Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for accepting our invitation.
We called this press conference because the Kamra tal-Periti is concerned about certain developments that occurred in recent weeks regarding a bill of primary importance for the profession, and even more so for the health and safety of the public.
I am referring to the Building and Construction Authority Act.
As you are aware, the Kamra has been pushing for a reform of the industry for the past fourteen years. Finally, Parliament is debating a bill, currently at committee stage, aimed at introducing certain reforms, including the setting up of a new authority tasked with regulating this sector.
Ever since the white paper proposing the setting up of the authority was announced in October 2018, the Kamra has shown its support in every possible way because it recognised this as a positive development. Indeed, we recently compared the setting up of the new authority as a foundation upon which the rest of the industry reform can be built.
We all know, however, that if a structure is built on a weak foundation, it may collapse. For this reason, the Kamra submitted a number of proposals for amendments to the bill to ensure that authority will be set up in the best possible way, thus facilitating the industry’s exit from this crisis and averting any further unnecessary loss of life.
Upon reading the bill that was presented in Parliament on the 15th of January, we requested consultation meetings via email on 18th January and 11th February ahead of the parliamentary debate, and again on 18th February after Government and Opposition agreed to suspend the debate on certain articles in the Bill until consultations are held with the Kamra and other stakeholders. With regret, I must note that none of our requests were entertained to date, furthering our concerns that a law that could benefit the common good will not reach its intended objectives.
I must also add that neither Government and its consultants, nor the current Opposition Spokesperson shadowing this industry heard our presentation about the research we had carried out. In 2019, we had also written to the Chairperson of the Standing Committee dealing with matters related to the industry to deliver our presentation to its members to raise awareness about the gravity of the situation and what needed to be done about it.
Our request was denied. We are thus concerned about the apparent lack of awareness about the consequence certain articles being to vote upon in Parliament will have on the health and safety of the public and on the industry.
An entity that did listen to what the Kamra had to say was the Technical Committee appointed by the Prime Minister. It emerged clearly that not only did the Committee listen, but it understood and made its own the research and the concepts behind the Kamra’s document, as evidenced in various sections of the Committee’s report.
Our presentation had lasted one hour and fifteen minutes, including time for discussion and questions. 75 minutes. Is it possible that those tasked with drafting this bill cannot spare 75 minutes of their time to understand the concepts behind the Kamra’s proposals for industry reform, as the Technical Committee had done?
Anyone who was adversely affected by this industry, especially the victims and their families, cannot be respected through the drafting of laws and regulations without sincere consultation with industry experts, but by ensuring that their drafting is done seriously and competently.
I here wish to quote a few extracts from the Technical Committee’s report:
“The way responsibility is split during the building process is currently unclear and has been rendered even more confusing by the requirements of LN136/2019.” P.17
“In the current system, the role of STO falls short of providing the required technical authority and participation which is required in certain building projects. This shortcoming is in part due to the fact that the admissibility criteria for a person to be allowed to act as STO do not raise the bar sufficiently, and in part also due to the fact that the current functions of the STO are not clearly defined, and in some instances overlap with those of the other parties involved in the excavation and/or building project.” P.15
“This definition and competence of the above roles leads to the issue of operational methodology. The design entity (Perit or ‘design team’) can be made responsible for preparing a ‘works specification’, which is then read and shown to have been understood by the contractor (or ‘construction team’) in the ‘works method statement’, prepared by this latter entity. This implies that the two are mutually checking each other, prior to actual implementation on site.” P.20
These extracts illustrate clearly how Legal Notice 136 of 2019 was drafted without adequate knowledge of the industry and international best practice. Given that the Technical Committee has confirmed the Kamra’s position about the 2019 regulations in its entirety, what is keeping those tasked with drafting the current laws and regulations from taking our technical advice more seriously and being more open towards it.
As it was explained to us, this bill is intended as an enabling act; that is an act aimed simply at setting up an authority vested with certain duties and powers. We were told that Government’s intention was that its procedures and regulations would be enacted through subsidiary legislation. However the bill, and certain statements made in Parliament, indicate that instead of an authority with a clearly defined structure, such as the Planning Authority, the BCA will be but a shell.
