In this House yesterday certain criticisms were directed at the organisation of A.R.P. which were not to my mind very reasonable. The criticism made was not entirely informed. Deputy Benson has always been most helpful in the development of A.R.P., and I felt sure, when I first saw this motion, that I could actually envisage the line his criticism of the Order would take. While the Order may have, in a certain way, the defects of which Deputy Benson accuses it, I think that the provision which he wishes made should not be attempted until some alternative system is tried out first. In the early days of the organisation of air-raid precaution measures, arrangements were made by the Department of Defence for facilities for the training of instructors for industrial concerns with a view to the subsequent organisation by these instructors of air-raid precaution schemes in the firms or in the businesses with which they were concerned. The first item in all these schemes was fire fighting and fire prevention. At the same time, we urgued all the scheme-making authorities to contact the general public, and to discuss the matter with householders. We advised them to seek the co-operation of the general public and of business firms for the purpose of providing domestic arrangements within houses and within the premises of firms for fire-fighting equipment.
As far as dwelling houses are concerned, particularly in the suburban areas in Dublin, I think that very adequate fire prevention equipment has been secured and quite a number of people have been very well trained in fire prevention methods. This has been brought about by the intensive efforts of the voluntary members of the various A.R.P. organisations. Many firms in Dublin have on their own initiative and in their own interests provided themselves with adequate fire fighting equipment and have organised inside their own firms quite reasonable fire fighting schemes, fully manned. Nevertheless, it is true that the high civic spirit and intelligence that have been displayed by these people have been very adversely affected by the negligence and want of foresight of a small minority of the citizens. These people have made no attempt within their firms to provide equipment or to provide and train personnel. It is therefore necessary that certain Governmental action should be taken to bring all those neglectful and recalcitrant people into line with people who have done their duty and, with this view, Emergency Powers Order No. 209 of 1942 was made on the 12th August, 1942.
The main features of the Order are— I am not quoting the text fully, but this is the purpose of the Order—a Minister may, by Order, make provision for (a) requiring occupiers of premises to make and carry out fire prevention arrangements; (b) such arrangements to be subject to the approval of the appropriate authority; (c) empowering or requiring occupiers of several premises to make joint arrangements; (d) empowering the appropriate authority to carry out fire prevention arrangements and to recover the expenses from the occupiers of the premises.
This Order finds its roots in much consideration and in much discussion with the various interests involved. In January, 1941, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures and I met representatives of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers and other representatives of industry in Leinster House, to discuss the implementation of air-raid precautions measures in industrial concerns. The following resolution was passed at that meeting:—
"That this conference is generally in favour of the development of air-raid precautions in factories and business premises, and agrees that the Government, in default of an adequate response, should take steps to enforce such schemes with equality of financial assistance, subject to any special assistance for essential undertakings."
In the Dáil on the 2nd July, 1941, replying to Deputy Benson, I stated that I did not think any useful purpose would be served at that time by making fire-watching service compulsory.
Section 2 (5) of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, provides as follows:—
"Nothing in this section shall authorise the imposition of...any form of industrial conscription."
Accordingly legislation would be necessary to enforce compulsory fire prevention service. In that month also the Dublin Chamber of Commerce requested the advice of the Chief Superintendent of the Dublin Fire Brigade in connection with the development of fire watching in business premises. Subsequently the Chamber of Commerce arranged for the training of a number of instructors and advised their members to organise fire prevention schemes in blocks or streets. There was a number of discussions between the Department of Defence and the Chamber of Commerce in regard to putting this scheme into operation and certain arrangements had to be made, such as the provision of identification cards, badges and armlets. It was also arranged that official recognition would be given to the scheme. The activities of the Chamber of Commerce ceased, however, with the training of the personnel and with the contacting of a number of business firms in each particular block or street affected. Afterwards we had discussions with the Dublin Corporation as to the best manner in which we could approach the problem and how we could provide the greatest possible service in case of aerial attack. Finally, we evolved the idea of taking a sample block here in the city and planning out a method by which that could be defended so that we would be able to direct the owners of property as to the methods they should adopt in developing their schemes.
