Built Environment Professions Bill [B53-2008]: further public hearings

Meeting report

Built Environment Professions Bill (the Bill): Continuation of Public Hearings
Higher Education South Africa (HESA) submission
Higher Education South Africa (HESA) delivered their presentation to the Committee. HESA submitted that the Bill was indeed in line with international practice. However, it expressed certain reservations. Firstly, it was not in line with the proposed changes as contained in the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Bill. The NQF Bill was currently still with Parliament. HESA was concerned that the current Bill made reference to the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) Act, which was due to be repealed by the NQF Bill. This Bill also did not state the responsibilities of the new Quality Council for the Higher Education band of the NQF, as it had been proposed in the NQF Bill.

The Bill, according to HESA, had proposed changes to the separate roles of institutions. HESA noted that the allocation of roles was inconsistent with provisions in the NQF Bill.

HESA noted that it was imperative that the domain of the Quality Councils (QC) must be clarified. They noted that the proper role of professional bodies was to define exit outcomes.

HESA believed that the Bill was infringing on the mandate of universities when it suggested that professional bodies should assume the power of determining the content of qualifications.

HESA delegates appealed to the Committee that the Bill be redrafted in alignment with the NQF Bill and that the QC domains be clearly demarcated.

HESA had attached an Annexure of its proposed changes to some of the clauses in the Bill, for consideration by members (see attached document)

Discussion
Ms C Ramotsamai (ANC) thanked HESA for their presentation, and said that it was progressive in the sense that it had highlighted some of the issues that might have posed as problematic.

Ms Ramotsamai noted that some of the submissions heard the previous day had taken the stance that the Bill was not in line with international practice and she noted that HESA disagreed with those submissions. She was impressed that HESA had confirmed that the Bill was indeed long overdue and in line with international practice. She suggested that perhaps the Bill did not even have to be redrafted and that maybe just the highlighted areas needed attention.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) also was pleased that HESA thought the Bill to be progressive and in line with international standards, and thanked HESA for its significant proposals. He noted that comments were made the previous day on the Minister of Public Works having a say in the training of engineers. During the past three years there had been a total of only 7 000 candidate engineers, which was an abysmally low number for a developmental state such as South Africa. It was impossible to take the country anywhere with such low figures. A developed country such as Germany produced 40 000 engineers per annum. Even developing countries such as India and China produced 30 000 engineers per annum. These figures indicated that South Africa was in trouble with this low figure of only 7 00 per annum. He wondered if it was not high time that the Minister of Public Works indeed should have a say in the training of engineers. He asked HESA if it could give the Minister of Public Works all engineering candidates’ details. Because he was aware of the problems of funding, he proposed that all Higher Education-registered engineering candidates be put on to a programme with the Department of Public Works (DPW). He believed it was within the mandate of the DPW to look after its profession. He asked if that would be seen as an infringement by HESA on the Minister of Education’s authority.

Mr Radebe noted that some engineering candidates who passed their academic studies had not had their forms submitted by their learning institutions, and that this had led to them being turned away from Engineering studies and forced to follow educational as opposed to technological paths in life.

Mr Radebe added that already there were far too few mathematics and science students and asked HESA what they were doing about that specific issue. He said that the Committee was entitled to ask the Minister to intervene on these issues.

The Chairperson noted that China could not be considered to be a developing country, given the magnitude of its budget and economy. She said that China, in terms of its programmes, was a developmental state but that it was not a developing country.

Mr S Opperman (DA) thanked HESA for their presentation. He asked HESA if there was a difference between the qualifications obtained from the traditional Universities and the universities of Technology.

Mr J Blanche (DA) referred to the comments on inputs by Professional Bodies. He was stunned at the objections to this. He said that the Bill had set out to infringe on the mandate of the universities by suggesting that the professional bodies assume the powers of determining the content of qualifications. The professional bodies were made up of people who were actively engaged in the activities of those who had graduated. They were more in touch than the academics that had lost touch with students after they had qualified. Mr Blanche said that to deprive the professional bodies of input would be tantamount to saying that they knew nothing.

Mr Blanche made reference to Sasol and its origins. He noted that Sasol had not been formed by a university, but by a company that was professional in its own field. He drew analogies to Chris Barnard, pointing out that he had undertaken his heart transplants at the hospital, and not at the university, only afterwards returning to the University to lecture.

Mr Blanche added that standards were developing on an ongoing basis after graduation, and that the professional bodies needed to play a role and have an input in the setting of standards.

