Resources and Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino (September 10) seems adamant that the regulations on the avoidance of damage to third parties should become inscribed in the statute book before the end of the year.
A bad decision is better than no decision and this one is far from being a bad decision. Therefore, it is a good thing that a fixed deadline has been set for it. Nonetheless, one must avoid the temptation to satisfice (if I may borrow a management term), that is, to be satisfied with what seems to barely suffice.
As Mr Pullicino asserts, Mcast runs a national diploma course in construction. The ITS also runs first-class culinary courses. Yet, everyone who works in a kitchen is not a chef.
Architects are not allowed to practise their profession just because the university holds courses leading to a degree in architecture. They actually have to take that course, come out of it successfully, practise under a warranted architect, get scrutinised by a warrants board and, if found proficient, get their warrant. Then, and only then, can they start practising their profession under a clear code of professional conduct.
Why not contractors too?
The latest draft regulations define "registered contractors" as those building contractors registered under the Building Regulation Act, which prepares the ground for the eventual licensing of contractors "as soon as possible" after submission to Parliament, as the minister wrote, but stops short of giving even the foggiest indication of the requirements for registration or when "as soon as possible" happens to be.
If a course leading to a national diploma in construction is already available, why not make use of it now? Here is a splendid opportunity for Mr Pullicino to make such a course immediately compulsory for anyone who desires to be registered under these regulations.
If the minister really means business, which I am sure he does, he should make possession of the national diploma in construction a sine qua non for all registered contractors and he should pursue this with the same commendable urgency that he is pursuing the regulations themselves when he asserts that the Building Regulation Act will be submitted to Parliament in the coming weeks. In this way he would ensure that those meant to use the proposed method statements can read them, can understand them and possess the skills to implement them.
I use the term "building contractors" very generically. Of course, I do not mean the chairmen or chief executives of construction enterprises but the foremen, charge-hands and all those who are on a building site running the works for the contractor.
To avoid falling into the temptation to satisfice, the minister should avoid trying to rush the regulations through Parliament before making sure that building contractors possess such elementary requisites. He is going in the right direction but he needs to go all the way and to do so not "as soon as possible" but "before the end of the year".