Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Aug 1940

Vol. 24 No. 24

Matter Raised on Motion for Adjournment. - Air—Raid Precautions.

In moving the adjournment of the House, I wish to take advantage of a provision in the Standing Orders by which matters of importance may be raised, and as I have already given notice to you, Sir, and, as you have announced, I propose to draw attention to certain aspects of the A.R.P. services at the present time, and to suggest that the importance of these services does not appear to be fully realised by many individuals or properly emphasised by the Government itself.

I should like, first of all, to express the sympathy which, I am sure, is felt by everybody in this House with the relatives of the first air-raid victims in this country. I do not want to refer to what occurred in County Wexford beyond expressing that sympathy, and pointing out that what, for want of any other information, we must assume to have been an accident, was an accident that might quite easily have occurred, say, over Dublin or Cork; if the area in which the bombs had dropped had been one which was very thickly populated the results might have been much more serious. I think that the apathy of the public is due to a certain amount of misunderstanding. I think it is also due to the feeling in the country, which I find amongst all classes, that either nothing is happening and that what the Government has told us with regard to danger is false, or that things are happening and that the truth is not being told. We have rumours of all kinds as to the landings of foreigners. We have news only of three. We have rumours that in hundreds of cases there have been mines laid, and that mines have been found in various places along the coast. Nothing has appeared in the Press about the finding of mines, and the general impression is that either there is no real danger or that every serious event is being censored. I think it would be a healthy thing, if there be any truth at all in these rumours that more information should be given.

I know that amongst a very large number of the men who have joined the A.R.P. there is the feeling that they are a sort of Cinderella, in which the Government is scarcely interested: that appeals have been made for recruits for the Army, for the Local Security Force, for the Red Cross and, last of all, a sort of half-hearted reference to the A.R.P. services. I am told that when these services were started some nine or ten months ago arrangements were made for the issue of badges: that the badges were designed and prepared, but that then instead of being issued to the A.R.P. services, they were handed over to the Local Security Force, although the latter body had not been formed until months after the badges were designed. Badges may seem to be of very little importance, but it has given the impression to the men in the A.R.P. that they are scarcely wanted and that their work is not to be taken seriously. Now, I believe that impression requires to be rectified, and in order to have it rectified we need not only a clear statement but a series of clear statements on the part of the Government and of the Ministers concerned. I raised this matter in a somewhat different form last May. The Minister for Finance was present, and he admitted quite frankly that he himself had discouraged any expenditure on A.R.P.; that he was one of those who was responsible for the fact that whereas there had been at first a general appeal to people to join A.R.P. service, that it had later been more or less stopped. He admitted that he had now changed his mind. He said he recognised that he was wrong, and admitted that the Government attitude had changed. Since last October quite a large number of men have been giving their service in the A.R.P. They fitted themselves for A.R.P. duties only to discover that the Minister for Finance thought expenditure on A.R.P. to be wrong. Those men have been giving their service during all that time, but still they feel that they are regarded as a sort of Cinderella: that to a certain extent they are ignored and treated in what I call a mean way.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that I am making this statement because I think it is in the public interest to do so. I cannot prove all this positively, but I am satisfied that my statements are made on reasonably good authority. I am told that the equipment provided is scanty—that in certain posts full equipment has not been supplied. Take one thing which may not seem very important. Where you have an A.R.P. post it requires at least three wardens. For a 24-hour service you must have at least two shifts. I think most people would say that there should be three shifts, but the official attitude is that you need issue only three helmets. The position, therefore, is that the A.R.P. authorities, in order to provide that service, must find a number of men with the same size of head or else some of the men serving must feel uncomfortable, apart altogether from the unhygienic aspect of the matter. Most wardens would gladly pay for individual helmets if they could find out exactly where they are to be had. That, of course, is a trifling matter and I do not want to overrate its importance. I do, however, want to point out that while many of us have been wobbling and doubtful, these men, at the request of the State, gave their services voluntarily, and fitted themselves for the duties to be performed. They seem to have done their work remarkably well. There is nothing very spectacular about it, and they feel that to a considerable extent they are being forgotten.

I am satisfied that it is a serious mistake to regard their work as being in any way less important than the work performed by other voluntary defence services. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is true that the Government do regard recruitment for the A.R.P. as being less important than for, say, the Local Security Force. Is that impression a wrong one? If the Parliamentary Secretary says that the Government do regard the A.R.P. as being less important I would ask him whether he can conceive any emergency in this country requiring the assistance of the Army and the Local Security Force in which we would have no danger from air raids. I certainly cannot. If the answer is that they do regard it as equally important, I want to know why in the speeches of Ministers and in broadcasts there has been so little reference to the A.R.P., and why this impression I have referred to has been allowed to get abroad.

