Rita Vella, Quentin Michel, Miriam Pace, all precious lives lost like so many others because of the callous and unregulated construction industry in Malta. Over the years, construction sites and their neighbourhoods in Malta have become killing fields. Young workers crushed under the rubble, grandmothers buried in the debris, families rendered homeless. It has gone on too long. A reform is long overdue.
When it was announced that a panel of experts had been commissioned to compile a report proposing reforms for the construction industry, I thought that there was finally the political will to rein in serial contraveners and introduce some semblance of sanity to the criminal chaos that abounds.
The resulting Quintano report is an excellent basis for the industry reform. Unlike other reports which are wishy-washy and vague, this report doesn’t beat about the bush. There is no attempt to whitewash the sorry state of affairs. The report acknowledges the grave problems and dangers which are rife in the industry saying that certain practices are effectively “playing Russian roulette with lives of third parties”. The report makes well-founded, concrete proposals for the short, medium and long term, which are technically and legally feasible if only there is the political will to implement them.
The question is whether there really is the political will to implement meaningful reform instead of the usual pastiche of intentionally ineffective laws. Judging by the draft bill presented to parliament, we still have a very long way to go before we see a genuine reform of the industry which makes it safer for third parties.
The building and construction authority act, 2020 establishes a central authority – the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) – to regulate and monitor the industry. It will issue and enforce good practice guidelines, process complaints, monitor the performance, safety and quality of buildings and keep a register of service providers. Within the BCA, a board appointed by the minister for construction shall carry out functions assigned to it according to law or by the minister.
There is to be a national building code for the building and construction industry. So far, so standard. Anybody who has tried to get through to the non-caring, non-accessible, dismissive building regulations office, with a query agrees that a centralised authority with some teeth was needed.
It is regrettable that the sterling work of the compilers of the Quintano report will not be followed up in a meaningful, effective way- Claire Bonello
What we don’t need is another paper tiger – a toothless authority which is there on the statute books as a fig leaf to cover the government’s inaction and complicity with the construction industry but which does nothing to help third parties fearing the next building collapse. At this point in time, there is nothing much to allay these fears. Despite the desperately-needed, long-awaited reform, the building and construction authority act 2020 does not lay down the regulations, the minimum guidelines or even the licencing requirements for operators in the industry. Those will eventually be enacted by the minister.
Which prompts the question as to when these regulations will ever come into effect. Why shouldn’t a draft of the national building code be published for consultation now, contemporaneously with the draft bill? The Quintano report states that, for structural issues, the framework for regulations is there and ready to use in the form of structural Eurocodes and that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Instead of prompt adoption, we get the regulations being kicked into the long grass, leading to suspicions that the eventual regulations will be diluted after extensive lobbying by the construction industry.
There is further cause for concern. The draft law is intended to set standards and enforce adherence requirements and to see that operators lose their licences in cases of misconduct, negligence or non-compliance with regulations. But then the bill allows for departure from these standards and requirements – an inbuilt loophole. This is possible because the board can exempt or dispense with the requirements of the law when the board deems the requirements to be “unreasonable”.
There are a thousand and one things wrong with this, starting with the fact that the board is being given the power to exempt contractors from adhering to the requirements laid down by law. The politically-appointed board members have unfettered discretion as to whether to exempt developers and contractors from adhering to the law.
Any request for an exemption has to be decided within 20 days of the request being filed. That’s practically at the speed of light in industry terms. While the lawsuits filed by victims of construction crimes languish in court for decades, a contractor can get a dispensation from legal and licencing requirements in 20 days flat. That’s rubbing salt in the raw, gaping wound inflicted by the continuing complicity of the government and the construction lobby.
As for appealing, it’s to a tribunal which is appointed on the advice of the prime minister and the members of which may be reappointed for further periods as the prime minister deems appropriate. In other words, the tribunal members serve at the prime minister’s whim, completely doing away with any form of autonomy and independence from an adjudicator’s political master.
As for the affinity between the government and the construction lobby, it is amply documented. It’s the evidence of any affinity, empathy or even civility with regard to the victims of the construction industries that is not in evidence.
It is deeply regrettable that the sterling work of the compilers of the Quintano report will not be followed up in a meaningful, effective way. The bill in its present form is replete with loopholes and is entirely self-defeating. Another slap in the face to long-suffering victims of construction incidents and future victims.