The Grand Harbour Regeneration Corporation was this evening unable to give MPs a new target date for the completion of the new Parliament House in City Gate.
The corporation's chairman, Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi said an updated programme of works presented by the contractors was still being evaluated.
MPs had been due to start meeting in the new Parliament today but instead returned to the old Chamber in the Palace because of the project delays.
Dr Zrinzo Azzopardi gave the House Business Committee an overview of the progress made in the project.
He said delays were caused by the high standards which slowed production, changes in work practices and, particularly, delays in the procurement of furniture by a sub-contracted Italian company.
He said a lot of work remained to be done on fixed furniture and partitions, testing and commissioning of mechanical works in all floors, installation of fire doors, alignment of bridge levels, some glass works and installation of some soffit ceilings. One soffit ceiling in the ground floor would need to be replaced because it did not meet standards.
A lot of stone cladding work still had to be done on the building’s facade facing St James Cavalier and Piazza Teatru Rjal.
Work started today on a lift from City Gate to the ditch below. Other lifts were still being installed.
In the new Chamber of Parliament, stone works were almost complete but work was just starting on the installation of MPs’ desks, seats, fire doors, sky light screens and the testing and commissioning of the sound and mechanical systems.
Dr Zrinzo Azzopardi said the Grand Harbour Regeneration Corporation had had regular meetings with the contractors and collaborated closely with them, however fines started being imposed from September 30 when the contractors did not keep their works timetable.
Last Thursday the GHRC was informed of a new timetable by the contractors. The corporation requested supporting documents and they were submitted today.
Dr Zrinzo Azzopardi said the corporation was questioning some of the dates which the contractors had given.
One of the main problems remained the delivery of the fixed furniture. This was not a simple case of moving in the furniture. The furniture was part of the design and closed off various services such as air conditioning.
The corporation was awaiting further feedback from the contractors.
Work was continuing seven days a week and the House would be kept informed as works progressed.
Infrastructure Minister Joe Mizzi said that on taking office in March 2013 he had found the project to be out of control, and auditors were also called in.
Amid heated exchanges with members of the opposition, Mr Mizzi said it was the House Business Committee which had decided that MPs would move to the new Parliament after the summer recess.
His personal commitment was to move the project forward and to ensure that it was kept under control. The original completion date was actually 2012. He had requested a written timetable of works from the contractors and when they did not meet their written commitments, fines were imposed.
He noted that the contractors were chosen by the former government and some of the furniture was procured by direct order by the former administration.
Mr Mizzi said he was not happy with what was said in his meeting with the contractors today and no completion date could be given until various aspects were clarified.
The Speaker, Anglu Farrugia, said the House Business Committee had actually decided to 'possibly' move to the new Parliament after the recess, but it kept all facilities in use in the old parliament as a safeguard.
DE MARCO - MINISTER BLAMING EVERYONE BUT HIMSELF
Dr de Marco said it was a disgrace that Mr Mizzi had blamed everyone except himself when it was he who was responsible for monitoring the works and he had boasted of doing so. The House Business Committee had taken its decision on the basis of a statement by the minister on July 8 when it was said that it was expected that the contractors would complete their works in time for parliament to meet there after the summer.
MPs were only told 10 days before the due date of October 12 that the project had slipped significantly. When did the minister know?
Carmelo Abela (PL) said this debate was two years late since under the former government, the new parliament was supposed to have been completed in December 2012. They too had to assume responsibility. In 2012 the project was nowhere near completion. Had the former government complained to the contractors, and were any fines imposed? (interruptions).
Dr Zrinzo Azzopardi said that while some notices were issued, no fines were imposed and the completion date was verbally shifted. It was the present government which demanded a completion date in writing and the practical completion was meant to be September 30.
Mr Mizzi said he was made aware in early September that not enough workers were working on the site. Measures were taken to improve the situation.
Replying to further questions, he said the fines were a signal to all contractors that the government would not tolerate slippage and it meant business. However the most important thing was to complete the project as soon as possible.
Dr de Marco said it as unacceptable that the minister could not even give an indicative completion date, when it was he who used to say that the project was on track.
Mr Mizzi said he was not irresponsible and could not give dates as happened in the past, when the project was meant to be completed in 2012. He would be adamant that the contractors completed their work as soon as possible and would be fined until then. The GHRC had handed the contractors a list of works which still needed to be done.
Deputy Prime Minister Louis Grech said that given the deadlines which these contractors missed in the past, what would have been unacceptable would have been a new target date unless the pending issues were clarified.
Dr de Marco said it was Mr Mizzi on October 1 who wrote to the Speaker, telling him that a meeting of the House Business Committee should be called during which a new date would be given. (Interruptions)
The committee agreed it would hold another meeting to further discuss the project.