Yes indeed, how safe are we?

Pamela Hansen in her column "How safe are we? (The Sunday Times, October 15) writes about what should be a major concern the authorities seem reluctant to address: ensuring that in European Malta there are effective strategies and regulatory bodies (as in other countries) to protect the public's health and safety. I would like to take this up, especially in matters dealing with safety for third parties in development permits and subsequent works.

Following the horrendous declaration (The Times, February 3) that "MEPA does not have the legal remit nor the responsibility to assess or verify the safety of any development being carried out, whether such development has been authorised by MEPA or not", I wrote a number of articles, not as Sylvana Debono, MEPA PRO, said "to simply bash the establishment" (The Times, June 29) but to bring the dangerous situation to the notice of "the powers that be" for possible correction.

Unfortunately the situation remains the same - with the accompanying occasional dangers and abuse that we citizens have to put up with.

George Pullicino, the minister responsible for MEPA, seems inclined to believe that the rights of third parties (even in matters concerning safety) are adequately covered by the Civil Code but it is generally acknowledged that there are factors which make the situation problematic although it looks satisfactory on paper.

When I wrote "Safety and MEPA don't mix" (The Times, February 16) MEPA's director-general replied with "Functions and responsibilities" (The Times, February 22). Dr Cassar was responsible enough to conclude: "None of this negates Mr Grech's main point that development should take place in a way that does not endanger the health or safety of people, or the safety of their property."

But exactly which body (apart from the courts) exists locally to ensure that this is done? For we all know that unfortunately the director-general's admonition is not always the case! Sadly, nobody at MEPA or the ministry has lifted a finger to address the situation - they seem to believe that it's enough to heap all responsibility onto the architect!

What the general public probably does not know (but which the top brass at MEPA and the ministry must certainly do) is that MEPA's "remit" - the Developing Planning Act declares in Article 39A that "The authority may only in the case of fraud or where public safety is concerned or where there is an error on the face of the record, by order revoke or modify any development permission granted under this Act..." Article 39A should serve to show that the contention that MEPA "does not have the legal remit nor responsibility to assess or verify the safety of any development..." is just irresponsible passing of the buck!

And unfortunately the authorities (on both sides of the House) seem to prefer to look the other way - at serious risk to innocent people.

Realising that correspondence would lead nowhere I decided to set the ball rolling by protesting with the European Commission about the present situation and requested that the Commission "examine the situation to consider whether citizen rights as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights were being ignored and transgressed with impunity in Malta at least as far as MEPA's present remit goes". I did this when we Maltese were exhorted by Commissioner Margaret Wallstrom to speak out because "Europe is listening" (The Times, April 3). For good measure I also objected with the European Parliament.

On June 15, Alain Brun from the Directorate General of Justice, Freedom and Security of the EU in Brussels responded. After thanking me "for drawing the European Commission's attention to the situation in Malta" he stated that they "had examined very carefully the Development Planning Act of 1992 as well as (my) letter".

Mr Brun continued: "I am afraid, however that the European Commission is not competent to take measures in this matter... the Commission has no general competence to intervene in favour of EU citizens' fundamental rights. The Commission's competences can only be exercised where European Union law is at stake. The Development Planning Act is national Maltese law and does not seem to provide any link to Community law. For this reason your case should be resolved by the competent national authorities."

Further Mr Brun wrote: "I would remind you, however, that after exhaustion of all domestic remedies, if you still consider that your fundamental rights have been violated, you have the possibility of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights for redress."

On October 11, in answer to Petition No. 0304/2006, Marcin Libicki, chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Petitions, thanked me for submitting my petition which "was examined in order to assess whether the issue falls clearly within the fields of activities of the European Union for which (they) were competent. Unfortunately that was not the case."

Mr Libicki was "therefore obliged to file (my) request without being able to take matters any further, pursuant to Article 191 of the Rule of Procedure." He then concluded: "I am aware of your discussions with the head of my secretariat during our visit to Valletta. However, I must confirm that though we recognise the problem, this is something that can only be resolved by the Maltese authorities. You may, therefore, choose to refer the matter to the Maltese Ombudsman..."

So there we are, dear fellow Maltese: the situation can only be addressed by the local authorities. I sincerely hope that an effort will be made to correct the dismal local status quo as far as safety for citizens goes (especially in matters concerning development permits and subsequent works as affecting third parties).

The country's top establishment has the duty to ensure that MEPA understands that it bears at least a measure of responsibility for the public's safety in its work and it should be made to act accordingly. Should such a line of action prove impossible Government must of necessity appoint a new regulatory body to oversee this important aspect. But it is wrong to leave the situation as it is.