WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1982
11
FIRE SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL
***
A BILL WHICH SEEKS TO INCREASE THE PENALTIES THAT MAY BE MPOSED ON THOSE WHO IGNORE FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT NOTICES AND ORDERS WAS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WITH AN AMENDMENT TODAY.
THE AMENDMENT INVOLVED THE DELETION OF A CLAUSE WHICH EMPOWERED A MAGISTRATE, AFTER HEARING A COMPLAINT BY THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES, TO MAKE A CLOSING ORDER ON PREMISES WHERE A FIRE HAZARD HAD ARISEN.
SPEAKING AT THE RESUMED DEBATE ON THE FIRE SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL, MR S.L. CHEN, CONVENOR OF A GROUP OF UNOFFICIALS SET UP TO STUDY THE BILL, EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT IF THIS CLAUSE WERE ENACTED, IT COULD LEAD TO THE MISUSE OF SUCH AUTHORITY.
SAID MR CHEN: THIS CLOSING ORDER WHICH PROHIBITS SUCH USE OF PREMISES AS IS SPECIFIED IN THE ORDER, IS THE SEVEREST FORM OF FIRE HAZARD ORDER WHICH CAN BE IMPOSED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
+IT WAS, FURTHERMORE, APPARENT FROM THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WHERE THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES BELIEVES THAT, IN ORDER TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY, CLOSURE OF PREMISES FOR A PARTICULAR USE IS VITAL ON GROUNDS NOT COVERED BY THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, OTHER AVENUES OF ACTION ARE AVAILABLE TO HIM.+
HOWEVER, HE ADDED, SUBSECTION 9(6) OF THE PRINCIPAL ORDINANCE WHICH CURRENTLY LIMITS THE POWER TO ISSUE A CLOSING ORDER TO CERTAIN CLEARLY DEFINED CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD BE RETAINED.
MR CHEN ALSO MADE A PLEA ON BEHALF OF FACTORY OWNERS AND OPERATORS THAT THE GOVERNMENT, WHEN PROPOSING REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE SEVERAL ORDINANCES WHICH AFFECT INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES, SHOULD HAVE SOME REGARD FOR THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF SUCH REQUIREMENTS.
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY, THE HON LEWIS DAVIES, AGREED TO DELETE THE CLAUSE FOR THE TIME BEING AND SAID THE SITUATION WOULD BE MONITORED IN THE LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE HIGHER LEVEL OF FINES.
HE ADDED HOWEVER, THAT IF FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOW THAT SOME CHANGES TO THIS PROVISION ARE NEEDED, +WE SHALL HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS IN THE LIGHT OF THE SITUATION THEN OBTAINING.+
HE EXPLAINED THAT THE CLAUSE HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN PUT IN BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CONSIDERED THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY THERE WAS A CASE FOR EXTENDING THE RESTRICTION SO THAT IN CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF A CLOSING ORDER, A MAGISTRATE WOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO THE STRUCTURAL CHARACTER OR THE LOCATION OF THE PREMISES ALONE.
/12