s intention to consolidate the texts of the two Directives in order to provide greater clarity. He further noted that P-HS had convened a meeting of the Registration group for 22/6 to further clarify. It was also noted that this did not impact exclusively on registration bodies (as some competent authorities are not registration bodies!). It was agreed that that while co-ordination of these issues would take place at meetings of Area 1 and Area 2 co-ordinators, it was nevertheless necessary to consider these questions in the light of the SIM Directive. As a result, P-HS would be invited to future Area 2 co-ordination meetings (note: he is also a member of the SIM work group). IDP
3.2. Trade in Services
- ESF-133 Committee: AS gave a report on a recent meeting of the ESF & 133 Committee. Nine of the sectors represented made statements. AS’ statement underlined the progress made by ACE with MRAs (spearhead project).
- Collective (pluri-lateral) requests – further meeting in Geneva to maintain momentum. US reticence noted re: Mode 4 offers/requests.
- USTR: B Weise-Montag (DG MARKT, External Dimension) has had a further meeting with USTR in Washington to maintain the momentum – though USTR still has not resolved the problem regarding identification of a political interlocutor for the Commission.
- NCARB: AGM on 21-24/6. Concerns have emerged regarding post-license experience. NCARB seems reluctant to accept experience that has not been gained in the country of qualification (this would exclude, from the scope of the MRA, all graduates who have been working in the USA since qualifying). The binding nature of the agreement could also provoke concerns, though AS recalled that the EU representative in Washington, Anna Snow, had been most firm on this question (as well as critical mass). This was again reiterated by Mrs Weise-Montag.
- Mexico: ACE has urged the EU to assist in advancing the Mexican agreement.
- Canada: positive reports, despite delays. The Canadians appear to be awaiting the outcome of the ACE-NCARB discussions.
- Other countries (existing approaches). Renewed efforts will be made in an attempt to encourage responses from Chile and China.
-Other countries (new approaches): reports that Cuba is opening up have given rise to interest in developing an agreement. Hong Kong is also seen as important, as a possible way in to China. IDP to draft proposals for the ACE President. IDP
3.3. Procurement
RB confirmed that he hoped to be able to propose the name of a Dutch colleague to lead on this work. RB
It was noted that
- a further meeting of the old procurement group was scheduled to take place in Budapest to finalise the current project for submission to the GA in November;
- the new group would prepare for the quinquennial review of the Procurement Directives with a view to promoting better language and Quality Based Selection. It would also attack Design & Build and PPP on the basis of quality outcomes, while focussing on Project Team Partnering.
With regard to ACE contracts, it was suggested the LARG be asked to review the following documents
- the architect-contract;
-the architect-client contract;
- the IT contract
in the light of the international FIDIC contract. LARG 
3.4. Health & safety
Key activities
respond to the European Health & Safety Agency “Building in Safety initiative, follow up the Bilbao Declaration and prepare for the European Parliament event in September;
analyse the implementation of the Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive and produce a report in readiness for the review of that Directive JG
It was noted that the differences in approach to the planning supervisor or coordinator role were significant from one country to another, and if these were not harmonised, would impact on the ability to provide services across borders.
4. Debate work groups
4.1. Architectural Design Competitions
It was noted that the terms of reference for Debate work groups would not be imposed by the Executive Board but rather developed jointly by G Pendl and the EB, the aim being to promote dynamic debate and think-tank activity. He undertook to set down initial thoughts and send to I Pritchard for onward circulation. GP
4.2. Private Procurement
PB outlined plans to circulate a questionnaire to member organisations in an attempt to identify current practices with regard to types of clients, scope of intervention (mission), contractual obligations, remuneration, multi-disciplinary practice etc. PB
In view of the customary difficulty in getting member organisations to respond to questionnaire, AS undertook to alert the CEOs to this problem at their meeting on 13 June. He also expressed the hope that in identifying correspondents for ACE business in the Member Organisations, chasing contributions to questionnaires might be made a little easier. AS 
5. Allocation of tasks/time-table
See terms of reference (note: a table of all Thematic Area 2 tasks will be circulated with the minutes of the meeting)
6. Any other business
6.1. Day of the Liberal Professions: sessions were planned on
- Competition Law & the Liberal Professions;
- Co-regulation & self-regulation;
SIM
- Consumer Protection
J Graby will speak on Consumer Protection
7. Date & time of next meeting
It is likely that the next co-ordination meeting will take place at the co-ordination sessions planned for Thematic Areas 1, 2 and 3 (to take place in Brussels on 8 September.
Idp 2 June 2006
Thematic Area 2 – notes coorrd mtg 26-506

 

 

Αρχή σελίδας