The Chairperson asked the drafters if they had modeled any of the issues that had been referred to by Mr Blanche.

A drafter of the legislation responded that the role played by professional bodies was, in the past, exactly what Mr Blanche had noted. However, if regard was had to the statutory higher education Quality Assurance (QA) bodies, it would be noted that the Health Professions Council was responsible for all health professions. Councils such as the Pharmacy and Nursing Councils all fulfilled a role in having academic standards determined by the Professional Body. In addition, all legislation was subject to the South African Qualification Authority (SAQA), the predecessor to what was now contained in the NQF Bill. The NQF Bill and the extent of interaction between professional councils was also subject to the matter of debate.

The Chairperson agreed with the comments of Ms Ramotsomai. Previous submissions had been insistent that the Bill was not in line with international practice. She was relieved to hear HESA’s stance, as the previous submissions were suggesting that this Bill was leading to a lowering of standards. 

The Chairperson said that the Committee had noted where there was an overlapping of the responsibilities as set out in this Bill and the NQF legislation.

The Chairperson enquired whether HESA, in suggesting that professional bodies be included, was referring only to the ones mentioned, or whether there were others. She too agreed that it might be possible just to redraft the clauses specified, rather than undertake a complete re-draft of the entire Bill.

Professor Duma Malaza, CEO of HESA, responded in general to the issues raised. He clarified that HESA was not saying that the professional bodies did not have a role to play in higher education. However, the manner of entry of professional bodies to higher education needed to be clearly defined and regulated. He added that curricula had been designed by professional bodies. He said that the arrangement was that professional education was integrated into university teaching. He added that universities, through government arrangement, were accountable for quality assurance and for the maintenance of their own standards. However, this had to be done in consultation with the professional bodies. He added that these bodies were not just assuming a role.

With regard to the powers of the Ministers of Education and Public Works, he said that the NQF was trying to assume the responsibility of both Ministers. The current Bill was giving executive power to the Minister of Education for all education matters. However, consultation between the Ministers was indeed necessary.

Professor Malaza proposed that the Bill should be aligned with the NQF Bill, so that the Minister of Education was responsible for education, but that a mechanism must be put into place where Professional Bodies played a well defined role in Higher Education. 

Dr Oswald Franks, Dean of Engineering,  Cape Peninsula University of Technology, noted Mr Opperman’s question on the relative status of the different qualifications. He said that the there was no equivalence of status, and that there were differently designed degrees for different professions. He spoke of the pipeline for the production of engineers in the country. He said that the pipeline started in elementary school, continued through high school and eventually through to the tertiary level, where students had the choice of attending either traditional universities,  or universities of technology.

Dr Franks added that there were specific criteria that needed to be met for professional registration for certification as a Technologist, Technician or Engineer. He displayed concern about the throughput of those applying for registration, which was lower than it should be. He noted that after students had graduated, they had to go and work for a number of years before they were eligible to apply for professional registration. Some graduates, after leaving their institutions of higher education, received inadequate training at their workplaces, and this was not recognized for obtaining of professional certification. This process was in dire need of review.

Dr Franks referred to the executive authority of the Ministers of Education and Public Works. He said that anything prior to graduation should fall within the realm of the Minister of Education and anything pertaining to post-graduation training should be the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works.

Dr Franks noted that, for disadvantaged students, the Department of Education had the National Students Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) but that some students were still not able to be kept in the pipeline of training. He recommended that the Professional Bodies make a contribution and said that the need still exceeded the numbers in the profession.

Dr Franks said that with regard to accreditation for engineering, the current responsibility for quality assurance at universities rested with the Council for Higher Education (CHE).

Ms Ramotsamai was concerned about the lack of interaction between the professional bodies and Higher Education with regard to helping students through the pipeline. She noted that certain criteria had been set for the purposes of professional certification. She asked who had set those standards. She wanted further to know how the gaps identified could be closed.

Ms Ramotsamai made reference to the large numbers of unemployed engineers and said that this was discouraging, especially to future engineering candidates.

Ms Ramotsamai expressed concern for students who were gaining inappropriate engineering experience, probably without even knowing that the experience being gained was not relevant. She wanted to know what HESA was doing about that, as it was not the students’ fault.

Mr Blanche again made reference to HESA’s submission about the Bill being an infringement on the mandate of universities.

