|
Our negligence has again killed two more people. The collapse of the apartments next to where excavation was taking place in St Paul’s Bay is another success story for our health and safety officials, for the Malta Environment and Planning Authority experts and for the architects’ profession.
We have had enough of enquiries by magistrates, who are by law bound to carry them out, but who fail to produce any comfort to the family of the victims and to the public at large.
We were told that excavations were taking place and this calls for a number of questions. First of all we do not know if the excavations were covered by a MEPA permit. If so, why is MEPA allowing such excavations without imposing the two and a half feet distance from the dividing wall?
We have had ample cases in court of neighbours who are being forced to spend money and time because MEPA refuses to recognise this law under the Civil Code as its own law.
It is a known fact that the excavations of today are mostly done right up to the dividing wall so that no solid ground is left between the site and the adjacent property. I am not an architect, but common sense tells me that such excavations are prone to cause damage to neighbouring properties.
I cannot understand why MEPA does not take into consideration the safety of third parties surrounding the site for development. Let there be permits for development, but not at the expense and life of the nieghbours.
From this tragedy MEPA must be convinced that the neighbouring properties are safe for such a development and such conviction must be made by its own officials and at the expense of the applicant. Who knows how many of you know of cases where they felt a prisoner in their own home until the site next door was completed and how many of you have suffered damages as a result thereof.
I can recall the case of the Franciscan nuns who were deprived of the use of their summer house in Xemxija because the cowboy next door caused so much damage to their house that it was certified a dangerous structure.
Joining the European Union brought about many expectations and one of them was that health and safety would be taken seriously at long last. It is indeed the case, but only on paper.
This year we have introduced regulations reflecting the EU directives on health and safety at the work place, but enforcement is zero. If the regulations in Legal notice 281/2004 entitled Work Place (Minimum Health and Safety Requirements for Work at Construction Sites) were enforced, we would have spared the lives of Mary Zarb and of Ina Atrepyeva-Abrekova.
One regulation in this legal notice, for instance, states that before any works commence there should be a project manager who is to give prior notice as to the date of forwarding; exact address of the construction site; client’s name and address; type of project; name of project supervisor; name of project supervisor during the project preparation stage; project supervisor for health and safety matter during the project execution; date planned for start of work on the construction site; planned duration of work on the construction site; estimated maximum number of workers on the construction site; planned number of contractors and self-employed persons on the construction site and details of contractors already chosen. I invite all to tell if you have ever seen such information on any building site.
Speaking of enforcement I can quote the regulations which were introduced this year and which are based on the Saves directive of the EU. Such regulations, by means of Legal Notice 41/2004 entitled Work Place (Minimum requirements for Work) Confined spaces and Spaces having explosive, atmospheric regulations, make the operation of the Benghajsa fuelling storage facility illegal. The Health and Safety Authority knows it, but it decides to close a blind eye. Little does it care that this inertia may cause tragedies and loss of lives.
I do not know for how long Brussels will allow this to procrastinate further. I am sure that the Unions have the responsibility to be aware and familiar with all the health and safety regulations and to make representations with employers. I have my doubts as to whether the unions have read the regulations that I have quoted as otherwise I am sure they would have protested for the closure of Benghajsa and for the enforcement of these regulations. But in Malta the system does not work that way – regulations are not there to be enforced, but to be breached.
This is not the first time that excavations led to loss of lives. The case of Cathedral Street in Sliema where the victim was at home when her home collapsed because of the excavations next door is still in our memory though we hardly mention it.
Yet the architect has been given a free rein by the Chamber of Architects to continue with his work as if nothing had happened. I do not believe that such tragedies could not have been avoided. The truth of the matter is that the greed for property has surpassed the respect for human lives.
No architect in his right mind would allow excavations further in from the two and half feet allowed by law, yet they allow it so as to save their clients some more space. We are tired of hearing the defence, usually put by architects, that they never commissioned the contractor to excavate in that way. This is like saying that parents are not responsible for the safety of their children when they are in their care.
An architect is not there to make the application with MEPA and to ensure that the permit is issued and then to issue the compliance certificate (sometimes false) at the end of the project. The architect is responsible for the project from A to Z irrespective of whether it will cost him extra time and effort.
My last word goes to the civil protection team who are still awaiting to be properly insured against the high risks their job entails.
In the meantime, it is business as usual!
|
