Clarifications on need of method statements

I refer to the opinion piece by Amadeo Mifsud on Effective Safeguards For Third Parties (September 2). Mr Mifsud gives his views on the requirement for contractors to submit a method statement - a requirement that will be introduced with the Regulations on the Avoidance of Damage to Third Parties. The new regulations will come into force before the end of the year.

A few clarifications are in order.

It will be the role of the Building Regulations Office to review method statements but it will not be its remit to revise it.

If the director BRO feels that the method statement is inadequate, the director shall request the architect to submit a revised method statement, if need be indicating what his/her concerns are. Responsibility for the content of the method statement, even when revised, remains with the architect who prepares it.

The requirement to prepare a method statement forces the developer and his architect to focus more carefully on the construction process. This will be an aid to the architect who, until now, is sometimes faced with the situation that his advice is sidelined by the developer in an effort to cut costs. The developer will also need to ensure that s/he engages a contractor who is sufficiently competent to adhere to the method statement.

Mr Mifsud gives the impression that many, or even most, contractors are too incompetent to adhere to a construction method statement. These regulations are intended for a number of contractors who are unable or unwilling to improve their work practices.

Opportunities for training in construction are available at Mcast including a national diploma in construction. This entails one year full-time and a further two years apprenticeship.

Having said that, more needs to be done to provide further training opportunities including evening part-time courses. Improving the skills of contractors should be an ongoing process. New regulations put greater demands on contractors in terms of skill requirements and this, in turn, is an incentive for them to attend courses and improve their skills.

I agree with Mr Mifsud when he argues that imposing the requirement of a method statement on its own is not enough. The regulations need to be seen holistically. The requirement to prepare a method statement is just one of numerous provisions. These include the requirement for all construction works to be insured, the requirement for the developer to appoint a site manager, the requirement for proper ground investigation conditions and several other provisions. Collectively, these will improve standards and provide for more safe construction.

The Building Regulations Act will be submitted to Parliament in the coming weeks.

As soon as possible after that and, following due consultation and discussion with the stakeholders, it is the intention of this ministry to introduce regulations on the registration and classification of contractors. This will further address some of the concerns raised by Mr Mifsud.

Improving standards in construction requires actions on different fronts including awareness, training, regulations, contractor registration and effective enforcement.

Numerous comments and suggestions were received when the regulations were issued for the public consultation process. These are greatly appreciated. Similarly, this ministry thanks Mr Mifsud for his constructive feedback.

The latest draft of the Regulations on the Avoidance Of Damage To Third Party Property and the Building Regulations Act as endorsed can be accessed at www.mrra.gov.mt.