G.S. 84
RESTRICTED
XCR (80)260
2
The Aerial Ropeways (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1980
3
Apart from some minor improvements to the wording of the main Ordinance, the Bill has three main aims. The first is to provide proper controls over persons in the vicinity of a ropeway whose actions may affect its safe operation. To this end, clause 16 of the Bill inserts new sections 23A to 23 F into the Ordinance. The new provisions prohibit any conduct, including trespassing, which would be likely to endanger those using, operating, or being near the ropeway. The new provisions also enable employees of the owner who have been approved by the Director of Public Works to give directions, where safety is likely to be endangered, to persons on or about the ropeway and in certain cases to require a person to give his name and address and to arrest suspected offenders. The new provisions also require sufficient notices containing a summary of the above in English and Chinese to be prominently displayed at locations approved by the Director of Public Works. These provisions are considered necessary in order to enable the owner and operators of a ropeway to respond quickly to any acts which may endanger its safe operation: the alternative of rely- ing on police enforcement is not appropriate as this could incur lengthy delays while a police officer is sought and briefed on any offence. If it becomes necessary for a designated employee to arrest an offender, the employee will be required under the new provisions to take the person immediately to a police station or to place him in the custody of a police officer. Thus, a designated employee's powers will be effectively limited to giving directions to people who may endanger safety and, in certain cases, to arresting offenders and immediately handling them over to the police.
4
The second aim of the Bill is to introduce a clear definition of the owner of an aerial ropeway and to make him criminally liable if the ropeway is operated in a dangerous manner or if it is not kept in a safe condition (as distinct from the present requirement that the ropeway must be kept in a safe state of repair). (Clauses 3, 11 and 13).
5
Clause 18 amends section 28 of the Ordinance so as to enable regulations to be made imposing criminal liability on the owner for the acts of his employees where the owner cannot satisfy the court that he has taken all such precautions to prevent non-compliance with the regulations as the court considers reasonable in the circumstances. The present regulations vest responsibility for various aspects of operation and maintenance of a ropeway in different levels of personnel, as distinct from the owner. This may give rise to conflicts, for example, between controllers and operators of a ropeway whose interest lies in safety but who may be comparatively junior members of staff, and the owner or manager whose commercial interest lies in continuous operation. It is considered desirable, in line with the trend in other countries where ropeway systems are operated, to place the primary responsibility
RESTRICTED