New health and safety laws aim to bring about cultural change

The House of Commons on Monday began considering what the prime minister called “revolutionary and detailed” legislation to ensure “safe systems of work” are in place to minimise the risk of occupational accidents.

The bill was introduced by Robert Abela himself, who highlighted the consequences of workplace accidents on individuals, their families and society.

He said the purpose of the bill was to create a new, revolutionary legislative framework to minimize the likelihood of industrial accidents.

The responsibility for preventing occupational accidents is very broad. First, there is Parliament, whose job it is to make up-to-date legislation; second, there are employers and workers, who have various duties and responsibilities; and finally, there are clients of various projects.

He said it was a legislative network that would regulate and establish a safe system of work. As the Sofia Inquiry report said, the law cannot prevent any accidents in the workplace. But the risks need to be reduced as much as possible. It is necessary to ensure that there are no weak links in establishing a safe system of work.

Tight regulatory regimes do cause some inconveniences, but no sacrifice is greater than injuries and fatalities in the workplace.

This large and detailed legislation contains much that needs to be done, creating a revamped Occupational Health and Safety Authority with the appropriate facilities to ensure that the risk of accidents at work is reduced.

Abela said the bill was not a cosmetic change to previous laws, but a comprehensive review based on current realities.

OHSA will be restructured to make it more efficient and effective. Going forward, OHSA will be led by a Council who will set high standards and keep abreast of any legislative changes that are required given the changing nature of the workplace.

Human resources are being extensively improved to ensure that enforcement is greatly improved, with 30 staff members this year set to increase to 80 by the end of next year.

Various legal loopholes will be closed to ensure people cannot evade responsibility.

Stricter punishment is an effective deterrent

Abela said penalties would also be tougher so they act as an effective deterrent. He explained that in some cases, fines have not changed in 25 years and are not an effective deterrent. Sometimes it is more worthwhile to risk a fine than to introduce health and safety measures.

To date, fines under the Criminal Code have been €11,500 for the most serious cases and nearly €500 for administrative errors.

In future, the maximum penalty for a first offence under the criminal code will be €50,000 and up to two years in prison, with further penalties for repeat offences.

Administrative fines for administrative offences will be increased to a maximum of €20,000, with the right to appeal to a special court.

24-hour hotline for people to report abuse

We will also set up a 24-hour hotline for people to report any irregularities, particularly in the construction industry.

Abela stressed that Maltese and foreigners should enjoy the same protection and dignity. It is shameful that when a workplace accident occurs, the first thing people ask is whether the worker is Maltese or a foreigner.

He pointed out that the new law provides for the appointment of health and safety duty officers in high-risk areas. The authorities will formulate rules on how this concept will work. He said the health and safety duty officers will be at management level and will not replace the duties of health and safety officers.

Abela said that apart from physical injuries, the bill also provides for the mental health of workers.

Ultimately, he said, what is needed more than legislation is a cultural change. No matter how comprehensive the legislation, the authorities cannot be everywhere and at all times.

Abela said this is an important law that is in the interest of society and workers and is the result of lessons learned over the years. The bottom line is that it cannot be at the expense of workers’ health and safety.

A premature bill

Shadow chancellor Stanley Zammit followed up on the Prime Minister’s remarks, saying the country urgently needed a cultural change.

this The tragedy of Jean Paul Sophia The 1989 tragedy was one of several major shocks to the country. But not everyone was equally shocked. The government, for example, wasted eight months before agreeing to a public inquiry into the causes of the tragedy and the lessons learned from it. It eventually introduced the bill, but it was a premature move that the government now wants to rush through parliament.

Rushing a bill through parliament will not bring about a change in culture. This bill contains many compromises that will not help bring about a change in culture.

The country’s biggest problem is defining responsibilities. For example, the new law does not provide much-needed additional protection for project directors to eliminate the risk of them being fired for speaking out. Project directors can report to the HSRO, but this is not enough. The role of the HSRO is also unclear.

Under the act, workers have a duty to report situations they reasonably believe to be dangerous to their supervisors. But what happens if their employer doesn’t act?

If workers approach the authorities directly for help, will they be protected?

The Sofia Inquiry recommendations stressed that no half-measures should be taken and that responsibilities should be clearly delineated. But this has not happened.

Instead of strengthening the role of field technical officers, the law half-heartedly creates a new HSRO class, lacking detailed information on minimum qualification requirements and when and where HSROs will be appointed. Will they be appointed based on NACE classification, size of activity footprint, number of workers, turnover, risk assessment?

So what about smaller companies that engage in high-risk activities?

So are the government and its departments exempt?

Even the board of the authority is incomplete, with health and safety practitioners forgotten, and there are no safeguards against political interference.

Zammit welcomed the changes to penalties but said some clarification was needed.

For example, the bill lacks a classification of fines and penalties based on risk and severity.

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