The only structure that is mentioned in the bill is the Board, a jack-of-all-trades board, that will also set its own procedures. This board will handle administration, accounts, communication strategy, HR strategy, review mason’s licence applications, decide upon exemption requests, and so much more.
The bill also assigns powers to the Board to delegate its functions. However, it does not specify which functions it may or may not delegate. It is also silent about the procedures by which such delegations may take place.
This may give rise to abuse and lack of transparency. Procedures which are not specified in the law, cannot be contested or appealed when breached.
With all its limitations, the BRO’s procedures are established by law, and if any of its officials infringes them, one can file an appeal with the BRB.
It seems this will no longer be the case. Moreover, the delegations and procedures as described in the Bill, were going to be simply executed by a letter issued by the Minister. We had objected to this since we believe that all procedures should be established by public regulations and not through undisclosed letters. During last week’s parliamentary procedure, Government accepted that such delegations would be done through a Government Notice rathern than through a letter. While we acknowledge this is an improvement, the Kamra is not satisfied with the lack of good governance principles characterising this law. We thus appeal to Government to amend this Bill such that the Authority’s procedures are prescribed by regulation to ensure transparency.
The Kamra is also concerned about the fact that through this law, any powers or obligations vested in the Authority may be delegated to a non governmental organisation.
We asked Government to clarify the justification behind this new provision. We also directly asked whether the licencing of contractors would be carried out by a non governmental organisation, and referred to the Ombudsman’s opinion on this matter.
Before Government could respond, the Opposition Spokesperson, the Honourable Hermann Schiavone, intervened to defend this new concept to allow the MDA to issue licences for contractors.
Instead of responding to my direct question, Government’s consultant put forward an equally worrying hypothesis to justify this article in the law. He indicated that there could be the intention to delegate enforcement to the LESA.
How can one not be concerned when one hears certain statements in Parliament?
Speaking about the licensing of contractors, it is important to explain in more detail why this is of fundamental importance to the profession, and why we cannot seriously consider systems or delegations that reduce the significance of licences.
According to the Civil Code, periti and contractors are jointly responsible for fifteen years. Periti do not choose contractors. These are selected and engaged by the Client. We therefore have no control over who we share our responsibilities with.
It is therefore imperative that licensing takes place, so that both the profession, but more importantly those commissioning works, can put their minds at rest regarding the competences of the contractors being engaged on construction sites.
In the same way, the general public can put its mind at rest that those granted a licence will be recognised by the State, in the same way that Periti are recognised.
I wish to remind you also that, despite being established at Law, the Kamra does not issue warrants to periti. This are issued by the State. In the same way, it should be the State that issues licences. And should be established clearly in the law, in this same way that the issuance of warrants to periti are regulated clearly at law. This is in line with statements made by the Chief Executive of the Building and Construction Agency, Ivor Robinich, a year ago.
Why should the law regulating the new Authority not have the same level of detail regarding its procedures and structure as is the case with other Authorities such as the Planning Authority and the MFSA? Particularly when the health and safety of people depends so heavily on the operation of this new Authority.
Another point of concern relates to the concept behind the National Building Code, which, as has now emerged clearly during the Parliamentary debate, will include all types of regulations. This is a disorganised conceptual approach, which we attempted several times to explain to Government through flowcharts.
Another proposal put forward by the Kamra is the separation between design regulations and those relating to construction. If the Technical Committee agreed with the Kamra’s opinion about the 2019 regulations, where is the resistance to this concept being introduced emanating from? After all, the concepts underpinning our proposals are based on a two-year long research. I appeal to Parliament to truly listen and understand, as the Technical Committee did, and to take on board this proposal by the Kamra.
I wish to state, with reference to certain articles in the local press in the past days, that the Kamra tal-Periti never asked to be represented on the Board of the Authority. I also declare that the Council of the Kamra had already heard through the grapevine last Monday that there was the intention for a motion to be presented for the Kamra to be given a representative on the Board. That same day, the Council met to discuss its position on this matter. In fact, the Council agreed to stand by its consistent position to refuse to sit on executive boards, as it had already done when there were similar proposals relating to the Planning Authority and the Lands Authority. The Kamra remains available to participate in consultative fora, but has no interest in grappling for power. For this reason we proposed the establishment of a Stakeholders Committee within the Authority.
