The House of Representatives on Monday started to consider what the prime minister described as ‘revolutionary and detailed’ legislation to ensure that there was a ‘safe system of work’ that reduced the risks of occupational accidents as far as possible.

The bill was introduced by Robert Abela himself, who underlined the consequences on individuals, their families and society of accidents at the place of work.

The purpose of this bill, he said, was to create a new, revolutionary legislative framework so that the likelihood of industrial accidents was reduced as far as possible.

Responsibility for the prevention of occupational accidents was widespread. It started with parliament, whose duty it was to legislate up-to-date laws; employers and workers who had various duties and responsibilities as well as the clients of various projects.

This, he said, was a legislative network which would regulate and create a safe system of work. As the Sofia inquiry report had said, the law could not prevent any and every accident at the place of work. But the risks needed to be reduced as far as possible. It needed to be ensured that there was no weak link in creating a safe system of work.

True a tight regulatory regime could create some inconvenience, but no sacrifice was as serious as injuries or even deaths at the place of work.

Much of what needed to be done was contained in this voluminous and detailed piece of legislation, creating the revamped and suitably equipped Occupational Health and Safety Authority to ensure that work accident risks were reduced.

Abela said this bill was not a cosmetic change from the preceding law, but a comprehensive review based on current realities.

The OHSA would be restructured to make it more efficient and effective. It would henceforth be led by a Board of Governors which would set high standards and propose whatever legislative changes were needed from time to time as the nature of workplaces evolved.

Human resources were being extensively improved to ensure that law enforcement was greatly improved. The current workforce of 30 this year would grow to 80 by the end of next year.

Various legal loopholes would be plugged to ensure that people did not wriggle out of their responsibilities.

Harsher penalties for effective deterrence

Penalties would also be much harsher so that deterrence would be effective, Abela said. In some cases, he explained, fines had not changed for 25 years, such as there was no effective deterrent. Sometimes it was worth it to risk the fine rather than introduce health and safety measures.

The penalties to date were €11,500 for the most serious of cases under the Criminal Law, and just under €500 for administrative shortcomings.

Henceforth, the maximum penalty for the first breach of criminal law would be  €50,000 and up to two years imprisonment, with further penalties on repeat offences. 

Administrative fines for administrative wrongdoing would rise to a maximum of €20,000 with a right to appeal before a special tribunal.  

24-hour helpline for people to report abuse

A round-the-clock helpline would also be set up for people to report any irregularities, not least in the construction sector. 

The Occupational Health and Safety Authority will be revamped under the new legislation. (Shutterstock)

Abela stressed that Maltese and foreigners deserved equal protection and dignity. It was shameful that when there was an occupational accident, the first question that was invariably asked was whether the worker was Maltese or a foreigner.

He pointed out that the new law provided for the appointment of Health and Safety Responsible Officers in higher-risk areas. The authority would establish the rules on how this concept would work. The HSROs would be of managerial rank and would not supersede the role of the health and safety officers, he said.

Abela said that apart from physical injuries, the bill also provided for the psychological welfare of workers.

Concluding, he said that what was needed, even more than legislation, was a culture change. However comprehensive legislation was, ultimately the authorities could not be everywhere and at all times.

Abela said this was an important law in the interests of society and the workers and a consequence of lessons learnt over the years. The bottom line was that there could be no compromise with worker’s health and safety.

A half-baked bill

Shadow minister Stanley Zammit picked up where the prime minister left off, saying the country was crying out for a culture change.

The Jean Paul Sofia tragedy was one of several major shocks the country had suffered. But not everyone was shocked in the same manner. The government, for example, wasted eight months before consenting to the holding of a public inquiry into the causes of that tragedy and the lessons to be learnt from it. It finally produced this bill, but it was a half-baked exercise which the government now wanted to rush through Parliament.

A change of culture did not come with rushing bills through parliament. This bill featured several compromises which would not help bring a culture change.

The country’s biggest problem was defining responsibilities. For example, the new law did not provide much-needed additional protection to project supervisors to eliminate the risk of them being dismissed for speaking up. Project supervisors could report to HSROs, but this was not enough. The role of the HSRO was also vague.

Workers, according to the bill, had a duty to inform their superiors of any situations they reasonably believed to be dangerous. But what would happen if the employers did not act?

Would the workers be protected if they then went directly to the authority?

The Sofia inquiry recommendations stressed there should be no half measures and a clear delineation of responsibilities. But this was not happening.

Instead of strengthening the role of site technical officers, the law created a new level of HSRO, again in a half-hearted manner, lacking details on minimum qualifications and when and where an HSRO should be appointed. Would it be according to NACE classifications, activity footprint size, number of workers, turnover, risk assessment?

What of a small company with high-risk activities?

And would the government and its departments be exempt?

Even the composition of the authority’s board of governors was incomplete with practitioners in health and safety having been forgotten. And there were no safeguards from political interference.

Zammit welcomed the revision of penalties but some clarifications were needed, he said. 

The bill, for example, lacked classification of fines and penalties according to risk and seriousness.  

He said the authority also needed to have the means to monitor feedback and have the means to incentivise the much-needed culture change in the sector.