I should also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government consider it the duty of individuals and of families who can afford it to provide air-raid shelters for themselves. Is it the opinion of the Government that I, as an individual, if I can afford the £12 or the £20 necessary, ought to have an air-raid shelter in my garden? As far as I am concerned I am in a public position and I thought it was my duty to do so. I, therefore, obtained one. I am not dealing with this as a personal matter, I am referring to it because a great many people have spoken to me about it. They take the view that there has been no statement from the Government and that, in fact, to put it in plain English the Government themselves are not agreed on the matter. I believe we should have a clear statement from the Government. A matter of much more importance on which there is considerable doubt is that concerning the duty of employers to provide air-raid shelters. Is it the opinion of the Government that it is the duty of an employer, if he can afford it, and of limited companies, to provide shelters and, if so, are they to do so only for their employees or are they expected to make provision for customers and others who may live in their districts? My own personal view is that if the present danger is a serious one, and as a loyal citizen I accept the view of the Government that it is, then I think that a business which can possibly afford it ought to make provision for both employees and customers. But I want that statement from the Government.

I want to know why it is that the A.R.P. Act was followed by an order which provided that if the expenditure on a shelter in the case of a limited company was of a capital nature, the Government would allow a refund of 5/6 in the £, which was then the income-tax rate, but only to the extent of the provision made for employees. If the company made further provision for the public or for persons other than employees the refund referred to could not be made except only to the extent that employees were provided for. If it be the policy of the Government that additional shelters should be provided for the public is it not absurd to discourage limited companies from making provision for other persons in addition to their employees? If we could have a clear statement from the Government as to what is to be regarded as expenditure of a capital nature in regard to this, difficulties would not be likely to arise later with the income-tax authorities. The position at the moment is unsatisfactory. If a clear statement were made by the Government that ample provision in this direction ought to be made, then I imagine that claims made later could not be disputed by the Revenue Commissioners. Suppose, for instance, the basement of a large building is strengthened, the building will be permanently improved and, clearly, might be treated as capital expenditure. If, on the other hand, trenches are dug in a yard at the rear of business premises and shelters are put in them the latter will be of no capital value to the company that erects them. As soon as the emergency has passed they will be removed and additional expenditure will have to be incurred in filling up the open trenches and in making the yard again fit for ordinary purposes. Businessmen have asked me what the position is, but I have been unable to give them any kind of clear information on the matter. I referred on a previous occasion to the order made with regard to capital expenditure on air-raid shelters and to the allowance of 5/6 in the pound for expenditure of the kind set out in the order. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify this position. I have been told that people applying for this refund in connection with air-raid shelters must do so before next September. That means that the question as to whether the expenditure is or is not of a capital nature must be decided before then. If the expenditure is made bona fide I think the period for making a claim for a refund should be extended over a year or 18 months, which would give the income-tax authorities time to decide whether or not the expenditure is to be regarded as being of a capital nature. If expenditure on air-raid shelters is not of a capital nature it can be deducted as an expense before profits are assessed. The dear knows what the income-tax rate will be next year, but it is certain to be higher than 5/6.

My main object is to draw the attention of the House and of the Government to the need for a clearer statement on the A.R.P. service generally, and whether or not that service is to be regarded as of first importance. We should also be told whether there has been a sufficient number of volunteers for A.R.P. If not, why is not the same appeal being made for volunteers for A.R.P. as is being made for the Local Security Force? What is the real attitude of the State to this problem? I still hope that we may be saved the sufferings and the horrors of war in this country, but should that not be the case, I am absolutely convinced that the provision of trained men and women—it is mainly men's work in A.R.P.—to deal with the situation that may arise in the event of an air raid is absolutely essential. The work connected with A.R.P. is not spectacular; you do not carry a gun; you do not march round with bands. Instead of that you have to go in for serious study, you have to be adequately trained. The work of training may be of a rather tedious character. Air wardens have to find out the position in each particular area. They have to call on the inhabitants to find out how many people there are in each house in the area so that, in the event of an air raid, they will know how many people should be there. They will also have to decide which houses should be demolished immediately after a raid has taken place, a matter in which they probably must have the assistance of architects or other experts. Generally speaking, the work is not spectacular, and it has not the same kind of appeal as other services connected with the present emergency, but it is quite as or possibly more important for the safety of the people of the country.

