Built Environment Professions Bill: public hearings

Meeting report

Opening Remarks by the Chairperson
Ms Tobias informed those present that only those invited to do so would be making presentations. She noted that the Parliamentary Legal Advisors were not yet present, but that legal issues would only become more prominent later on.

Mr Saziso Vikilahle submission
Mr Saziso Vikilahle identified himself as a professional employed in the field of Quantity Surveying. He stated his conviction that the Built Environment Professions Bill could provide a platform for graduates from previously disadvantaged groups to obtain professional status. He pointed out that graduates from the University of Technology and Technikons were still struggling to obtain professional registration from statutory bodies, whereas traditional-University graduates were much better off. He attributed this to factors of race. He noted that the Bill should hold the Minister responsible for prescribing qualifications and training relevant to professions, and concluded with a question as to whether the Minister would publish such criteria.

Discussion
Mr S Opperman (DA) voiced a concern that if decisions about qualifications and training were to fall to the Minister, that could cause conflict with the Minister of Education. He also asked for some facts regarding the differences between Universities and Technikons in regard to registration.

Mr Vikilahle pointed out that Technikon qualifications took longer to acquire, with the course usually lasting for four years, which included formal and practical training, whereas a Bachelor of Science degree could be obtained from a University in three years.

The Chairperson noted that some Universities needed only oral submissions as final requirement, whereas Technikon graduates had to write exams.

Chamber of Mines (COM) submission
Ms S McCarthy, representative of the Chamber of Mines, noted that the Chamber of Mines was an employer organisation. She said that the Chamber worried about the sustainability of the funding model. The Bill would lead to increased membership of professional bodies, and cross subsidisation would result, where bigger bodies would fund smaller ones. Ideally the revenues should be sufficient for each professional body. The fact that the Bill was mentioned as having no financial implications for government was of concern, particularly as the COM believed it was imperative to subsidise the new body to ensure sustainability. The Chamber was worried that it could happen that decisions could be made but insufficient allocations could be supplied to sustain the new situation.

With regard to education and training, the COM expressed concern that the Bill could compromise the “Stage 2” - formal and work experience - qualifications for engineers, and the silence on the role and importance of continuing professional development was seen as a problem.

With regard to the Council, the COM was concerned about the community representation on the Council for the Built Environment (CBE). Ms McCarthy stated that communities of expert practitioners needed representation, as well as employers who provided “on-the-job” training. Such experts could add value. She proposed that the New Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) serve as a platform for nomination of constituency representatives.

She concluded that the Chamber could see no rationale for the new legislation, beyond forced integration of current professional councils. The Chamber viewed such integration as an implementation issue, rather than as a policy that required new legislation.

Discussion
The Chairperson interrogated the Chamber of Mines submission. In regard to the concerns over funding, she asked if the Chamber was familiar with the organogram that had been proposed to deal with the issue. She stated that it was necessary to look at how legislation could benefit the professional councils.

The Chairperson then said that the Committee trusted the Ministry to provide a funding policy document. The formation of the CBE would create the opportunity for funding to be centralised. She noted that any organisation established by Parliament would be funded by the State, so she did not  understand why the Chamber had a concern that the Minister would not supply funding.

The Chairperson then asked if the Chamber of Mines differed with the model and the objectives regarding access to professions.

The Chairperson commented, on the issue of community representation, that everything could not be left to technocrats. Communities needed to have a say in matters affecting their lives. Where this did not happen, the consequences could be seen in such unfortunate developments as the fixing of bread-prices.

Ms McCarthy replied that the Chamber of Mines would like to see the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) taken into account, and said also that the new role of SAQA should be clarified. She insisted that the Chamber would prefer to continue providing “Stage 2” work experience training, which led to registration with the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA).

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) asked if the role of NEDLAC in determining community representation, as suggested by the Chamber, implied a lack of trust in the Minister.

