Built Environment Professions Bill: public hearings continued

Meeting report

Engineering Council of South Africa  (ECSA) submission
Mr Trueman Goba, ECSA President, gave a detailed presentation and also indicated a written submission that outlined many of the points. He noted that the policy document of 2008 had identified certain problems, including the fact that the autonomy of the professional councils had the possibility to lead to duplication of facilities, low income for small councils and lost opportunities for shared services, the low level of registration, and the fact that disjuncture between the legislation of the Councils and the Council for the Built Environment (CBE) was leading to some problems in accountability. Access to the profession and the planning of regulatory bodies were also seen as problematic.

Mr Goba outlined how the engineering profession in general operated.  He noted that it involved principles of usefully applying mathematics and natural science, engineering sciences, technology and techniques. It sought to produce effective and predictable solutions. Because of the possibility of adverse consequences of poor engineering work, the profession demanded that the duties of engineers be carried out responsibly and ethically, using available resources efficiently, economically and in a safe way, and having regard to the environment and full management of risks.

He outlined the various sub-disciplines in the engineering field, and explained what each did. He then went on to describe the engineering categories and how these were dealt with in the Engineering Profession Act (see attached presentation for details).

Mr Goba then returned to the essential principles of the 1999 policy and examined what the ECSA’s experiences under that Act, and its achievements, had been. It was noted that the statutory regulation of professions was aimed at protecting the standards of professional competence and protecting the interests of the public, providing a means of recourse if these interests were infringed. He noted that information and advice from professions was essential to national development. He said that professional regulation should not interfere with market forces and should be consistent with the competition policy. Public protection should apply in relation to aspects of professional conduct. He pointed to the need for a healthy and clearly defined relationship between the professional bodies and related voluntary associations. Whilst it was important that the professions meet the needs of South Africa, international best practices should also be followed in professional practice and development of registered persons. All professions should contribute to the global competitiveness of South African services.

Mr Goba further noted that the monitoring and evaluation of professional competence and practice depended on professional expertise, and professional regulation must also be drawn from the expertise of professionals operating in the field. Independent representation of the public should ensure focus on public as opposed to professional interest. Any regulatory framework must take into account common areas and differences between professions.

Mr Goba noted that the Engineering Profession Act had provided an effective legal basis for regulating the Engineering Profession, and he highlighted specific areas. ECSA strongly supported the provision for compulsory registration via Identification of Engineering Work. The Act was basically sound but did need some minor improvements, which ECSA had already proposed. He described the interactions that ECSA had with other stakeholders. He indicated that achievements included a total of 29 000 registered persons, and 6 800 candidate registrations. He indicated that 56% of new registrations in the past three years were previously disadvantaged individuals, and that 5 000 foreign nationals had been accredited and registered. ECSA had accredited all existing BEng, National Diploma and BTech programmes. It was signatory to international agreements and participated in various national bodies.

ECSA noted that it managed to sustain its own infrastructure, staff and processes from fee income, although it did recognize that smaller councils could lack capacity. However, it had not seen any other business plan that demonstrated an efficiency gain. It suggested that additional funding could be made available from National Treasury. It could not comment specifically on the proposed improvement to governance and accountability, because the alleged failures in this field had not been identified.

Mr Goba moved on to comment on what the Council and the Boards had expertise to do. He listed their core regulatory functions and their operational functions. He also highlighted the general functions in the service of society, including the giving of advice, liaison with education providers and with employers who provided training. It would also identify blockages and promote wider access to the profession.

Mr Goba submitted that the core regulatory functions must be the sole preserve of Boards and must not be usurped by Council. The Council was not properly constituted to attend to the operational or general functions that he had outlined. He noted that there were some fragmented planning processes in the past, but that the difference between the professions was recognised in 1999, and integrated planning was needed on cross-disciplinary issues. The CBE should be taking the lead in this planning. However, it must be noted that engineering also took place outside the built environment, involved engineering alone, may involve partners outside of the built environment, and that in these circumstances it would be inefficient to force boards to plan and communicate only through the Council.

