NEW CLAUSE.—(Fire extinguishers.) (Hansard, 28 June 1934)

§ Mr. HALES
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the least contentious question that has been introduced into this House for many months, and very few words should be necessary on my part to persuade the Minister to accept the Clause. It implies no expenditure, it causes no inconvenience to any living soul, and it does partially and to no inconsiderable extent militate against and reduce the accidents on our roads. The Road Traffic Act of 1930 provides that fire extinguishers must be fitted to all public service vehicles, including taxicabs, motor coaches, motor omnibuses, and commercial vehicles carrying explosive materials. Is it not inconsistent that the mere fitting of a taximeter to a vehicle means that that vehicle must have a fire extinguisher fitted, while a private motor car of the same construction in every respect has no need to be fitted with any fire extinguishing appliance?
I have in my possession a collection of newspaper cuttings relating to tragedies on the road, burning accidents, which I do not propose to read. Some of them are of the most heart-breaking description. In one case two men were out with a car which overturned at a corner. One man escaped, but the other was pinned underneath the car. It was night and no one was about, and the assistant driver frantically endeavoured to rescue his friend. He tugged and pulled as the flames slowly crept towards him, and only rescued his friend to find that he was dying. He died five minutes later. I submit that a fire extinguisher would have subdued the flames before they had reached any considerable dimensions and that a valuable life would have been saved. It may be contended that a fire extinguisher in itself would be insufficient to quell any considerable outbreak. I 1387 admit that at once, but the very fact that every motor car arriving on the scene of the accident, fitted with a fire extinguisher, would be a guarantee that they would be able to provide immediate assistance. When an accident happens on the road we know that in a very few minutes you have a quarter of a mile of a queue of vehicles held up, and if each one had a fire extinguisher it would mean that each motor ear would practically become a fire engine and would be able to render assistance to prevent these regrettable conflagrations.
The Government of Syria in the last few weeks have made it compulsory for every motor vehicle to carry a fire extinguisher, and the new law comes into force on 1st July. There can be no doubt that road traffic to-day is one of the greatest problems with which this country is faced. The Minister has just said that public safety is his immediate concern; therefore, it implies that he will accept my new Clause with pleasure. As a pioneer of the motor industry for the last 37 years, from the days of the red flag, it has been my lot to witness some terrible accidents on the roads, and I can assure hon. Members that on certain occasions I would have given all I possessed to have had a fire extinguisher in my possession and to have been able to render assistance. I leave hon. Members to imagine the agony one suffered in trying to tear up turf from the roadside to damp out the flames, which were sufficient to reduce a motor vehicle to ashes in an hour, when the calamity could have been saved by a 10s. fire extinguisher.
There are 20 lives lost every day in the British Isles in road accidents to motor vehicles. Let us bring that fact home. It means that every five weeks the whole of the Members of this Assembly could be wiped out of existence if the accidents were confined to Members of this House. That might not be considered by some of our friends to be a national calamity. However, if it were possible to visualise the scene by laying out 20 beautiful corpses in Palace Yard every morning to let the public see what was going on, they would realise the magnitude of the disasters that are happening throughout the country. I have been trying to imagine what possible objections can be raised to the new Clause. In my opinion the 1388 Clause is absolutely irresistible. There is no argument that can be raised against it. I can imagine someone saying: "Why should you interfere with the rights of the private owner?" I reply: "Why do you interfere with the right of every private owner by making him insure against third party risks?" Is it likely that an Act which makes a man's life safe is going to be resented when no cost whatever would be incurred by the fitting of a fire extinguisher to his car? This morning I had letters from three insurance companies, each agreeing to reduce by 5 per cent. the annual premium on a motor car where a fire extinguisher was fitted. Therefore, it would be a profit making business. A fire extinguisher can be bought in Holborn for 5s. If you take an average insurance policy at the low estimate of£10, the rebate would represent 10s. with which to buy a 5s. fire extinguisher. That would mean a gain of five shillings in the first year, but there would be a profit of 10s. for each year afterwards because of the fitting of the fire extinguisher.
Is there any hon. Member who would lift one finger against making the roads of this country safe for everyone who journeys thereon? The Act of 1930 provided for the fitting of fire extinguishers on motor vehicles, but it stopped halfway. The other day, when I spoke to the Minister of Transport I asked him why he made the fitting of fire extinguishers compulsory on service vehicles and not on private cars. He replied: "Because we want to give them time to get out." Do we not want to give people time to get out of private cars? If I drove from my constituency, is it to be understood that the Government do not want me to be able to get out of my car in the event of a fire, that they are indifferent to my being burnt up because I am a private person, and that they would put someone else in my place? It seems to me that this question has entirely escaped the notice of the Committee; otherwise, the omission would have been remedied.
It was my good fortune last year to be in very close contact with the Ministry of Transport. Within a few weeks we managed between us—I think I can take to myself a little bit of credit—to make it possible to park a car and leave the door locked. Before that it was left for 1389 the gangster to get in, to make his smash and grab raid, and to leave the car derelict. Now, since doors have been locked there have been 20 per cent. fewer cars stolen in London in six months. A few weeks after that it was made possible to carry a parcel in a car instead of classifying it as a commercial vehicle at a higher rate of taxation. The Minister should keep in touch with those of us who know something about these matters. There seems to be an impassable gulf between the Cabinet and Members of the House, and we do not know how to bridge it. After all, business men are of some use, but there are times when I cannot catch the Speaker's eye and I go home so as not to say anything for which I shall be sorry. Here we are faced with a simple fact. Surely the National Government will not face the next general election with the record of seeming indifference to the safety of life on the roads. This is not a question of party; it is a question of humanity. If the Government resist this new Clause they will be accessories before the fact at the very next death that occurs on the roads. They will take the role of public executioners. I have seen on the road tragedies which I shall never forget as long as I live. I ask the Minister to accept this simple Clause and go home to-night and say, "I have done one good deed to-day and done something that is to the credit of the National Government."