It is with this positive, and propositive spirit, with a desire to ensure that we do not witness similar incidents to those we have seen over the past years, and with the intent that citizens do not continue to live in fear, that we reiterate our request to Government and the Opposition for a serious and mature discussion on the amendments that are required to ensure the attainment of the primary objective of placing the safety and quality of life of people before any other interest
Sinjuri, nixtieq nirringrazzjakom tal-preżenza tagħkom.
Sejjaħna din il-konferenza stampa għaliex il-Kamra tal-Periti tinsab imħassba dwar xi żviluppi li seħħew matul l-aħħar ġimgħat fir-rigward ta’ abbozz ta’ liġi ta’ natura importanti għall-professjoni, iżda wisq aktar għall-ħarsien tas-saħħa u sigurtà tan-nies.
Qed nitkellem dwar l-Att dwar l-Awtorità tal-Bini u Kostruzzjoni.
Kif tafu, il-Kamra ilha timbotta għal riforma fl-industrija għal erbatax-il sena. U saflaħħar il-Parlament qiegħed jiddibatti abbozz ta’ liġi fi stadju ta’ kumitat ġewwa l-Parlament bil-ħsieb li jibda jintroduċi ċertu riformi, inkluż it-twaqqif t’Awtorità ġdida sabiex tirregola dan is-settur.
Minn mindu ħarġet il-White Paper f’Ottubru 2018 dwar it-twaqqif tal-awtorità, il-Kamra dejjem tat l-appoġġ tagħha kull fejn setgħet għaliex rat dan l-iżvilupp b’mod pożittiv. Reċentement qabbilna t-twaqqif tal-Awtorità ma’ pedament li fuqha tista’ tinbena r-riforma tal-industrija.
Però ilkoll nafu li pedament, jekk ma jinbeniex b’mod b’saħħtu, jaf iwassal sabiex il-binja li tinbena fuqu tiġġarraf. Għalhekk il-Kamra għamlet numru ta’ proposti għal emendi biex tiżgura li l-Awtorità l-ġdida titwaqqaf bl-aħjar mod possibli, biex b’hekk l-industrija tkun tista’ toħroġ minn din il-kriżi u ma jibqgħux jintilfu ħajjiet bla bżonn.
Kif qrajna l-abbozz li ġie pprenżentat ġewwa l-Parlament fil-15 ta’ Jannar, tlabna għal laqgħat ta’ konsultazzjoni permezz ta’ emails fit-18 ta’ Jannar u fil-11 ta’ Frar qabel ma beda jiġi diskuss l-Abbozz, kif ukoll fit-18 ta’ Frar wara l-ewwel seduta tal-Kumitat Parlamentari li matulha kien hemm qbil bejn il-Gvern u l-Oppożizzjoni sabiex il-vot fuq xi artikli tal-liġi jiġi sospiż sakemm issir konsultazzjoni mal-Kamra u stakeholders oħra. B’dispjaċir ngħid illi s’issa dawn it-talbiet ma ntlaqgħux u wisq nibżgħu li liġi li hi intiża li tkun ta’ ġid għall-pajjiż l-għan tiegħu ma jintlaħaqx.
Nixtieq ngħid ukoll illi fl-ebda mument ma l-Gvern u l-konsulenti tiegħu, jew il-Kelliem attwali tal-Oppożizzjoni dwar is-settur ma semgħu l-preżentazzjoni dwar ir-riċerka li għamlet il-Kamra. Fl-2019 konna saħansitra ktibna liċ-Chairperson tal-Kumitat Permanenti tal-Parlament li jitratta materji dwar din l-industrija sabiex nagħmlu l-preżentazzjoni lilhom sabiex jifhmu l-gravità tas-sitwazzjoni u jgħarfu x’hemm bżonn li jsir.
It-talba ġiet miċħuda. U għalhekk mħassbin li hemm nuqqas ta’ apprezzament dwar il-konsegwenzi fuq il-ħajja tan-nies u l-industrija ta’ ċertu artikli li fuqhom qiegħed jittieħed vot fil-Parlament.