Mr Goba then submitted that the council and Board model set out in the Bill was flawed. The composition compromised peer judgment, and the Council could interfere in core regulatory processes. There was excessive Ministerial authority, without clear precedents for this either nationally or internationally. The loss of autonomy of the existing councils had far reaching implications, including assets, the interests of engineering becoming subsumed into the built environment, a possible forced change in training and conflict of laws.

ECSA reiterated its view that insufficient consultation had taken place to find solutions to the problems identified in the Policy Document, and further stated that the Bill did not provide the correct solutions, but instead created adverse and unforeseen consequences. It suggested strongly that the Bill must be referred back to the Department of Public Works (DPW), who should consult with a wider range of stakeholders, including the six engineering professions, to find appropriate solutions.

Discussion
Mr S. Blanche (DA) commented that ECSA, the engineering profession, and the Portfolio Committee needed to have more interaction. He asked which countries the 5 000 registered foreign engineers had come from. He felt that if they were from neighbouring countries, South Africa should be supportive to them.

Mr Goba replied that they primarily came from the SADC region.

Mr Blanche asked whether the air-conditioning and refrigeration sector of engineering were included in registrations of ECSA.

Mr Goba confirmed that this was so.

The Chairperson pointed out that the question was not relevant to the debate and the presentation of ECSA.

Mr L Maduma (ANC) stated that ECSA had reiterated the view that the Committee had not consulted thoroughly enough. However, if ECSA viewed itself as a stakeholder, then he wanted to know exactly what contribution it had made. He referred to the seven principles of the Policy set out on slide 9 and he wanted to know whether the Bill was a hindrance to achievement of those principles.

Mr W Spies (FF+) put forward the argument, based on labour unions which had representation from both management and labour, that the new body should be composed of members who would represent the profession.

Ms M Ramotsamai (ANC) asked whether the Committee was actually being presented with a contradiction, because on the one hand ECSA expressed that it was not in favour of the legislation, but on the other hand had made some good suggestions. She asked for clarity. She addressed the issue of representation of black or previously disadvantaged members, and noted a percentage of 56% previously disadvantaged had been given in the presentation. She asked whether a breakdown of the actual figures could be given.

Mr Goba responded that members of ECSA were proud of the achievements of ECSA since 1994. The figure of 56% seemed high on its own, but the actual figure, in relation to the 29 000 members currently registered overall, it was still too low.

Ms Ramotsamai explained what she understood to be meant by “community” – namely that representation should be of members of the community at large, who should not necessarily be engineers themselves.

Ms Tobias asked for clarity on the blockage. The figures seemed to suggest, according to the slide presentation, that if more than half of the current registrations were black or previously disadvantaged, there was actually no problem.

Professor Alec Hay, Member of ECSA, replied that of the 7 000 awaiting registration, 4 000 were previously disadvantaged. This figure was still too low and could be traced back to the education at school level. Currently, only 10 000 matriculants per year had an adequate symbol for mathematics at matriculation level to enable them to enter university engineering studies. This was the source of the blockage.

Ms Tobias informed the meeting that the Committee would be conducting its own research into the question of the number of graduates wanting to register. They would be interviewed to help inform the Committee on whether the matter was being dealt with correctly.

Prof Hay that in terms of the needs of the country, the registrations should multiply by at least 10%. He said ECSA was working closely with the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills (JIPSA) as a means to help unblock the system.

The Chairperson questioned the notion of market forces, and outlined to the meeting that the task of government was precisely to counter certain market forces that might not be appropriate at this time. Government’s intervention would ensure that transformation could take place because thus far the market forces could only accommodate the previously advantaged sector of society.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) asked whether there were any disabled members amongst the delegations present, and confirmed that there were not. This served to illustrate his point that if this matter was left to “market forces” without any government intervention, transformation would not take place. He was of the opinion that the best teachers should be employed at those schools and colleges where the previously disadvantaged were studying, so that these candidates may contribute to the engineering profession’s transformation. He also explained that having community members on the Council such as mathematics and science teachers would benefit the Council.

Mr Blanche asked what this had to do with the Bill.

The Chairperson asked that Mr Blanche respect the Chairperson’s ruling in regard to the questions. .

