Many had long suspected that the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) was ineffective, at best. What has emerged so far from the Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry makes one wonder whether it is practically useless.
The law by which the regulator was set up more than two decades ago is very specific and straightforward with regard to its general duties: “The authority established by virtue of this Act shall be responsible for ensuring that the physical, psychological and social well-being of all workers in all workplaces are promoted and to ensure that they are safeguarded by whoever is so obliged to do.”
It is also bound by law “to see that the levels of occupational health and safety protection established by this Act and by regulations made under this Act are maintained”.
The sort of occupational health and safety watchdog the Sofia public inquiry board found itself dealing with is, however, very different.
The OHSA continues to strengthen public perceptions that it is shrugging off responsibility and only decides to act after the horse bolts
The outgoing chief executive officer, Mark Gauci, and chairperson, David Xuereb, could not even agree on details about the website and the number of inspectors. But that was perhaps a mere detail when reflecting on the reaction of all three members of the inquiry board to the replies they were given as to what the regulator is doing or not doing.
This especially in view of the magisterial inquiry’s findings with regard to the fatal collapse that killed young Sofia, which, among other things, flagged a number of health and safety failings.
Gauci told the public inquiry OHSA inspectors were not duty-bound to check sites where construction work was not in progress. He also noted that, even if inspectors did go on site, they lacked the competence to determine whether construction was being done properly or not.
The inquiry board members were astonished, no doubt reflecting the feeling of the rest of us. What is the point of having incompetent inspectors? Is their incompetence such they are also unable to spot a safety risk?
We also learnt that the OHSA only records and acts upon official reports made to the police or the social security department. Hence, there is no legal requirement to report near misses and/or dangerous accidents, which, of course, can – and usually are – indicative of inadequate safety measures or bad workmanship.
Gauci explains that such cases are often brought to light by members of the public or the media.
So, as rightly noted by the board chairman, the OHSA is reactive, rather than proactive – as, many would argue, the law demands – at times, if not often, relying on complaints it receives from the public and media reports.
Still, when, just days ago, footage emerged of a construction worker swinging perilously in a platform dangling from a crane high above Sliema, the OHSA continued to remain aloof. It would not comment on videos that were not sent directly to it, the regulator said in a statement.
And when glass sheets fell from a construction site in St Julian’s, it refused to comment, saying it does not share information about its investigations.
The OHSA refuses to learn its lesson even after an occupational fatality that shocked the country. It continues to strengthen public perceptions that it is shrugging off responsibility and only decides to act after the horse bolts.
Isabelle Bonnici, Sofia’s determined mother, has done much more for health and safety in the construction industry than the OHSA has achieved in its 20 years of existence.