Political Commentary
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Spur of the Moment RECRIMINAT1ON against the Government for creating the situation that has made fuel rationing necessary has not been anything like as strong as many people expected. This may reflect, as the Government no doubt maintain, a general agreement with their policy in the Middle East. On the other hand, the details, if notthe causes, of the rationing scheme have provoked strong opposition. Perhaps this has not come from politically powerful sections of the public. but there is enough of it to give the impression that the scheme is rough and was hastily planned.
This is surprising. For many weeks there has been much talk about the supposed plans for an emergency in which the Suez Canal and the oil from the Middle East would be involved. There were even one or two attempts to set out the plans in detail. Inquiries into the truth of the rumours met with the usual bland official denials of the details, if not of the existence of a plan. There was also the usual measure of disbelief -in the denials.
Perhaps after all they were genuine as well as ingenuous. When the rationing scheme was finally announced, it had some strange features that it was charitable to assume had been thought up on the spur of the moment. The silence that was observed for a day or two among some sections of the road transport industry, including the hauliers. was not the silence of agreement, but rather of bewilderment. A weekly basic ration of two gallons for each half ton of unladen weight bore no relation to current use. The ration for oil-engined vehicles, two-thirds of the petrol 'ration, ostensibly calculated ".to give petrol and Diesel operators broadly the same mileage," seemed more like a device to ensure parity of misery.
Weeks of Anxiety
There was provision for supplementary allowances. but no applications for these would even be entertained until half of the basic ration hid been used. As rationing was not to begin until December 17, hauliers appeared to have several weeks of anxiety ahead of them, only slightly alleviated by the subsequent concession enabling them to apply for supplementary allowances as soon as they received their basic rations.
Passenger vehicle operators were more quickly off the mark. The Government announced their aim as an overall reduction of 10 per cent, in consumption, but admitted that cuts would fall less heavily on stage services, "which are essential 'to the life of the corn munity," than on express services, excursions, tours and private party services, "which are less essential."
Representatives of the slighted services were aware that the intention was to cut them by 50 per cent., whilst stage services would suffer to the extent of only 5 per cent. Immediate protests were made against the arbitrary division into sheep and goats. It was suggested that a general reduction of 10 per cent. would share the hardship equally.
Meanwhile, hauliers were getting their breath back, and now came their turn to protest. They had calculated that the basic ration was ideal for an operator who did not wish his vehicle to 'travel more than 120 miles in a week. In view of the fact that many road haulage vehicles do much more than this in a day. they' seemed likely, under rationing, to spend most of the week in the garage. There would be supplementary rations, but nobody knew to what extent in his particular case.
Was it necessary for the Government to spread so much alarm among road transport operators? There were certain objectives the Government must have had in mind. They wanted to keep essential transport moving, and have possibly left themselves enough scope to do this, at any rate for the carriage of goods. With the ultimate intention of saving 25 per cent, of consumption, the Government also needed to reassure road users that they would have a reasonable chance to carry on. Neither goods nor passenger vehicle operators have been in the least reassured, and for this the Government are largely responsible.
No operator ought to feel in danger of going out of business, although he may expect to suffer a little. Many passenger vehicle operators will find difficulty in carrying on with half the supply of fuel to which they have been accustomed. They will lose passengers, perhaps to the railways, and some of the passengers will not return when conditions are normal To the less well favoured operator rationing may mean a permanent change for the worse, and he will have every justification for laying the blame on the Government.
C-licence Competition .
Rationing also exposes hauliers to risks against Which they feel the Government should give them more protection. They are bound to relinquish some traffic that the railways are eager to have. The haulier faces competition in addition from ancillary operators, whose representatives have made a strong case for permission to carry for hire or reward while the emergency lasts, and may be considered to have been partly successful.
Other problems that will face operators if their activities are seriously curtailed for any length' oftime include the treatment of staff and the payniertt of hirepurchase instalments. While there is merely a 10 per cent. cut in fuel, operators and their drivers have been stimulated to co-operate -in order to make full use of every drop available. By this means they have managed to do almost as Much work as before. When the supply of fuel falls below al certain level, the urge to economize will languish for lack of hope, and operators will have to put men Off, however much it goes against the grain.
The hire-purchase problem partly contains its own solution. When times are hard, finance companies rarely want to push their customersto the point of insolvency. They prefer to wait if there is a reasonable chance of getting their money in the end.
Had the Government given even a little more consideration to their rationing scheme, they might have come nearer their objectives. The scheme might have been made less rigid for passenger -vehicle operators, and, in a way, more rigid for goods operators. A margin held in reserve would have made it more easy to help in cases of hardship on the passenger side. Goods operators. on the other hand, might have been given more basic and less supplementary, but the basic ration should have been, like the present allowance, a proportion of past consumption, and not a fixed amount depending only on unladen weight.