Prof Hay replied that peer judgment was the reason for volunteer experts to serve and do evaluations for registration.

Mr S Opperman (DA) asked why, in the USA, the registration was done within two years, but in South Africa this process was much more drawn out.

Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC) asked for the statistics on voluntary registration. She was concerned about allegations that the enactment of the Bill could result in the cancellation of international registration.

Ms Tobias asked Prof Ravi Nayagar, CEO, ECSA whether he had had an interview with Engineering News.

Prof Nayagar replied that he had.

Ms Tobias urged members to address not only the issue of training and education but also the matter of registration. She put it to Prof Nayagar that ECSA’s figure of 56% registration of previously disadvantaged meant seemed to indicate that there were no blockages in the system, contrary to what he was quoted as saying in the Engineering News article. This effectively meant that of the total of 29 000 registrations, 56% translates into approximately 14 000. She asked for clarity on this statistics.

The Chairperson asked whether the period of three weeks consultation was not enough.

The Chairperson said she did not agree that National Treasury should fund the Councils.

The Chairperson asked the ECSA delegation whether they could address the systemic problems.

Mr Godi and Prof Nayagar responded together to the various questions. On the question of delays, it was explained that it was possible that there might be administrative problems such as insufficient documentation or the wrong documents being lodged with the application, which would lead to delays while the matter was sorted out. In the case of a complaint, there was recourse for such applicants. Most complaints had subsequently been resolved.

In relation to the volunteer associations it was clarified that these were to serve as a reservoir of expertise out of which ECSA could identify experts in particular fields, and call upon them when needed.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on the statement that the composition of the Board would present a threat, and asked how the number of representatives would affect its functioning.

The delegation pointed out that the Board might suffer from a lack of sufficient peer representation. Furthermore, there was an accepted international standard that the peer representation would be in the majority.

The Chairperson of the Engineers Mobility Forum, a member of the delegation, said that despite the legal opinion given by the Department of Public Works, three of the Accords stipulated that peer representation was a requirement, and therefore if South Africa did not comply with this, it would not be able to participate and be a member of these Accords. In the case of the Engineers Mobility Forum, all the signatories, consisting of countries such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Canada, had agreed recently that Chinese Taipei would not be admitted if it did not have a majority representation of peers. South Africa was therefore in danger of falling foul of this provision as well.

Mr Maduma asked, with reference to slide 14, whether it was fair to request that the Councils be subsidised by Treasury.

The Chairperson added that the funds of ECSA, because it was a statutory body and funded by an Act of Parliament, would mean that its assets were public assets.

Ms Ramotsamai added that the assets and infrastructure did not belong to ECSA as an individual but to government, since ECSA was an institution of government. She said that the task of the politicians would be to correct the representation on the board through the promotion of mathematics and science at the lower levels, which would feed up through the profession. A perception had developed among black young people that the engineering profession was not worth entering because they would end up being secretaries rather than full members of the profession.

Mr Goba replied again that the number of 29 000 registrations needed to be doubled. He noted that the figure of 56% registration of previously disadvantaged individuals had occurred mostly in the last four years, and noted that there would be a decline experienced if this figure did not continue on an increasing trend at six times the current rate.

Prof Hay said that looking at the pipeline from school through to tertiary level, there were problems with higher grade mathematics, and this would be further complicated by a shortage of teachers in that field.

The Chairperson asked that this matter be noted and seriously brought to the attention of her colleagues in Parliament dealing with education matters.
 
A member of the delegation said that ECSA’s role was to receive and process applications, and thereafter at the advisory committee level the processing would be considered by peers.

The Chairperson said she did not understand what exactly was unacceptable to ECSA.

Mr Viljoen, legal advisor to ECSA, agreed that ECSA had been created through a Statute, but noted that it did not fall under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), similar to other professions. Therefore the registration fees remained an asset of ECSA itself, and this was not public money.

A legal adviser to the Department of Public Works said that funds in ECSA were not owned by it. The new proposed body would be similarly governed in terms of its assets.

Mr Viljoen countered that these assets had been acquired under the present and past legislation, and therefore they would not be affected.

