GAPS IN CIVILIAN DEFENCE
By SIR RALPH WEDGWOOD
[Sir Ralph is Chairman of the Formation Committee, Air Raid Defence League] NINE months have passed since this country awoke from its dream of security, and with the approach of what is still hopefully called the holiday season, we may perhaps be allowed to look about us, and take stock. We are warned on all hands that the next few months will be months of special tension, and that emergency may be upon us at any moment. The civilian will probably be the first object of attack ; it is therefore appropriate that we should look first at the state of our civilian defence.
The problem falls naturally under two heads—evacuation and shelter, for it is impossible to deal with the A.R.P. services in the compass of this article.
The evacuation of school children with their teachers has been well prepared and well organised. The evacuation of mothers with children under school age has been less suc- cessfully handled. If the mothers concerned have been effectively notified of the opportunity, at least there has in general been no great effort at persuasion, and the response has been inadequate. We must face the fact that under present conditions the mothers and young children will for the most part remain in our large towns exposed to the full danger of air attack.
But if the school children and the mothers with small children were removed, the problem in the danger areas is not solved. Far from it. Seventy per cent. of the popula- tion would still remain, including women, and children above school age. There is no scheme for evacuating them, and they will be left even in the worst target areas exposed to the full force of enemy attack. It is certain that great numbers of these people will evacuate themselves both before and after the emergency arises, and the movement must be controlled, if it is not to degenerate into panic. It will be for the most part a short-term movement; emergency accommodation, canteens, blankets, but above all the kindly guidance of the police—those are what are mostly wanted. The kindly guidance is always there, but what of the rest?
The Air Raid Defence League once more urges that the target areas, such as the riverside boroughs of London, should receive immediate attention. There can be no doubt of the intensity of the attack from which they will suffer, although there may be differences of opinion about its duration. Plans should be made without delay for evacu- ating all non-essential workers from these areas, and all the women and children. Heavily protected shelters, already promised, should be provided for the essential workers who must remain.
Steel shelters are being provided for everyone in danger zones who has an income of less than £250. Praise is due to the way in which the delivery has been organised, though only 730,000 out of 2,250,000 shelters have been delivered. There is, however, the gravest uncertainty as to the extent to which the shelters have in fact been erected. No general statistics are available, and it is believed that in some boroughs very little has been done. The erection of the shelters under proper conditions is a matter requiring both time and skill; they are useless unless they are sunk in the ground, and given adequate earth protection. This work cannot be carried out satisfactorily under conditions of emergency, when the time available will be of the shortest. It is urgent that the public in each area should know the extent to which these shelters have been erected, and that all areas should be brought up to the level of the best.
Standard shelters will, it is understood, be sold to persons with an income exceeding £250 when the requirements of the poorer classes have been met. But in fact none are yet on sale, and for the present those with incomes above £250 have to look elsewhere for their protection.
Where steel shelters are not supplied or are unsuitable, basements form the next available protection. Local authorities have been asked to carry out a survey of base- ments, which would cover private basements to shelter families below the £250 income level. Enquiry in London and three of the largest provincial cities shows that the survey is not yet completed, and at the present rate of progress will not be completed for some weeks. As to the actual work, supplies of the standard materials for strength- ening were to be available to local authorities by the beginning of July on a small scale—one basement to 500 of the population. It still remains for the local authority to get the work done.
In a word, there is no such thing as a strengthened basement for household shelter in the country, save for those which a very few have been able to prepare at their own expense. When an emergency comes, people in con- gested areas who have no steel shelters will be tempted to take refuge in unstrengthened basements, and these, with a superstructure of cheap brick, will merely expose them to new dangers. Open trenches would be far safer. If base- ment strengthening is to become something more than a policy, the rate of survey must be doubled by the employ- ment of extra staff, the delivery of materials must be speeded up, and the public above the £250 income level must be told far more clearly that they alone are responsible for their own safety.
It is known that there are many cases, and these prob- ably most numerous in the most congested areas of our large towns, where there is no room for steel shelters, and where there are no basements capable of being strengthened. In these cases surface shelters are recommended, and the Government have issued specifications for such shelters. Does anyone, from Sir John Anderson downwards, know how many such shelters have been erected?
Then again there is the question of street shelters. It is part of the Government policy that splinter-proof shelters must be provided for the street population. Chalk lines drawn on the pavement may be excellent for test purposes, as at Chelsea, but if that type of surface shelter is all that a local authority has to offer when the real test comes, its constituents, or those among them who still survive, might be excused if they took steps of unusual vigour to express their dissatisfaction. How many of our local authorities have in fact got beyond the chalk-line stage?
On all these shelter questions, the Government, the Local Authorities and the individual citizen each have their special part to play. There is only too much reason to fear that in the inevitable confusion of responsibilities the work is not being done as it should. The best cure is publicity, and publicity depends on information. Let the Government call for the information and publish it. Then the public will know which local authorities are pushing on with the work, and which are lagging behind.
It is only possible to touch on the salient points of our civilian defence policy. Yet a wider survey would only confirm the general conclusion. The Government policy cannot be accepted as anything more than a short-term policy. As such it has two notable defects—firstly, it is in general being translated far too slowly from paper into fact: this process could and should be speeded up. Secondly, it fails conspicuously to deal on adequate lines with the needs of the target areas. Here a definite expansion of the policy is essential.
Previous page
