Home

News 2008


Submission to the Portfolio Committee on Public Works

Built Environment Professions Bill B53-2008

 

  1. I am Dr Philip Lloyd, Pr Eng, FSAAE, FSAIChE, FSAIMM, MSACI, a chemical engineer and nuclear physicist by training, who has been involved for much of my life in the creation of the infrastructure which we enjoy today.

  2. I have also been committed to the development of the practice of engineering. I was President of the SA Institution of Chemical Engineers, of the Federation of Societies of Engineers, and of the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of SA. I served for 20 years on the Executive Committee of the SA Council for Professional Engineers, predecessor to the Engineering Council of SA [ECSA], and have since assisted ECSA in some of its deliberations although I have never been an office bearer of that body.

  3. I have also been involved in the training of those seeking to become engineers. In the late 1970’s I was part of an informal group of engineers that established Protec, a programme that encouraged maths and science education among the then disadvantaged sections of our population. For 10 years I served on its Council. The success of this programme was such that for many years its students gained over 80% of the matric exemptions in maths and science from the old DTI schools. Many of the African engineers, doctors and accountants practising today are Protec ‘graduates’.

  4. Further, in 1993 I returned part-time to academic life so that I could share some of my knowledge with the youth of today. For 5 years I was Professor of Environmental Chemical Engineering at Wits, and since then I have been Hon. Research Fellow in the Energy Research Centre at UCT, where my major interest has been on how the poor obtain enough energy safely for their daily needs.

  5. I have also had my share of academic honours, of which the gold medal of the SA Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, for my work on mine safety; and a small part of the Nobel Peace Prize, for my work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are probably the most distinguished.

  6. I have studied the Bill. In the light of my experience outlined above, I have no hesitation in describing it as an unmitigated disaster, calculated to destroy our capabilities in the built environment. Those capabilities are already stretched near to breaking point. Essential infrastructure needs maintenance and further development to supply the base for growth. If this Bill were to become law, it would effectively destroy the professions, and cause untold economic harm to our land.

  7. My first objection is a simple one – the notice in terms of which my submission is being made gives a number of purposes for this Bill which are quite different from those of the Bill itself. The Bill says its intent is “To establish the South African Council for the Built Environment; to provide for the establishment of professional boards; to regulate education, training and registration of professionals within the built environment; to provide for disciplinary hearings in respect of unprofessional conduct by registered persons; and to provide for matters connected therewith.” Nowhere is there any suggestion that the Bill is intended to “promote growth and transformation,” and you may search the Bill from end to end to find any basis for this claim. Indeed, as I have said above, there is evidence that it will destroy growth. So there is misrepresentation by the Department as to the purpose of the Bill, and on these grounds alone I believe it should be withdrawn.

  8. If you read the 2007 Annual Report of the Council for the Built Environment, you will find the Minister saying “Paramount to the CBE is the promotion of the ongoing human resource development in the Built Environment.” However, the Chairman says “Amongst areas that were improved by the Council are:

    • Internal restructuring, maximizing optimum output and delivery;

    • Identification of all stakeholders of the Built Environment and nurturing of relationships with them;

    • Initiation of new policies and procedures for improved standards and more effective regulation of the industries;

    • Investigation and cultivating of opportunities to generate more relevant skills for the various professions in the Built Environment;

    • Creating greater awareness about the CBE;

    • Supporting and advising on national initiatives that could alleviate the skills shortages in our country.”

  9. Note the extraordinary disconnect. The Minister says the Council for the Built Environment has as its prime function the promotion of human resource development; the Chairman of the Council puts creating greater awareness about the CBE above human resource development. Thus the Council, on its own admission, has not been doing its job.

  10. An indication of the present Council’s ineffectiveness in promoting human resource development may be gained from its 2007 Annual Report: “Four graduates within the field of development studies were selected and assumed a year’s internship at the beginning of January 2007.” That is the sum total of its work in the primary area of its responsibility. The nation needs hundreds of professionals; four is the sort of drop in the ocean that would be risible if it were not true.

  11. The Bill now intends to replace the CBE (which was established in terms of Act 43 of 2000) with the SACBE. The primary question must therefore be whether the new body will be able to perform any better than the old, in accomplishing its primary function. If not, there is no point in making any changes.