The Chairperson did not agree, and stated that on the question of cross subsidization and the use of public funds to fund the council, there seemed to be no agreed-upon answer.

Mr Viljoen said that it must be the State’s responsibility to fund the smaller councils.

Mr Maduma asked for clarity on whether ECSA was of the opinion that the Bill was useful, and he would welcome suggestions for improvement.

Mr Spies stated that the Committee was mistaken in allowing this legislation to be debated in this Committee, because if it was correct that ECSA’s funds were public funds then this Bill was actually a money bill which, in that case, could only be introduced by the Minister of Finance.

Ms Tobias asked for the clause being referred to by Mr Spies.

The legal advisor from the Department of Public Works confirmed that the PFMA definition provided for the transfer of ECSA’s assets to the new body.

Ms Tobias was satisfied that this matter had been clarified.

Mr Goba said that he could not comment on the applicant who had made a submission the previous day about his difficulties in obtaining registration. He said that the matter of recourse open to applicants had previously been mentioned during this meeting.

He and the Chairperson agreed that it would not be necessary to reply to the question of self-interest.

National Society of Black Engineers (NSB): submission
Mr Sipho Madonsela, President, National Society of Black Engineers, noted that the NSB applauded current Government policies that led to the formulation of the Bill. He said that he intended to compare the current situation with the dispensation being proposed by this Bill. The current situation was characterised by fragmentation and lack of co-ordination between six professional councils. Voluntary associations, with interests of their own, could not be counted on to take over the running of professional bodies. The current situation could not ensure efficiency because authority of one body over another was not possible within it. The Bill proposed the formation of the CBE, which he believed would encourage co-ordination. It would scope professional work so that registration could be regulated. Authority would be centralised and accountability promoted. The Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) was an example of a body that resisted investigation into the way it dealt with registration. Mr Madonsela cited examples of a female mechanical engineer with eight years experience; and a black engineer with nine years experience, who had both experienced severe problems with registration by ECSA. Mr Madonsela requested that a student from the Mangosuthu University of Technology, who accompanied him, briefly address the committee on problems that students from previously disadvantaged communities experienced in qualifying for Built Environment professions.

The student, who had been asked to attend as a member of a Student Representation Body,  identified in-service training, which formed part of the requirement for engineering qualification, as the primary cause for concern. Students had no control over this part of their training. He also made mention of a situation where failing a single subject could cause a student to fail an entire year, which seemed to him a waste of the State subsidy that students received.

Discussion
Mr B Radebe (ANC) related how candidates for Engineering studies at the University of Kwazulu-Natal, who were experiencing financial difficulties, were simply advised to switch to studies in Education, because financial backing would be available.

The Chairperson asked him to refrain from such discussion, seeing that it could set up the Ministries of Public Works and Education against each other.

Mr Maduma observed that in-service training for black engineering students could fail to serve its purpose, when black students where utilised to supervise and direct labour on a site, instead of being guided to engage with “hardcore” technical and theoretical problems, as their white counterparts were led to do.

Mr S Opperman (DA) asked what Mr Madonsela had done to try to bring greater accountability and transparency to ECSA, during his term as President of that body.

Mr Madonsela replied that what he attempted to do got him dismissed as president. He was barred from ECSA records, as was the Minister.

Mr L Blanche (DA) asked what was the point of having a National Society for Black Engineers, and whether a National Society for White Engineers would be tolerated.

Mr Madonsela replied that the NSB was open to whites, and stated that this was a matter of emphasis, not exclusivity. What was sought was a more equitable spread, as there were fewer black engineers than white.

The Chairperson directed the discussion back to difficulties that black engineers experienced to obtain registration. She said that the registration model had to be evaluated. She wanted a closer look at complaints received, at the barriers to entry into Built Environment (BE) professions, and the whole question of access. She said that the Committee would have to look at models from different countries. The legislation must be transparent, as clearly a democracy could not block any people from professions, and race should not enter the picture. Everybody had to be treated equally in terms of the constitution. The national budget was destined for public consumption. There were 5 000 foreign engineers in the country, yet gatekeepers were blocking available skills in an irresponsible manner. The demographic composition of the country needed to be reflected.

