North Queensferry School – WWII

June 1939 Discussions in Parliament

Discussions in Parliament

On 12th June 1939, the House of Commons held a six hour debate on “the Powers Of Local Authorities To Construct Underground Shelters And Other Premises Required For Civil Defence Purposes.”

Topics included:

The pros and cons of deep underground shelters v small Anderson shelters were discussed

How to balance the need to act quickly while avoiding legal issues over land ownership.

The proposed legislation only gave local authorities the power to construct a shelter, but not to maintain it.  A landowner could remove the walls or roof.

Should vulnerable populations be evacuated?

Did Anderson shelters provide better protection than deep shelters in the event of a gas attack?

How should local conditions be taken into account in a national policy?

You can read the full text here: Parliament – Underground-shelters – 12th June 1939

The outcome of the deliberations was the Civil Defence Act 1939

Willie Gallacher, the Communist Party MP for West Fife raised the North Queensferry issue:

. . . I would direct the attention of the Minister to the position of North Queensferry, which, as I have mentioned very often, is built on rock at the base of the north end of the Forth Bridge. Two miles away there is Rosyth naval base, three miles on the other side is the new aerodrome factory at Donibristle, and there is a great munitions dump at Crombie near Dunfermline. In fact, all round the area there are great munitions dumps stretching to Grangemouth.

On the outskirts of the village there is a railway tunnel which runs through the rock. It could shelter 1,000 people, and, with the women and children evacuated, everyone who was left could be sheltered in that tunnel. If nothing is done and an air raid should take place, the people will naturally make for that tunnel. They will have to go down the railway embankment. Only about six trains a week pass through that tunnel, which is not really in much use. It is an old railway siding.

The leading people in the village are very concerned about the lack of preparation in connection with defence, and they consider and discuss the question of the tunnel. Colonel Wincole, who was taking the place of the lad who had gone on holiday to Canada, went to look over the situation. He was taken through the tunnel by Dr. Brock, of North Queensferry. He has prepared a report, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister.

What is the first thing he says? In order to carry out the desires of the Minister that there should be no discussion of bomb-proof shelters, the first thing he says is that North Queensferry is not a vulnerable area. Not a vulnerable area, with the Forth Bridge there, the Rosyth naval base, munition areas, munition dumps and aircraft centres!

The report says that in order to get to the tunnel it is necessary to go up a very high hill, that the crowd would rush up the hill and become completely exhausted, and then there would be a panic. Imagine an exhausted panic. What would it be like?

The significant thing about it is that this high hill has nothing whatever to do with the tunnel, because it is not on the road to the tunnel.

That report is from the military expert who went to have a look at the place. How are the people to get the question of deep bomb-proof shelters considered if the Department act on the process of digging military men out of the moth-eaten lumber room and putting them in charge of defence?

The report also says that if the people ran down the railway embankment they might sprain their ankles. Therefore, I suppose they had better stay on the top and have their heads blown off. Would it not be a simple matter to make a pathway along the railway embankment to the tunnel?

Everything has been done to throw cold water on the efforts of those concerned to get this question properly dealt with.

It is not only a question of the tunnel. In the vicinity of the village there is a great rock face 80 to 100 feet high, and there is an old quarry which is now covered with grass. Within a minute of almost any part of the village is this great rock face. Is it not possible at the base of that rock face to cut a series of short tunnels that would give adequate and effective bomb-proof shelters for the people?

According, however, to the Hailey Report if there is not a rock foundation of that sort in another area you cannot use it in North Queensferry. In other words, you must not give this protection in North Queensferry if you cannot give similar protection to people in another area.

That is why the military experts who have been to North Queensferry pooh-pooh the whole idea of bomb-proof shelters of this particular kind. They will not make use of the tunnel, nor will they consider the question of making use of new tunnels in the rock face there. As a consequence of this attitude there is the greatest feeling of disquiet among the people, not only in North Queensferry, but all over the area, because they are also affected by the situation in that area if a war should break out.

There are many men in this district who have taken positions of air-raid wardens and are giving up their time and spending money going here and there at their own expense, and they feel that the attitude of the Government is such that their time, energy and money are being wasted.

I have drawn attention to the fact that what they are faced with is the provision of blast-proof kennels that have to be sunk three feet. There is no soil in North Queensferry. There is the solid rock, with the thinnest surface of soil, not more than three inches deep, and in some places not an inch deep.

Therefore, these people feel that in view of the situation that may possibly develop with attacks on the Forth Bridge, on the aeroplane factory, on the Rosyth Naval base and on the munition dumps, with bombs dropping and guns blasting in reply, it would be a terrible situation; yet because of the policy of the Government every effort is made to minimise the danger to the extent that the women and children are not to be evacuated from North Queensferry, and no bomb-proof shelters are to be provided.

I wish the Minister would go up and have a look around the district and see the situation that confronts the people. I asked him to send someone while I was visiting there, but, unfortunately, it was not possible to do so. If a representative of the Minister’s Department went there the right hon. Gentleman would have a much better report than the report of Colonel Wincole, which has made a very bad impression upon the inhabitants of the area.

It is obvious that he did not pay any attention to the situation. He does not understand the modern conditions under which a war would take place. I cannot understand why it is that men who have had their military training long before the War are being used to deal with a situation where the whole technique of war has changed, and who cannot understand what Civil Defence means.

As one who has been interested in the protection of people from air attack right from the beginning, I make my appeal to the Minister. I think it will be found that every step taken towards an advance in the understanding of this problem on the part of the Minister has come originally from this side of the House, and it is so on this particular question.

While I am deeply interested in the protection of the people against air attack, I am not interested in National Service. As I said on another occasion, it is one thing to force a rotten Government to give service to the people, but it is an entirely different thing to try and force the people to give service to a rotten Government. Therefore, while I am not for National Service I am for air-raid protection to the fullest extent, and I demand of the Minister that he should give serious consideration to this question of bomb-proof shelters.

I appeal to him to make a practical test. Let him send a representative of his Department to North Queensferry to study the situation and the danger that will menace the people there, and to consider what nature has provided for the giving of adequate shelter to the people, and on the basis of that report I am certain that he would finish with the Hailey principle that if we cannot give adequate protection to all we will give adequate protection to none. While it is our duty to try to our utmost to give adequate protection to all who are subject to similar dangers, let us see to it that we give protection to the maximum number of people when and where it is possible for us to give that protection.

[The debate continued, with other MPs discussing potential local solutions.]

EDINBURGH EVENING NEWS, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28 1939

POLITICAL NOTES
A.R.P. ARRANGEMENTS AT NORTH QUEENSFERRY
SEQUEL TO A COMPLAINT
(From Our Lobby Correspondent)
Westminster, Wednesday Morning

I understand that Sir John Anderson has instructed his chief Scottish A.R.P. representative, Mr D. Penman, Regional Technical Officer, Edinburgh, to have an interview with Mr W. Gallacher, M.P., and Mr Watson, M.P., regarding the situation at North Queensferry and Inverkeithing.  The meeting will take place some time this week-end.

Recently Mr Gallacher wrote Sir John Anderson criticising the inadequate arrangements made for North Queensferry and drawing his attention to the protests made by the A.R.P. wardens of Inverkeithing.  One of Mr Gallacher’s suggestions was that bomb-proof shelters should be created by tunnelling into the rock that arises from the old quarry site at North Queensferry.