Déjà vu seems to occur too regularly here. As I was wondering what to write about, I could not believe it when I saw that yet another crane had toppled over. I wrote this on May 23, 2003. And here I am having the very same thoughts in April 2007, as I look at Friday's Times front page.

I have written so much about the lack of health and safety at the workplace (HASAW), especially in the construction sector and particularly crane accidents, that I have amassed a sizable file on the topic. I mean, how many cranes have toppled over in the last decade?

Let's go back 11 years to 1996. Perusing the relevant file, I came across a statement by the Chamber of Professional Engineers in December 1996, after yet another series of accidents on building sites. The Chamber had expressed alarm at the "recent increase of fatal accidents at work, especially on building sites". Four tower cranes had collapsed and crashed in 1996 on building sites.

"These alarming facts point towards urgent technical action to prevent any further tragic accidents", the statement had said. At that time the Chamber had specified that employers were not obliged to hand in a certificate of compliance with health and safety regulations and that tower cranes being assembled on site "are never tested".

Are they now? Are any cranes tested? Was the last crane to topple over on Thursday tested? Because that is what brought me back to this well-worn topic. In January 1997, the Chamber had issued another statement calling for "equipment certification and personnel training" saying that these would definitely help reduce the amount of accidents, and warned about the importation of sub-standard equipment. Is equipment certified today and are personnel trained? And what about the importation of sub-standard equipment?

In February 1997, the Chamber wrote: "It is with grief that we note the latest crane accident on February 18 where a crane with two workers toppled, leaving one dead and another seriously injured." The Chamber again pressed for proper regulations and inspection procedures for cranes. It further called for the introduction of "a licence for crane operators, crane mechanics, crane slingers and persons to direct crane operations. Even the best crane if used improperly can result in a tragic accident."

So are these people licensed and trained now? Or had all these warnings fallen on deaf ears? Well, you are probably thinking, "Surely things must have improved since then". Apparently not, because only last February, 10 years later, writing in this paper, Chris Hudson, consultant to the Institute of Health and Safety in Msida, had this to say in an article entitled "Is the construction industry missing a trick?":

"The industry is populated by a great many different types of workers; directly employed staff, contractors and sub-contractors, and casual staff brought in to fill specific needs.

"The degree of control exercised over these people varies with the terms on which they are working, and with the management of individual sites and projects. Their competence is seldom really tested before they are engaged, and in terms of health and safety, their awareness also varies a great deal with individuals' previous experience and training. These issues almost certainly have a bearing on performance in the construction industry, with competence, control and accountability emerging as central themes."

But let me get back to my déjà vu column in 2003. I had mentioned that we seem to have had such accidents - cranes toppling over or running amok - too frequently and despite seminars organised by the HASAW authority nothing seems to be working to stop them. I had also said that because no one had got hurt in that accident, I was bored with the monotony of repeating myself.

After all, I had a couple of weeks earlier written about "a 'high up' crane, which ran amok in Ganni Bencini Street in Sliema". It only took a week to rekindle my interest on May 30, I wrote: "I don't believe it! Last week I started my column referring to yet another crane accident as déjà vu. Then in Friday's (May 28, 2003) papers we were regaled with pictures of yet another crane 'crash'.

"If it were not that these accidents are no laughing matter, one could fill several pages with cranes falling all over the place with a caption like 'Drunk again!' I am in no way implying that the drivers of the cranes were drunk. This, like the Yorkie ad, is a joke." (The Yorkie advert had caused much controversy at the time, because it said it was "for men only", and the Equal Ops women had wasted valuable time arguing that it was offensive to women, when they had more serious issues to tackle).

But, seriously, it is so obvious that the people who are operating the cranes are not trained or experienced in handling such complex machinery. If ever you have some time to spare and want a laugh, stop and watch some crane operators and their fellow builders at work, their machines might be sophisticated, but believe me their operatives are not. Now although I have been snotty about the operatives, it is also very much in their interest that they get the proper training and are provided with safety procedures. After all some of them get injured and even killed. Besides, they are also laying themselves open to being sued for damages, unless they are covered by a proper contract and insurance.

Also in May 2003 at the annual Employers Association Conference, where the same rhetoric on health and safety is regurgitated year in year out, Michael Cassar from HSBC had made the interesting point that considering the 'safety' record within the construction industry the absence of any of their representatives was glaring. He said that no records of incidents or "near misses" existed.

When I had asked whether any legislation was in place, which makes the failure to report accidents a serious offence liable to a substantial fine, Dr Mark Gauci, chief executive officer of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, had said that the law was rather vague on the issue. But surely, in that case, it was up to the authority to lobby for the vagueness to be clarified and made specific.

In an interview a little later, Dr Gauci had called on the judiciary to give health and safety issues greater importance: "It is incongruous that a driver who injures somebody in a traffic accident is fined heavily, while an employer who does not take the necessary H&S precautions is only fined Lm200 after an occupational accident."

My question today, in 2007, is this: has legislation been clarified and made specific with regard to the 'vagueness' referred to by Dr Gauci in 2003, or is it still unclear? Because the judiciary can interpret the law any way they like if legislation is unclear and vague. Besides, it is not only the employees injured in such accidents who need redress, but also the residents involved in such accidents, some are still trailing through the courts waiting for justice.

In a report by George Cini in The Times on October 1, 2003, the Chamber of Engineers called for "more accurate and focused legislation on the use of tower and mobile cranes". Alexander Tranter, its president at the time, said that there is still no certification requirement for persons operating cranes.

Although cranes now have to be certified by a competent person, "the certification process is not yet defined so it can be skewed by the subjective orientation of the engineer drawing it up", Mr Tranter said. Although the OHSA looks after this certification, there is nothing that regulates how cranes are used.

There is no law requiring certification about how a crane should be correctly mounted and dismounted. However, the machinery directive of the Malta Standards Authority, which ensures that cranes conform to EU standards has recently been introduced, Mr Tranter said, adding: "Legislation in place today dealing with cranes is outdated".

Is legislation still outdated and vague four years later? Have things changed at all in the construction industry? I think not. But don't take my word for it. Here are some more quotes from Mr Hudson's article, last February, mentioned earlier. "The industry's image is also quite poor. Many people regard those working in construction as being a law unto themselves; a group that has little or no concern for the disruption that they cause to people living close to their sites; pavements cracked and broken by construction vehicles, damaged road surfaces, cranes blocking walkways forcing pedestrians to walk in the road, debris strewn throughout the area, dust, noise - the list goes on."

You see, I am not alone in harping on these deficiencies.

phansen@timesofmalta.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.