Legislative Council

LC Paper No. CB(1)113/99-00
(These minutes have been
seen by the Administration)

Ref: CB1/BC/2/98/2

Bills Committee on
Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998

Minutes of meeting held on
Monday, 30 November 1998, at 10:45 am
in Conference Room B of the Legislative Council Building

Members present :

Dr Hon Raymond HO Chung-tai, JP (Chairman)
Hon Ronald ARCULLI, JP
Hon TAM Yiu-chung, GBS, JP

Member absent :

Hon Howard YOUNG, JP

Public officers attending :

Mr Esmond LEE

Principal Assistant Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (Lands)

Mr LAW Yu-wing

Chief Engineer
Electrical and Mechanical Services Department

Mrs N Dissanayake

Senior Assistant Law Draftsman
Department of Justice

Miss Betty CHEUNG

Senior Government Counsel
Department of Justice

Mr Kevin CHOI

Assistant Secretary for Planning,
Environment and Lands (Lands)

Clerk in attendance :

Miss Odelia LEUNG,

Chief Assistant Secretary (1)1

Staff in attendance :

Ms Bernice WONG,

Assistant Legal Adviser 1

Mrs Mary TANG,

Senior Assistant Secretary (1)2

---

I Meeting with the Administration
(LC Paper No. CB(1)530/98-99)

The Principal Assistant Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (Lands) (PAS/PEL) took members through the Administration's response to their concerns raised at the last meeting. He said that the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department met with the representatives of the Lift and Escalator Contractors Association (LECA) on 14 November 1998 and agreement had been reached on the provision of a one-year grace period before the repeal of section 5(2A) of the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) Ordinance (the Ordinance) took effect.

2. Regarding the new section 27I, PAS/PEL explained that the provision provided that non-compliance with the codes of practice issued by the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services (DEMS) specifying safety requirements relating to the design and construction of lifts and escalators under the revised section 27G would be liable to a fine of$5,000 and six-month imprisonment. The proposed sanction was the same as that provided under section 27H in relation to lift works and escalator works

3. On Mr Ronald ARCULLI's enquiry about the application of the new section 27I, the Chief Engineer, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (CE/EMSD) said that lift/escalator contractors should ensure that the design and construction of the lifts or escalators were in compliance with the relevant safety requirements. Under the proposed section 11J(1)(a), they would need to submit details of the design and construction of the lift or escalator they wished to install to DEMS for approval unless it was of a brand and model for which the contractor had previously obtained approval. Under the new section 27I where a contractor carried out any lift/escalator works and the design and construction of the lift/escalator was not in accordance with the relevant codes of practice, he should submit details of the design and construction to DEMS for approval before carrying out such works. The imposition of criminal sanction for non-compliance with the proposed provision would enhance exercise of self-discipline and ensure safety of lifts/escalators. CE/EMSD assured members that the relevant codes of practice were regularly reviewed by a technical group. The industry had had no difficulty in complying with section 27H for the past 20 years. As the new section 27I modelled on section 27H, LECA had no objection to the introduction of the new provision.

Clause by clause examination of the Bill

4. Members proceeded to clause by clause examination of the Bill.

Clause 2 (section 2 - Interpretation)

5. Members noted the proposed amendment to the definition of "lift" to cover a mechanized vehicle parking system. Responding to the Chairman, CE/EMSD advised that the lifting machine to facilitate handicapped persons in ascending/descending staircases was included under the existing definition of "lift".

6. CE/EMSD advised that the Administration proposed a Committee Stage amendments (CSA) to add "overspeed" before the definition of "governor" to make it in line with the terminology used in overseas countries. No change was needed for the Chinese text since the term already conveyed the meaning.

7. On the proposed amendment to the definition of "service lift", CE/EMSD advised that the deletion of the phrase "used or intended to be used exclusively for carrying goods" would remove any ambiguity arising from the word "intended". Together with the proposed replacement of the heading to Part IV A, i.e. "service lifts" with "Lifts which are not for carrying passengers", there should be no doubt on the use of service lifts. The Senior Government Counsel, Department of Justice (SGC) added that the revised definition would make it clear that any lift which conformed to the specified measurements would be regarded as service lifts. Whether it was "used or intended to be used exclusively for carrying goods" would not be a relevant criterion.

8. Noting the Administration's advice that the specified measurements of service lifts followed international standards, Mr Ronald ARCULLI enquired about the mechanism of control over lifts exceeding those measurements. CE/EMSD said that any lift exceeding the specified size and loading of a service lift would be regarded as a passenger lift and the code of practice in relation to passenger lifts would apply. However, DEMS could exempt goods lifts in an industrial undertaking from the provisions of the Ordinance under section 44A.