In November, 1941, we met representatives of the various business interests, at a meeting in the Mansion House. We explained our proposals and they seemed to meet with general agreement in principle. Then the corporation was authorised to employ an engineer as fire-prevention organiser. He has been appointed since then. From the reports we got from the Dublin Corporation and from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, it became evident to us that satisfactory progress could not be made on a voluntary basis. Gaps were bound to arise—and did arise—in the development of the organisation in various city blocks. Again, it was known at that time that a draft Compulsory Order was on the stocks and, for the moment, the Dublin Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce took no further steps. However, in July, 1941, the Department of Defence reported to the Government that discussions with business representatives in Dublin had been held and that a scheme of organisation on a voluntary basis for fire-watching in Dublin had been devised. It further reported to the Government on the 11th December, 1941.
In the meantime, it was hoped to put the scheme into operation without compulsion. At that time the Government got a comprehensive report on all A.R.P. matters, and were informed of our particular line of thought which led us to that particular view. The Government took a view other than ours in regard to the question of compulsion. They instructed us that special consideration should be given to the question of compulsory fire watching. In March, after consultation with the various Government Departments concerned, we put proposals to the Government. These proposals contemplated that business premises in city blocks would provide equipment and trained crews, and that private premises in such blocks would be dealt with on the same basis by the local authority as the ordinary private dwellinghouse.
The Government directed along these lines; that Emergency Powers Orders should be prepared: (1) an Order by the Government, enabling the Minister for Defence to prescribe the fire-prevention arrangements to be carried out; and (2) an Order by the Minister setting out the actual arrangements to be made. On the 5th May, 1942, I met a deputation from the Chamber of Commerce, which included Deputies Dockrell and Benson. In the discussion, their contention was that it was farcical to compel owners of property to provide fire equipment if the Government were not prepared to compel the employees of any particular firm to undertake the work of fire prevention. This raised a rather peculiar Constitutional issue which we could not meet in the Department of Defence. We made an arrangement whereby the Chamber of Commerce discussed the matter with the Taoiseach and with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. During that discussion the terms of the draft Ministerial Order were conveyed to the deputation, and the Taoiseach made a statement along the following lines: (1) occupiers of business premises should undoubtedly be required to provide equipment (2) occupiers could look for volunteers from their staffs; (3) if volunteers were not forthcoming an effort could be made to get the citizens generally to volunteer for a fire-fighting and fire-watching reserve; (4) the reserve's personnel, when trained, could be allocated to business premises where volunteers were lacking among the staffs; (5) the fire prevention Order should not provide for the compulsory provision by occupiers of premises of fire-fighting teams.
It seems to me—and I think it seems to Deputy Benson—that it is reasonable and wise to compel the owners of property in Dublin to provide, within reasonable financial limits, the equipment for fire prevention. The organiser who was appointed by the Dublin Corporation some months back made a tour of a number of cities which had been subject to bomb and aerial attack. He spent quite a long period doing this work and making a detailed examination of the effects of aerial attack, the best methods of coping with such attacks, and exactly how far private firms had gone in trying to secure equipment, or, in fact, how far an Order made by another Government had gone in compelling these firms to provide equipment. I mentioned a while ago that we organised a sample block. The fire organiser is a qualified and experienced engineer and I have had him examine the sample block. I am informed by the people who represent the residents in that block that the total cost of the equipment specified by the Chief Superintendent of the Fire Brigade in Dublin for fire prevention work in the block has cost £150. To my amazement, after a survey of the block, the organiser informed me that the equipment made available for that money compares much more than favourably with the equipment provided by similar firms in the country where tremendously heavy aerial attacks have occurred.
