Safety at work

Joseph V. Grech's contribution (June 26) regarding safety on sites being developed could have had more impact had the arguments been less drenched in vitriol. In a nutshell, Mr Grech argues that Mepa's remit should include responsibility for site stability and soundness of construction.

A few points here will suffice to enlighten readers. Mepa's remit is found in the Development Planning Act. It is one which gives the authority responsibility for land use planning. The Environment Protection Act extends this remit in environmental matters. Neither Act was envisaged to give the authority the sort of omnipotence being suggested here. For Mr Grech is in fact suggesting that not only is "a safety clause" included in Mepa's remit but also that the authority is the guardian of third party rights.

This makes two components of society redundant.

The first is the architect. When Mr Grech says that third parties have died during development works gone wrong, he should research his material better and be more honest with his findings before putting pen to paper and pointing a finger at Mepa. It is the architect who in the eyes of the law is responsible for the safety of the construction works even for a number of years following completion of the development. This seems to be a fact known to Mr Grech as he refers to it by glossing over the possibility of negligence, abuse and infringements by a minority of architects. Mepa would say not even a minority are guilty of such negligence but simply isolated individuals.

Mr Grech should feel empowered that the law gives the citizen the right to proceed against a negligent architect; that our civil society supports strongly professional bodies such as the Chamber of Architects and that local councils and individuals may request police vigilance on a development site. It is, to say the least, unfair and unjust that such allegations are made and perpetuated.

The second component of society to be made redundant is the law courts. Third party rights are protected by an authority higher than Mepa. Is Mr Grech suggesting a devaluation of these rights? If, as Mr Grech says, there are factors which render solution in courts problematic, then the problem lies elsewhere not at Mepa.

Adding to Mepa's already onerous remit will not solve the problem for third parties, but rather aggravate it.

Finally, while appreciating all opinions, Mepa feels that nothing is gained by contributions that are not constructive in their outlook but rather seek to simply bash the establishment.