9. PAS/PEL informed members that the Administration intended to move a CSA to section 3(1)(a) by adding the following -

"(va) a mechanized vehicle parking system -

(a) which does not pass through any floor; and

(b) the height of travel of which does not exceed 3.5 m."

PAS/PEL said that the purpose was to exempt application of the Ordinance to a mechanized vehicle parking system falling within the above description.

Clause 3 (section 4 - Certain works deemed to be major alterations in relation to lifts)

10. CE/EMSD explained that under the existing provision, contractors were required to inform DEMS of any alteration to the interlocking device of the external door of a lift. The proposed amendments would deem any change to the interlocking device of either internal or external door of a lift to be a major alteration. Such an amendment was necessary because 70% to 80% of accidents occurring in relation to lifts were a result of faulty interlocking devices.

Clause 4 (section 5 - Registers of lift engineers and escalator engineers and qualifications for inclusion therein)

11. Members noted the proposed amendment to section 5(2)(a) to the effect that in addition to diplomas or certificates issued by the Hong Kong Polytechnic and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, diplomas or certificates from other technical institutes approved by DEMS would also be recognised for the purpose of registration as lift/escalator engineers.

12. The Chairman said that the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE) suggested adding the words "or Registered Professional Engineers (Mechanical, Electrical, Electronic or Building Services)" after the word "institute" in section 5(2)(a). The Administration agreed to consider the proposed amendment.

(Post-meeting note: The Administration did not consider it necessary to introduce further amendments to specify this on the grounds that "registered professional engineers" were readily approved by DEMS as persons who acquired equivalent or higher qualifications under section 5(2)(a).)

13. Members reiterated their concern that the repeal of section 5(2A) must not affect lift/escalator engineers already on the registers. CE/EMSD assured members that registered lift/escalator engineers would not be affected as registration was valid for life. As for apprentices in the trade, DEMS had the discretion to register a person who was not academically qualified if he was of the opinion that such a person was qualified to carry out the required functions and duties of a registered lift or escalator engineer. To further allay the concern of LECA, the Administration would provide a grace period such that the proposed repeal of section 5(2A) would take effect one year after the commencement of the Bill. Members considered the proposed arrangement acceptable.

Clause 5 (section 6 - Procedure on application for registration)

14. Members agreed to the proposed amendment to the effect that an application for registration as a lift or escalator engineer should be accompanied by a prescribed fee. Under the existing arrangement, the applicant paid the fee upon successful registration. The proposed amendment would enable the Administration to recover the costs in processing the applications irrespective of whether or not they were successful.

Clause 6 (section 8 - Disciplinary board for the purposes of section 9)

Clause 7 (section 8A - Appointment of disciplinary board panel)

15. PAS/PEL said that under the revised section 8, the power to appoint a disciplinary board would be transferred from DEMS to the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands and DEMS or his representative would no longer be the Chairman of such a board. The revised section 8A provided that the members of the disciplinary board panel should be appointed on nomination by the institutions concerned, instead of on DEMS's recommendation under the current provision. These amendments would enhance the independence and impartiality of the disciplinary boards and the disciplinary board panels. They would also improve the existing arrangement under which DEMS performed both the roles of an enforcing authority of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Chairman of the disciplinary board.

16. Members noted that the disciplinary board would be remunerated out of money provided by the Legislative Council at a rate determined by the Financial Secretary under the revised section 8(9). PAS/PEL said that the Administration would introduce a CSA to section 8(1) by deleting the words "the disciplinary board" in bracket. Instead a new subsection 8(10) with the following wording would be added - "In this section, a disciplinary board means a board appointed under subsection (1)." A similar amendment would be moved to clause 11 (section 11E). ALA1 advised that the proposed amendments would differentiate disciplinary boards for registered lift/escalator engineers set up for the purpose of section 9 and for registered lift/escalator contractors set up for the purpose of section 11G.

17. The Chairman said that HKIE suggested including the qualification of being "a registered professional engineer" as one of the requirements for appointment of the disciplinary board panel members in section 8A(1)(a) and (b). The Administration agreed to consider the suggestion.

(Post-meeting note: A CSA had been moved accordingly by the Administration.)

Clause 8 (section 9 - Disciplinary proceedings)

18. Mr Ronald ARCULLI enquired whether a registered lift/escalator engineer whose name had been removed from the register for a period of time by the disciplinary board would need to apply for re-registration. CE/EMSD said that re-registration was not necessary if the removal from the register was temporary.

Clauses 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 (sections 11A, 11C, 11E, 11F and 11G)

19. Members noted these clauses.

Clause 14 (section 11J - Duties of registered lift contractors or escalator contractors)

20. CE/EMSD advised that the amendments sought to specify more clearly the details which had to be submitted to DEMS for approval before installation of lifts/escalators of a new brand or model.

