Proposed amendments to the engineering profession law are a “local fabrication” intended to weaken the profession and are being pushed through parliament in spite of ongoing court proceedings, the union of warranted engineers claimed.
The Malta Association of Professional Engineers is standing firm by the position it has adopted for the past year-and-a-half, reiterating its call to the Infrastructure Minister to withdraw the proposed bill amending the Engineering Profession Act and to respect the ongoing judicial process.
The bill was published in the Government Gazette last week, allowing both union and members of the profession the first glimpse at the final version of the proposed changes, thereby confirming what the union has been arguing about for the past months, it said.
Rather than strengthening the status of the professional engineer the amendments are simply a “local fabrication intended to weaken the profession,” the union said in its latest statement.
In terms of the new law, a warrant will only be necessary for “reserved activities” and those activities refer solely to certification, the union said.
This clearly meant that the amendments would allow all those lacking the necessary qualifications to engage in work which, to date, has been the sole reserve of engineers, effectively whittling down the need for a warrant.
The proposed law also introduces various measures for warrants and “special permits” to be issued to foreign and local applicants without, however, establishing clear criteria, the union pointed out.
Moreover, the long-standing controversy surrounding these amendments was currently the subject of a civil lawsuit filed by MAPE last year.
The case is still ongoing before the First Hall, Civil Court which had provisionally upheld the union’s request for a warrant of prohibitory injunction and had subsequently confirmed it in November on the basis of a prima facie breach of law.
In terms of the law on proportionality testing, all stakeholders were to be consulted prior to the introduction of any new regulations affecting members of a profession.
In this case, the union claims that such consultation has not taken place and that the Engineering Profession Board was not truly acting in the best interests of the profession.
Yet, although the matter was still before the courts, the bill was being rushed through parliament, said the union, calling upon Infrastructure Minister Ian Borg to respect the judicial process and wait for the final court decision.
“This is not acceptable in a democratic society,” the union said, insisting that the ultimate purpose of the proposed legal changes was to weaken the profession’s legal standing.