17 JUNE 1938, Page 20

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR]

Sta,—The vital problem of A.R.P. is in danger of becoming a political issue. The Government's resentment of all criticism of the official programme as a personal attack on its efficiency and the Opposition's use of such criticism as a political weapon are both equally regrettable.

May we, as two householders not allied to any party, who have tried to understand the problem from the national and the personal point of view, make the following remarks ?

Political bias may well cost many lives and imperil the nation. The problem demands the best brains irrespective of party. Criticism must be exclusively constructive and as such it should be welcomed. This great democracy surely has the power, wealth and science to protect its citizens from air attack, but to do so its full resources must be utilised.

Such questions as the following should be examined without party bias : (t) If the present arms programme is a necessity so that British foreign policy may have force behind it and so prevent war, is not the same degree of A.R.P. a similar necessity ? Does not any weakness in A.R.P. invite attack ?

(2) Is not A.R.P. as important as the Army, the Navy or the Air Force as a form of national defence ? However strong the latter, is not the civil population's power to endure air raids one of the crucial tests of modem warfare ?

(3) Is it possible to organise adequate A.R.P. and to reassure the public by minimising the dangers at the same time ? Which makes the public more anxious, facing the worst and knowing that full precautions have been taken against it, or fear of the unknown and uncertainty concerning A.R.P. ? Would anyone panic if he knew that he had the utmost protection ?

(4) Can the householder be safely left to take precautions on his own initiative ? Has he the means or the ability to do so ? Or should the Government assume full responsibility for A.R.P. and be given powers to make it effective ?

(5) If there is to be evacuation of large civil populations, must not this be organised in advance down to the smallest detail of transport and accommodation ?

(6) Does not a gas proof room afford no protection against high explosive and incendiary bombs, but does not a properly constructed underground shelter afford protection against all three forms of attack ? Is it not immaterial which form of attack we consider the more dangerous now, as would not the enemy surely use that form against which we have made the least protection ? Are not dug-outs the only protection of any real value ?

(7) Have not the French completed a scheme for the evacua- tion of Paris ? Have they not constructed thousands of dug- outs throughout that city ? In spite of the larger size and population of London, could we not do the same here ?

(8) As dispersal of the population is essential, must not innumerable comparatively small dug-outs be constructed at once for the majority of the population ? And then, should not everyone be told now what protection would be available for him or her in the event of war, whether it would be by evacuation, or otherwise to what shelter he or she should go if at work, at home or in the streets ?

(9) Would it not be easier for A.R.P. Wardens to give house- holders this advice than to urge them to take inadequate precautions in their own homes ?

(to) Should there not be a call for volunteers to construct these shelters under skilled engineers in the parks and squares, &c. ? Would not people volunteer more readily to achieve the utmost possible protection ? Could not the unemployed be offered this work at a standard wage ? For larger shelters, could not the country's great experience of mining engineering be utilised ?

(11) Why do such precautions not form part of the present A.R.P. programme ? Is it because the nation would not accept such measures, interfering with its normal activities, in time of peace ? But can adequate A.R.P. be achieved without so inter- fering ? Is it because of the heavy cost ?

(12) Is the question of finance insuperable ? Could not certain forms of local and Government expenditure, less urgent than A.R.P., be temporarily restricted ? Should not a larger proportion of Defence Expenditure be allotted to A.R.P. ?

(13) Could not a Special A.R.P. Loan be raised without interfering with the other needs of the Treasury ?

(14) Would not the nation eagerly respond to a National Appeal for gifts to a special A.R.P. Fund under the leadership of the Lord Mayors ?

(15) Does not the public's voluntary support of A.R.P. largely depend on the amount of security which it affords ?—

Yours faithfully, W. S. ADAMS, The Stock Exchange, E.C.2.

HUGH BARNES.

2 The Old Well House, The Grove, N.6.