Entità li semgħet dak li kellha xi tgħid il-Kamra kien proprju l-Kumitat Tekniku li kien waqqaf il-Prim Ministru. Ħareġ b’mod ċar illi l-Kumitat mhux biss sema’, iżda fehem u għamel tiegħu r-riċerka u l-kunċetti wara d-dokument tal-Kamra, u dan huwa rifless f’diversi partijiet tar-rapport tal-Kumitat.
Il-preżentazzjoni ħadet siegħa u kwart inkluż diskussjoni u mistoqsijiet. 75 minuta. Nistaqsi: possibli li min hu responabbli illi jfassal din il-liġi m’għandux 75 minuta ċans sabiex jifhem il-kunċetti li l-Kamra qiegħda tipproproni sabiex tiġi rriformata l-industrija, kif wara kollox għamel il-Kumitat Tekniku?
Kulmin intlaqat b’mod ħażin minn din l-industrija, partikolarment dawk li tilfu ħajjithom u l-qraba tagħhom, ma jiġux rispettati b’ liġijiet u regolamenti miktubin mingħajr konsultazzjoni ġenwina mal-esperti fis-settur, iżda biss meta jkunu maħdumin b’serjeta’ u b’kompetenza.
Nixtieq hawnhekk nislet xi kwotazzjonijiet mir-rapport tal-Kumitat Tekniku li kien waqqaf il-Prim Ministru.
“The way responsibility is split during the building process is currently unclear and has been rendered even more confusing by the requirements of LN136/2019.” P.17
“In the current system, the role of STO falls short of providing the required technical authority and participation which is required in certain building projects. This shortcoming is in part due to the fact that the admissibility criteria for a person to be allowed to act as STO do not raise the bar sufficiently, and in part also due to the fact that the current functions of the STO are not clearly defined, and in some instances overlap with those of the other parties involved in the excavation and/or building project.” P.15
“This definition and competence of the above roles leads to the issue of operational methodology. The design entity (Perit or ‘design team’) can be made responsible for preparing a ‘works specification’, which is then read and shown to have been understood by the contractor (or ‘construction team’) in the ‘works method statement’, prepared by this latter entity. This implies that the two are mutually checking each other, prior to actual implementation on site.” P.20
Joħroġ b’mod mill-iżjed ċar minn dawn is-siltiet kemm l-Avviż Legal 136 tal-2019 kien miktub mingħajr ebda għarfien dwar l-industrija u l-prattiċi internazzjonali. U allura jekk il-Kumitat Tekniku ta raġun lill-Kamra fuq kulma kienet tisħaq dwar ir-regolamenti li ħargu fl-2019, x’qed iżomm lil min qed jikteb il-liġijiet u r-regolamenti illum li jieħu b’serjeta’ u jkun iktar miftuħ għall-pariri tekniċi li qegħdin noffru.
Dan l-att, kif ġie spjegat lilna, kien maħsub bħala enabling act, cioe’ att li jwaqqaf l-Awtorità u jagħtiha ċerti dmirijiet u poteri. Intqal lilna li l-ħsieb tal-Gvern kien illi proċeduri u regolamenti jiġu preskritti permezz ta’ Avviżi Legali wara li tgħaddi l-liġi. Pero’ l-abbozz, u speċjalment id-dikjarazzjoni ta’ intenzjoni min-naħa tal-Gvern, jipprovdu illi flok Awtorità bi strutturi definiti b’mod ċar, bħalma għandha l-Planning Authority, il-BCA kif inhi proposta ser tkun biss qoxra.
L-unika struttura li teżisti f’din il-liġi huwa l-Bord, li ser ikun bord factotum, li saħansitra jiddeċiedi il-proċeduri tiegħu. Dan il-bord ser jamministra, jara l-accounts, jara l-kommunikazzjoni, HR strategy, jara applikazzjoni għal liċenzji tal-bennejja, jiddeċiedi eżenzjonijiet, u mitt ħaġa oħra.
