Control of construction hazards
Construction is one of Europe’s largest industries, with an annual turnover of around €1,000 billion. It is also one of the most dangerous. It is estimated that construction workers are three times more likely to be killed and twice as likely to be injured as workers in other occupations. Paradoxically, construction is also very heavily regulated.
Many accidents in the construction industry are due to bad planning, lack of organisation and poor co-ordination on construction sites – the Work Place (Minimum Health and Safety Requirements for Work at Construction Sites) Regulations of 2004 have as an over-riding objective the fostering of improvements in working conditions.
The principle is to prevent risks by establishing a chain of responsibility linking all the parties involved, so that the responsibilities for occupational health and safety are shared among the client who procures the construction project, the project supervisors, the contractors, including subcontractors, and their workers and the project supervisors.
OHS legislation refers to only some of the duty holders, since other regulations in force (not issued under the OHS Authority Act, 2000) assign additional, specific and often complementary responsibilities.
However, the model adopted in the case of the health and safety in construction regulations, whereby a linkage between the different parties is required to be established, is not followed on a macro level between the different sets of regulations.
This well-developed legislative framework remains fragmented, and the different sets of regulations are enforced independently of each other – planning, protection of the environment, nuisance abatement, public health, control of vehicular traffic and pedestrian routes, as well as the safety and solidity of the building being constructed and the safeguard of third party civil rights. For this reason, the Occupational Health and Safety Authority has for a long time been advocating a holistic approach.
It has been recommending that the process for the issue of development permits is linked with requirements arising out of other legislation in force.
This would mean in essence that no permit to build is issued unless the client can demonstrate that project supervisor/s for the design stage and for the construction stage have been appointed, that a health and safety plan has been drawn up by the project supervisor (setting out the rules and specific measures applicable to the construction site concerned), and that a file, appropriate to the characteristics of the project, and containing all relevant health and safety information, is prepared.
The current piecemeal approach towards the control of building and construction activities perpetrates a fragmented process which involves different entities, operating independently of each other, while at the same time increasing the administrative burdens on these entities and the bureaucratic burdens on clients and operators in the field. In view of the widespread hazards and risks, the construction industry remains a focus of attention for the OHS Authority.
Apart from the periodical proactive campaigns which it organises, OHS officers regularly visit construction sites and take appropriate action. But it should be realised that OHSA is not the only one to have an interest in the matter.
Reference has already been made to the various regulatory entities which have a direct role, prompting the suggestion that a more holistic legislative approach needs to be adopted. There are other stakeholders, which although not necessarily assigned a statutory enforcement role, need to be closely involved in the whole process.
A case in point is here being made for a greater role to be assumed by local councils. Way back in 2005, OHSA had written to all local councils in Malta to suggest a more active role.
As has already been mentioned, Legal Notice 281/2004 requires a file to be prepared and kept, which file shall contain all relevant information on matters that can affect health and safety.
In writing to the local councils, it was suggested that before the council issues any permit, be it for road closure or to set up a crane, the council requests to see the file, the prior notification form and its acknowledgement by OHSA, taking note of the project supervisor for the execution phase (the latter would be contacted by the council if need be after the commencement of works).
Should the council not be satisfied that commonly encountered grievances are not going to be met (such as provisions for pedestrian or passer-by safety, base solidity in respect of cranes, etc), then the permit is withheld.
Such an approach would help reduce the incidence of nuisance complaints from neighbours, whilst ensuring the safety of third parties.
Dr Gauci is CEO of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority.
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mr Mike Rizzo
Feb 9th, 13:04
Withou taking anything away from the safety of workers, even more needs to be done to protect the safety and rights of residents in apartment blocks where works (penthouses anyone?) are taking place. How can it be right for construction workers to be lifting heavy tools and materials over the heads of people walking in and out of their apartment block? Unfortunately safety costs money, and the people funding the project often don't want to pay for it. We need to see state protection in place to ensure that adequate scaffolding and appropriate protection measures are in place, and that residents are adequately compensated for the inconvenience, especially if they are required to move out of their property for some of the time.
m. borg (slm)
Feb 8th, 17:12
While a lot of jobs have been created in security guards that are not needed very little have been created in the Health and Safety sector.
.
At Mater Dei you easily find 4 to 8 security guards at one point eg entrance where the pharmacy is but you hardly have an H&S officer at a building site. The few there are are stretched to the limits.
John Dee
Feb 7th, 15:36
The proposed "permit to build " sounds an excellent idea, but it needs to be backed by supervision with teeth if it is to be effective. Managers at all levels must rule with a firm hand, dismissing anyone who falls below the expected standards, with support from the legal system.
If lives are lost due to failure to implement the Regulations, then heads must roll !
Had any serious accidents occurred on sites which I controlled in the UK then I would have gone to court, and possibly to jail. Can you see that happening here? Neither can I.
Has no-one ever heard of the term "duty of care"? If so - do they understand what it means?
Peter Murray
Feb 7th, 14:40
The responsibilities laid down in the OHS ACT OF 200(XXVII) are clear and concise in respect of the tasks allotted to the OHS Authoruty alone -most of which are not enacted nor enforced .What are these other regulations in force,undisclosed, assigned to other duty-holders,who are unnamed,. that Mr Gauci directs our attention too and claim exist?According to the CEO the OHSA "has been advocating a holistic approach for a long time"Really!What is the result of all this "advocating " and what has actually been achieved or implemented as a consequence of this "holistic approach" or the many"recommendations" made by the OHSA one wonders?It should be realised that ONLY the OHSA is SOLELY responsible to ensure that the legislation related to health and safety requirements at the workplace are ensured,maintained and enforced a fact Mr.Gauci studiously omits to mention.What has happened since the OHSA wrote to Local Councils with "suggestions"back in 2005?There are a great many more responsibilities and duties of obligation required to be enforced and ensured compliance thereof with SOLELY by the OHSA-especially regarding statutory safety requirements ,inspections and maintenance records which inexplicably were not mentioned by Mr .Gauci ,whose sense of purpose appears to be concentrated on deflecting and sharing the OHSA's responsibilities with other undisclosed stakeholders .Anyone and everyone at teh workplace has a duty of reponsibility to safety .employers and employees alike.yet ONLY the OHSA alone is tasked with ensuring that this onerous burden is maintained and enforced and that such a responsible commitment is enshrined in a legal act.Which, strangely enough ,was also omitted being mentioned.
David Smith
Feb 7th, 15:52
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing Mr. Murray. Your lack of understanding of maltese legislation is ample proof of this.
And it seems that you cannot read properly either.
Peter Murray
Feb 8th, 10:31
Dear Mr.Smith ,
What is more dangerous than a little knowledge is a big assumption and making accusatiions without any justifciation or explanation..But I will bow to your obvious superior ,albeit self-proclaimed,knowledge of legislation and reading(but not grammar) .If you wish we may compare qualifciatiions and experience in the field of Health and Safety any time you wish -providing of course I upgrade my reading and Maltese(N.B. capital M) legislation understanding with regard to capabilities and abilities.Thanks for your erudite input,sir .