Built Environment Professions Bill: Department of Public Works responses to submissions

Public Works and Infrastructure

19 August 2008
Chairperson: Ms N Ngcengwane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Public Works briefed the Committee on its responses to the submissions made during the public hearings on the Built Environment Professions Bill (the Bill). It set out the main areas of contention, which were around the processes of accreditation and registration for the Built Environment Professions; the composition of the South African Council for the Built Environment, the role of the Minister, and fears that the autonomy of the universities to determine their own educational programmes. The Department stressed that the intention was not to remove the authority of the universities to determine their educational programmes, but rather to allow a professional board to access educational programmes for accreditation purposes. Peer reviews would continue. The Registrar would only attend to the administrative aspects. The Department believed that there would be sufficient professional representation on the SA Council for the Built Environment. The Minister, when assigned a role, would act in the best interest of the Built Environment and the country, and the Bill already provided for the Council to coordinate the establishment of mechanisms for professionals to gain international recognition. Consultation would take place with the Council, professional boards and voluntary organizations. In regard to the powers of exemption under clause 44, it was explained that this would relate to companies, but the individuals in those companies would still be properly registered. Clause 47 should not be seen as a threat but as a mechanism to allow professional boards to visit to do accreditation, should there not be cooperation.

The Department then explained that it had plans for the transitional process, which would address the constitution of the council; the professional boards; the registration of professions; qualifications for registration; defining the scope of professions; rules and fees payable; and the commencement date for the constitution of the new Council. An interim task team would mirror the council to be created, and would investigate programmes and accreditation. A report would be compiled, forwarded to the Minister and published for public comment, for a period of three months, following which the establishment of boards and councils would take place. The new dispensation should be in place after twelve months. The proposed structure was tabled.

Members noted the responses, but raised concerns about the financing and costing of the Bill, how looting of assets and shifting of liabilities would be curbed, whether voluntary associations would be used, the need for objective standards and criteria and proper regulation, the necessity to get full information on remuneration, and whether the Department of Labour had been consulted.

Meeting report

Built Environment Professions Bill (the Bill): Department of Public Works (DPW) Responses to public submissions
Mr Tebogo Malatji, Legal Services, Department of Public Works, presented the response to the submissions made during the public hearing. He noted that the Department had itemized the inputs on the Bill, and the contentious areas would be set out with his responses.

Mr Malatji tabled a document containing the submissions, which were received on many of the 51 different clauses in the Bill. He highlighted those that gave rise to special concern. Some of the most contentious clauses were those that related to the role of universities in the processes of accreditation and registration of the Built Environment Professions. With regard to Clause 4, some inputs expressed concern that the Bill would remove the autonomous authority of the universities, as the clause seemed to grant Built Environment (BE) professional boards the authority on education and training matters. The Department wanted to stress that the Bill did not remove the authority of the universities to determine their educational programmes. However, it did provide that a professional board could access the educational programmes of a university for accreditation, as part of the requirements towards registration within the Built Environment professions (BEP).

With regard to clause 4(1)(m) the concern was expressed by several submissions that international recognition would be lost if peer evaluation was not maintained, and if the Registrar was to decide on the registration of professionals. DPW responded was that peer review was to be done at the PB level. The Registrar was only to attend to the administrative aspects of registration.

Another contentious area was the composition of the South African Council for the Built Environment (SACBE) and the Professional Boards. Some submissions claimed that there would be insufficient professional representation on the SACBE. DPW noted, in response to this, that there would be at least six professionals from the PBs. The other members, excluding the community members, would be drawn from persons within the BEP. This was set out in Clause 6.

Clause 7, relating to the role of the Minister, had also caused concerns. The DPW maintained that the Minister’s intervention was necessary to ensure that the Council acted properly. The Minister would act in the best interest of the BE and the country.

With regard to clause 25, some inputs again expressed concern with the Minister’s role, and the lack of provision for international accreditation and recognition. DPW responded that the Bill provided for the Council to co-ordinate the establishment of mechanisms for professionals to gain international recognition.

Regarding the scope of work, some input expressed concerns that the Minister did not have to heed to advice by Council or Boards. The DPW responded that the Minister may consult with the Council, professional boards and any relevant voluntary association before defining the scope of any built environment profession. This was set out in clause 30.

Clause 44 had attracted some criticism, which granted powers of exemption from qualifications to the Minister. DPW said that there would not be blanket exemption. Clause 44(1) allowed the establishment of companies of engineers and other professions. The people employed by such company or its directors must, however, be properly registered in order to perform professional acts.

Clause 47 was defined as extremely problematic. This clause granted to a person, who was authorised to do so in writing by a professional board, the right to enter any institution or premises to investigate matters relating to the education and training of other persons. Some of the comments expressed the view that this was reminiscent of the old search and seizure powers, and that the clause was unnecessarily adversarial, seeing that universities were open to the public in any event. The DPW maintained that this clause was drawn in contemplation of situations where there might be a need for an accreditation visit, most likely to sites offering practical training. If the institution did not co-operate, the PBs needed to have power to enter that institution. The question arose whether public institutions had the right to privacy. The DPW had decided to give some further consideration to the matter.