Mr Blanche said that the process of professional certification needed to be inclusive of input from the professional bodies. He recommended that this input function be put into the Bill. He added that he knew of no academics who had been successful in their profession without gaining practical experience. He said that the professional bodies needed to have power.

Mr Blanche, stressing that the professional bodies were vital, made reference to the many disadvantaged students who might not have been able to study full-time after leaving high school, but who had studied part-time. By the time they reached 35 years of age, they would have graduated from their university studies, and have gained valuable experience in their chosen field. This person would be more qualified than someone who had just graduated from university without gaining any of the practical experience.

The Chairperson noted that in-service training programmes and learner ships were meant to address the issue of graduates obtaining the necessary experience while they were still studying.

Mr Radebe said that HESA’s response had been progressive and enlightening.

Mr Opperman, citing his experiences as a former school teacher, was concerned about South African students’ performance in Mathematics and Science. He wanted to know what influence that would have on the pipeline to produce engineers.

Mr Maduma said that universities should be seen as catalysts in a developmental state. He was worried about the professional bodies having a shared responsibility with Higher Education. He felt that most members of professional bodies did that work in their spare time, and that they had not done enough to meet the challenges of a developmental state. However, he did say that professional bodies visiting universities should be heard on their specific requirements.

Mr Maduma added that universities should derive their budgets from the number of students and not from their outcomes.

The Chairperson noted a report, dated 8 June 2008, which had indicated that South Africa was indeed working to close the gap, by producing 1 000 engineers per annum. This target had been stipulated since 2007. However, she felt that 1 000 per annum was still low in relative terms. She asked what could be done to raise this figure, to meet the needs of the country.

The Chairperson also enquired whether students were aware, when registering for their higher education, of the difference between the different degrees and were fully apprised which qualifications led to which profession, and if they were adequately advised. She added that this was imperative, as many of the country’s current skills did not match the current needs. Students needed to be educated or informed on what qualifications to do if they wanted to become technologists, technicians or engineers.

Professor Malaza referred to Higher Educations’ commitment to produce 1 000 engineers per annum. He said that the Minister of Education had made that investment in the past two years and that the foundations had been laid. However, it took five years to train an engineer, so it was not easy to currently see the results.

Prof Malaza addressed Mr Blanche’s concern about professional bodies. He highlighted the importance of effective collaboration between the professional bodies and Higher Education to meet high education standards, and confirmed that this was necessary for the maintenance and setting of high standards.

Dr Franks responded to Ms Ramotsamai’s concern. He noted that students who went to work in the profession after doing Higher Education were graduates with National Diplomas. They could then register with an Engineering Council as trainee Technologists, Technicians or Engineers. He said that in the world of work, students were exposed to a wide range of jobs and functions and that many black students experienced that differently. He said that there was nothing the Engineering Council (EC) could do about that. However, the Engineering Council would set the criteria, stating that after two or three years the trainee could then apply for professional certification or professional status. These criteria were published. He confirmed that there was a need for positive intervention. Voluntary organisations needed to do much more in terms of mentoring and counseling. At present, the entire area was left to market forces with limited intervention. The EC was unable to intervene due to limited resources.

The Chairperson noted that HESA was suggesting that the EC should intervene, but the EC was saying that HESA should intervene.

Dr Franks replied that he was not saying that Engineering Council of South Africa’s (ECSA) mandate needed to include intervention.

The Chair responded that ECSA was one of the councils.

Dr Franks said that EC should be doing something outside.

The Chair wanted to know what something was in that specific context.

Dr Franks elaborated that the ECSA could make arrangements with the voluntary organisations to provide trainees with mentors. He did point out that this was not a formal part of their mandate.

Dr Franks said that universities were doing career guidance, but in his view there was never enough guidance. Some students had the privilege of having parental guidance, and that helped, but this was not true of all prospective students. Within the current professional registration or certification system, students were allowed to migrate to Technologists and Technicians, but they were not allowed to migrate to Engineers.

Dr Franks told Mr Maduma that, in his capacity as Dean of Engineering for CPUT, he would be more than happy to answer any other concerns directly.

Ms Ramotsamai noted that everyone had a responsibility for effective mentoring.

Mr Blanche wondered if there was a collaborative programme between the Department of Local Government and the universities to get sponsorships for more engineers.

Mr Faried Allie Submission
Mr Faried Allie noted his concern that the period for public comment had been too short, and should have been extended to allow more effective consultation with stakeholders such as the voluntary organizations, as well as registered persons. He added that time constraints might compromise high standards in the Engineering profession. He noted that the last Act dated back to 2000 and it would be difficult to make amendments. 

