In explaining the advantages of the proposed building regulations, Resources and Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino (August 28) wrote that, as a first step, "a method statement is to be prepared by the architect of the developer".

Method statements do not stop damage to third party property.

All works covered by a planning permission are directed by a warranted architect who is responsible in terms of section 97(1)(o) of the Code of Police Laws "to prevent, during or after the execution of the work, injury to property or danger to the men employed on the work or to passers-by or other persons".

The new regulations will require the submission of a method statement for verification and/or revision by the Director of the Building Regulations Office. Why?

One can understand the need to make the method statement accessible to interested third parties and to the authorities but why endow the director with the power to verify and/or revise it?

If the director happens to disagree with a method statement prepared by the project architect, the contractor will have to proceed with the works, not as the architect instructs but as the director demands and this not because the director is more competent than the architect or bears more responsibility but because such authority has been conferred upon him as to empower him to overrule the architect - a sort of might is right.

Yet, the project architect remains responsible for the works. The regulations make it amply clear that they "shall in no way be construed as having any bearing on the responsibilities related to the design of buildings and construction activity emanating from other legislative instruments". Further, "professional responsibility for the method statement remains with the architect who prepares it..." At the same time sub-article 13(1) gives the director authority to issue enforcement notices even if the works are being carried out in accordance with a method statement prepared by the project architect.

The proposed regulations bring about your typical civil servant's nirvana: all authority, no responsibility.

To be sure, the minister's initiative is laudable for it gives potential victims of construction works the means to verify that every reasonable precaution is taken to prevent tragedies. However, these regulations are limited to providing the means of verification and reaction but they do little to ensure that every reasonable precaution is taken to avoid such tragedies.

If these regulations are really meant to nip the problem in the bud, their first target should be the contractors who carry out the works that are intended to be regulated. Yet, strangely, they clumsily steer away from this problem.

Thus, while an architect is defined as a "perit duly warranted according to the Periti Act", contractors are simply those "who are duly registered in accordance with the Building (Price Control) Act (Chap. 288)".

Now, a "perit duly warranted according to the Periti Act" is usually a person who would have spent at least 20 years of his life studying for a University degree, a few years more practising the profession under a warranted architect and then has his proficiency tested by a board constituted for this purpose before he is awarded the warrant to practise his profession.

On the other hand, "contractors" are all those who submit an application showing their particulars, the name of their banker, the nature of the work they intend to undertake and other information as may be requested in the application form.

This is all the training that many of these contractors have: they would have filled in a registration form! These are the people who are entrusted with demolition and excavation works on the doorstep of inhabited buildings, using equipment that, with one mistaken shift of a lever, could kick in the entire side of a house.

This is the real problem: those who come knocking down the house next door simply lack the requisite skills and training, and sometimes also lack all scruples.

When the incompetence and/or abuse of these individuals lead to tragedy, innocent people who happen to live next door suffer. Although the responsible architect may have done nothing wrong, his entire life is suddenly turned into a long-drawn-out ordeal. And we think we can stop all this with a method statement?

Method statements will not train incompetent "contractors." If we want to reduce the risk of other tragedies we need to ensure that there are adequate training opportunities, that contractors are properly trained and that those who lack the requisite training, as well as those who try unscrupulously to make a quick buck no matter what, are immediately removed from the industry once for all, never to return.

Then we can start talking about method statements.