Memorandum on transition
Mr Malatji proceeded to give an outline of a memorandum that had been drawn up to steer the transition from the current dispensation to the new one that would be ushered in by the BEP Bill. The main pillars on which that transition would ride would include the constitution of the council; the professional boards; the registration of professions; qualifications for registration; defining the scope of professions; rules and fees payable; and the commencement date for the constitution of the new Council. He insisted that there should not be a gap between the old and the new systems. There would be an interim task team, which would mirror the council to be established. This team would approach existing councils and enquire about their programmes and who had been accredited. International bodies would also be approached and questioned about their standards. There would be a report to the Minister on the current state of the councils, which would take place after six months of commencement. The results of this report would be published, and a further three month period would be allowed for public comment and participation. Following that, a further three months would be allocated to deal with the process of establishing boards and councils. After twelve months, the new dispensation would be in place.

South African Council for the Built Environment (SACBE): Proposed Operational Structure
Dr Devan Pillay, Department of Public Works, presented a diagrammatical layout of the proposed operational structure (see attached document). He tabled diagrams showing how the categories of Corporate Structure, Operations, Education, Training and Registrations, Board Operations, Operations Support Services, Legal Services, Financial Services, and the Office of the CEO would function.

Discussion
Mr L Blanche (DA) remarked that the Bill did not really belong to the Committee any more. The DPW had already consolidated its response to it. He asked about how the new dispensation would be financed, and how projected costs compared to the current situation.

Mr B Radebe (ANC) asked about transitional arrangements. He mentioned that Mr Madonsela of the National Society of Black Engineers had had threats issued against him, presumably during the period of submissions to the Committee. He took this as proof that strong sentiments existed for retention of the current situation. He speculated that there could be a looting of assets of the existing councils, or the shift of liabilities to the new dispensation. He concurred with Mr Blanche that financing issues were crucial, and enquired if fiscal measures would have to be resorted to. He related his personal experience of working on a Bill costed at R500 million for implementation, but ended up finally costing R7 billion.

Ms C Ramotsamai thanked the Department of Public Works (DPW) for the patience and diligence with which its officials had joined in the process of hearing submissions the week before. She thought that the DPW had responded very well. She thought that the issue of the position of town planners and environmental consultants had been very well resolved. However, she agreed with Mr Blanche that the Department had to supply the Committee with financial information. She said that the structure that was being envisaged seemed to be a good one, but the question remained who would pay for it. She also enquired about the present expenditure. She praised the continuing commitment to international standards that emerged from the DPW response to inputs. She saw the most crucial issues that emerged as being issues of transition, rather than problems with the legislation. She asked if voluntary associations would be used during transition, when necessary, and if there had been any projections on the costs. Her experience had been that such bodies did not do something for nothing.

Ms Lydia Bici, Deputy Director General, DPW, responded to enquiries about financing posed by all three members. She said that the Department was collecting information from councils, based on 2006 and 2007 audits, and would come back to the Committee. With regard to the protection of the assets, she remarked that people who ran councils had to comply with monetary fund regulations.

Mr Radebe remarked that voluntary organisations were the gatekeepers of access to the BE professions. They could be expected to come forward again to compete for registration. The question was whether there would be regulation. In the health professions, peer review occurred in a regulated environment. Objective standards had to be met, without pandering to the whims of individuals.

Mr Malatji said that there had been technical challenges in drafting the Bill. He referred to the functions of council defined in Clause 4. The professional boards would deal with peer review, and the Council would regulate the overall process of accreditation and registration. A dispute resolution mechanism would be in place in case of contestation, and the Council would decide who had the power. Voluntary associations would have to be consulted by the Minister about the scope of professions. With regard to the access and registration, the Minister would adopt a role after the peer review. Objective criteria would be based on an assessment of the kind of competencies that had to be demonstrated. Each profession might have unique requirements. However, the process would be regulated. The voluntary organisations could be likened to a trade union for the professions.

Ms Ngcengwane asked for more input about financing.

Dr Pillay replied that a request for a projection of total costs had gone out, but that no answer had been received.

Mr Radebe said that he was disturbed by the secrecy around the renumeration of persons. There was transparency about the salaries of the Ministers, and parliamentarians. He suggested that if information was not forthcoming the powers of subpoena should be used.

Mr Blanche remarked that the Committee had not yet gone through the whole Bill, clause by clause. He asked if the Department of Labour had provided any input. He referred to a recent incident in which workers had been killed by falling concrete blocks. He asked why lift inspectors had not been included in the BE professions. He referred to the deterioration of airline services, and asked whether government had attempted to regulate a situation where professions could not maintain their own standards any longer.

Ms Ngcengwane responded that the DPW first had to respond to all submissions before the Committee could systematically deal with the Bill.

Ms Bici said that the DPW had in fact consulted the Department of Labour.

Mr Malatji said that in the case of the aviation industry, there were rules prevailing for engineers, which existed alongside the regulation of the general engineering profession as a BE profession.

Ms Ramotsamai said that the Committee could only deal with the Built Environment. The only concern shared with other areas was that of education.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: