Fire hazards such as substandard scaffolding mesh, flammable foam boards and workers smoking on site fell outside the remit of the Fire Services Department (FSD), a senior official has told a public inquiry into deadly flame in Tai Po.
Michael Yung, FSD’s assistant director of fire safety, testified Wednesday that his department is only responsible for “active” fire safety measures, such as alarm systems, local media. reported.
Meanwhile, “passive” defenses such as fire doors and windows are managed by the Department of Buildings, he added.
Yung was among the most senior FSD officials to testify before the independent committee investigating the Wang Fuk Court mass fire in November, which killed 168 people. The Tai Po apartment building was undergoing major renovations when the fire broke out.
The commission had heard before residents have made numerous complaints potential fire hazards to several government departments, including the FSD, before the fire broke out.
Complaints included wooden planks installed in emergency stairways to replace fireproof windows, allowing workers access to scaffolding; foam boards used to protect windows from falling debris; non-retarding scaffold nets; AND workers who smoke.
Yung said the wooden planks, foam boards and scaffold nets were under the responsibility of the Department of Construction and its Independent Inspection Unit (ICU), while the issue of workers smoking should have been handled by the Department of Labor.
“It appears that none of the fire hazards related to residents were the responsibility of your department?” Victor Dawes, the committee’s lead lawyer, asked in Cantonese, to which Yung agreed.
‘No expertise’ in construction
Citing an initial investigation, Dawes said last month that the fire was “most likely” caused by smoking, while flammable building materials may have contributed to the rapid spread of fire and smoke.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Dawes drew attention to the city’s fire services ordinance, which states that the FSD must “provide advice on fire protection measures and fire hazards as appropriate.”
Yung agreed that the FSD should advise residents about passive fire safety measures, but asserted that his department was not the most appropriate government agency to handle complaints about flammable building materials.
“We don’t have the expertise. If we hastily order the removal of such materials, it could hamper the construction work,” he said.
‘Supervisory vacuum’
Email correspondence between residents and FSD indicated that officers asked residents to contact the ICU regarding the chalkboard issue.
Judge David Lok, chairman of the independent committee, said the fire exposed a “grey area” in the government’s oversight of building renovations, which Yung agreed with.
Yung admitted that the FSD could have improved the handling of complaints. After the fire, the FSD will refer residents’ requests or complaints to the responsible departments if they consent, he said.
The official also said that FSD and the Department of Buildings had begun discussions on how to improve cross-departmental referrals.
However, he disagreed with Dawes’ characterization of a “supervisory vacuum” in relation to the foam boards, as the barrister cited written submissions from senior ICU surveyor Andy Ku, who said the unit had no power to regulate “temporary building materials”.
Yung said the matter should be under the purview of the ICU, but declined to comment further.
He said the jurisdictions of various government departments are based on laws and “long-term cooperation, discussions and perceptions” between public bodies.
Committee member Chan Kin-por asked if there was a mechanism when the ICU could not handle a complaint sent by the FSD.
In response, Yung said the FSD deputy director would lead an inter-departmental effort to handle such a situation in the future.
