I was encouraged to read that, like the Kamra tal-Periti, the Prime Minister is determined not to compromise in the interest of public safety. That is indeed also what all periti wish for, as was expressed in the KTP Extraordinary General Meeting held last Friday. One could conclude, therefore, that what is being debated is how public safety can best be guaranteed. 

All periti have expressed concern that the proposed amendments to Legal Notice 72 of 2013, ‘Avoidance of Damage to Third Party Property Regulations’, will simply be the fig-leaf that hides the serious regulatory flaws in the industry. Reference is of course made to the proposed amendments that have been published to date – for all we know, the amendments might be changed before they are approved, following the evaluation of the 250 comments apparently received.

It is ironic that our ancestors had a clearer idea of the liabilities that arise from construction. On the one hand, there was the perit who received a warrant after years of training and who was responsible for designing, instructing and directing the works; and on the other hand, there was the mason (originally referred to as l-imgħallem – meaning  a person who is learned in his trade), who was responsible for the site and the execution of the works, but who was also required to undertake training and subsequently obtain a licence from the State. 

Indeed, our legislation still requires that on any site where there is construction, demolition or excavation taking place, there should be a licensed mason in charge of the works.

Apart from the fact that the list of licensed masons was published on Friday evening, during the EGM, after the Kamra tal-Periti had tried for years to get it published, it turns out that the list is neither complete nor useful. Without an ID card number, and without a validity period, the list is practically of no use to periti or owners wishing to engage skilled craftsmen for their projects.

Even worse, the limited training that our masons receive before being licensed is effectively designed for a construction industry primarily based on stone construction, as required decades ago. The industry is now much more complex, much more demanding and much more risky. Yet it seems that the government is reluctant to acknowledge that the lack of training, or the lack of skills licensing, are the roots of the problems of the industry.

I do not believe that periti are asking to be released from their responsibilities; they are asking that the other actors in the industry have the appropriate skill and knowledge, are capable of understanding instructions given and their significance, are registered, and have the appropriate licence for their particular skills. Periti are asking that, in particular, contractors continue to carry the responsibilities that are outlined in the Civil Code.

The construction industry is currently like a big hospital where the doctors are trained, and are clearly required to take responsibility for their decisions and instructions; but contrary to common sense, none of the other hospital staff, that should support their work, are either adequately trained or licensed, or even registered. Adding to the liabilities of the doctors would not, in these circumstances, make the health of the patients any better.

Considerable discussion was reported by the media on the need or otherwise of geotechnical investigations, before undertaking excavations, or designing foundations for new buildings. This is correct, and is not contradicted by any perit. 

However, the focus on the possible impact of geotechnical conditions on excavation or building works adjacent to existing properties is not matched by any concern about the impact of demolition works on party walls of existing buildings, or the direct impact on existing buildings when additional floors are erected on walls and on foundations and ground conditions which were not conceived for that load. 

The government is reluctant to acknowledge that the lack of training, or the lack of skills licensing, are the roots of the problems of the industry

Why are the regulators not asking for mandatory full structural analysis of adjacent buildings before such works are undertaken? Does anybody think that building on existing buildings is less risky than building on our typical ground conditions? The problems need to be addressed holistically and not through a hastily drafted amendment of an intrinsically deficient Legal Notice.

What are periti asking for? In simple terms, they are, for a start, asking for the serious implementation of the laws that already exist, for example on the certification of products, based on the Construction Products Regulations LN270 of 2001. They are asking for the publication of proper lists of licensed masons, as required by the Code of Police Laws and the Building Regulation Act, 2011 (and the Services Directive). For the issuing of licences and registration of building contractors and tradespersons, as required by the Building Regulations Act, 2011, for the enactment of a proper set of up-to-date building regulations, as also required by the Building Regulations Act, 2011, and for the provision of resources to create proper training facilities for building and construction contractors, operatives and tradesmen, in response to the requirements of today’s industry, so that the requirements of the Building Regulation Act do not remain a dead letter.

The government’s apparent reluctance to acknowledge that these failings are major contributors to the problems in the industry raises the question: why do governments enact laws if they then have no intention of providing resources to make such legislation effective? 

A lot of time has been wasted, over the last five years, as a result of the misguided notion that building control regulations ought to be placed within the remit of the Planning Authority. It seems that it has finally been acknowledged that this was not a good idea. 

However, rather than move rapidly with the preparation of modern building regulations, yet another authority was proposed, progress on which has been very sluggish over the last nine months. The Kamra tal-Periti had immediately publicly supported the setting up of the authority; however, this was done in the expectation that the creation of a proper suite of building and construction regulations would be expedited. 

The Building Regulation Office – which, according to the Building Regulation Act of 2011, was meant to be central to all this – continues to receive funding that is barely sufficient to cover the needs of a village festa. Why does government not immediately vote a 10-fold increase in the budget approved for the BRO, possibly funded from the considerable monies paid by the construction industry to another regulatory entity?

Is public safety improved by merely increasing the level of fines? Is the public more reassured because more insurance money is available to compensate if something goes wrong? Public safety should be about creating a scenario where accidents are avoided and not simply systems how to ascribe blame.

This is why the profession is, in the Prime Minister’s words, “unhappy”. It is because the profession is very concerned about public safety – the discussions in Friday’s EGM and the motions approved were all about how best to achieve public safety, within the ages-old, simple, liability structure that is enshrined in our laws. 

It is disappointing that, although there is yet another piece of legislation that requires government to do so, the government has declined to discuss the issues directly with the Kamra tal-Periti, relying instead on individuals who might not be as knowledgeable with the real issues on the construction site. There is the perception that it is easier for developers to have your attention, even if, in fact, they are not necessarily contractors familiar with the risks of construction. 

I have no problem with that. However, I am also aware that there are some very experienced and qualified contractors who deeply understand the construction process and who agree with the position of the Kamra tal-Periti. It is a pity that they do not have as strong a voice. 

The Kamra tal-Periti, representing as it does the body of knowledge embedded in all local professionals, including those who have worked on major projects abroad, has declared itself available to seriously discuss the measures that would really guarantee public safety. 

Rather than simply blaming “rogue periti”, why does the Prime Minister not listen to the profession?

Prof. Alex Torpiano is dean, Faculty for the Built Environment, and past president of Kamra tal-Periti.