XN000022-1986-06-27 — Page 9

8

FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 1986

+A SIMILAR, ALTHOUGH NOT SO FREQUENT OCCURRENCE, WHICH IS VERY DANGEROUS. CONCERNS THE TYPE OF LOCKING DEVICE USED ON THE ENTRANCE OR EXIT DOORS OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY BUILDINGS, AM NOT REFERRING TO DOORS TO PRIVATE FLATS OR PRIVATE HOUSES, BUT TO DOORS AT THE REAR ENTRANCES TO BUILDINGS WHICH LEAD TO OPEN AIR,

+SOMETIMES THESE DOORS OR GATES ARE SECURED BY PADLOCKS AND CHAINS OR BY OTHER DEVICES WHICH PREVENT THEM FROM BEING OPENED BOTH FROM THE INSIDE AS WELL AS THE OUTSIDE.

+ IT IS QUITE ALL RIGHT TO LOCK SUCH DOORS OR GATES TO PREVENT UNAUTHORISED PEOPLE FROM ENTERING THE BUILDING BUT THE DOOR OR GATE MUST BE EASILY OPENED FROM INSIDE WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY, HE SA ID.

MR LAM SAID THAT FOLLOWING SUITABLE PUBLICITY, TOGETHER WITH A GRACE PERIOD BEFORE THE AMENDMENTS TOOK EFFECT, ANYONE WHO OBSTRUCTED THE MEANS OF ESCAPE WOULD BE TAKEN TO COURT FOR AN OFFENCE.

+THIS. IS EXTENDED TO ANY PERSON WHO IS AN OWNER, OCCUPIER, TENANT OR PERSON IN CHARGE WHO, WHILE NOT NECESSARILY BEING THE PERPETRATOR OF THE OFFENCE, PERMITTED THE OFFENCE TO HAPPEN OR CONTINUE, HE SAID.

THE FIRE SERVICES WOULD HAVE POWERS TO OBTAIN DETAILS OF

FAILURE IDENTITY OF PEOPLE CONSIDERED RESPONSIBLE FOR A HAZARD. TO COMPLY WOULD BE AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE ON CONVICTION BY A FINE OF $5 000, HE ADDED.

THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE ISSUE OF A REMOVAL ORDER FROM THE COURT SHOULD ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF THE DIRECT OFFENCE STILL HAVE OBSTRUCTIONS REMAINING IN POSITION. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WOULD ATTRACT FURTHER PENALTIES.

TURNING TO THE FHAN AGAIN, MR LAM POINTED OUT THAT THE MAJOR WEAKNESS IN EXISTING LEGISLATION WAS THAT A PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR A FIRE HAZARD MIGHT COMPLY WITH A FHAN SERVED ON IT BUT MIGHT ALLOW THE SAME HAZARD TO RECUR. WHEN THE PERSON DID SO, THE PROCEDURE INVOLVING THE SERVING OF A FHAN AND SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION TO ENSURE THE LEGAL NOTICE HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH, HAD TO BE REPEATED.

THEREFORE, HE SAID, THE BILL PROPOSES THAT A PERSON WHO COMPLIED WITH A FHAN, BUT WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF BEING SERVED ALLOWED THE HAZARD TO RECUR, SHOULD BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE.

THE PENALTY WOULD BE THE SAME AS THAT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF A FHAN.

THERE IS ALSO A PROPOSAL TO SIMPLIFY EXISTING PROCEDURES FOR THE COURT TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO GET RID OF A HAZARD FOLLOWING CONVICTION FOR FHAN OFFENCE.

/MR LAM