Regulations promulgated in 2018 bar contractors from doing any work on a construction site unless a project supervisor has been appointed.

The legal notice burdens such supervisors with a long list of duties in order to ensure health and safety on the workplace. The regulations deem the role of project supervisors so crucial it affords them indemnity for any action they take, unless they are negligent.

The experience on the ground, however, appears to be far from what the regulations envisage to ensure at least the minimum health and safety standards.

In the eyes of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority’s chief executive officer, some project supervisors do not take their job seriously enough. However, George Steve Darmanin, president of the Malta Occupational Safety and Health Practitioners, has offered Times of Malta a somewhat different narrative. In a nutshell, what he says puts project supervisors between a rock – wanting to do their duty scrupulously – and a hard place – exposing themselves to prosecution or blacklisting if they do.

Project supervisors are at a disadvantage from the word go and this not only because of the very limited powers they have. They are engaged and paid by developers and contractors who could themselves end up being held responsible for any health and safety infraction. Which puts project supervisors in the very awkward situation of having to bite the hand that feeds them.

At best, they are ignored when they alert workers, contractors and developers to serious health and safety dangers. At worst, hostility can take various nasty forms.

What is surprising, going by what Darmanin has said, is the attitude of the health and safety watchdog when project supervisors report persistent dangerous practices. It is your duty to ensure safety and, thus, you could be prosecuted for the project’s failures, they are told by the regulator’s officials, according to him.

And it gets even worse. When safety shortcomings are identified during OHSA inspections, project supervisors are summoned to meetings and informed of their right to be accompanied by a lawyer, again according to Darmanin.

Anybody invited for a meeting and advised to take a lawyer with him would have a good idea of what lies in store, especially when dealing with a regulator.

The health and safety watchdog explains this by saying that, since its investigations can lead to criminal action, anybody it questions has the right to be cautioned, thus upholding the person’s fundamental rights.

Certainly, the law must be respected and human rights promoted. However, if a genuine effort is to be made to avoid further loss of life and limb, prevention must be a top priority, as much as it is to ensure that the law is observed. For that to happen, the authority and project supervisors, who, to a large extent, share the same ultimate aims, ought to operate as partners.

Indeed, project supervisors can even act as ‘agents’ for the regulator, if the law is amended to grant them more powers.

Alternatively, perhaps even preferably, it may be opportune to consider having project supervisors fall under the umbrella of the OHSA. This would entail developers and contractors paying an ‘administrative’ fee for health and safety oversight – not equipment or personal gear, which would remain the contractor’s responsibility – and then the regulator would itself assign a project supervisor from a register.

Enhancing cooperation and building a strong partnership between the health and safety watchdog and project supervisors could go a long way in saving lives and avoiding pain and anguish.