If you’re unsure of what’s being proposed, you’re not alone. Over the past week we’ve heard many hints of how construction and excavation legislation might change in the next couple of days. What I do know is why we’re facing this crisis, what needs to be done and what shouldn’t happen.

As soon as permits for a development are approved, the client is tasked with trying to find a contractor to carry out the works. A perit avoids recommending particular contractors as to avoid possible conflicts of interest. 

The client is left to choose from an endless list of possibilities including large firms, part-timers, experienced veterans or entrepreneurs who’ve just joined the industry with no training whatsoever and who are looking towards getting their first job in Malta.

The only legally recognised criteria the perit and the client have with which to recognise a qualified individual from a foolhardy opportunist is the Mason’s License. 

This in itself is an archaic qualification which ignores much of the reality in modern construction sites, but hey, it’s a start. Only it isn’t. 

It was impossible to check who has a valid mason’s license or not, and many builders just used other people’s credentials or forged them. The first time in decades that a list of licensed masons was published was last Friday, while 400 periti were attending an Extraordinary General Meeting discussing this very topic. 

Therefore, besides the mason, no other person on a construction site – Malta’s most dangerous workplaces – needs any credentials. 

These include demolition contractors, crane operators, steel workers, mason’s assistants, concrete pourers, foreman, scaffolding erectors, anyone using this scaffolding, drivers, and of course the excavators themselves.

If anyone of you fancied offering excavation services, you would just need to invest in the machinery (second hand vehicles from Sicily) and start looking for your first job. That’s literally it.

With all these possible amateurs on our construction sites, the only surprise from the recent disasters is that they don’t happen more often. 

I can already hear some of you thinking “But perit, isn’t it your responsibility to ensure that the construction is safe?”. 

The perit is engaged to design a structure (permanent works) and to make sure that once it has been completed, it would be safe for its intended use by its users and safe for third parties. 

During construction his responsibility is to make his instructions clear and to carry out spot checks to make sure they are being followed. 

Even the best composer in the world cannot ensure that an orchestra of monkeys will play a fine tune

The method by which the structure is constructed (temporary works) is the responsibility of the contractor who chooses people in his employ for their skills. He is responsible for safety, instructions and other site logistics. 

There is now talk of a site manager, whose job it would be to ensure that the site is operating as it should be and that any technical issues are reported accordingly. 

This is the reference point for what must still remain the contractor’s legal and moral responsibility. 

Strangely, there has been talk that if a contractor is unable to find someone qualified enough for the role, then the role of the site manager (for temporary works) is automatically bestowed on the perit who designed the permanent works. 

This is illogical. Here the contractor is admitting that all his workforce is incompetent for the task and is not ready to shoulder his legal responsibilities. In that case we shouldn’t be finding him a backup, we should be sending him packing. 

Giving him a replacement to his own responsibility will make him more indifferent to the consequences of his actions. Any law that makes the design perit automatically act as the site manager, responsible for workers he didn’t employ, will instantly make all those construction sites much less safe.

Even the best composer in the world cannot ensure that an orchestra of monkeys will play a fine tune. 

Are we happy with lifting the excavation ban, knowing full well that there might be incompetent personnel operating excavation heavy plant, who cannot recognise an unforeseen fault in the rock?

Who would be unable to realise that the third party’s structural walls were constructed on soil without reporting it? That they would, ignorant to the evident danger, simply carry on? 

Frankly, if you’re confident enough to present yourself for a role, be it contractor, builder, tile-layer, excavator, etc., you should at the very least be able to legally prove that you have very basic technical competencies. If not for your sake, for the safety of your co-workers and third parties. 

This industry must start learning from its mistakes. If the law passes without demanding minimum training for anyone on site, and a future register of who is qualified for what tasks, we’ll be here once again in no time and none the wiser.

Chris Mintoff is an architect and former president of Kamra tal-Periti.