The Chairperson referred briefly to her own experiences when serving on the Defence Portfolio Committee, noting that when the shortage of qualified black military pilots was investigated,  it was found that aspirant pilots were blocked because they were failing psychometric tests. However, the psychologists administering these tests had a frame of reference that could not be reconciled with black experience, especially given lack of opportunity and economic hardship. She reiterated a commitment to full investigation. She asked ECSA, within two months, to compile a data base of registration, broken down according to demographic variables. The committee needed to know who had attained registration, and what the legal costs were in such processes. It would also need to see what were the benchmarks.

South African Institute of Architectural Technologists (SIAT) submission
The representative of the presenting delegate noted that the South African Institute of Architectural technologists had a membership of 700. He stated that SIAT was in agreement with the Bill. He defined SIAT as a people-oriented body concerned with access to the architectural professions. The Bill had been circulated to members for comment, and there was agreement that it could promote transparency. It could also standardise the training of professionals. SIAT had investigated such training and had discovered that the dropout rate at training centres was very high; in some instances there had been a dropout rate of 40% after the first year. This was attributed to personal, domestic and financial issues. He emphasised that SIAT officials often had to finance proceedings from personal accounts. He concluded with the question whether there would again be a time lapse of eight years before real improvements could be seen, as had been the case since the introduction of the previous Bill in 2000.

Discussion
Mr Maduma expressed approval that pertinent issues had been dealt with and expressed.

Ms C Ramotsamai (ANC) noted that there had been consultation about the Bill, and agreed that the current Bill could be improved. She suggested that issues pertaining to a transitional period could be looked at.

Mr Radebe thanked SIAT for a good input, with relevance to the composition of councils.

South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession (SACLAP) submission
Mr Johan Barnard, Acting Registrar, SACLAP, expressed the concerns of the Council to the Committee. He noted that comments had been submitted in writing on the policy document that was circulated in March 2008, but it was unclear whether comments had been considered or rejected leading up to publication of the Bill. It had not been possible to have a full workshop with the whole profession and so these comments were being made on behalf of SACLAP alone, not with the wider profession.

It was noted that the Bill threatened the autonomy of all professional councils. The landscape architects had lobbied for more than 10 years to obtain autonomy, having previously been a board under the Architects Act. SACLAP had appreciated the suite of Built Environment legislation in 2000, which granted each building profession autonomy and jurisdiction. SACLAP feared that just as it had disappeared in the past, it could be forced to disappear again.

SACLAP disagreed completely with the statement that the regulated professions had grappled with issues of access to their professions and transformation. It was unaware of lack of cooperation, as alleged, between the professional councils, or between any council and the current CBE. It also disagreed with the centralization process. It further did not support the power given to the Minister to overrule discussions by the proposed Boards. It noted that there was no mention of what would happen during the transition period, and feared that all the time and effort put in by the practicing professionals in the years leading up to 2000 would be erased. The Bill was silent on what would happen with established processes and activities. The fact that only the future CBE would be a juristic person was “unfortunate” as it would have serious legal consequences for all existing councils, which did have juristic person status. It also created the potential for conflict of interest between the individual councils and the CBE. The Bill was also silent on the identification of matters falling within the ambit of the professional boards. It did not make the position of future involvement of voluntary associations clear.

SACLAP also had some problems around the composition of the new Councils, noting that it was envisaged that there would be a new Council of 19 members, of whom only 7 would represent the various professions. This must be seen against the pressure that the current councils needed to be more representative of each category of registration within each profession. Whilst the inclusion of community members was supported, it was felt that the ratio was not correct. The lack of sufficient representativity would also create problems in the decision-making around prescribed qualifications.

SACLAP also dealt, in the written submission, with the requirement of clause 11 that the Chairperson of each Committee must be a council member, and the provision of clause 12 requiring the Registrar to be the secretary of each professional board, which failed to take into account the workload. It was further suggested that the requirements of clause 13 would be unworkable. 