21. Responding to Mr Ronald ARCULLI, CE/EMSD said that where a new brand and model had been approved by DEMS, other importers of such brands and models would not be required to submit detailed specifications for approval again.

22. PAS/PEL advised that the Administration would introduce a CSA to substitute the term with in subsection (1)(a)(iii) in the Chinese text.

Clauses 15 and 16 (sections 15A and 16)

23. Members noted these clauses.

Clause 17 (section 16A - Appointment of appeal board panel)

24. PAS/PEL explained that the proposed amendment would transfer the power to appoint appeal board panel from the Governor to the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

25. The Chairman said that HKIE suggested including structural engineers as qualified persons for appointment to the appeal board panel in subsection (2)(a). The Administration agreed to consider the proposal.

(Post-meeting note: A CSA had been moved accordingly by the Administration.)

Clause 18 (section 19 - Periodic maintenance of lifts and escalators)

26. Noting that the proposed amendment would subject service lifts to the requirement of monthly periodic maintenance, Mr Ronald ARCULLI enquired about the way to get this across to owners of service lifts. CE/EMSD said that owners of service lifts would be notified of the new requirement and a one-year grace period would be provided. Members noted that there were about 1,100 service lifts in Hong Kong of which about 200 were under the responsibility of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department and about 900 were installed by industrial undertakings and under the responsibility of the Labour Department. Maintenance contracts had been awarded on the majority of these lifts.

Clause 19 (section 20)

27. Members noted the clause.

Clause 20 (section 23 - periodic testing of safety equipment of lifts)

28. Members noted that after the publication of British standard B.S. 5655, a more stringent test requiring a load weighing of 125% of the rated load for the lift applied. The proposed amendment refined the drafting of the provision for clarify sake.

Clauses 21 to 26 (Part IV A - Lifts which are not for carrying persons)

29. Mr Ronald ARCULLI enquired whether the amendments proposed under Part IV A relating to service lifts would have any cost implications. CE/EMSD said that there should not be any cost implications as most service lifts in use were already maintained regularly.

Clause 27 (section 27G - codes of practice)

30. Members were concerned about the application of one set of safety requirements, given that lifts/escalators manufactured in different countries might comply with different safety standards. CE/EMSD said that the physical appearance of lifts and escalators was not significant. The important point was to ensure that the specifications prescribed by manufacturers had not been varied. Lift and escalator works and testing of safety devices, such as overspeed governors, safety gear, buffers and interlocking devices, would need to be certified by accredited companies to ensure compliance with safety standards.

Clause 28 (section 27H - Lift works and escalator works to be carried out to the satisfaction of Director)

Clause 29 (section 27I - Design and construction of lifts and escalators to be to the satisfaction of Director)

31. Mr Ronald ARCULLI suggested improving the drafting of section 27H(3) and proposed section 27I(3) as the present wordings could mean that approval from DEMS was sought after the works had been carried out. The Administration agreed to review the drafting.	Admin.

(Post-meeting note: A CSA had been moved accordingly by the Administration.)

Clauses 30 to 31 (sections 28 and 29)

32. Members noted these clauses.

Clause 32 (section 29B - Subcontracting restricted)

33. CE/EMSD said that the amendment sought to make clear the present practice that the restriction on subcontracting did not apply to the installation or demolition of a lift or escalator.

Clause 33 (section 32(3) - Lifts and escalators to be numbered in certain cases, etc.)

34. In response to the Chairman, the Administration would ascertain whether the limit of a demand claim in an action of tort filed with the District Court had been revised from $60,000 to $120,000 and if so, amend Section 32(3) accordingly.

(Post-meeting note: A CSA had been moved accordingly by the Administration.)

Clauses 34 to 36 (sections 35, 39 and 50)

35. Members noted these clauses.

Clause 37 (section 51 - Savings and transitional)

36. In response to members, the Administration agreed to move CSAs -(a) to amend the proposed section 51(5)(b) to provide for a grace period of 12 months upon the commencement of the Bill before section 19 applied to a service lift installed prior to the commencement of the Bill; and(b) to amend the proposed section 51(6)(b) to provide for a grace period of 12 months upon the commencement of the Bill before sections 19, 21 and 23 apply to a mechanised vehicle parking system installed prior to the commencement of the Bill.

Conclusion

37. The Administration would provide a set of CSAs to the Bills Committee for consideration as soon as possible. Members agreed that subject to the consent to the CSAs, a report would be made to the House Committee on 18 December 1998 to recommend resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 6 January 1999.

II Any other business

38. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 12:30 pm.

Legislative Council Secretariat
13 October 1999