Mr Allie displayed concern with regards to the definition of candidates. He mentioned that the Bill did not deal with certain categories. In regard to the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), he commented that the board should not be limited to only 20 Members, which was far too few to cater to 29 000 registered ECSA members.

Mr Allie questioned the capacity of the Registrar to act as secretary to six professional bodies, as set out in clause 12. He said that the Council should not prescribe qualification for registration as it was the function of the boards.

He was concerned that ECSA would lose international recognition.

He was concerned that the Bill would have financial implications for the State and pointed out that in the past the State had not been contributing financially.

Mr Allie proceeded to discuss clauses 18 and 26, and who was responsible for registration. He said that Clause 41 of the Bill needed clarification as it was in direct contradiction of Clause 39 (3) (b). He also set out the Registration Authority Process with the Committee. He appealed to the Committee that the registration authority remain with the boards to ensure retention of international recognition. He also appealed to the Committee for peer evaluation to be retained. He said that all Accords and Mobility Forums were dependent on the retention of peer evaluation for registration. He added that the CBE Council representation had to be in direct proportion to the number of registered persons in order to maintain equilibrium.

He concluded that South Africa was the only county in Africa with international status insofar as engineers were concerned, and appealed to the Committee for the retention of that status.

Discussion
Mr Radebe thanked Mr Allie for his presentation and said that many of the issues that were raised before had been raised again. He asked Mr Allie how the loss of international recognition would be caused by the Bill. He questioned why Mr Allie thought that the present government would want to lower the standards of international practice. He noted that South African professionals were generally sought after internationally.

The Chairperson agreed that ECSA should not lose its international recognition. However, she asked Mr Allie where exactly in the Bill it was stated that peer review would be lost.

Mr Allie responded that prevention was better than cure and that he would rather make a noise about it now than later. His concern was that peer review be retained, as it was a crucial part of the registration process that all countries were looking at when according international recognition. He reiterated that peer review should stay. He was adopting a proactive stance when he was making this suggestion.

He added that currently registration was the function of ECSA, and that ECSA carried international recognition. He noted that he did not want anything to hamper that.

The Chairperson said that all councils needed to be looked at, with a view to becoming  internationally recognized, rather than just the one. She said that that was what the Bill was essentially seeking to do. 

Ms Ramotsamai raised the issue of financial implications for the state. She asked if it would not be better if government should invest and budget for training, instead of using volunteers, who may have limited time available and may not be consistent in their approach.

Ms Ramotsamai wanted to know what Mr Allie suggested as he said that board members should not be limited to a number of 20. She also sought clarification on the figure of 29 000 mentioned in the presentation.

The Chairperson said that the discussions about the Boards must take into account not so much the number of 20, but quality and quantity. She wanted to know how having more board members would help or make a difference.

Mr Allie noted that the Boards approved the processes but that committees had done most of the background work.

The Chairperson asked if the Committees were legally recognized.

Mr Allie said that there were some high level committees that still needed representation on the Board

The Chairperson said that structures that were not legislated for before should not be changed now, as there was nothing to stop them from continuing to function. She said that she did not think all people needed to have representation.

The Chairperson asked Mr Allie what legislation he had been referring to when he was speaking of the functions of the Boards.

Mr Allie said that he was suggesting that certain work should rest with the Boards.. The Boards did the actual work and the Council gave effect to their decisions.

Mr Allie referred to Clause 55(b) of the proposed Bill. He added that the Bill mentioned certain registered people as excluded and added that the Minister should decide.

Mr Maduma wanted to know what Mr Allie had meant when he said that consultation had not been sufficient, and enquired what else he would have recommended. .

The Chairperson noted that Mr Allie’s presentation was similar to many of the other presentations. She said that in her opinion, 21 days was not too short and was indeed legally acceptable. She further said that Mr Allie had said that it was difficult to make amendments, but that the whole process was geared towards making such amendments.

Mr Allie noted that there had been a cut off date of 19 July 2008. He added that there had been a small window for consultation. He added that more time could have been conferred.

The Chairperson reiterated that the consultation process had not been too short. Some procedures allowed for only 14 days and this issue had been given 21 days.

Mr Opperman wanted to know what Mr Allie’s position was on the proposed new structure.