Clause 15 was of particular concern as it did not provide hat the Minister was obliged to follow the advice of professional boards and powers were also extended to the Minister to change any of these boards. The provisions of clause 18 failed to recognize the current Council’s efforts to address the problems of compulsory registration by its drafting of identity of work regulations. Finally, the failure to specify that the professional boards would play any role in the making of regulations was seen as emasculating the professional boards.

Discussion
Mr Blanche put it to Mr Barnard that Landscape Architects should perhaps be represented under Agriculture.

Mr Barnard responded that where environmental authorisation for development was needed, landscape architectures identified opportunities and constraints of site foundation for the planning professions. The other portion of their work related to working with external spaces.

Ms Tobias remarked that people did not get expert advice in starting developments. There were few of these specialists, and that made the profession very small.

Ms Ramotsamai said that she would like the drafters to look at differential treatment.

South African Institute of Electrical Engineers (SAIEE) submission
Mr Ian McKechnie, President, SAIEE, defined the objectives of the Institute. These included a technology leadership role; interaction with government; member career enhancement; professional registration facilitation and peer recognition. He tabled graphs of the race and age profile of members. He touched upon its relationship to the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA). ECSA was the body that regulated the profession and registered practitioners, with SAIEE more responsible for professional development and provision of expertise. He argued that Electrical Engineering was not only relevant to the Department of Public Works. Yet the BE Bill defined the Built Environment so broadly that it seemed to suggest that the whole engineering profession fell within its ambit, and this was seen as inappropriately and unrealistically broad. He explained in some detail the scope of engineering, noting what areas electrical engineering would cover.

The SAIEE was concerned that the Bill would reduce the status of ECSA as a regulatory body. This would amount to a subversion of ECSA effectiveness. Mr McKechnie stressed the achievements of ECSA in the attainment of international recognition of SA qualifications and professional registration. The Bill threatened to nullify the work done by the ECSA in placing South Africa on the international engineering map. The SAIEE was concerned with the “completely inadequate” consultation with the existing council, the voluntary associations and the industry. Although it recognised some shortcomings in the current framework, SAIEE suggested that these should be addressed in the overall framework. He addressed the perceived shortcomings of the existing legislation, and made suggestions as to how these could be overcome. It was not considered appropriate that there be one CBE driving all policy areas, quite apart from the practical aspects. It agreed in particular that the blockages in the system lay with the developmental processes and not with the current system of registration.

SAIEE was also concerned that the Bill could jeopardize international recognition of qualifications, noting that ECSA was the accredited member body in Africa, and that it might also have effects on benchmarking. The Bill impacted on the autonomy and authority of the tertiary education institutions. The power of the Minister to exempt juristic persons from the provisions of he Act could impact negatively on standards. The composition of the Council meant that it would be poorly placed to carry out key functions. The compulsory registration was supported, but the SAIEE was concerned that the professional boards would no longer have autonomy, as peer review was not embedded in the Bill. There were major financial implications. The powers given to the Minister were far too extensive and often arbitrary.

In summary, SAIEE believed that the Bill was fundamentally flawed and based on misperceptions and outdated information. It believed that there was insufficient consultation with stakeholders. It believed that the problems in the current system could be sorted out within the existing legislative framework. The Bill should therefore be referred back to the Department. Consideration should further be given to separate regulation of the Engineering Professions from the BE professions through extracting ECSA from the proposed BE Bill and establishing ECSA as a separate council reporting directly to the responsible Ministry.

Discussion
Ms Ramotsamai argued that the presenter undermined the role of the Minister. The statement that the Bill would undermine engineering standards closely reflected views expressed by ECSA. These boards were only accountable to themselves. ECSA was holding itself out as untouchable. The CBE was seen as on the same level as ECSA. This presentation seemed to suggest that ECSA should not submit to regulation by a larger authority.

Mr Radebe referred the committee to page 7 of the SAIEE document that displayed the fact that among the older age groups, SAIEE membership had been almost exclusively white. According to him, the presentation reflected the interests of a minority used to privilege, which they would not easily surrender. That was why “gatekeeper” functions were of such great importance. He contended that huge profits were in the pipeline for the engineering profession, and that those accustomed to benefiting from the old dispensation would want to hang on to their share of that. He invited bodies such as SAIEE to open up, stating that they would find that those who had been at the receiving end of racism would not want to repay the older members in kind.

