Built Environment Professions Bill: deliberations

Meeting report

The Chair said that the Committee would work its way through the Department’s response document clause by clause with the Department leading the process.
Ms Lydia Bici, Deputy Director General: Policy, led the delegation from the Department which included.Mr Tebogo Malatji, Legal Drafter, and Ms Jessica Moodley, Director: Legislation.

Ms Bici noted that the document contained all the inputs that had been made on the Bill. The Department had tried to avoid duplication as much as possible given that different inputs covered the same issues. Mr Tebogo Malatji, Legal Drafter, proceeded to take the Committee through the document.

Clause 1 - Definitions
The first comment was that there needed to be a grievance procedure for persons to appeal to the Council against a decision by a professional board.

Mr Malatji said that it would not be possible for there to be an appeal mechanism to the Council against a decision by a professional board. He said that policy was handled at Council level. He pointed out that in the Bill, Clause 4 set out the functions of the Council and Clause 16 set out the functions of professional boards.

Mr Blanche (DA) asked whether it was correct to place different professions under one umbrella. He pointed out that each profession was a discipline on its own. He asked whether the proposed system had been tested elsewhere in the world.

The Chair said that the Committee had agreed that there was a need to synergize the work of the councils. The Committee had agreed on the need for the Bill. The Committee could not retract on what had been agreed upon. Ms Tobias said that if there were provisions in the Bill that were not agreed upon, these provisions could be discussed.

Ms C Ramotsamai (ANC) commented that the Committee dealt with public works and that the built environment formed part of it.

The Chair said that the discussion was nonsensical and that professions just did not wish to be integrated.

Mr Blanche said that there was evidence to say that professions have international peers. He noted that SA had to adapt and change in order to function in the global world. The evidence had to be considered.

The Chair said that such evidence would be put to the test. She explained that all the Bill was doing was to place a lot of structures under one structure. The aim was to improve accountability.

Mr Blanche pointed out that electrical, civil engineers and such had said that they were connected by international agreements.

The Chair asked Mr Blanche to explain how the international agreements would be affected. She said that the element of peer review would continue to take place through the professional boards. The Council would not take over the peer review mechanism. If there was dissatisfaction, there was still the opportunity to review the decision of the board.

Ms Ramatsomai said that in any case there was no intention to legislate if it was to lower standards.

Mr Malatji said that clause16(2) was not subject to ratification by the Council. Peer review activities would not be ratified by the Council. Peer review activities would be handled by the professional boards themselves. He reiterated that clause 4 set out the functions of the Council.

The Committee agreed to the response by the Department. Mr Blanche reserved his right to comment later.

The second comment on clause 1 said that the definition of “built environment” was vague. The Department disagreed.

The Committee agreed with the Department. Mr Blanche reserved his comment.

Ms Zuraya Adhikari, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, asked whether in the definition, reference was being made to movable or immovable property. She noted that in the context of the Bill the definition would be fine but as a general definition it could be problematic.

The Chair said that the matter would be flagged and discussed at a later time.

The third comment stated that the definition of Registrar should be “the person” rather than “a person”. The Department agreed to the suggestion and so did the Committee.

The fourth comment noted that the current built environment professions practice was more than a single industry. The Bill however made mention of a built environment industry. The Department responded that the definition of a built environment was broad and inclusive of all disciplines where professionals practise.

The Committee was happy with the Department’s explanation.

The fifth comment on clause 1 was that the definition of “built environment” in the Bill was not consistent with the definition in the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Act. Mr Malatji explained that there was no legal requirement for the definition in the Bill to be consistent with the definition in the CIBD Act as the CIBD Act did not supercede the Bill.

The Committee agreed with the explanation and there were no dissenting comments.

There was also a request that “unprofessional conduct” be clarified. Mr Malatji said that there would be a list of what constitutes unprofessional conduct. It would however not be a closed list.

The Committee felt the Department’s explanation to be acceptable.

The response to the sixth comment was broken down into three parts. The Committee agreed with the explanation given.

The second part of the comment requested that a candidate and a professional should be registered the same in any of the built environment professions.

Mr Malatji disagreed and said that a candidate and a professional should be registered differently.

Mr Blanche said that a candidate was someone applying to become a professional.

The Committee agreed to flag the issue.

The third part of the comment suggested an insertion to which the Department agreed.

The seventh comment requested the removal of the requirement to register students. The Department agreed to the suggestion. The Committee agreed to it in principle.

The eighth comment made two suggestions. The first was to insert “art and skill” into the definition of “built environment”. The second was to define ”sustainable”. The Department rejected both suggestions and the Committee agreed.

The ninth comment requested definitions for profession, professional categories and professional discipline. The Department obliged. The Committee approved.

It was noted that the tenth comment’s subject matter had already been dealt with.

