Mepa ought to know: better safe than sorry

A protest was sent to Franco Frattini, the European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, with regard to Mepa's declared unaccountability when it comes to safety considerations (February 3). This gives rise to a very worrying situation considering that no other body exists to oversee what should be a priority in development works (the Occupational Health and Safety Authority [OHSA] being only responsible for the safety of on-site workmen).

Maltese/EU citizens are thus facing a dangerous situation which, in turn, is also seriously infringing our fundamental human rights.

A similar protest as that sent to Mr Frattini was lodged with the European Parliament.

People's homes are negatively affected - at times rendered uninhabitable - as a result of questionable permits issued by Mepa (without carrying out site inspections). Third parties have died during development works gone wrong. For different reasons few people will be willing to file a costly and time-consuming court case to seek protection even when building works proves to be a clear and present danger. The Xemxija "mudslide" (sic) disgrace and near-fatality - and the inquiry report that followed it (made available only in Maltese at www.doi.gov.mt) - highlight the unpleasantness of the present situation.

People clamour that Mepa, "the dangerous and inefficient beast", needs to be exhaustively restructured. Pity that the inquiring board was restricted by the terms of reference it was given - this being, in my opinion, a direct result of Mepa's dangerous and, from a legal viewpoint, very questionable remit!

No reference was made to "safety" aspects anywhere in the Xemxija report - the board could hardly assign responsibility where accountability doesn't even exist! The word safety is non-existent in Mepa's remit! People hard hit by Mepa, perhaps even facing a physical danger, will need to go to the courts to seek redress and, as things stand, they will probably not be able to sue Mepa in any way even if their kith and kin are killed! Hardly fair.

Mepa will not intervene even when third parties point out to it real hazards, possibly following negligence, abuse and infringements by (admittedly) a minority of architects and contractors.

Mepa's remit is a bad joke; it invites inefficiency, abuse, tragic incidents, citizen disillusionment. It keeps getting erring officials off the hook!

Cosmetic change at Mepa will achieve nothing. One needs to address the root of the problem. Add a safety clause to Mepa's remit if you want people to take you seriously, dear minister! Do the Department of Civil Protection, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice feel comfortable knowing that people's lives are daily being endangered as a result of the situation we are in? When will the Cabinet voice its concern? And what about the opposition?

Malta's "weak" are powerless in trying to safeguard their rights. If threatened or hard hit by Mepa permits and ineffective "enforcement notices", people will accept the worst rather than seek costly redress in the courts. Shamefully, even the Planning Appeals Board is reluctant to go into safety matters pointed out to it by third parties! Environment Minister George Pullicino advises: "Take your case to the courts!" Is that kind of solution a just one, I ask the Minister of Justice and the opposition spokesman for the same portfolio.

Mepa's chairman and directors keep shrugging all responsibility for safety aspects in their work. The horrendous remit of Mepa screens them from any accountability. Whoever bothers with ethics nowadays? The Joseph Falzons of this world do not come that numerous. Citizens question how permits and enforcement notices can be issued effectively if Mepa is unconcerned with safety in its work. Why does a regulatory body not exist to oversee this priority? Mr Pullicino will protest that it is the law courts that do that! Unfortunately, there are factors which render that "solution" problematic, although it looks satisfactory on paper. Not to mention that it is not a just one either. Meanwhile, the danger persists - tragic events speak out louder than the minister's blind assertions.

It is simply not enough to heap responsibility on the applicant, the architect and the contractor when things go tragically wrong. Mepa too must shoulder its own chunk of the responsibility. And now is the time to do that! Mr Pullicino needs to correct Michael Falzon's worst blunder - that of leaving the latter's "creation" (Mepa) unaccountable for people's safety.

The National Commission for Sustainable Development too needs to address this problem. How can Mr Pullicino guarantee sustainability tomorrow if responsibility doesn't exist today? The commission needs to tell the minister that the horrid lack of accountability for human safety that exists today at Mepa defeats the interests of true sustainability. The commission has the duty to address this problem in the final sustainability document.

Mepa has been declared as responsible for what happened at Xemxija. Elsewhere people have died. Providing for heftier fines for development abuses won't get us anywhere. We need to ensure safety for citizens at ground zero - by revising that infamous Mepa remit and modernising obsolete laws and building regulations. Presently outdated civil laws are misinterpreted and possibly abused. (Civil Code, chapter 16, article 414 especially comes to mind here as its widespread abuse has been instrumental in the havoc caused to people's homes behind the Sliema front, in village cores and other places with consequent effects on people's health.) Can Mepa be entrusted to issue permits for high-rise buildings if it remains unaccountable for safety?

EU top officials too have the duty to ensure that the present unpleasant situation in Malta is addressed seriously. For this no longer remains a question of building regulations - it has become a matter of safety, human rights and justice for us Maltese. We should not be denied the safety safeguards to which we are entitled. Only then will the EU really start making a difference.

Anybody sanctioning Mepa's declared unconcern for safety - or just looking the other way - will be considered morally responsible should things continue going so dreadfully wrong.