TNAG-1449-FCO40-1953-Minutes-and-Hansards-of-the-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 9

Sir,

UMELCO

Translation

DRAFT SPEECH BY HON JACKIE CHAN CHAI-KEUNG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

-

30.7.86

Fire Services (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1986

As the old saying goes that it is never too late to mend, I consider the proposed amendments to the law on the obstruction of means of escape a remedial measure to plug the loophole of the law and a preventive one so that fire fighting operations could be facilitated in future to minimize possible losses. As you, Sir, pointed out in your policy address last year that because of the way in which fire-fighting is frequently hampered by goods and other obstacles stacked in common areas of buildings, substantial human and financial losses are suffered as a result of fire.

In fact, one of the

reasons why the fire in 1984 at the Blue Box Factory Building in Aberdeen took three days to extinguish is that the access to the scene was blocked and fire-fighting work was thus hampered. In view of past experiences, the proposed amendments

For this are introduced to avoid repeating the same mistakes. reason, I support them.

There are many loopholes in the law on the

obstruction of fire escape routes.

Those who are connected

with the offence are firstly warned by the issue of a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice requiring them to comply with it within a certain period. They are only deemed to have contravened the provisions of the law when they fail to comply with the Fire Hazard Abatement Notice and they would not be prosecuted immediately. Under such circumstances, those who are selfish and lack public spirit would take advantage of the loopholes and store goods and various objects along fire escape routes. When they receive the Fire Hazard Abatement Notice, they would Once inspection is carried out, clear the way for inspection.

They do not mind receiving the they put things back again.

Notice and being warned time and again because they know that

UMELC