  12. The objects of the Council, given in Sect 3, include “c) promote ongoing human resource development in the built environment industry.” This good news is offset by the functions of the Council spelt out in Sect 4, where human resource development has fallen down the list to “(k) provide advice, if requested by the Minister, in respect of national policy that could impact on the built environment human resource development in relation to the built environment professions and to the recognition of new professions.” Promoting human resource development has been downgraded to providing the Minister with policy advice, if requested. One can only conclude that the Bill is most unlikely to address Objective c).

  13. Clearly, therefore, there is little point in changing the present situation. The CBE must first show that it can deliver what it is called on to deliver. Only once it has achieved that should any thought be given to making the sorts of changes foreseen in the Bill.

  14. I said earlier that the changes would probably destroy the existing professions. It is now necessary that I substantiate that claim.

  15. If one reviews the various Councils falling under the CBE, two things are immediately obvious:

  • The Councils vary dramatically is size and wealth, from the Engineering Council, with some 27 000 members and R19m in annual subscriptions to the Landscape Council with 125 members and R70 000 in subscriptions

  • All the Councils have strong and direct links with the professional societies

  1. In contrast, the CBE has an income of only R1,1m (plus a R8m grant from Government) and has no ties to the professional societies.

  2. I had experience of this situation in many years of service to the AS&TS. There were attempts to turn it into a powerful umbrella body – all failed because none could establish support from the membership of the institutions. Instead, the umbrella body, AS&TS, was strengthened when it left the powerful institutions to get on with their own business, and concentrated on building up the weaker ones. In some cases it was even able to help the smaller institutions by acting as a catalyst for their amalgamation with a larger, more powerful body. This strengthened the professions immeasurably by avoiding the splintering of effort.

  3. I also saw other attempts to establish umbrella bodies flounder. One example was a body based on the thesis that there should be individual membership of the umbrella body, rather than election of representatives on an umbrella body by the institutions. It failed, after wasting millions.

  4. This experience forced an examination of the role of the professional institutions. I came to the conclusion that their primary role was to foster links between the professionals so that they could, in effect, educate each other. This was years before the establishment of systems for monitoring continuing professional development, but continuing professional development took place because the institutions were directly responsible for it, even if this was not explicitly spelled out.

  5. One of the signs that this continues is that courses run by the institutions generally do not pay their lecturers. The lecturers are usually members of the institution, and view the sharing of their knowledge as a privilege, not as a means to gain an income. The result is that courses run by the institutions are very cost effective, compared to those run by bodies outside the professions.

  6. In the same way, the members have given very freely of their time to assist the Councils to perform their statutory functions. Indeed, I can state quite unequivocally that the Councils would not today be as powerful as they are if it had not been for the support they have had from the members.

  7. This has meant that when I say “All the Councils have strong and direct links with the institutions”, I mean really strong, really direct, and absolutely personal. Without that, the Councils would not have succeeded to the extent that they have.

  8. We now have the CBE thinking that it can take over many of the Councils’ powers without those direct links. It cannot. The membership does not support the CBE; it has no direct links to the CBE; the CBE has no direct links to them – and the CBE does not need those direct links to accomplish what the Minister sees as its primary function, “the promotion of the ongoing human resource development in the Built Environment.” This is not something the individual Councils can do, nor can the individual institutions.

  9. The effect of this suggested change would therefore be to lose an element essential to the successful functioning of the existing professional Councils. Without the strong and direct links to the institutions, the professional Councils, reduced to Boards, would be emasculated.

  10. This is immediately apparent in the suggested composition of the Council. Section 6 of the Bill has one representative of each professional board (at present five in all), and twelve others. As a body to represent the professions, it is ludicrously lacking in professional balance, and singularly ill placed to tap resources from some 70 000 professionals. Indeed, it is entirely possible that not one of the members of the suggested Council would be a qualified professional, because there is no requirement that the representatives of the professional boards should be qualified professionals.

  11. The professional Councils presently need the resources of individual professionals to review the complex applications for registration as professionals. Section 18(3) of the Bill says “If the registrar is satisfied that the documents submitted in support of the application satisfy the requirements of this Act”, which makes the assumption that the registration process is merely a matter of checking papers. Only a bureaucrat who had no experience of the registration process could make such a naïve assumption. My experience with registration tells me that you need a large body of professionals to review almost every application, and in many cases to interview the applicants, before registration can be finalised. Without the direct links to be able to call upon such a body of professionals, the registration process must be flawed. A flawed registration process can only lead to a loss of confidence in the value of registration, and the loss to the economy of the benefits of registration.

