"I have voted against this report because it contains a very dangerous flaw.
"The report talks about language tests for medical workers, acknowledges they are important, but doesn't want them to become an "additional barrier". This phrase is very unclear, and could therefore be subject to legal challenge in the courts, with dire consequences if the challenge is upheld.
"For example, someone who fails the language test could argue it was a "barrier" and sue successfully , meaning all applicants from then on would have lowered requirements. This would be dangerous for UK patients and is unacceptable.
"In addition, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications is not a matter that should be within the power of the EU, but sovereign nation states working under international agreements."
48. Takes the view that Article 53 of Directive 2005/36/EC, on language requirements, must be clarified, as there is ongoing controversy over the interpretation of this provision among the Commission, the ECJ and the Member States; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to revise the language requirement regime for the healthcare professions by providing the competent authorities with the necessary flexibility to ascertain and, only if necessary, test the technical and conversational language skills of professionals as part of the recognition process; considers that, without prejudicing the ability of employers to satisfy themselves regarding the language competence of professionals when recruiting to a particular post, the principle of proportionality should be scrupulously applied in this regard, so that such tests do not become an additional barrier;