Il-liġi tagħti ukoll il-poter lill-Bord illi jiddelega xi xogħol li jkun qed jagħmel. Pero’ ma jispeċifikax x’jista’ jiddelega u ma jiddelegax. Lanqas ma jispeċifika l-proċeduri li bihom din id-delega għandha titħaddem.
Dan jista’ jwassal għal abbuż jew nuqqas ta’ trasparenza. Fejn proċeduri ma jiġux delineati legalment, dan ifisser li lanqas ma jistgħu jiġu kkontestati jew appellati.
Tajjeb jew ħażin, illum il-BRO għandha proċeduri li jekk jiġu miksura minn xi uffiċjali, wieħed jista’ jagħmel appell fil-BRB.
Dan jidher li ser jispiċċa. Mhux talli hekk talli d-delegi u l-proċeduri, kif inhu miktub l-Abbozz, kienu ser isiru sempliċement b’ittra mingħand il-Ministru. Aħna konna oġġezzjonajna dwar dan għaliex nemmnu li l-proċeduri għandhom jkunu stabbiliti b’regolamenti uffiċjali u mhux b’ittri mistura. Fil-Parlament il-Gvern aċċetta illi minflok b’ittra, id-delegi jsiru b’avviż governattiv. Fil-waqt li dan huwa dejjem aħjar minn ittra, il-Kamra ma hiex sodisfatta bl-assenza ta’ kunċetti ta’ governanza tajba li jikkaratterizzaw din il-Liġi u nappellaw lill-Gvern sabiex jemenda dan l-Abbozz sabiex ikun possibli li l-proċeduri tal-Awtorita’ jiġu preskritti b’regolamenti sabiex ikun hemm iktar trasparenza.
Il-Kamra ukoll hija mħassba dwar il-fatt li b’din il-liġi, kwalunkwe poter jew dmir li ser ikollha l-Awtorità ser tkun tista’ tiġi ddelegata lil entita’ mhux governattiva.
Tlabna lill-Gvern jispjega għaliex qed jidħol dan il-kunċett ġdid. Saqsejna ukoll b’mod dirett jekk il-liċenzjar tal-kuntratturi hux ser issir minn entità mhux governattiva, u rreferejna għall-opinjoni tal-Ombudsman fuq dan il-punt.
Qabel ma seta’ jirrispondi l-Gvern, ħareġ il-kelliem tal-Oppożizzjoni l-Onorevoli Schiavone jiddefendi l-kunċett illi l-liġi tinbidel sabiex l-MDA ikunu jistgħu jilliċenzjaw il-kuntratturi.
Il-konsulent tal-Gvern, flok wieġeb il-mistoqsija diretta li għamilt, ħareġ b’ipotesi daqstant inkwetanti biex jiġġustifika dan l-artikolu fil-liġi. Qal li jista’ jkun hemm il-ħsieb li l-enforcement jiġi ddelegat lill-LESA.
Kif tista’ ma jkollokx tħassib meta tisma’ ċertu dikjarazzjonijiet fil-Parlament?
U la għadni kif semmejt l-liċenzjar tal-kuntratturi, hemm bżonn li nispjegaw f’iktar dettal għaliex dan huwa ta’ importanza għalina bħala professjoni u ma nistgħux nikkunsidraw serjament sistemi jew delegi li jirrendu l-liċenzji bla valur.
Skond il-Kodiċi Ċivili l-periti u l-kuntratturi jġorru responsabilita’ flimkien għal ħmistax-il sena. Il-periti ma jagħżlux il-kuntratturi. Il-kuntratturi jintgħażlu mill-klijenti. U allura aħna m’għandna l-ebda kontroll ma’ min ser inkunu qed nerfgħu din ir-responsabbiltà.
Għalhekk huwa neċessarju illi jsir il-liċenzjar, biex kemm aħna, iżda wisq iktar min ikun qiegħed jikkummissjona x-xogħol, jkollna moħħna mistrieħa dwar il-kompetenzi tal-kuntrattur li qed jitqabbad.
Bl-istess mod, il-pubbliku għandu jkollu moħħu mistrieħa li min ser jingħatalu liċenzja ser ikollu rikonixximent mill-Istat kif għandhom il-Periti.