  12. Similarly, Section 27(d) says the Council may make rules which determine “the recognition of professionals who offer opportunities for practical training towards the development of graduates and potential graduates.” For those of us who have struggled to find professionals willing to provide practical training, the concept that somebody should make rules telling us who we may approach is almost risible. And any professional initially volunteering their services to provide training would also certainly run a mile if told they had to conform to some Council’s rules. This Section thus is totally at variance with the reality of professional practice and the way in which those in training receive professional training.

  13. In this connection, note must be taken of Section 25, “The Minister may, after consultation with the council, prescribe the qualifications obtained by virtue of examinations conducted by an accredited educational institution or examining authority in the Republic, which, when held singly or conjointly with any other qualification, entitle the holder thereof to registration in a registration category in terms of this Act if he or she has, before or in connection with or after the acquisition of the qualification in question, complied with such conditions or such requirements as may be prescribed.” The wording of this Section admits of various interpretations. In particular it could be read to imply that the obtaining of a prescribed qualification would in itself be sufficient to entitle the holder of the qualification to be registered. It is by no means clear is that the present practice is to be followed. The present practice permits the holder of a prescribed qualification only to register for further training. He or she may NOT be registered in such a way as to allow him or her to practice as a professional. It is only once the further training has been successfully completed that a person can be permitted to practice as a professional. This distinction needs to be made absolutely clear, and the wording of Section 25 fails to do this.

  14. I conclude that the present Bill is deficient. It will, in effect, destroy the Councils on which the professions within the built environment rely to ensure high standards of practice. It will replace them with a body that has no connection with the individual professionals, and thereby will lose the inputs of the individual professionals. It will not achieve what it sets out to achieve. It will not improve the performance of the existing CBE in human resource development, which the Minister has indicated as its essential role.

  15. Accordingly the Bill should be withdrawn and referred back to the CBE for further in-depth consultation with the existing Councils.

     

    (Dr) Philip Lloyd, Pr Eng FSAAE

    54 Alma Road

    Rosebank, W Cape 7700

 

 

 

Letter to the Portfolio Committee - 17 July 2008




Ms Akhona Busakwe

Committee Secretary

Portfolio Committee on Public Works

3rd Floor

90 Plein Street

Cape Town

8000

 

 

Dear Ms Busakwe

 

South African Academy of Engineering submission on the PROPOSED BUILT ENVIRONMENT PROFESSIONS BILL

 

 

The South African Academy of Engineering (SAAE) is the South African counterpart of other international Academies of Engineering, like the Indian National Academy of Engineering, the UK Royal Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Engineering of the USA. The aims of the SAAE and these Engineering Academies are to provide independent advice to their respective governments on matters relating to engineering. As such the SAAE is pleased to make a submission on the Proposed Built Environment Professions Bill.

 

We fully share the concern of the Department of Public Works regarding the shortage of skilled professionals in engineering in general and the Built Environment in particular, and the effect that this may have on the short and long term development of South Africa and the Southern African region. With this in mind, the SAAE recently hosted an International Workshop on the Challenges of the Engineering Skills Shortage at which the Indian, British and Australian Academies of Engineering were also represented together with a broad spectrum of South African representatives from both within and outside of the engineering profession.

 

The contributions of the international delegates clearly indicated that the present engineering skills shortage is not only a South African problem but also an international one. Moreover, South Africa and other countries in the developing world are in a unique position to address the issue, as their populations tend to be younger with the possibility of attracting more students into technical careers, compared to the developed world. This bodes well for the future provided that high quality education can be offered at schools, particularly in mathematics and science, and in the technical disciplines.




In addition, the Workshop recommended that the status and recognition of the professions must be such that these will attract the required quality and numbers of students to such programmes and careers. Considering the demographics of our country these students will be drawn predominantly from previously disadvantaged communities thus strongly contributing to transformation of the engineering professions, which is already gaining momentum. At the same time it was also clear that the training of professionals can seldom be significantly accelerated as this requires rigorous education, a number of years of on-the-job experience, as well as extensive additional experience for specialised fields.