The Chairperson commented that she would have liked more clarity on the points regarding the definitions and clauses 1 and 2.

The Chairperson disagreed that the Bill would have financial implications, and said she needed more clarity on that. She said that in the past voluntary organizations had incurred huge expenses, for instance for traveling.

Mr Allie made reference to the Bill and the Budget. He noted that the current councils were struggling to make ends meet, especially with the disciplinary hearings. He added that those councils had in the past only used funds from subscriptions and those councils had applied to the Minister for funding.

The Chairperson asked Mr Allie if the Minister had to subsidise litigation as opposed to preventing it.

The Chairperson requested clarification on clause 41 from the drafters. 

Mr Blanche enquired if the Department of Public Works had received any inputs from the Department of Labour (DOL).

The Chairperson told Mr Blanche that his question would be dealt with on Tuesday when all the Departments were present.

Mr Jean Grove Submission
Mr Jean Grove mentioned that he was glad that the Bill was addressing pertinent issues affecting the Built environment. He found the clauses around recognition of students and the ability to recognise new professions as positive, and thought that the criminalisation for those practicing without registration would afford the public better protection.

Mr Grove did however believe that the objectives of the Bill could be better met with certain changes, which he then set out. He suggested certain amendments to definitions, in particular the concepts of “profession” and “category of registration” and “discipline”. He felt that the “Built Environment Industry” needed to be clarified.

Mr Grove felt that the Council should discuss the educational requirements of the profession with the universities, but he stressed the need for academic freedom. Council had the power already to withdraw accreditation of a training institution if the standards fell and he did not think that clause 4(1)(f) was needed,. However, he did believe that the Council should intervene in administration of the education system where there was unfair exclusion through the administrative process.

He said that principles should be consistent across professions, although differences in regulations giving effect to them was supportable. He suggested that the levels of cooperation in clause 4(1)(j) should be extended to include all sphere of government, and cooperation must be stronger between Town and Regional Planning and Land Surveying. He suggested certain matters that could be identified and addressed.

He also suggested special attention be given to the role of South Africa in the SADC and that consultation should be done with international bodies, to ensure that international recognition be supported.

He noted that institutional capacity was a problem already and it needed to be addressed. The decision to have a single registrar could worsen the position. HE suggested that there should be several sub-registrars. Delegation, as envisaged in clauses 4 and 12, should take into account the competencies of the persons. He too called for specific time frames to be inserted.

He further called for strict compliance and for an effective and smooth process to stop those practicing outside the Bill.

More comments were made about governance, the independence and objectiveness of the Council, the criminalisation of practicing without being properly registered, procedure for disciplinary measures, extension of partnerships to non-Built Environment Professionals, and remarks around company names.
 
Mr M Buthelezi Submission
Mr M Buthelezi said that it very difficult for the historically disadvantaged people and the poor to enter into the profession. For this reason he welcomed the Bill, but he also had some areas of concern to point out. He noted that access was difficult firstly by reason of cost, secondly the use of the point system and thirdly that professional technologists were not given full recognition, and fourthly many black graduates were not entrusted to handle complex projects when they were working in the industry.

A further factor, however, was the failure to recognise talent that already existed in the Built Environment sector, in the form of people who had graduated from Universities of Technology. These graduates were not given to chance to demonstrate their true potential. .He suggested that to overcome this at least 60% of Council members should be black to ensure that there was real transformation in the industry.

With regard to the division between graduates of Universities and Universities of Technology, he said that technically trained professionals were often more versatile, yet were not accorded full status. He said that although the objectives of the Bill were set out in clause 3, these were not clear enough, and he said that clauses 3(b) and (e) should be amplified, and should place greater emphasis on transformation.

Mr Buthelezi stated that the majority of certain Built Environment sector professionals were still white, therefore the managerial levels were also largely held by whites, and that there were severe delays in registration processes. He believed that too much power was given to professional boards in clause 29, without sufficient safeguards against abuse of power. He suggested that accreditation of tertiary education institutions should be done by the Council or the national Department. He therefore urged the Minister to publish the criteria when prescribing qualifications for registration, and criteria for the post academic training necessary in order to qualify for registration of professionals. He said that the Committee’s attention to these and other issues would change the perceptions.

Discussion
Ms C Ramotsamai (ANC) said that Mr Grove’s  presentation was a bit technical and that it difficult for her to understand. In regard to the suggestions that Clause 4(i) of the Act should include all spheres of the government, she said that there was different legislation governing the three spheres, but agreed that monitoring should be in place. She was surprised to hear from Mr Buthelezi that black professionals were told to go and practise in the townships. Discrimination had to be totally eliminated in the profession.

