Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1137604
17 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 30 JUNE 2019 INTERVIEW self. The most I can do – and I did it, in this case – is offer tech- nical advice. But this should al- so be seen as a first step. Before, it was practically a free-for-all; now, there are very clear, very accessible rules of engage- ment… What's the second step? Until last Monday, the de- veloper was obliged – at least, on paper – to nominate a 'site manager'. The law didn't state anything in so far as compe- tencies were concerned. I don't know if you're aware, but the reality on the ground was that the developer could (and often did) simply appoint his own brother, sister, uncle or son as 'site manager'…. which is a very technical, very delicate posi- tion. Now, the 'STO' – because we don't call them 'site manag- ers' anymore, they are now 'Site Technical Officers', to avoid any confusion with other men- tions of 'site manager' in other parts of the law. But as the name infers, the STO has to be tech- nically competent. So we cre- ated a schedule, and so far, only 'periti' [note: 'perit' is a legal term encompassing architects, civil engineers, etc.] are entitled to serve as STOs. Government can, at any time, add other com- petencies to the list. It can do this instantly, by means of a le- gal notice. The important thing, however, is that these people have to be technically compe- tent. Aside from competence, there is also the question of legal culpability. The Kamra Tal-Periti has objected to its members being saddled with additional legal responsibilities, which are not actually part of their profession. Don't they have a point? The responsibility has always existed, however. Even under the old framework, the ar- chitect preparing the method statement had a responsibil- ity to ensure that the methods adhered to regulations. Now, the architect at least has prop- er guidelines to work with. Then we have the contractor, who is obliged to implement the method statement on site; and now, there is an STO who must ensure that the contrac- tor implements all the correct measures… but with a huge dif- ference. If the STO detects that the contractor is not adhering to the statement, then he has an obligation to stop the works… But that is precisely what the Kamra is objecting to. Since when is it a perit's job to enforce building regulations? I'm not denying that it is a huge responsibility. But it's also reality. The only profession that can really ensure that a con- struction site complies with its technical obligations, is that of a perit… who speaks the same language. And even if we extend the schedule to include other professions – for instance, en- gineers – the responsibility will still be there…. At the same time, however, the STO is engaged by the developer. Does this mean that the developer is ultimately responsible for overseeing his own construction site? That was the situation before the new rules came into force. Now, under the new rules, the STO is engaged by the contrac- tor, not the developer… But the contractor still works for the developer… We took this cue from the Kamra Tal-Periti. Initially, the idea was for the STO to be ap- pointed by the architect draw- ing up the method statement. But that idea was very much re- sisted by the Kamra; and I think they were correct. Because ul- timately, the STO has to work with the contractor, not with the architect. So it has to be the contractor to seek guidance from the STO. The Kamra's arguments were very logical, I would say. Turning to the issue of the excessive case-load of pending applications: Prime Minister Muscat has admitted that he construction sector growth outstripped by far the growth of the enforcement capability. Isn't that just another way of saying that too many building permits are being issued, too quickly? That's a question to ask of a planner. I am not a planner… No, but you do apply for planning permits on behalf of your clients. Surely you have an opinion about the sustainability of the machinery that churns out permits at such an exponential rate? What made it unsustainable was the lack of a proper en- forcement infrastructure. But that is the whole point of these new regulations: they introduce the necessary framework to bring the sector in line… Do they really, though? Both the PA and BRO are severely understaffed, and already struggle to cope with the ever-growing caseload. These new regulations place further stress on the system, without any additional investment in resources for the regulatory authorities. What's the point in, for example, 'increasing penalties'… if the enforcement section is underequipped to actually enforce the law? I can't speak on behalf of the executive… but I am aware that government is committed to in- creasing the resources available to the authorities. So much so, that the next step is to create a new authority precisely to man- age all this… But there already is an authority for that: the Buildings Regulation Office. What sense does it make to create a new authority, because the first one was too under-resourced to function? Wouldn't we end up with two dysfunctional regulators, instead of only one? You are right to highlight the need for a structure to imple- ment these changes. Because it is not easy to manage all this. But the Kamra itself agrees with the setting up of a new author- ity. And if the new laws are on- erous – which they are – well, they had to be, because of how the situation was before. We didn't want to come up with a half-baked measure… Some argue that it is a half- baked measure, though. The consultation period was only four days. Why such a rush? Yet again, the deadlines were set by others, not by me. I am aware of that, but it still creates the impression that government's interest was just to make a big show of taking action… while not addressing the real causes for concern… Is it just a 'big show', howev- er? I admit that the new rules are very onerous… but I invite anyone to contest any techni- cal issue with these regulations; to highlight any proviso which they think should be removed or amended. It's an open invitation: I would be willing to listen, and relay the message to the executive so that they can decide. If there's any- thing people feel doesn't make sense… come forward. To date, however, I haven't heard any technical objections to any part of the bill… Isn't it a bit late for that, with the consultation period closed? I am sure – convinced, actu- ally – that government will still listen. If there is a technical flaw, which could put people in danger… government will defi- nitely listen. Of that, I have no doubt what- soever.