Nixtieq infakkar ukoll illi l-Kamra, minkejja illi hija mwaqqfa bil-Liġi, ma toħroġx warrants lill-periti. Joħroġhom l-Istat. U daqstant ieħor l-Istat għandu joħroġ il-liċenzji. U dan għandu joħroġ b’mod ċar fil-liġi bl-istess mod li joħroġ b’mod ċar kif jinħareġ warrant ta’ perit. U dan kif kien ġa kkommetta ruħu l-Kap Eżekuttiv tal-Aġenzija dwar il-Bini u l-Kostruzzjoni Ivor Robinich sena ilu.
Għaliex il-Liġi ta’ din l-Awtorità ma jistax ikollha l-istess livell ta’ dettal fil-proċeduri u l-istrutturi tagħha li għandha l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar jew Awtoritajiet oħra bħall-MFSA u oħrajn? Speċjalment meta l-ħajja tan-nies tiddependi daqstant fuq l-operat ta’ din l-Awtorità l-ġdida.
Punt ieħor ta’ tħassib huwa l-kunċett li hemm wara n-National Building Code li, kif issa ħareġ ċar fid-dibattiti ġewwa l-Parlament, ser jintefa’ ġo fih kull tip ta’ regolament. Dan huwa mod diżordinat ta’ ħsieb u ta’ kunċetti li ppruvajna kemm-il darba nispjegaw anke permezz ta’ flow-charts lill-Gvern.
Proposta oħra li kienet għamlet il-Kamra hija s-seperazzjoni tar-regolamenti dwar id-diżinn minn dawk dwar il-kostruzzjoni. Jekk il-Kumitat Tekniku qabel mal-opinjoni tal-Kamra dwar ir-regolamenti tal-2019, minnfejn qed tinbet ir-reżistenza li dan jidħol fis-seħħ? Wara kollox il-kunċetti tal-proposti tagħna huma bbażati fuq riċerka li domna sentejn naħdmu fuqhom. Inħeġġeġ ‘il-Parlament verament jisma’ u jifhem, kif sema’ u fehem il-Kumitat Tekniku, u jilqa’ ukoll din il-proposta tal-Kamra.
Nixtieq ukoll niddikjara, b’riferenza għal xi artikli li dehru fil-gazzetti lokali fl-aħħar jiem, illi l-Kamra tal-Periti qatt ma talbet li tkun rappreżentata fuq il-Bord tal-Awtorità. Niddikjara ukoll li l-Kunsill tal-Kamra kien diġa’ wasslitlu l-kelma t-Tnejn li għadda li kien hemm il-ħsieb li titressaq mozzjoni sabiex il-Kamra tkun rappreżentata fuq il-Bord tal-Awtorita’. Dakinhar stess tlaqqa’ l-Kunsill sabiex tittieħed deċiżjoni dwar il-pożizzjoni tagħna. Fil-fatt il-Kunsill iddeċieda li jżomm mal-pożizzjoni konsistenti tiegħu illi jirrifjuta li jkun fuq bordijiet eżekuttivi ta’ entitajiet pubbliċi, kif kien għamel meta kienu saru proposti simili fil-liġi tal-Planning Authority u l-Lands Authority. Il-Kamra hija dejjem lesta tipparteċipa f’kumitati konsultattivi, iżda m’għandha l-ebda interess tikkapparra xi poter. U għalhekk ippronejna illi jkun hemm Stakeholders’ Committee għal dan il-għan.
Hu huwa b’dan l-ispirtu pożittiv, propożittiv, b’xewqa li ma nerġgħux naraw diżgrazzja oħra bħalma ilna naraw għal snin twal, u sabiex naslu fil-punt li ċ-ċittadin ma jibqax jgħix fil-biża’, li ntennu t-talba tagħna lill-Gvern u l-Oppożizzjoni sabiex issir diskussjoni serja u matura fuq l-emendi li hemm bżonn jidħlu sabiex tabilħaqq tintlaħaq l-aspirazzjoni li npoġġu s-saħħa u l-kwalità tal-ħajja tan-nies qabel kull interess ieħor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.