And it is just as dangerous.

In many ways, it is more dangerous. It is just as dangerous of course in the case of an actual attack on the country. Consider for a moment the onerous character of A.R.P. work in England at present. Night after night, the A.R.P. workers there, take their turns at going round, ready at any moment to deal with an air raid if it comes. Their responsibility is just as great and, in fact, in many ways is greater than that of those who belong to local security forces in England.

There is one last matter I want to raise. I have been told by an air-raid warden that there are many people in this city who are so apathetic or so hostile that they even refuse to give the names of people residing in their houses. They refuse even to give that simple information. The A.R.P. workers, of course, have no authority to compel them to supply it. It is a purely voluntary organisation, and some of them, naturally, get rather sick of the work when faced with an attitude of this kind. For my part, I should like to see them given authority to require the police to get the required information. Alternatively, if such information is refused, notice might be served on the house-owner that should the house be damaged in an air raid, there will be grave danger that nobody will be there to take the necessary steps to have the inhabitants removed to a place of safety, because the A.R.P. workers are not in possession of the necessary information to enable them to carry out that work. I am quite satisfied that it is absolutely essential that the air-raid wardens in each particular area should have definite knowledge of the number of people in each house in the area so that if a number of houses should by any misfortune be seriously damaged, the wardens will be able to ascertain whether the people are out of these houses before deciding which houses in the area require first attention from the demolition squad. By that means they will be enabled to save a great many more lives. The work, as I have said, is not spectacular. It is a purely life-saving service, and it is work which a great many people could undertake. The plea which I make is that it should receive just as much recognition from the authorities, and that as much emphasis should be laid on its importance as on that of other services which, no doubt, are extremely valuable and which I do not want to belittle in any way.

Is it permissible for other Senators to speak on this matter?

There is a limited amount of time available for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply. The Senator may intervene, but I would ask him to be brief.

I am glad that Senator Douglas raised this question because, though perhaps he is not aware of it, he has complimented me in some of the remarks which he has made. I am one of those people who have devoted time, study and attention to this matter, and as one of the wardens in the city, I can tell him, before the Parliamentary Secretary speaks, that he has somewhat exaggerated the position. I do not want to answer on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary, but as air raid wardens have been in practically constant touch with the A.R.P. Services of the Corporation and the A.R.P. Department of the State, we have had frequent contact with the Parliamentary Secretary. I only hope that in his reply he will tell the House what he told me personally in a letter in connection with the A.R.P. services. If he does so, I think he will convince Senator Douglas that there is no lack of enthusiasm as far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, in regard to these services.

May I just say that I never accused the Parliamentary Secretary of any lack of enthusiasm? I carefully refrained from doing so and I did that deliberately.

The statement about badges was not actually correct. That has been the cause of considerable clamour throughout the warden services from the time of their inception. I might say that this was the first services of a defensive nature for which volunteers were asked on the emergency arising. I volunteered my services at that time and since then I have been engaged practically week in, week out on it. I must say that much of the opposition we received was from very responsible people who should know better. We had even some hostile references in this House. I refer to a statement by Senator MacDermot on the occasion when the Minister mentioned the purchase of gas masks. The Senator then said that that was money thrown away. I wonder would he state to-day that the money was thrown away? We had statements also from other public representatives which threw cold water on the service and made it very hard for us to carry on.

Would the Senator permit me to point out that, by intervening in the debate, he is curtailing the limited amount of time within which the Parliamentary Secretary must reply?

Furthermore, if he makes references to speeches by other Senators he must expect other speeches.

I should just like to say that we had a parade of 150 A.R.P. workers of my area last Sunday. That parade consisted of more than nine men from each post in many cases. We try to have at least six men for each post, but in many cases we have three eight-hour shifts, with three men on each shift, if we can regulate the work so as to fit in with the men's ordinary working hours. We have been regarded as the Cinderella of the defence organisations, and there is the fact that certain people who got trained in this service went afterwards and joined the Local Security Force because it was more glamorous. The fact that the local security men were allowed to carry rifles and that they were enabled to parade with them, made that work far more glamorous than the routine work of the A.R.P. If I am not taking up too much of the Parliamentary Secretary's time, I should like to add that we undoubtedly have had grievances. Senator Douglas has exaggerated some of these grievances but he certainly has not exaggerated others.

