WHERE ARE WE GOING?
SIR,—Those of your readers who are conscious of the danger that, in fighting Nazism, we may begin to copy Nazi methods, will, I believe, share my feeling of alarm at the following incident, which came to my notice as a member of the Bristol City Council A.R.P. Committee.
A Bristolian, whom I have known for a number of years and whom I have always regarded as a most public-spirited citizen of thoroughly progressive views, came, to see me the other day and announced that he had received a letter from the Chief Constable which intimated that his services in the Air Raid Wardens' Organisation were being dispensed with, that he was being offered an opportunity of resigning, failing which his appointment would be terminated. No reason was given for his dismissal.
He has been a warden (part-time) since the beginning of the war and he appears always to have carried out his duties to the satisfaction of the post-wardens under whom he has served. Indeed, the wardens at his present post sent a vigorous letter of protest about his dismissal to the chairman of the A.R.P. committee, which was also signed by the post-warden and the group-warden of his sector. The letter emphasises the injustice of dismissing a warden without giving him some reason for his dismissal.
As I am a member of the A.R.P. General Purposes Sub-committee, which deals with personnel, I thought it proper to make some inquiries into the case myself. To my surprise I was informed that cases of this kind are not reported to any members of council or committee, but are dealt with by the police-officials, apparently without any right of appeal.
I have always held it to be a fundamental principle of local government in England that officials do not take important decisions without reference, or at least report, to an appropriate committee. I am assured, for instance, by members of our Watch Committee, that no police-officer could be dismissed without reference to themselves.
But it seems clear that, in establishing the A.R.P. services, the Ministry of Home Security has laid down procedure which differs little from that followed in totalitarian countries and which, if extended, would cut at the roots of our democratic tradition. In fact the Ministry has conferred on Chief Constables what amount to dictatorial powers, provided they put forward the plea of "the interests of public security" to justify their action.
This matter seems to me to raise a principle of great importance, and I am anxious to know whether the new procedure has been generally accepted by A.R.P. committees up and down the country. If any of your readers who are members of a local authority can give me information on this point I shall be most grateful.
R. Sr. JOHN READE
Previous page
