SECOND THOUGHTS ON EVACUATION
By W. LI BURN
THE lapse of a fortnight and a debate in the Commons provide some material for assessing both the results and tendencies of the evacuation scheme. A very large number of children and a smaller number of adults have been transferred with remarkably little delay and confusion.
The danger is that the official mind may relapse into com- placency, may choose to believe that no problems connected with evacuation any longer exist. In point of fact, problems of gradually increasing urgency are already coming into being.
The evacuation scheme has naturally been directed to one end only, the convenience and safety of some sections of the urban population. To that end, the rural population in the reception areas has been simply a means. The idea that the English countryside exists as a " playground " for the towns has now been followed by the addendum that the countryman and countrywoman are to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the townspeople For, make no mistake about it, there are very few cases in which the evacuees do not cause considerable trouble.
Boys and girls from respectable homes and of an age to look after themselves are usually easier to deal with. Children just over school-entry age, who have to be assisted in bath- ing, eating and dressing, form a heavy burden on those who have to look after them. Elderly people who find their quiet shattered by a couple of noisy and destructive children ; middle-class women living in chronically under- staffed houses and forced to house others in addition to their own family—such people are already making a very sub- stantial contribution to the needs of the country at war.
The statement made in the Commons, that children had arrived in a Scottish reception area from Glasgow in a verminous condition, aroused Mr. Buchanan's wrath. It is unfortunately the fact that the standard of cleanliness and, in many cases, of propriety of conduct, is appreciably lower among the more depressed sections of the urban working- class than among their rural counterparts. A great deal of nonsense is talked about the country and the town getting to know each other. What good is to be served by intimate knowledge of those town children who represent the anti- thesis of all that the decent, patient country housewife has striven to instil into her own children? Is there any reason why an elderly couple should have to see their few house- hold treasures kicked to pieces by a couple of little hooligans?
The mothers who have chosen to accompany the younger children are a problem in themselves. In perhaps a third of the cases they are jewels, fully conscious of their obligations to their hosts, willing to do all and more than all their share of household duties. But the number of complaints makes it evident that another type of mother is numerous—the woman who regards herself as a privileged guest, demands to be waited on, shirks the care of her own children and, to put it bluntly, is obviously meaning to enjoy a cheap country holiday of indefinite duration.
The result of all this is that the attitude of the reception areas has markedly changed in the last fortnight. Then the usual phrase was, " The poor little things! Of course, we'll take them." Partly because there have been no air-raids yet, but partly because of a realisation of what reception means, this attitude is rarer today. As time goes on, as nerves get frayed, and as domestic help gets harder to obtain, the difficulties inherent in the scheme must increase.
It is essential that these difficulties should be faced now. It is by no means certain that they have officially been under- stood, even yet. At each end, there is a household dislo- cated: at the reception end the dislocation may be over- whelming, especially for those households which set a value upon some degree of peace and quietness and upon the maintenance of certain standards of conduct. In a war where psychological considerations have so important a place, this is a matter which should not be overlooked. It cannot be a good thing to have so many people complaining, within the first fortnight of war, that their homes no longer feel like their own. The shadow of the indefinite con- tinuance of this state of things is quite assuredly not an asset to the Home Front.
The evacuation scheme has—or had—a certain mere- tricious and sentimental appeal, because it plays upon the emotion of pity and upon the protective instinct. There is, however, no reason why, in the name of these things, such a heavy burden should be imposed indefinitely upon one section of the population. The success of the scheme, judged as a transport undertaking, has blinded many people to what ought to have been done—the provision of effective shelters in the towns or the construction of camps in the country. The kindliness and tolerance of people in the reception areas has been used to save the Government the trouble of formulating a more satisfactory plan: they cannot do so for ever.
The wrong policy is to regard the problem of evacuation as having reached a successful solution and to assume that the reception areas can bear indefinitely a mental and physical burden which is already heavy enough. The right policy is to regard evacuation as an expedient which must be constantly reviewed in theory and practice.
The scheme of private billeting ought to be regarded as exceptional, in the sense that it ought to be worked away from and not be taken as an object to be aimed at. Wher- ever possible, halls and vacant country houses should be used ; next year, if labour and materials are available, camps should be built. Again, there are in every reception area " condemned " houses. The idea of evacuees being housed in such places will, of course, lead to indignant protests ; but, in point of fact, many of these houses are perfectly habitable and have only been condemned because they do not conform to the urban standards of Whitehall. There is no reason why the better of them should not be used for occupation by evacuated mothers and children In these ways, once a " pool " for suitable accommodation has been formed, the most obvious misfits between evacuee and receiver should be removed by the housing of the former in the newly available accommodation. In other ways there is room for minimising the present burden. The basis of payment will demand early reconsideration, and even where the housewife is anxious to keep her refugees the need for rather more assistance than is at present given by the helpers will continue. It may be urged against the view set out in this article that the fact of war justifies the most violent dislocation of private households and the most flagrant disregard of private rights. In fact, it does neither. We do not, on the out- break of war, cease to regard adultery as a matrimonial offence ; nor do we repeal the Larceny Act. Indeed, it is all the more necessary in time of war to preserve the social fabric and with it the sanctity and privacy of family life. It is, among other things, for that privacy and sanctity that some of us imagine ourselves to be fighting.
Evacuation is not a sort of higher law and reception is not an eleventh commandment. Evacuation is simply a military measure, with certain advantages and with com- pensating disadvantages. Like other military measures, it will require to be constantly reviewed in the light of prac- tice. The one attitude which is intolerable is that which regards the distribution of evacuees as comparable to the problem of parking a car and imagines that the evacuees can be left where they are, without another thought, until the end of the War.
Previous page
