Built Environment Professions Bill [B53-2008]: Briefing

Meeting report

The Department delegation comprised of Ms Lydia Bici, Deputy Director General (DDG): Policy, Mr Bheki Zulu, CEO: Council for Built Environment (CBE), Mr T Molatshe and Ms Jessica Moodley amongst others. Ms Bici undertook the briefing. At the outset the Committee was given a brief introduction and history of the built environment professions. Thereafter the Committee was provided with an outline of the current regulatory framework and its old structure. The CBE in the old structure was supposed to play an overarching role over the professional councils which it had not managed to do. Professional councils did not feel accountable to the CBE. Fragmented planning and implementation of policy, autonomy in activities and funding, low levels of registration, lack of accountability and governance failures and lastly barriers to access to the professions by previously disadvantage individuals (PDIs) were the shortcomings identified. As a result of the shortcomings, the present changes were called for in the Bill. The briefing outlined how specific provisions in the Bill addressed these shortcomings particularly by means of a stronger South African Council for the Built Environment (SACBE).

Discussion
Ms Ngcengwane said that if the professional councils were not bound by the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), how were they accountable to the Department? She asked how the credentials of foreign academics were checked. Also why were unregistered professionals allowed to practice?

Ms Bici responded that currently the professional councils were not governed by the PFMA and hence they did not report to the CBE. The problem was that the CBE consisted of representatives from the professional boards and they consequently felt they were not accountable to the CBE. The new structure attempted to address this problem.

Mr Zulu said that the CBE had no control. There was an inability by government to get useful information from certain professional bodies; hence the need for regulation.
 
Ms C Ramotsamai (ANC) asked how the professional bodies could be accountable to the CBE when the CBE was on the same level as them. The CBE was supposed to be overarching which it was not. She felt it good that the Bill was addressing the problem as some of the professional councils had felt that they were not accountable to Parliament. She asked how the representative process was to be handled. She felt that registration was key, given the issues surrounding fly by night education and training institutions. She referred to unethical conduct by professionals such as doctors and lawyers and said that if found guilty, these professionals could be deregistered and prevented from practicing. This should also be applied to persons building inferior roads, bridges and suchlike that collapse and cause damage and harm. She asked if registration would take place at professional council level or at SACBE level. It was important that companies / professionals should be obligated to take in students for in-service training. The professional boards should be representative in terms of race, gender and disability. The Bill was quiet on that issue. She referred to the transitional period until such time the SACBE was able to take control and was concerned that the larger professional bodies might out of spite decide to spend their funds rather than handing them over to the SACBE’s control. The professional bodies needed to be funded by Parliament in order for them to be accountable to Parliament.

Ms Bici replied that accreditation of universities was a problem as there was no uniformity. The various professional councils dealt with the accreditation of universities. The Bill now placed accreditation in the hands of the Minister of Public Works. This would address the issue of fly by nights but assistance from the Department of Education was needed.

Ms Bici said that a whole chapter in the Bill dealt with unprofessional conduct and its consequences. It covered the process from the laying of charges by the complainant up until the appeals process for the professional involved. Each professional body was currently responsible for its own funding. During the transitional period before the finalisation of the SACBE, there would be control over resources.
 
A department representative referred to the standards of persons building structures such as bridges and roads and said that the issue was about ensuring transparency.

Ms Moodley stated that clause 27 of the Bill provided for professional development points. One of the ways a professional could acquire CBE points was to provide in-service training.
 
Mr S Opperman (DA) referred to the briefing which stated that the Minister of Public Works would have influence and asked what the position was at present. He referred to the provision that community representatives sitting on professional boards should not be involved in the built environment itself and asked why this was so. He asked why each professional board was limited to only one legal person. Having more legal people would be so much better. He agreed with Ms Ramotsamai that there needed to be professional standards for qualifications. If not, roads and bridge would continue to collapse.

Ms Bici explained that the reason why community representatives should not be professionals was for them to have a different perspective, that is, to see how the professions impact upon the community. There was no limit of one legal person per professional board. The requirement was at least one legal person, if there were more than one it would not be a problem.

Mr Maduma asked on what basis representatives on the SACBE board were to be selected in order to ensure community participation. He also asked what the role of the SACBE was regarding advocacy. It needed to develop a clear advocacy programme.

Ms Bici said that for the selection of community representatives, the Minister would issue a public advertisement and the community would choose persons for nomination. Departments would submit persons for nomination as government representatives on the board. She said that the Bill did not necessarily say much on the advocacy role of the CBE. However, there was a strategy in place to address the issue, that is, to attract persons to professions.

Dr S Huang (ANC) asked for clarity on Clause 15(5) of the Bill, specifically 15(5)(a), (b), (c).

Mr Zulu replied that on the professional boards the majority was professionals. External input from the community was needed hence the 20% representation. A maximum of 20 board representatives was provided for in the Bill. 

Mr Magubane commented that it was evident that there were low levels of registration by professionals. He made specific mention of the teaching profession where many unqualified teachers were being employed. He felt it necessary for every professional to be registered in order to practice.

Ms Bici pointed out that Clause 18(1) made it compulsory for a professional to be registered in order to practice.

Ms Ramotsamai asked what the cost for the entire process was. She asked for an indication of the budget. She presented a scenario where a registered qualified person employed a person who had been struck off the roll.

Ms Bici replied that a preliminary budget had only been done thus far. There was a rough figure. Funding would be coming from government to the SACBE. She noted that by the time public hearings on the Bill took place, there should be a clear idea of the budget.

Ms Bici said that the employment of a professional struck off the roll was an illegal act. It was an offence and the law would take its course. 
 
Mr Molatshe reiterated that it was a criminal offence for a registered professional to employ a person who was not registered.

The Chair asked what if a person who had been struck off the roll hid the fact from the registered person employing him. 

Mr Molatshe replied that there would be a public register of who was registered and who was struck off.

Mr Maduma asked whether SACBE funding would be coming from government alone or would it get funding from the professional councils from registration fees.

Ms Bici replied that at the commencement date, all funds payable to professional councils would be consolidated. She noted that a second set of funds would be provided to the SACBE from the fiscus, that is, government. The ideal situation would be to eventually stop the funding from government.

Mr Zulu stated that professional councils pay levies to the CBE. In the past year this had amounted to R1.2 million. Registration figures were between 23 to 25 percent at present. It was hoped that when registration figures went up so would the income derived from it. Hence there would be increased funding for the SACBE.

Ms Ramotsamai felt the current budget would not be able to cover the major changes called for in the Bill. She asked the Department to provide the Committee with a proper budget for the implementation process.

The meeting was adjourned.