Clause 2  - Establishment of council
The comment proposed the deletion of clause 2(2) as the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) was not relevant to the establishment of the Council. The Department disagreed and said that clause 2(2) should stay.

Mr Blanche asked why technical persons in professions should pay annual membership fees. He said that many of them could not afford it.

Ms Ramotsamai said that the issue of membership fees had been raised by the smaller professions. She felt that membership fees should remain or how else was the Council going to cover its administration costs? She pointed out that students had already been excluded and suggested that perhaps differently qualified persons pay different amounts.

The Chair stated that a financial model was needed to make the process viable. She asked members to focus on clause 2(2). The membership fee issue would be discussed at a later time.

The Chair said that the PFMA had to apply. As matters stood currently councils did not want to be accountable for their financial activities. Clause 2(2) would remain. The Committee agreed.

Clause 3 – Objects of council
The comment was that the Bill included the natural environment but town planners and environment management consultants were not included in built professions.

Mr Malatji said that town planners and environment management consultants work in the built environment and therefore fell within the built environment profession. He said that these persons would be brought in later into the Bill via regulations.

The Chair asked why they were not presently included.

Ms Bici explained that they did participate in the built environment but currently fell under Land Affairs.

Ms Tobias said that even though they were regulated by Land Affairs, they were more involved in the built environment. She noted that the issue needed further discussion.

Ms Ramotsamai said that provision needed to be made for such individuals without mentioning them specifically.

Mr Malatji said that clause 15 allowed for the establishment of additional professional boards by the Minister.

The Chair said that the matter needed further discussion.

It was noted that the comment on clause 3(b) had already been discussed previously.

Clause 4 – Functions of council
Many comments were submitted about clause 4.There was a concern that the Bill removed the authority of universities as it granted boards the authority on education and training matters.

The Department disagreed and said that the Bill did not remove the authority of universities to determine their own educational programmes. The Bill did provide for professional boards to access the educational programmes of a university. This was with a view to accreditation towards registration within a built environment profession.

The Chair said that the issue required further discussion and that the Portfolio Committee on Education needed to be consulted.

There was a concern that the functions of the Council in clause 4 were too extensive.

Mr Malatji said that there had been a misreading of the roles of the Council and that of professional boards. The roles of each were very clear.

Comment on clause 4(1)(k) stated that Council should not wait for the Minister’s request to provide advice. The Department agreed with the suggestion and so did the Committee.

An insertion was suggested in clause 4(1)(n): After “professional boards” add “taking due cognisance of the differences between the professions”. The Department said that the suggestion was reasonable.

Ms Ramotsamai was not too sure about it.

The issue was flagged.

Comment on clause 4(1)(n)(v) called for recognition of specialization.

The Department responded that it would be considered in the fee structure.

The Committee was satisfied with the Department’s response.

Comment on clause 4(1)(n) called for existing voluntary associations to be automatically recognized. The Department said that voluntary associations would be automatically recognized. It would be provided for in the transitional arrangements.

The Chair noted that the Committee needed to see the transitional arrangements. The financial implications of it also needed to be considered. Ms Tobias asked the Department to present the transitional arrangements to the Committee at a later time.

Mr Blanche suggested that perhaps an alternative mechanism to voluntary associations should be considered.

Comment on clauses 4(1) and 4(2)(b) asked whether the revenue of professional boards would be pooled and redistributed to professional boards at the discretion of the Council. Would viable professional boards be required to subsidize the Council and the non-viable professional boards? A suggestion was made that non-viable professional boards be funded by the state.

The Department’s response was that built environment professionals were required to register with the Council and not with professional boards. Income generated through registrations would be the Council’s and not individual professional boards. The Council would, from its income, allocate a budget to individual professional boards.

Ms Ramotasamai said that all professional boards would grow. At some stage the state would provide some funding.

Mr Blanche agreed that there was a need for state funding to help professional boards grow.

The Chair said that besides state funds, there would be monies from registrations.

Mr Blanche suggested that perhaps the registration fees should be made a tax deductable expense. It would serve as an incentive to register.

The Chair said that it was something to consider. The Minister should be consulted on the matter as it should be raised at Cabinet level. There were financial implications on the fiscus.

Comments on clause 4(1)(d) was that the Council should determine strategic policy regarding education which was in the domain of higher education. Plus this should not be restricted to only the strategic policy of the DPW but should include the broader needs of the economy.

The Department response was that the clause referred to educational requirements for purposes of registration and practicing in a built environment profession. The Department had removed the restriction. It replaced “national public works policy” with “government policy”.

It was decided that comments on clause 4(1)(e) would be dealt with at a later time.

An insertion was suggested in clause 4(1)(m) to which the Department agreed. Add “to gain and maintain” international recognition. Further comments were clarified by the Department as well.

The Committee was satisfied with the clause.

The meeting was adjourned.