SPEECH BY THE HON. ANTOINE MIFSUD BONNICI, PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY IN THE MINISTRY FOR SOCIAL POLICY, AT THE SUIGA CONFERENCE ON "CONFINED SPACE APPARATUS", AT THE WESTIN DRAGONARA RESORT, ST JULIANS - 29TH NOVEMBER, 2000

Mr. Critchfield

Mr. Agius

Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is a pleasure for me to be able to address this conference which has been organized at such an opportune time. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Social Policy has asked me to step in for him this morning due to the pressing business for which he was called to attend. It is however with pleasure that I address you this morning on an issue which has, not only been a national concern for the past few months, but which has also been the subject of voluminous work carried out within my Ministry in order to prepare and promote a new regulatory framework for work carried out in confined spaces.

The whole purview of occupational health and safety has been recently been zoomed upon by my administration upon the realization that this field has been left too wander unattended for a long period of time. In addition, ingrained perceptions about bad working habits have found their way into mainstream working environments creating an additional challenge which needs to be tackled on the level of persuasion and awareness raising.

Malta reactivation of its application for membership of the European Union in 1998 has been a further cause for this general overhaul. The National Plan for the Adoption of the Acquis necessitated the upgrading of both the legislative framework and the administrative capacity in order to implement and enforce all the relevant legislation.

These developments, although a sine qua non requisite for accession, also afford a greater degree of protection for workers than hitherto possible. This is not to say that Malta did not have its own legislative instruments. However, along the years, a laissez-faire attitude to implement the requirements of the law prevailed, mostly amongst employers. This was not the result of an uncaring attitude towards workers or their rights, but was more the result of the unfounded belief that ensuring health and safety costs dear money.

Slow was the realization however, that maintaining and ensuring a healthy and safe working environment is indeed a cause for company profitability since it boosts worker productivity and enhances efficiency levels. What is today being branded as corporate reputation is in fact the result of the benefits which have accrued from the introduction and upholding of proper health and safety regulations which have been enforced by employers and which has created added-value of investment and marketing opportunities to companies.

In transposing the various EU Directives, one has to keep in mind the fact that these Directives are not intended to cover all the aspects relating to OHS. With the exception of some highly technical ones, most of the directives only lay down the general principles required to be in place, and which would be applicable in most situations. For government, the final aim would be to get employers themselves as guardians and enforcers of these regulations. However, we do realize that at this particular point in time, government needs to act as a catalyst in order to bring about the required cultural change.

There will always be newly emerging risks to health and safety. The ever increasing body of knowledge on OHS matters, particularly owing to the research and development work being done on an international level and through international bodies such as the ILO, will always reveal problems where none were thought to exist before. Stress, musculo-skeletal disorders and substance abuse are examples of OHS related problems which have received increased attention in recent times, and have come to be recognized as problems which have an appreciable effect on industry, employers and workers.

Such situations shall necessitate added control by means of proper and relevant legal frameworks. The control of work in confined spaces has long been identified as one such area. Its significance increased in view of recent events which left a scar and which spurred us to accelerate the enactment process even though the Government is an entity, which will be affected more than any other in this respect.

With this intention in mind, the Workplace (Confined Spaces) Regulations came to be drafted. It has to be stressed that these are still draft regulations, since they are still being discussed by the Commission for the Promotion of Occupational Health and Safety. I must say however that work on them is at an advanced stage and preliminary assessments have indicated that the cost of compliance involved in implementing them is much lower than was expected.

These regulations shall establish new principles which up to date have not even considered by our existing legislation - the apportioning of duties to different persons having a distinct role to play in the control of confined spaces, that is the employer, the competent person, the supervisor and the worker. These regulations explicitly differentiate between all these and assigns to them different responsibilities.

These regulations also explain how these different responsibilities may be met. This is one important difference between this set of regulations and any other regulations issued under Act VII of 1994 or under the Factories Ordinance. Whereas almost all other regulations issued so far explain what the responsibilities are, they invariably fall short of informing the reader of how that could be achieved.

These regulations also emphasize the need to carry out a thorough risk assessment, before entry into a confined space may be permitted. A risk assessment needs to be systematic and methodical. Part of the assessment is not only to identify ‘what' but also ‘what if?' Thus we must assess the likelihood of an accident happening in each area and ensure that all potential or actual defects are identified and rectified.

The new regulations will also address the issue of ensuring an adequate worker-job fit. As a matter of fact it shall become the responsibility of an employer to ensure that workers who are not medically fit, or workers who have not received the adequate instruction and training, are not allowed to enter a confined space, or to carry out work therein.

These regulations will necessitate an thorough change in the way this sort of work is conducted. They assume competence. They assume knowledge and awareness of the potential risks to health and safety. They assume that only workers who have been adequately trained and suitably equipped are allowed to work.

The holding of this conference is in itself a further step in the right direction. It reassures government that there are corporate structure out-there who wish to join the band-wagon and promote safe working practices and provide information which no matter how much in abundance is never enough. We have already been on record as saying that we are adamant about our task. We want to upgrade our legislative and administrative capacity because we believe in the interest of the workers and such changes will guarantee a minimum of safety in order to protect worker's rights and responsibilities. One life lost on the workplace is one life too much!

To conclude I wish to laud the initiative taken by Suiga Company Limited. In organizing this conference Suiga has joined government in its task to provide more information and to raise awareness in the field of private protective equipment and their rightful use in confined workspaces. May I take this opportunity to thank Suiga and to encourage other similar companies to seize the opportunity and rise up to the challenge which our nation is enthusiastically pursuing.

Thank-you!