§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON
I beg to second the Motion.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
Although my hon. Friend has addressed me as a Boy Scout and asked me to do one good deed to-day by accepting his Clause, I am afraid that I shall not be able to satisfy him, and the reason is that the new Clause is unnecessary. If the Minister thought it desirable he could pass a regulation under Section 30, Sub-section (1) of the principal Act, with regard to the carrying of fire extinguishers generally on all motor vehicles. But my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessors have not thought that necessary, for the simple reason that accidents which could be attributed to explosion or fire on motor vehicles, due to the ignition of fuel, do not justify putting this additional burden upon motorists. There were only seven fatal accidents of that kind last year.

§ Mr. HALES
I cannot see where the burden on the motorist would come.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I will try to explain. In 1933 there were only seven such accidents recorded. If you insist upon all cars carrying these fire extinguishers you put an additional expense upon motorists. There is no doubt about that. There is no reason for putting additional expense on people unless there is a cause shown, unless it is in the interests of the public as a whole. My hon. Friend is surprised that we do not do for private motor-cars what has been done for public vehicles. It is obvious that when you have a large public vehicle carrying a great number of people the conditions are not similar to those of a private car which carries its owner and for which its owner is responsible. Whenever the Ministry believes that the accidents justify any such regulation, the regulation will be issued, but up to the present the experience in Great Britain does not seem to be exactly the same as that in Syria.

§ Mr. HALES
Am I to take it that seven deaths in a year are of no moment? Is it not worth while to put fire extinguishers on cars in order to save seven deaths?

§ Sir ALFRED LAW
I am a little surprised at the reply of the Minister. If you oblige public vehicles to have fire extinguishers, for the same reason you might compel or ask owners of private cars to have extinguishers. I dare say it will be said that you are not preventing the owner of a private car from having fire extinguishers. But you are compelling taxi-cabs and other public vehicles to carry them. It would be quite reasonable to put the same obligation upon private motor cars. I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to accept the Clause.