 

We believe that the present regulatory environment for the engineering professions in which the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) is mandated through the Engineering Profession Act, 2000 (Act No 46 of 2000) to regulate the engineering professions in its broadest sense, is a model that mirrors current international practice and serves South Africa well. We do not share the opinion that the present problems facing the engineering profession can not be efficiently handled within the present framework, and are concerned about the loss of autonomy of ECSA, as proposed in the new dispensation with the South African Council for the Built Environment as the only statutory recognized council.

 

Moreover, although the ‘Built Environment’ is an important part of engineering activities, many engineers, particularly mechanical, electrical and chemical engineers, are primarily involved in maintenance, operations, manufacturing, mining, metallurgical and chemical plant projects and other fields where they have little or no professional relationships with the other professions forming part of the Built Environment. Grouping them under the Built Environment would be illogical and for that matter also require them to subsidise other Councils with whom they do not have direct relationships – such subsidies, if required, should be made by Government from general taxation.

 

We are of the opinion that the proposed dispensation would weaken rather than strengthen the ability of South Africa to solve the engineering skills problems, our ability to compete internationally and the effective transformation of the engineering work force. The scarce, largely voluntary, manpower and energy that would have to be put into restructuring the professional councils would be much better utilised in focussing on improving access to the profession, the resolution of the skills shortage and coordination within the built environment, rather than on implementing new structures. The same economic savings could be achieved through the larger councils providing administrative services to the other smaller ones without taking away their autonomy.

 

We urge Parliament to reconsider the proposed Bill and would request that we be given the opportunity to address the Portfolio Committee on this matter.

 

Dr Bingle Kruger, Pr Eng, F SAAE

President: South African Academy of Engineering

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Executive Committe appointed

President: Mr Bob Pullen, Past President, ECSA:

Vice President: Dr Con Fauconnier, Retired Chief Executive, Exxaro Resources Ltd

Vice President: Prof Roelf Sandenbergh, Dean, Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology, University of Pretoria

Treasurer: Mr Braam  le Roux, Retired CEO, Spoornet

Mr Trueman Goba, Executive Chairman, Goba Moahloli Keeve Steyn

Prof Fred Hugo, Emeritus Professor and Director ITT, Dept. Civil Engineering University of Stellenbosch

Dr Bingle Kruger, Retired CEO, BKS

Prof Roy Marcus, President, Engineering Association

Prof Tshilidzi Marwala, Carl and Emily Fuchs Chair of Systems and Control Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand

Dr Mike Shand, Director, Ninham Shand

 

 

NEW FELLOWS

 

At the 2008 AGM the following new  Fellows were elected:

 

Salim Amod, Managing Director, Development and Engineering Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Francois Anderson, Chief Radar & EW System Engineer; CSIR Fellow at CSIR DPSS

Prof Andries Burger, Professor and Departmental Chairman,  Process Engineering, University of  Stellenbosch

Stefan Hrabár, Director, Merlim (Pty) Ltd

Prof  Beatrys Lacquet, Dean, Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of the Witwatersrand 

Pierre Lombard, Railway Engineering Consultant

Willem Louw, Managing Director, Sasol Technology

Prof Alan Nurick, Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering Science, University of Johannesburg

Prof Gerald Nurick, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cape Town

Dr Gustav Rohde, CEO, Africon

Prof Alphose Zingoni, Professor of Structural Engineering, University of Cape Town

 

CONGRATULATIONS

 

SAAE is very proud of Fellow Allyson Lawless and Fellow Fred Hugo who received awards for their outstanding contributions towards scientific, engineering and technological development at the 10th National Science and Technology Forum (NSTF) Awards Gala Dinner on 27 May 2008.

  • Fellow Allyson Lawless (Category A).   

  • Fellow Fred Hugo (Category F). 

 

 

 

 Workshop studies the engineering of engineering education

The SAAE, with the support of the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Pretoria, organized this Workshop with the aim to develop firm recommendations as a basis for a Master Plan for South Africa to assist in addressing the Challenges of the Engineering Skills Shortage through the activities of JIPSA (Joint Initiative on Priority Skills Acquisition) which is a subcommittee of ASGISA (Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative of South Africa). The Workshop formed part of the Centenary Celebration Programme of the University of Pretoria and was sponsored by Anglo American PLC.

Dr Philip Mjwara

 

Dr Philip Mjwara - DG of
DST opening the workshop.