Ms McCarthy responded that the Chamber trusted the Minister, but their experience had been that community representatives on councils remained inaccessible to the public, and that NEDLAC could provide a platform to overcome that.

The Chairperson asked to be convinced that the experts that the Chamber wanted to have on the Council would indeed add value there, as Ms McCarthy had suggested. She disagreed about the inaccessibility of community representatives alluded to by Ms McCarthy. She insisted that people who wanted access would be able to get to them. She asked whether Ms McCarthy in fact had access to the community of experts she had referred to.

Ms McCarthy said that NEDLAC would provide a platform for community representatives to obtain mandates. She asked what criteria would be used in the selection of community representatives.

The Chairperson suggested that the Chamber not pre-empt what community representatives would achieve or what they might fail to do. She questioned the mandate concept employed by Ms McCarthy. She maintained that the Ministry would supply mandates to those selected to represent communities.

Ms McCarthy reiterated that the Bill did not provide for continuing professional development.

Mr L Maduma (ANC) exclaimed to the meeting at large that Ms McCarthy seemed to be representing ECSA.

The Chairperson cautioned him against such statements. ECSA was not in attendance to answer such an allegation.

Ms McCarthy replied emphatically that she did not represent ECSA.   

Mr Opperman noted that there was a need for larger interventions to address the skills shortages in the Built Environment professions.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had already spoken to interventions on 14 November 2007. Some Councils had reported a lack of co-ordination when it came to matters like accreditation of professionals. The proposed legislation would have the power to regulate councils.

Ms McCarthy agreed that there were skills shortages that contributed to engineering problems. Intervention was needed, but she suggested that this was needed at the level of the schooling system, which had been unable to prepare people properly, especially in the subjects of Mathematics and Science.

The Chairperson responded that she had duly noted that point. 

Ms Lydia Bici, Deputy Director General: Policy, Department of Public Works, explained how the new Bill could provide a framework to support the Council for the Built Environment. Professional councils tended to guard their own individual interests as independent statutory bodies, and the result had been lack of co-ordination at the Board level. Accreditation would be consolidated by the CBE, standards would be regulated, there would be certainty regarding training standards.

Ms Tobias thanked the Chamber of Mines for its submission, although she noted that she was still not quite clear on the Chamber’s suggestion that better implementation of current legislation was needed. She invited the Chamber to approach her office for information about financing.

Mr Rakau, member of South African Black Technicians and Allied Careers Organisation (SABTACO) submission
Mr Abram Rakau identified himself as a representative of the South African Black Technicians and Allied Careers organisation. He wished to relate his own experiences to the Committee.

He told the committee how he had applied for registration with ECSA as a professional engineer in 2006, only to be notified in March 2008 that the process had not been completed yet. Mr Rakau had obtained his BSc Civil Engineering degree in 1998, and had practised engineering in the USA and South Africa since then. He argued that ECSA delayed the registration of black engineers, to enable white engineers to continue to dominate the marketplace. ECSA used private engineers to help process applications and they were delaying the registration process in the interest of white engineers. Mr Rakau claimed that ECSA sabotaged the alleviation of engineering  skills shortages by acting as gate-keepers, forcing black engineers to remain employed by white engineering firms and thus black engineers were being effectively barred from forming their own companies. He pledged his full support for the formation of the CBE as a body that could redress these imbalances and create opportunities for black engineers. He believed that there had been an oversight by Government regarding ECSA’s credibility.

Discussion
Mr Opperman asked if it was in order to discuss the submission, seeing that ECSA was not present.

The Chairperson replied that the principles of access to the professions could be discussed.

Mr Maduma contended that the content of the presentation could assist parliament. He suggested that an explanation of why the CBE needed to be restructured in the form of an organogram would be helpful. He suggested that the presentation could provide direction for the transformational agenda.

The Chairperson noted that government legislation had to create an environment where skills could be recognised. Transformation was a constitutional imperative.

The meeting was adjourned.