Safety and MEPA's remit

MEPA and the minister responsible for it, George Pullicino, have recently been taken to task because they made it quite clear that safety is alien to MEPA's remit. In an opinion piece in The Times (February16), Joseph Grech started his contribution by depicting the fact that MEPA does not have the legal remit or responsibility to assess or verify the safety of building developments as something that is "quite unbelievable".

Writing in this newspaper last Sunday, Pamela Hansen expressed indignation and surprise because "if a building which was covered by a MEPA permit falls down, MEPA has nothing to do with it". Which, may I emphasise, is as it should be.

What is surprising - and really unbelievable - is that 14 years after the Planning Authority was set up by law, people have still not grasped the concept and the raison d'être behind its setting up.

I have been (dis)credited for giving birth to a veritable monster because I was the minister responsible for its setting up. I have no apology to make for taking the step, more so when the situation in physical planning and land use had deteriorated to an extreme case of reckless folly (for want of a better way of putting it) during the 1971-1987 Labour administrations.

The fact that MEPA has, in many cases, lost the plot via ridiculous Development Planning Application (DPA) reports, some of which are nothing short of irrational cut-and-paste hotchpotch exercises, and that there are too many MEPA employees who abuse of their position by pursuing their own personal agendas, makes me livid and makes my blood boil.

But I still retain that the concept of the Planning Authority was an idea whose time had long come, even before it was set up. If today there is a mess in the details, this does not mean that the underlying principles are wrong. To recall a parallel I often like to make, a stupid and corrupt police force does not make the need for a police force superfluous.

In development there are two aspects of safety. First, the aspect of the safety of the building site while works are going on. This includes the safety of all workmen on site as well as that of third parties who might be in the vicinity; this being normally the responsibility of the contractor.

This aspect is today the domain of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, which is legally vested with draconian powers. For those who are not convinced, I recommend reading the law and the relevant Legal Notices. Whether these awesome powers are used judiciously, or not, is another matter.

The other aspect of safety concerns the structural stability of the building. This, in Malta, falls squarely on the shoulders of the responsible architect and civil engineer, now officially recognised as perit. Every application for development must be signed by a warranted perit, who actually signs a declaration that he "shall undertake the direction and responsibility for the works referred to in the application according to Article 97 (o) of the Code of Police Laws (Chapter 10)".

This undertaking is not simply a matter of ensuring responsibility in the case of negligence - criminal or otherwise. It goes far more than that. The perit is responsible for the structural stability of a building for 16 years and, as case law has shown, proving that he did his utmost to ensure that all works were carried out according to accepted norms and the best practice does not exonerate him from responsibility of civil damages, which damages can also be recovered from the inheritors of his estate in cases where the perit dies before the 16-year period elapses.

Incidentally, the safety issue has been raised following the Xemxija mudslide incident that is now the subject of a ministerial inquiry. Without entering into the merits of this case, I cannot but express my disappointment that no one has commented on the foresight and competence of the - to me unknown - perit who some 40 years ago designed the reinforced platform carrying the building adjacent to the site so that it was anchored to the rock in such a way that the collapse of the underlying clay subsoil hardly affected its stability.

In Malta, we already have an established regime on safety in buildings and, before one starts suggesting ideas like including safety in MEPA's remit, one should understand what the actual situation is. There is, of course, a case for establishing codes of practice that serve as a guide to periti, who more often than not follow codes that are legally applicable or recommended in other countries, such as the UK. At present this is the responsibility of the Building Industry Consultative Council (BICC) and MEPA should not be involved in this.

I have now got used to people poking fun at me because I "gave birth to a monster". As I said, I don't regret what I did; although I did not agree with the Planning Authority being given another remit involving the environment, as happened when the Environment Protection Department (incidentally, another "creation" of mine with the connivance of Stanley Zammit) was incorporated in it, thus giving rise to MEPA.

At the time, I thought that this was not the ideal way to do things mainly because environmental considerations are but one aspect (among many) that should be inputted in the planning process and such an amalgamation would make the planning process lopsided. This was indirectly confirmed by MEPA's director-general, who recently wrote that "what does distinguish MEPA from some development planning agencies in Europe is the combination of functions and responsibilities in the areas of planning and environmental protection" (The Times, February 22).

The powers that be, however, decided that one head was not enough for an overgrown monster that had allegedly "taken over"' the country... and so the monster now has two heads. Insisting that this monster should have three heads instead of two is, in my opinion, an astounding case of uninformed people letting their lack of appreciation of the facts dupe them into becoming gluttons for punishment!

micfal@malanet.net