+
1
ON
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1975
HE ADDED THAT ON COMPLETION OF THE COURSE RUN BY THE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY CENTRE, A CERTIFICATE WOULD BE ISSUED AND THIS COULD BE REGARDED AS A CERTIFICATE OF PROFICIENCY.
ALTHOUGH HE AGREED WITH DR. CHUNG THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE SALE OR LETTING ON HIRE OF ABRASIVE WHEELS WHICH WERE NOT MARKED WITH THEIR MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE SPEEDS, THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR STRESSED THAT THIS WAS NOT AN OVERSIGHT.
+ANY SUCH PROVISION WOULD BE ULTRA VIRES THE FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ORDINANCE+, HE SAID, + BECAUSE IT HAS NO SECTION EQUIVALENT TO SECTION 17(3) OF THE U.K. FACTORIES ACT.+
HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS SECTION ENABLES THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE REGULATIONS PUTTING AN OBLIGATION ON ANYONE WHO SELLS OR LETS ON HIRE MACHINERY WHICH DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE U.K. ACT OR REGULATIONS AND WHICH IS FOR USE IN A FACTORY. MR. PRICE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH WIDE POWERS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE NARROW CONTEXT OF ABRASIVE WHEELS ONLY.
UNLIKE DR. CHUNG, THE COMMISSIONER SAW NO SPECIAL DIFFICULTY IN POLICING REGULATION 5 BECAUSE IT STATED CLEARLY THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF A PROPRIETOR TO SEE THAT NO UNMARKED WHEEL IS TAKEN INTO USE AFTER JANUARY 1, 1976. +TO DISCHARGE THAT DUTY, A PROPRIETOR MERELY HAS TO REFRAIN FROM BUYING UNMARKED WHEELS,+ HE ADDED.
/10
Page 10Page 11