I have been defending this idea of organising an air raid precautions service in the country for the past nine or ten months, and on my first visit to the Seanad I expected that I would have to defend it rather valiantly and at great odds. I am very much pleased to note, therefore, the line that Senator Douglas has taken. I think he has really made the kind of speech that I should like to be able to make myself. He has put his finger on the trouble in relation to air raid precautions when he has called that service the Cinderella of the defence services. In trying to organise the A.R.P. services for the past nine or ten months we have been working against the apathy of the general public, and, I would say, the apathy of the Opposition in the Dáil, or rather their active opposition—I cannot say anything about the Seanad, as I do not know what their idea is about it now—and I might as well say that, in my opinion, there has been apathy on the part of the Government also. Therefore, it has been very difficult to organise an efficient and widespread A.R.P. organisation.

What Senator Douglas says in relation to the building up of a warden service is also correct. The people of this country, to my mind, are very fond of glamour, and the newspapers are fond of headlines, and between the fondness of the people for glamour and the newspaper headlines that are devoted to another very important and more glamorous service, that is, the Local Security Force and the Army, we have had an idea inculcated into the minds of the general public and of the people who have joined the Warden Service that the latter service is not as self-sacrificing a service or as important or valuable a service as that given by men who are prepared to engage in forming fours and handling rifles. Now, I take issue with that altogether. In my opinion, a good warden must be a really good and a very intelligent citizen. He has to do a rather hard course of training. He has to do a good deal of unobtrusive and unknown work and he has, as Senator Douglas again pointed out, to try to induce people to help him—people who are not only apathetic in giving him any help, but who also definitely deny information which it is their duty as citizens to give him and who refuse to give him any co-operation, with the result that the whole thing has been rather difficult up to now.

Senator Douglas made a couple of points which I should like to answer. When anybody asks me anything about money I am afraid I get rather muddled. However, with regard to this question of a grant to employers building shelters for their employees, it is not a rebate of income-tax of any kind; it is a grant of 5/6 in the £ of their expenditure.

The Act says that it is only if it is capital expenditure.

Well, that is why I say I am muddled. I do not quite know what the Senator means by capital expenditure, but if you spend £100 on building air-raid shelters for your employees you get a rebate of 5/6 in the £.

Certainly.

You have to satisfy the authorities that it is capital expenditure, and what is meant by capital expenditure is well known to the Revenue Commissioners. I should be glad, however, if the Parliamentary Secretary would look into this matter and send me a statement on it which I could have published if necessary.

I shall certainly do so, but I think the Senator is wrong. I think the Revenue Commissioners do not come into this at all. While the Senator has been very polite to me, I should like to say that I did not get sufficient notice to enable me to have all the necessary information.

May I say, Sir, that I wish to be proved wrong?

Well, I hope to do so, Sepator. With regard to the question of claims for work done before a specified date, there was a date fixed, the 31st December, 1939, but that went by the board, and there is no difficulty in meeting what you want at the present moment because a change has been made whereby I am enabled to extend the date to any particular time that is really required in fairness to the man who built the shelter. That can be done.

The question of badges is another case in point, as Senator Douglas points out. Badges were made for the A.R.P. service and handed over to the Local Security Force. A badge, I suppose, is not of any great value, except——

It gives authority.

——in so far as that in this case it showed that the Local Security Force should have priority over the air-raid wardens. I think that is wrong. I am very insistent on the fact that the wardens are quite as important, and, in many cases, much more important than any other force in the country. With regard to the matter of equipment and its scarcity, I do not think there is any great scarcity of equipment now. I should like to tell the Seanad what exactly has been done in the way of the provision of equipment generally. In regard to public shelters, we have trench shelters for 7,000 people, basement shelters for 17,000 people, and overhead shelters for 7,000 people. We have not yet completed our scheme but when the whole scheme is completed it will provide accommodation for something like 35,000 people in the various shelters. Now, these cost a lot of money and I do not think the general public ought to expect the Government to provide shelters for everybody in every place. We cannot go completely under the ground. The Senator, however, has mentioned the question of private shelters. I do think that it is definitely the duty of the people who can afford to build private shelters to do so. If there were any warning to us in that regard that could be more drastic than that which was given to us in Wexford in the past few days, I do not know what it is. I would advise people who can afford to build shelters to build them; and, after all, they do not cost such a lot.

What about employers and companies? Ought it to be a duty upon them to provide shelters for their employees?

It is their duty. Again, as I say, I have not had due notice of this question that has been raised here this evening, and I have a bad memory, but I think that that is imposed on employers as a duty by the Bill.

No, it is not. It is a voluntary matter.