The Westmoreland Street-D'Olier Street block represents, I suppose, at least £1,000,000 in valuable property, and it does not seem to be an undue demand on the occupiers of the premises there to provide £150 for this equipment. I am not suggesting that there was any disagreement to provide it: they did it very gladly. It is a very little thing to ask the residents in any block of buildings throughout the city, of comparable size, to spend £150 on a very essential and valuable service—a service which, in my opinion, should be in every such block of buildings, even in normal times and not only in times of emergency. In the discussion with the Taoiseach, the very same idea was expressed as has been expressed by Deputy Benson to-night.
Deputy Dockrell suggested during the discussions that the Order should provide that the failure of employees to undergo training should entail loss of employment. The Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures replied that this would be tantamount to conscription. The Taoiseach then put the point of view that all that could be expected of the owners of business premises was to ask their staffs to volunteer. But the employers would be required, under the Order, to provide fire-fighting equipment, and he promised that if it was intended at any time to demand of the various firms concerned that they should provide fire-fighting crews, then he proposed to discuss the matter with them again before he proceeded along these lines.
The Order was submitted to the Government on the 17th July, 1942, together with the enabling Order. Before the Orders were formally considered by the Government, a draft Ministerial Order was referred to the Chamber of Commerce and agreed to in principle. On the 12th August, 1942, the Government made an enabling Order; that is Emergency Powers (No. 209) Order, 1942, the terms of which I have already outlined. The Government also approved the terms of the proposed Ministerial Order. The making of this latter Order has been deferred pending the publication of a handbook of instructions, without which firms would be very much at sea and would not be able to implement the proposals in the Order.
It is our view in the Department of Defence that it is only by organising fire-watching on a block system that we shall ever be able to produce the desired results. We are proposing certain amendments to the Order which will prevent the non-co-operation of the small minority whose refusal voluntarily to co-operate with other firms is endangering the property, not only of those who refuse to conform, but of those who have already built up a very effective fire-fighting organisation. We are not asking very much of firms in the way of providing equipment. So far as can be visualised by the chief officer of the Dublin Fire Brigade, £150 worth of equipment and certain structural alterations will be considered an effective safeguard. The engineer in charge of the organisation has pointed out to us that this amount has not been expended over the same area or value of property in England. All these things emphasise my belief that in asking or compelling firms to provide this reasonable amount of equipment, we are not putting an undue burden upon them.
All that is by way of general explanation and, like the prefaces to George Bernard Shaw's plays, it has occupied much more time than the real kernel of the motion. To me it seems that the whole purpose of the motion is to express the fears of those moving it as to their inability to create a fire-fighting organisation by voluntary means. If such should prove to be the case, the Government must take some alternative steps to provide that fire-fighting organisation. If the Government take such steps, it will mean a very heavy burden on the taxpayer, and that is something which the Government are not anxious to face. I think that before any such steps are taken by the Government, we should try out the voluntary method. In view of the fact that the voluntary method by which the A.R.P. organisation generally, its various services, has been built up—and I do believe it is an outstanding success in all the circumstances—and in view of the fact that men with no property, men who have no personal concern with property, have volunteered to defend the lives and property of the citizens of Dublin, it would not seem to be too much to expect that men who are deeply concerned with the preservation of the property and the equipment from which they derive their livelihoods should volunteer to protect that property and equipment.
From the experience I have had in Dublin with reference to the building up of a volunteer organisation, I think it is not quite hopeless to expect that men who are making a living out of a particular piece of property and the equipment thereon will volunteer for service in defence of what constitutes their livelihood. If they are so shortsighted, so timid and bashful, as not to be desirous of co-operating with the Government in this matter, then the Government will have to adopt alternative methods. So far as the present situation is concerned, the alternative methods will have to be on a contractual, paid basis, because men might be paid right up to the time of a blitz and, if not under a contract, they might not turn up to do their duty in time of need. If we do have, as a substitute for a voluntary organisation, a body which has a contract with the Government, that will impose a tremendous burden on the taxpayer, and that is a thing which the Government will not readily face.
With regard to conscription, there is nothing that I can say. The Government have not indicated their desire to impose any kind of conscription. Of course, it would mean legislation. I suggest to Deputy Benson and Deputy Dockrell that we should first try the voluntary method before we proceed to consider any alternative method.
