Editorial

Whenever disaster strikes, in whatever form, it is the tendency of the collective to express shock and even rage. It would be a matter for concern if our reactions did not reflect a sense of dismay when appalling events that touch on our sense of solidarity intrude on our lives and, more to the point, take the lives of others. This is what happened when a building in St Paul's Bay collapsed, crushing two women to death.

The next immediate reaction is to ask why such a catastrophe had happened. Not so long ago another building had imploded during building works. It is understandable, therefore, that the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) should try to discover what went wrong and why. Last week, it issued a statement that said it had received information, anonymously, about an "architect" who he had warned people about the structure at St Paul's Bay. It looked to be in imminent danger of collapse.

For its part, the Chamber of Architects accused OHSA of being unable to verify these claims and had placed the profession in a bad light by publishing them. A stronger point was made by the chamber with its remark that the OHSA was itself a player within the Building Industry Consultative Council (BICC) precisely to promote safety and good building practices on construction sites. Inevitably, both organisations were beginning to sound a bit like fishwives. Inevitably because there is this seemingly predetermined behaviour of accusation and counter-accusation whenever bodies feel they have to defend their patch at all cost. Pity!

The two facts are unarguable. A building collapsed. The falling masonry unceremoniously and tragically removed two human beings from this earth. There are no other facts. There are, however, a number of remarks that may be reasonably made if we are to do justice to the people who died, who should not have died.

It is strange that buildings in which people live look dangerously unsafe, about to cave in and nobody inside the building or in its vicinity is remotely aware of the situation. It is just as peculiar that an "architect" - if indeed that is the case - should point this out to people and not to report the matter to the powers-that-be.

The Chamber of Architects may huff and puff about OHSA's lack of verification (and may even have a point) but it should go deeper into itself and question why some of its members are rarely seen on construction sites to supervise the mix of the concrete, for example, and the work practices of those they have employed. If it turns out that the unknown "architect" did really exist then it would be the architect that would have brought the profession in disrepute and not the OHSA.

The OHSA is not blameless, either. How often do its people go on worksites to make sure the safety of employees is safeguarded in every way? Are daily routine patrols held? One is regularly witnessing the apparent refusal of workers in the building industry to abide by so many health and safety regulations.

As for the industry itself, the innumerable regulations by which it is bound are daily breached.

In short, we are looking at more than an accident that should not have happened. We are witnessing a process that BICC in particular, OHSA in general and everybody involved in construction, architects included, have a duty to follow with every regard for safety.

Health and safety goes beyond regulations. They call for daily enforcement.