Mr Maduma agreed that the presentation echoed the approaches of ECSA. It depicted the role of voluntary associations as gatekeepers. He argued that the willingness to accept black competition could be a worthwhile challenge. The envisaged role of the Minister could be viewed as a challenge to drive development. He asked where, then, would SAIEE place their arguments in terms of the new organogram.

Mr Opperman insisted that the skills for building a bridge remained skills for building a bridge and the bridges would have to be built by those qualified to do so.

The Chairperson dismissed claims advanced by SAIEE that stakeholders had not been sufficiently consulted. She too maintained that the shortcomings of new legislation as perceived by SAIEE, closely resembled the comments made by ECSA. She differed with the statement by SAIEE that ECSA had always submitted audited financial statements, arguing that the facts of what ECSA had withheld, were clear. She took exception to the statement that government could undermine ECSA. She insisted that the statement that powers of Minister and Council may lead to affecting standards was incorrect, as this must be seen as normative. 

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) Submission
Mr Llewellyn van Wyk, Council Member for Building and Construction Technology, CSIR, questioned whether young professionals were being adequately prepared for work. He noted that better people were needed. Not only the needs of industry had to be met, but also those of the country. He noted that sustainability was also an issue. Furthermore, BE professionals had to be prepared to meet the needs of development, and for that the needs of people had to be met, especially poor people. The transfer of skills and knowledge was an inter-generation responsibility. Development had to be transformative and restorative. It had to be informed by an ecological sense. In response to the needs of the poor, the Built Environment had to address the needs of the poor. It was typically said that government had to spend more. However, developers were raising their costs, only to then bring up the affordability issue. Twenty-first century challenges required a paradigm shift in the concept of a knowledge base. The silo approach would not work, and the service overall must be expanded. He noted that Cuban architects addressed the problems of their people in a way that South African architects had not. The ecological sense could not be diverted from BE concerns any longer. The claim that monopoly caused strength still had currency, but the identification of work necessitated research. Mr van Wyk stated that the notion that the Minister wanted to drive down standards was absurd. It was almost impossible to find a database that could make comparison with other national contexts possible. The CBE would enable consultation with the minister to be done with one voice, not six. If the new Council did not have strategic leadership, it would fail. The Minister would have to seek out those with talent. The CBE had to be properly funded, and the highest academic and ethical standards had to be maintained.

Discussion
The Chairperson expressed her satisfaction at hearing an environmentalist speak to the issues. She reflected that development strategies should not provoke natural catastrophe. A paradigm shift was indeed needed. Experts had to refresh their knowledge and their skills base.

Mr Maduma remarked that standards of benchmarking had to be revised. The USA and Britain could not remain the only standards for comparison. Construction in SA was not yet on a par with twenty first century levels.

Mr Radebe referred to innovative output. He pointed out that South Africa had resources. Strategic leadership did not necessarily always have to come from engineers. It could proceed from the community.

Ms Ramotsamai referred to fear of change and the unknown, which had been rife before 1994. However, everyone had benefitted from changes that had occurred since then. This Bill was not something to be feared, and Mr van Wyk could provide assistance with overcoming that fear. The same applied to the fear of international benchmarks and lowering of standards.

Mr Opperman thanked Mr van Wyk for his passion. He remarked that academic standards had to be addressed.

Mr Blanche urged Mr van Wyk to make his research inputs available to this Committee and also to the Science and Technology Portfolio Committee.

Mr van Wyk responded that the CSIR was in fact a Science and Technology Council. He insisted that South Africa should not make the same mistakes as some others. The USA was experiencing economic retrogression. SA had to find answers intrinsic to Africa. The government was saying that infrastructure had to be a priority. New technologies had to be developed to make that happen. This Bill could create a forum for that.

The Chairperson concluded proceedings with the statement that a paradigm shift had become necessary. Academic standards and ethics, nation building and development had to inform transformation.

The meeting was adjourned.