The Academies of Engineering of the UK, India and Australia, Fellows of the SAAE, representatives of JIPSA, individuals from tertiary education institutions, South African Engineering Institutions, the relevant Government Departments, ASSAf , BUSA, parastatals, trade unions and other important stakeholders from the private sector  were invited to contribute to and attend the Workshop. The chosen venue allowed for a maximum of eighty participants.    
 
Although some participants could not attend all the sessions of the workshop due to work commitments, some seventy participants attended the sessions on the 3rd of March and some fifty on the 4th of March.

Participants were welcomed on behalf of the SAAE by Dr Bingle Kruger, President of SAAE and on behalf of UP by Prof Calie Pistorius, Vice-chancellor of the University of Pretoria. Dr Phil Mjwara, Director General, Dept of Science and Technology opened the Workshop officially by spelling out the goals of the Workshop. Clem Sunter of Anglo American delivered the keynote address entitled Positioning South Africa Globally (see article in the March issue of Leadership Magazine).

The following  presentations were delivered:

Prof Sandebergh

 

Prof Roelf Sandenbergh,
chairman of the
organizing committee

The following topics were discussed by eight discussion groups during the first break-away session:

  1. How do we increase the workforce supply?   Making a specific field a career choice and improving retention of tertiary science and engineering students?
  2. How do we ensure that the new workforce is ready?   Developing and improving post school programmes for specific or specialty areas?
  3. How do we ensure that school learners develop an affinity for trades required by the industry-at-large?
    What can we learn from global workforce development trends?
  4. How do we create an attractive and safe science, engineering and technology environment and achieve awareness and buy-in of the nation?
  5. How do we develop and implement a workforce strategy for organizations?
  6. How do we ensure that the new workforce is ready for evolving organizational needs?  Developing and improving tertiary programmes for specific or specialty areas?
  7. How do we (re-)educate the teachers of science and mathematics?
  8. How do we improve management skills?
Rudi Dicks

 

Rudi Dicks presenting
the Cosatu perspective.

During the second break-away session the following topics were discussed by the groups:

 

 

  1. How do we marry the needs of industry and institutions
  2. How do we get the community to buy into Science Technology Engineering and Management (STEM).
  3. How do we get technocrats in at the top of corporations
  4. How do we get teachers trained/retrained and brought back into the system
  5. How do we implement internships. Is this in competition with learnerships? Is the system fully in place to ensure sustainability
  6. Should we screen students?/ How do we make trades “cool?”
  7. Trade unions have a role in the training of artisans; re-activate training centres.
  8. Technicians, technologists: Redefine Role of Technical Universities
  9. How did the large employers manage to train so many artisans? Incentives?
chairmen

 

Chairman Bob Pullen (SAAE), Peter Laver (ATSE) and
Prof David Nethercot listening attentively during the
panel discussion.

The discussion groups reported back during two Feedback sessions. Subsequently the feedback was debated in a panel discussion including representatives of the foreign Academies and some of the other presenters. Fellows Roy Marcus and Fred Hugo were facilitators for the discussion.

The Workshop was concluded under Chairmanship of Fellow Bob Pullen by the presentation of Fellow Fred Hugo. This included consideration and approval of motions relating to the proposed Marshall Plan and formulation of an implementation strategy. The motions and implementation strategy are to be presented to the Deputy-President and representatives of JIPSA at a post-workshop session for consideration of further action.

OUTCOME OF THE WORKSHOP

    •  Abbreviated Proceedings and Master Plan (More...)

    • PowerPoint Presentation on the Master Plan for Engineering Workforce Recovery and Development in South Africa (More....) 



 

 

45th Annual Hendrik van der Bijl Lecture

On 28 May 2008 Prof Roelf Sandenbergh, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and Information Technology of the University of Pretoria delivered the 45th Annual Hendrik van der Bijl Memorial Lecture in the Sanlam Auditorium of the University of Pretoria. The subject of his address was Engineering Engineering Education – A South African Perspective.  In his welcoming address the President of SAAE, Dr Bingle Kruger, paid tribute to Hendrik van der Bijl, the father of the 20th century industrial revolution in South Africa. Considering the fact that Hendrik van der Bijl was Chancellor of the University of Pretoria from 1934 until his death in 1948, it was fitting that a Dean of a Faculty should present the Van der Bijl Memorial Lecture in the Centenary Year of the University.

See the lecture here