A report drafted after the tragedy that claimed the life of Miriam Pace last year was finally published this week.
The report confirmed what we already knew – that very dangerous building practices were being used in a bid to cut time and costs.
The process of excavating too close to third party properties was dubbed by the technical committee that drafted the report as being “nothing short of playing Russian roulette with people’s lives.”
It found that certain shortcomings within the construction industry, together with some technical practices that are in common use in construction sites in Malta, should be curtailed to put people's minds at rest.
The question here is: why was the report, which was drafted in April of last year, only published this week?
The government probably held the report under wraps for many months because it wanted to table it in Parliament together with the much-awaited proposed regulations on construction.
While we understand that an overhaul of construction laws is no easy task, we cannot but remark that this review took too long to conclude. Let us not forget that the Bill is only at draft stage, and the process to approve it and implement its recommendations will take time.
We also fail to understand why the technical report was not published earlier.
The victim’s family had been desperately calling for answers and for the publication of the report. Just a few days ago, Carmel Pace asked why the government was keeping the report hidden. We thought that, perhaps its drafting was taking a long time, maybe the experts had encountered some problems along the way and needed more time. We know now that this was not the case and the government has had the report for the last ten months.
While nothing and no one can bring Miriam Pace back, the report can at least give some closure to the family. They have been vindicated in saying that Miriam’s death could have been avoided and that the tragedy was caused by a process that is deemed to be too dangerous. The family and, indeed, the public should have been given access to the document much sooner.
Moving forward, the proposed regulations seem to be a step in the right direction and the government seems to have taken on board many of the recommendations from the technical report and from stakeholders.
These include giving clearer explanations as to the responsibilities of all parties involved in a project.
The draft Bill, once approved, will finally pave the way for a Building and Construction Agency, which will hopefully be a serious regulator for the industry.
According to the proposed regulations, the authority will be given greater enforcement powers and operators who do not abide by the rules can faces fines of up to €500,000 plus daily fines of €5,000 if illegalities persist.
There will also be a National Code on the Construction Industry to set up the minimum standards required from operators.
On paper, the proposed regulations look good. We now expect that all these ideas make it into the actual law, unlike what happened in the case of the new zoo regulations, which were quickly changed to benefit the operators.