XN000022-1976-05-26 — Page 12

- 11

TINA CV,

* THE PROHIBITION OF A GOODS LIFT BEING USED TO CARRY

PASSENGERS,

MR. HENDERSON SAID THESE REGULATIONS WILL COME INTO FORCE ON A DATE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR LATER TO ALLOW TIME FOR OWNERS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.

SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION, DR. THE HON. CHUNG SZE-YUEN PROPOSED TO AMEND ONE PARTICULAR REGULATION WHICH REQUIRES THESE GOODS LIFTS TO BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY A COMPETENT PERSON AT LEAST ONCE EVERY SIX MONTHS.

POINTING OUT THAT EVEN PASSENGER LIFTS AND POTENTIALLY MORE DANGEROUS MACHINE LIKE STEAM BOILERS WOULD NOT NEED SUCH HIGH FREQUENCY OF EXAMINATION, HE FELT THAT PERIODIC EXAMINATIONS FOR GOODS LIFTS SHOULD ONLY BE NECESSARY ONCE IN EVERY 18 MONTHS.

IN REPLY, MR. HENDERSON SAID HE TOOK THE POINTS MADE BY DR. CHUNG IN RELATION TO OTHER EXAMINATIONS, AND HE WOULD ACCEPT THAT THE EXAMINATION PERIOD SHOULD PARALLEL BUT NOT EXCEED THAT FOR PASSENGER LIFTS,

HE SAID HE WOULD PROPOSE TO AMEND THIS PERIOD FROM SIX TO 12 MONTHS.

HOWEVER, HE STRESSED THAT THE SUCCESS OF THESE REGULATIONS WOULD DEPEND ON GOODS LIFTS OWNERS SCRUPULOUSLY CARRYING OUT THEIR GENERAL DUTY OF PROPER MAINTENANCE UNDER REGULATION 4(B).

+ IF ON EXPERIENCE OF THE WORKING OF THE REGULATIONS IT IS FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT BEING CARRIED OUT MIGHT HAVE TO SEEK TO REINSTATE A SHORTER EXAMINATION PERIOD, AT SOME LATER DATE,+ HE WARNED.

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON NEON SIGNS ******

THE GOVERNMENT IS HOLDING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE URBAN COUNCIL FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW LEGISLATION AND BETTER ARRANGEMENTS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE GREATER CONTROL OF BOTH THE SAFETY AND AMENITY ASPECTS OF NEON SIGNS.

THE SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, THE HON, JAMES ROBSON, TOLD THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL THIS TODAY IN REPLY TO A QUESTION BY THE HON. HILTON CHEONG-LEEN ABOUT GOVERNMENT'S PRESENT POLICY AND FUTURE PLANS ON NEON SIGNS.

AT PRESENT, HE SAID, THE CONTROL OF ALL ADVERTISING SIGNS WAS EXERCISED THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND URBAN SERVICES ORDINANCE AND IN THE URBAN AREAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ORDINANCE WAS THE URBAN COUNCIL.

MR ROBSON POINTED OUT THAT SKY SIGNS, OCCULTING SIGNS AND WATER-BORNE ADVERTISEMENTS COULD BE STRICTLY CONTROLLED BUT +LITTLE CONTROL HAS BEEN EXERCISED OVER OTHER ADVERTISING SIGNS.+

THIS WAS BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE DEALT MAINLY WITH THE AESTHETIC EFFECTS WHICH WERE DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH AND DID NOT MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR AVOIDING THE ERECTION OF DANGEROUS SIGNS, HE ADDED.