Things that need sorting

Development is a subject that is nearly always controversial. While development is a natural progression, there are always people who never want to see change, but that is an extreme view.

Mostly, people are concerned that development is allowed to move too fast with little regard to protecting heritage, open spaces and trees.

Hence 'sustainable' development is what is meant to happen.

When one sees the encroachment into our valleys and other places of natural beauty, it is no wonder that environmental NGOs do their best to lobby against such development.

MEPA (Malta Environment and Planning Authority) is at the heart of these controversies. As the place where decisions are taken and the 'go ahead' is given, it is no wonder that the authority gets a lot of stick.

But some of it is self-inflicted. Take a couple of recent examples. The back page of last Sunday's MaltaToday gave us the news that Philip Azzopardi, the architect who is being sued by the relatives of a woman who died in a house collapse in Sliema, has been appointed a member of the Development Control Commission (DCC).

The paper reported that the Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment had found no problem with the appointment, stating there is "absolutely no connection" between the case and the architect's ability to serve on the DCC board.

"Board members are chosen on the basis of their integrity", said the Ministry spokesman.

A person's integrity is judged on their moral fibre, rectitude, honesty, conscientiousness, scrupulousness, meticulousness and sense of responsibility.

Some of those elements, especially the latter are precisely the ones in question with regard to the architect involved, until the court case is finally resolved.

The appointment of an architect, who is still awaiting judgment on a collapsed building case, on the DCC board is not improving MEPA's image.

The case dates back five years. Last November, under the heading "Remarkable sang-froid", I was pushed into tackling the lack of justice meted out to victims who have their houses and dear ones destroyed by a complacent system.

The impetus was a heart-rending letter to The Times from a woman who lost her mother in another house collapse in St Paul's Bay in June of that year.

The psychological effects of loss through fatal accidents are considerable, and people affected need 'closure' to be able to get back to some form of normality. The gist of the item was that investigations and court cases are not treated with the urgency they deserve.

The lady in question had complained that she had waited for five months for the investigations to be finalised, which had led me to comment: "Imagine what it must be like for the family who lost their mother four years ago (2000) and are still waiting for closure."

Well, the MaltaToday story rekindled my interest and since it did not tell me whether the case had been resolved I made some enquiries.

Surprise, surprise, the court case is still pending. Besides the emotional aspect, the case is also costing the families a lot of money. They hope they will eventually get justice and redress. While court cases drag on, as far as I know it still looks like accountability is virtually non-existent in the building industry.

When I spoke to Robert Musumeci, chairman of the BICC (Building Industry Consultative Council) on Friday, he said that consultation on a document dealing with reforms within the sector closed in May. The results will now be processed and the document will eventually find its way to the Minister of Rural Affairs and the Environment.

However, although recommendations include method statements on excavation to include equipment used and structural methods adopted, and insurance to cover third parties, the sector does not see itself as monitoring accountability, especially when things go wrong.

"That will be up to the courts", Mr Musumeci told me. I pointed out that court cases can take forever and victims cannot always afford court fees. I felt that there should be guidelines clearly outlining who is accountable for what and a system whereby those not following the guidelines will be penalised.

But it looks like the BICC will not get involved when things go wrong and will let the courts sort it out.

The second example of MEPA's self-inflicted problems concerns yet another article in MaltaToday. The paper quite rightly brings up questions regarding conflicts of interest affecting architects on MEPA boards.

The paper mentions the head of the DCC Catherine Galea, but as she rightly responded, "that is how the system is... Whoever appoints members to the MEPA boards and commissions is aware of this situation... Many of them (members on boards and commissions) are architects."

Which brings me to the question, why does MEPA need so many architects with a private practice on its boards and committees? It is obvious that development is their livelihood. Even if a case does not directly affect them, the issue generally does! Conflict of interest is inherent.

If we look around the development mish-mash surrounding us, the evidence is there for all to see.

Surely there are enough experts in the field who will not have a conflict of interest. You do not need architectural expertise from all the members for the committees and boards to work effectively. The chair of the committees and boards in particular should not be an architect with a private practice. The boards and committees will obviously need sound architectural advice, but that does not need to come from the voting members.

Architects employed by MEPA (unless they are also involved in private practice) should be available for that expertise, otherwise the board and committees should be made up of people who do not earn their living from building development.

Animals are just that

As always, when something bad happens and someone decides to do something about it, controversy reigns. It was interesting to see the response to Vanessa Grech's campaign to get dangerous dogs muzzled.

We have the dog lovers who have had their dogs mauled or killed asking for legislation to muzzle or even ban dogs, which are potential killers; then we have dog lovers who refuse to acknowledge that dogs can be dangerous and blame the owners for any show of violent behaviour from dogs. Then there are those who refuse to acknowledge that animals will sometimes behave like animals.

I cannot understand people who despite hearing about stories that dogs are unpredictable still trust their beloved children within close proximity of the animals.

I thought the person who sent in a photo of his child surrounded by bull terriers to The Times on Friday was irresponsible. It encourages people to endanger their children.

Considering the amount of data available stating that dogs have unprovokedly attacked children, one should be advising caution.

The Australian National Nine News on Thursday reported that Local Government Minister John Bowler said his department was drafting proposals, similar to those already before the NSW parliament, to outlaw American pit bulls, Japanese tosas, Argentinian fighting dogs and Brazilian fighting dogs.

He said an attack on an 18-month-old boy in the Perth suburb of Melville a week ago simply strengthened the view that tougher legislation was needed to supplement laws introduced during the first term of the Gallop government.

The boy required surgery to stitch his bottom lip after the family's pit bull turned on him. "I think the time has come to get rid of these dangerous breeds to fully protect the community," Mr Bowler said. "I have already had the department draft further legislative changes to breed the dangerous dogs out."

Under his proposal, dog owners would be prohibited from advertising the sale of restricted breeds, selling or giving them away. The dogs would also have to be sterilised.

"The federal government has already banned the breeds from import and if they are not suitable to be imported, why then let them breed in Western Australia?" he said.

This point also applies to us in Malta. However, confusion even surrounds the document I quoted several weeks back, which was presented to someone trying to bring a dog over to Malta and which I saw in black and white.

Although it is clearly stated that "According to legal notice 169/2001 under the heading "dangerous dogs" that "it is illegal to possess certain types of dogs such as the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa... if any of these dogs are introduced into Malta, the person responsible is prosecuted and the dog is seized and put down", Nationalist MP David Agius told me last week that he had been informed by the government vet that it was at the discretion of the government vet whether such dogs are allowed in, and anyway, he said no names of dogs are specified in the legal notice.

Confused? I certainly am. Either you have a restriction on the importation of certain dogs or you haven't. Why and when is the discretion of the government vet deemed necessary and why does the document on the importation of dogs specify the legal notice with the names above?

Back to down under, currently, in Western Australia, owners of restricted breed dogs are required to muzzle them while in public and confine them in an escape-proof, child-proof enclosure.

In my column of May 29 I quoted similar stories from Canada. The problem is widespread and governments everywhere are concerned and are taking action. I hope that our government will also take the issue seriously and take action before we have another nasty accident.

phansen@timesofmalta.com