Construction industry must up its game

As Malta picks up the pieces after Monday’s tragedy ­– in which a woman lost her life when yet another house collapsed, this time in Santa Venera – it is inevitable that we turn our attention to the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle: accountability.

In cases such as this, the culpability is twofold: on one hand, there is the direct criminal liability of those responsible (once proven) for the accident itself. A magisterial inquiry is underway, and so far six people have been arrested in connection with the incident: including the neighbouring project’s site technical officer, the project architect, and two of the project’s contractors.

But there are other responsibilities to be shouldered. For, apart from so abruptly cutting short a human life, this latest construction-related catastrophe has also once again reminded us of how vulnerable we really are, when endangered by the excesses of an industry that is clearly out of control.

Clearly, all past attempts to rein in the sector have failed… and there is further evidence that the system itself is not working. Something, somewhere, is very wrong.

Significantly, the Chamber of Advocates has since admitted, in its reaction, that ‘all players in the industry were to blame’.

“Things were left to slide, and there wasn’t enough self-awareness,” the Chamber said: suggesting that the recent concatenation of similar disasters is itself the result of an overall decline in industry and regulation standards.

Given that the results of this decline have been so dramatically visible, and seem to be increasing in severity with each new occurrence, it is logical to ask why the much-vaunted 2016 industry reform – with all its new rules and regulations – has already proved so toothless.

Even without questioning the intentions behind this reform, several of its key features can be seen to be counter-productive.

The current system of construction depends on the trust afforded to architects and other professionals in the sector, to propose ‘method statements’ that are thorough, adequate and effective… with a particular emphasis on safety.

Whether this has always been the case is another matter altogether; one can only hope that warranted professionals live up to the trust placed in them.

But this is how the system works: we rely on the expertise of architects and engineers, for our peace of mind regarding the safety (or otherwise) of the excavations next door.

So it came somewhat of a shock to many that the CEO of the Building and Construction Agency admitted, on TVM's Dissett last week, that the agency has no remit to analyse the method statement provided by the architect, and verify that it conforms to standard.

Inspections by the agency only focus on whether ongoing construction works are in line with what the approved method statement states: even if (for argument’s sake) the method may be flawed.

Another issue is that neighbours are left entirely to their own devices. If they want to contest the developer's method statement, they have to engage their own architect at their own expense. Even then, it is not clear what would happen if the neighbour's architect's professional opinion contradicts that of the developer.

And so it goes on, leaving neighbours to pick up the pieces as best they can, because the authorities are in reality powerless.

With the death of Miriam Pace this week, however, the nation has clearly reached the limits of how much negligence and greed it can continue to tolerate.

Clearly, the rules of engagement need to be redefined; but there also has to be a wholesale professionalisation drive across the entire industry. As things stand, there is too much cutting of corners; and while any business might be expected to cut down its expenses… in an industry like construction, the consequences can be fatal, as we all found out last week.

Above all, the laissez-faire mentality has to stop. And if this means higher costs for developers, then so be it. If a developer cannot shoulder the higher costs associated with safety and good workmanship than he should not even venture into the field.

People have suffered for too long because of the excesses of an under-regulated, over-powerful sector. This has to stop. The building industry is important for the livelihood of many individuals; but unless its stakeholders want to shoot themselves in the foot, they must up their game.