Built Environment Professions Bill [B53-2008]: overview of submissions

Meeting report

Built Environment Professions Bill: Parliamentary Research Unit overview of submissions made
The Chairperson noted that after receiving submissions on the Built Environment Professions Bill, the Research Unit was tasked with doing an overview. She noted that the submissions had been summarised since over fifty were received, and many had repeated concepts expressed in others.

Ms M Ramotsamai (ANC) agreed that there were repetitions.

Members agreed that it would be useful to deal with the overview report. The presence of Ms Zuraya Adhikarie, Senior Parliamentary Legal Adviser, was acknowledged.

Ms Inez Stephney, Parliamentary Research Unit, then presented the overview of the submissions received. While there were many concerns raised, it was clear that some submissions were in agreement with the Bill, while others were neutral. She indicated the purposes of the Bill, notably the establishment of the South African Council for the Built Environment; to provide for the establishment of professional Boards; and to regulate education, training and registration of professionals within the built environment.

The detailed concerns expressed in the submission were dealt with on a clause-by-clause basis (see attached document). Broadly speaking, Ms Stephney noted especially the concerns of educational institutions regarding the removal of authority from universities, with a corresponding increase in control over education and training by boards and by the Minister. There was concern over the role of the Minister regarding accreditation. Should the Minister have powers to decide who could work as engineers, for instance, this could be viewed as interference. There were fears that loss of international accreditation for South African engineers may result. She concluded that people looked at the Bill in terms of access to Built Environment professions.

Discussion
Mr A Nel (DA) stated that before passing this Bill, the committee should hear from the various institutions, not only the one which made the submission, on international accreditation for their profession. He referred to his own professional experience in gaining membership of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, saying that this membership was regarded as the necessary accreditation to permit him to practise his profession in other countries without the need for further accreditation. He said that this kind of international recognition should not be in the hands of officialdom and bureaucratic structures.

The Chairperson reminded Mr Nel that it was not the purpose of the meeting to receive what amounted to an individual submission concerning the Bill.

Mr Nel replied that he thought he was within his rights as the submissions concerning the Bill were in fact being discussed.

The Chairperson called on Mr Nel to express his concerns and replies in a more agreeable manner.

Dr S Huang (ANC) disagreed with Mr Nel about automatic accreditation, stating that professionals were not always able to transfer to other countries without fulfilling requirements specific to those countries. For instance, it was normal for a doctor wishing to practise in another country to do an exam for accreditation, thus implying that the qualification gained in South Africa was not automatically accredited by a foreign country.

Mr S Opperman (DA) raised his concern over the financing of the new council. He wanted to know whether the funds of R22 million in the trust account could be taken over by the new council, and whether these funds were adequate.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee had previously raised the concern over whether the funds available would be adequate.

Mr L Maduma (ANC), on the matter of transitional arrangements, stated that the new council’s functioning must not be negatively affected and asked whether the existing staff would be absorbed. He further called for consistency in the accreditation criteria, noting that these must be in alignment with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA), and said this would have to be in place before the Bill was passed.

Mr Maduma further noted that it would be important that international arrangements regarding accreditation and required training did not work to the disadvantage of this country.

Ms N Magubane (ANC) addressed the issue of accreditation and agreed that it should be consistent. She said that she shared the concerns around funding.

Ms Stephney commented that in respect of accreditation, Ms Magubane’s view was shared by some of those making the submissions. In respect of the funding, she said that the submissions had contained a range of suggestions. Some of the submissions were in favour of the present structure. Others stated that the current funds were insufficient - for example, the architectural profession had only 45 members and therefore their registration fees provided for a limited fund.

The Chairperson reiterated that the content of the submission was not under discussion, but rather that debate was required on issues raised in the submission. She enquired whether international agreements such as accreditation provided adequately for the South African situation.

Mr Opperman argued that the role of the Council for the Built Environment (CBE) needed to be examined and stated that currently it did not fulfill its role of linking the Minister and the Council.

The Chairperson stated that the concern around international accreditation was gaining momentum and therefore the Committee needed to consider it more closely.

She said that other matters identified as requiring more discussion and debate were the absorption of staff during the transition period, whether the existing funds could be transferred and whether government would supplement the funding, the organogram of the new Council, with reference to its functioning, the role of the Minister, the access to registration by students qualifying at a Technikon as opposed to those qualifying at a university, and the composition of the board, specifically whether it would consist of both professional and non-professional members.

Mr Opperman was concerned whether there would be sufficient commitment from voluntary associations to assist the process of forming the new Council.

The Chairperson stated that members needed to consider the substantial debate raised thus far, and added that more debate would be needed. She urged them to do additional reading before the next meeting. She also noted that there were two or three submissions that were not part of the overview and therefore were not included in today’s debate and that these would be made available by the next Committee meeting. She noted that the Department of Public Works was not wanting to make any comment at this stage.

The meeting was adjourned.