Mr N Ngcengwane (ANC) asked why some people were prevented from practicing. If the problems that had been raised by the submissions were correctly stated,  then the Bill would have to deal with these issues.

Mr Grove mentioned that the Council did not recognise any formal training of Draughtsman provided by education institutions. The Bill should also deal with recognition of the qualifications.

The Chairperson asked for clarity on the last paragraph of Mr Buthelezi’s submission.

Mr Maduma asked for clarity on the visibility of Black professionals in the profession.

Mr Buthelezi noted that report writing was an integral part of the profession, He said that the City of Durban was promoted by black professionals. Nobody had complained about the lowering of standards there.

South African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE) submission
Ms Allyson Lawless, Chairperson,  SAICE gave a brief background of the organisation and a breakdown of SAICE membership according to race and gender. She mentioned that SAICE had been working with the Cuban Engineers. She noted that the Bill seemed to have an unfortunate lack of understanding of the role of various participants in the Built Environment. The Bill did not address the issues affecting the pipeline components in an integrated way.

She mentioned the bottlenecks that hindered the emergence of a huge sector of qualified black engineers. The bottlenecks were firstly caused by a very low numbers of black students who passed maths at higher grade at matriculation. This was compounded that the fact that many did not then gain their final year experiential training, and so lacked job prospects. Students without final year experiential training could not graduate. Those who managed to graduate would only be trained in one area without getting the overall picture. That hindered their prospects of employment very badly. The Bill was aimed at mainly effecting change at the professional regulatory level. The Bill did not take the entire supply pipeline into account and failed to recognise that it took years to produce competent and mature professionals.

SAICE proposed the following:-
- The establishment of an internationally agreed and proven processes.
- The necessity for professional judgment and competences in the profession should be recognised
- The Council for the Built Environment (CBE) should include the entire built environment and associated disciplines.
- The CBE should play a coordinating and administrative role to support the individual professional councils. It should facilitate the research, communication, and the development of policy and administrative systems. It should also continue with accreditation, registration and disciplinary processes.

Discussion
Ms Ramotsamai thanked SAICE for clearly outlining the problems hindering black matriculants and the important role played by professional bodies.

Mr Radebe said that he was impressed by the role played by women in the organisation.

Ms Lawless emphasised the oversight role that should be played by the CBE.

South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA)
Mr Joe Samuels,  Deputy Executive Officer, SAQA, briefly explained the background of the organisation. He then said that his comments would be directed to trying to ensure that the purpose of the Bill was clear and the definitions consistent.

He suggested that the definition of  “accredit” should include the words “as a professional” to make it clear that this fell within the realm of professional bodies. He noted that the SAQA Act was to be repealed in totality, and therefore clause 4(1)(e) needed to be redrafted. He suggested that in clause 4(1)(n) the words “for purposes of registration of professionals” should be included. He suggested further changes to clauses 4(1)(o) and 4(1)(p) to enable a coordinated integrated education system for articulation and mobility.

He suggested that the composition of the Council in clause 6(1)(f) should also be amended to include “and other bodies representing education and training matters in South Africa”. He said that this would enhance representivity.

Mr Samuels then moved to the descriptions of the functions of professional boards in the Bill. He made suggestions for amendments to clause 16(2)(a), (b), and (c). It was suggested that curricula and training programmes remain the responsibility of the respective quality assurance boards, and that the quality assurance cycle be clarified. Clause 16(g) should have the words “in relation to the registration as a professional” added to make the mandate of the professional boards clear. The Council’s jurisdiction should be clarified in clause 17(1) and clause 17(5) must be changed, since a professional board could not be positioned as an Education and Training Quality Assurance body as defined in the SAQA Act. Further additions should be made to clauses 25, 29(2), 29(5) and 47(1), for legitimacy and credibility of the process and sharing of expertise. Finally he noted that clause 48 needed some further amplification to reinforce the mandate of the professional bodies.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the Bill should not ignore what had been done by the Education Portfolio Committee. The last presentation clearly explained the role played by the professional bodies.

Mr Radebe said that the Bill was specific on what should be done, and he suggested that every suggestion of SAQA should be taken on board by the Committee.

The Chairperson said that she would organise a meeting between this Committee and the Education Portfolio Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.