CITY COUNCIL NOT RESPONSIBLE IS THE CLAIM

Grey River Argus, 2 June 1948, Page 3

CITY COUNCIL NOT RESPONSIBLE IS THE CLAIM

Electrical Equipment and Ballantyne’s fire P.A. CHRICTCHURCH, June 1. The ‘ Christchurch City Council would submit evidence, which, when added to existing evidence, would, it believed, satisfy the Commission that no part of the electrical service or equipment for which the Council was responsible, caused, or contributed to the cause of Ballantyne’s fire, said Mr W. R. Lascelles, to-day, opening (he case for the Council before the Royal Commission inquiring into the fire. Mr Lascelles added that it was also submitted that no act of the Council’s officers served to cause, or contribute to the cause of the fire. The case for the Fire Board finished to-day, and to-morrow the first City Council witnesses will be called. A lengthy report will be read by Mr J. C. Forsyth, engineer to the Municipal Electricity Department. The Company had duties to its servants to provide safe premises and conditions, Mr Lascelles said. The principals of Ballantyne’s had an .intimate knowledge of the conditions and circumstances affecting the safety of their staff, and it was submitted that they failed adequately to protect the staff against fire. “Having failed to do so, it is submitted that they associated- themselves with their insurers in an attempt to' attribute the blame to their own electrical installation, in which the M.E.D. had but limited obligations,” Mr Lescelles continued. “An attempt has been made to lay the blame of the great loss of life and , property on the Council by advancing a theory that a highly qualified expert has termed ‘fantastic.’ The cable into Ballantyne’s was purchased and installed by the company, which hired reputable contractors to do the work. During the whole of its life of nearly eleven years, the cable was maintained by Ballantyne’s and seemed to give honest services.” Fire Board’s Evidence CHRISTCHURCH, June 1. Mr Thomas Murray Charters, chairman of the Christchurch Fire Board, told Ballantyne’s Fire Commission to-day that there was no specific? sum on the estimates of the board for major life-saving equipment. It was felt that neither the board nor the superintendent was qualified to make a recommendation. Accordingly, it had been agreed to obtain a report from an expert in the British fire service. Mr Charters said that the best waj to ensure efficiency in fire brigades was to establish a fire training school. It had never occurred to the board that its equipment was anything but efficient. . , , The board, he added, realised that under the current schedule of leave it had practically to employ two brigades to do the work of one, but the labour position had prevented the attainment of the strength recommended to meet the position. The board had realised, too, that the position would arise where both the superintendent and his deputy were away for a third of the year. Mr Charters said it came as a shock to him to learn that junior officers reached their status without passing examinations. It was disquieting to think that such officers could be left in charge through the joint absence of the superintendent and his deputy, which under the current schedule oi leave was likely to occur for about a third of the year.