Developers have dropped their bid to have a seat on the board of a newly-created construction regulator, reversing a position they adopted last month.
Malta Developers Association director-general Marthese Portelli told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday that the lobby group would no longer be pushing for a representative on the board of the Building and Construction Authority.
She said that the MDA had changed its position as a result of a government decision to introduce a law requiring developers to pay for a third-party architect appointed by neighbours of a development site, to assess demolition and excavation plans.
The idea was first introduced by the MDA in July 2020 as a voluntary scheme but will now, following a public consultation period, become an enforceable law applicable to all construction sites.
Portelli said that the MDA had wanted a seat at the BCA’s top table because it wanted to ensure the authority remained focused on ensuring safety at construction sites. This would now be assured, she said, so the MDA was no longer seeking a seat.
The MDA executive was speaking during a session of parliament’s Adjudication of Bills committee.
Times of Malta had last month revealed the MDA’s pitch to sit on the BCA board, prompting anger from environmental activists who warned of a conflict of interest in having a lobby group forming part of the sectoral regulator.
Nationalist Party MP Hermann Schiavone had backed that call, saying both the MDA and the Chamber of Architects should sit on the BCA board. The Chamber of Architects has said it is not interested in sitting on the board.
Concerns about BCA delegating powers
During Wednesday’s parliamentary session, MPs and civil society representatives discussed concerns about vague wording in the draft law as well as a proposal in the law that would allow the BCA to delegate functions to third parties.
Opposition MP David Thake warned that the language used in the draft bill was overly vague and could give rise to abuse.
“If parliament gives the authority power, it is concerning that the authority can then delegate to third parties that are not answerable to parliament,” he said.
“If the issue is a lack of resources or know-how (at the BCA), then give it to it.”
Friends of the Earth representative Claire Bonello expressed similar concerns, asking for the law to be more specific about which functions could be delegated.
“Will the CEO be able to issue exemptions on his own?” she asked.
The MDA’s Marthese Portelli reassured the parliamentary committee that her association had no interest in taking on any of the regulator’s functions, “even if the minister delegates it”.
That pledge did not reassure Moviment Graffitti’s Wayne Flask, who asked why the law did not explicitly state which third parties and which functions this delegation could apply to.
“If the MDA has no interest, why not spell out in the law which entities will be doing so?” he asked.
Flask also expressed frustration that civil society had not been consulted when the BCA law was being drafted, and warned legislators in the room that they would carry the burden of guilt if this reform led to more deaths, such as that one year ago of Miriam Pace.
Planning Minister Aaron Farrugia sought to reassure the sceptics.
The BCA would be allowed to delegate functions because some of its specialised tasks would require outsourced expertise, he said.
Farrugia gave the example of method statements, which would be scrutinised by a panel of experts outsourced by the authority.
“We have to be pragmatic,” he said. “The truth is that we currently don’t have enough trained people in the sector [for the BCA to assume all tasks]. We can either spend five years with an authority that does nothing, or else we can get moving. I can assure you that I don’t want a fake authority,” Farrugia said.