Well, I am learning a lot here in the Seanad. At any rate, it is really their duty and I should like to have in the Bill a compulsory clause to make employers provide shelters. You must remember, however, that up to now what we have got in regard to the provision of A.R.P. services has been got by simply begging from this person and that person. We have not got anything voluntarily. The people have been apathetic and even antagonistic. The Opposition in the Dáil has been very antagonistic, and I must say that, in my opinion, the Government have not been sufficiently sympathetic with our point of view. What we have got has been simply by the grace of the people themselves. We now have 73 fire-fighting machines for Dublin, Dun Laoghaire and scheduled areas, 44 for the scheduled areas, and 40 for the towns in this country of over 5,000 people. With regard to respirators we have got 500,000 ordinary respirators, 19,000 babies' respirators and 25,000 children's respirators. A further order for the same number and classes of respirators has been placed and we are waiting delivery. We have also 6,000 civilian duty respirators and 3,000 more have been ordered. We have 8,000 service respirators and 3,000 more have been ordered.

I still think that there is too much emphasis on gas masks and respirators. I do not believe we are going to see any gas.

I have never been keen on them myself, but while Senator MacDermot is a very responsible person, he has not got the responsibility of looking after the general public, and I cannot afford at the end of this war, during which undoubtedly all sorts of terror will be let loose on the people, to be held responsible for not providing them with gas masks, if gas has been used.

So long as there is enough money for other precautions.

We will come to the money. Up to date, the total State expenditure on A.R.P. is £149,641 18s. 5d., and the Dublin Corporation has spent £36,000. I do not think there has been a tremendous lot of money spent on A.R.P.——

A very small proportion of our defences.

—for the provision of shelter and the other services. I think we have got very good value for the money. Senator Douglas also referred to what Ministers say. I cannot help what Ministers say any more than I can help what Senators say, but I do believe that Ministers—I hope I will not be hauled over the coals for saying this—have not sufficiently stressed the necessity for A.R.P. and have not seemed to grasp that it is such an essential service. I will not keep the Seanad any longer because it is late, but I should like to make a more detailed statement on the whole question of A.R.P. I am glad that Senator Douglas has given me the opportunity of saying these few words. He raised the matter in the right place and in the right manner.

We are not only up against apathy and antagonism in our attempt to organise the services, but up against people who seem to be in too much of a hurry and who do not take the right steps to secure what they want. Quite recently, a circular letter was sent to Ministers, to the T.D.s of the County and City of Dublin and to the leaders of the various denominations in regard to the sins of the A.R.P. service.

People who do that sort of thing are not helpful. If anybody is in any doubt, or in any way in want of help which we can give, if he comes to us first, we will try to give him the information and try to help him, but it is grossly unfair for people, in the guise of friends, to go out and stab us in the back. If only for the manner in which he has raised this question, I am very thankful to Senator Douglas.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say a word about hospitalisation. I have heard it said by a very high medical authority in the city that no arrangements were being made for hospitalisation in the event of an emergency.

The Parliamentary Secretary has concluded on the main question raised and no notice was given in respect of hospitalisation.

I am afraid it is out of order, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider a broadcast in a week or so. I believe it would be greatly appreciated by the public.

There have been several broadcasts already.

I do not quite understand what Senator O'Callaghan is worried about, but in regard to the provision of hospitalisation, first-aid and so on, I think a good deal has been done here in Dublin City. The St. John Ambulance Brigade have complete control in the carrying out of first aid, and I should like to say a word of appreciation of the work the St. John Ambulance people have done. They have done what I might call trojan work, and they have been most helpful to me in everything appertaining to their work. The Irish Red Cross Society, which has been organised since the A.R.P. service became a subject for abuse, is also working very hard to perfect first-aid and medical services. The Irish Medical Union is in constant consultation with the doctors of Local Government, the Army and the A.R.P. service in the matter of providing hospitalisation. Also drugs and dressings for all the first-aid stations in the Twenty-Six Counties have been provided. The stuff has been purchased and, apart from the amounts of drugs, dressings, surgical appliances, etc., which have been accumulated as reserves in all the voluntary and Local Government hospitals in the country, we are purchasing this week sufficient drugs, dressings, and surgical necessaries for 50,000 casualties. Arrangements have been made with various hospitals to take patients and casualty clearing hospitals have been arranged for here in Dublin. While a good deal has been done throughout the country, we are taking up the whole question of dealing with air-raid casualties in the provincial areas during the next week.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th September, 1940.

Barr
Roinn