AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A Ramp in Producer-fuel?

13th April 1940, Page 13
13th April 1940
Page 13
Page 14
Page 13, 13th April 1940 — A Ramp in Producer-fuel?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

WHAT is the secret lying behind the great increases in prices of those fuels considered to be most suitable for employment in road-vehicle gas producers? On January 29, Mr. J. Holder, of Dupuy Gas Producers, Ltd.. wrote to the Mines Department in relation to fuel prices, and on March 21 [Note the tardiness] a reply was received which does something to unveil the secret. It was explained that, until recently, sales of fuel for gas producers were on such a small scale that a definite price level could hardly have been said to have existed.

The question of the prices which should be charged had since been carefully considered by the Department, with the following 'considerations in mind : —(1) That the delivered prices of the particular fuels used for this purpose should, if possible, be the same; (2) that this all-over price should be fixed at a figure which would encourage their production.

it is recognized, continues the letter, that the production of such fuels is a new business, calling for a very high degree of selection and care at the colliery or works. In these circumstances, Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd approves the figure of 90s. per ton delivered (63s. per ton production price), but reserves the right to reconsider this figure after a reasonable period, on the basis of such further evidence as may then be available.

It is not contemplated that there will be any further increase in the selling price authorized, at any rate for a considerable time, but it will be appreciated that it is not possible definitely to state what figure may have to be fixed in the future.

Value of No-tax Promise Offset In another letter, in this instance to the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, Mr. Holder pointed out that although the Treasury has promised users of solid fuel for this purpose that there will be no tax and no rationing, the Mines Department has, by its action, negatived the value of this promise as regards freedom from taxation, and, in doing so, has put all this extra profit into the pockets of the fuel producers.

The position is all the more galling, because until this demand for fuel arose, anthracite, perfectly suitable for the work, was available at a reasonable figure. Take one particular product, Progasite. This is merely 'another name for what was formerly Great Mountain Small Peas fuel, and it may well be asked whether a mere change of name can justify a big increase in price.

Part of the fault may lie in the effort to arrange an all-over price, because this means that natural fuels, the costs of obtaining which cannot have risen very greatly, are brought up to the same level as manufactured or specially prepared fuels.

The amount of Progasite that can be dealt with without additional equipment is 10,000 to 15,000 tons of the dry quality per annum, and 10 times that quantity of the wet. Apparently, all increases in price since that date are, with the permission of the Mines Department, considered to be merely to encourage production.

Plenty of Fuel for Many Vehicles It must be pointed out in connection with these figures that it would require 250 vehicles using the dry Progasite exclusively and a further 2,500 vehicles employing the normal or wet quality, to consume the quantities of these fuels which, in January of this year, were considered to be the normal expectation.

At the moment, there is nothing like this number of producer-gas vehicles on the road, and not all of those operating are able to use Progasite exclusively. Therefore, the output of the other fuels must be added to those which were, at the above date, stated to be available.

The Government may, so far as its own purchases are concerned, be presumed to be exercising rigid economy and limiting profits. Yet, here we have an important Government Department which is going out of its way to encourage what, in many quarters, must undoubtedly be regarded as exorbitant profits.

It is no excuse to make any comparison between the price of such fuel and that of petrol or oil. There is no earthly reason why they should be linked. In any case, the cost of liquid fuels may conceivably rise considerably, although, we hope, not to the fantastic levels which obtained during and immediately after the war of 1914-18. If this happens, is the cost of producer-fuel to follow suit? Surely the producers of anthracite and other suitable fuels should be sufficiently patriotic to restrict themselves to a reasonable profit, and not endeavour to use their strong position in order to batten upon those who are being forced, by national necessity, to utilize their commodities. It may be that we are doing them an injustice, and that, for reasons which have hitherto not been explained, the prices they are charging are commensurate with their costs of production. If so, it behoves them to be quite frank regarding the matter, and to lay their cards on the table. The sooner they do this, the more rapid will be the development in the employment of producer gas, and the consequent demand upon their productive capacity. It must become a case of small profits and quick returns if road transport, that vital factor to trade and industry, is to be encouraged.

Selling Their Birthright FROM various quarters come reports that some hauliers are selling out their businesses at knock-out prices. One authority in the world of finance has stated that certain of these purchases are being made by the railways. If this be the case, the railways are taking advantage of an artificially created situation, which has benefited them at the expense of another and no less essential industry—road haulage. The railways are supposed to be under the control of the Government. If this control extends to financial arrangements, as would appear to be the case from the recent agreement and the scheme for the sharing of excess profits, then, apparently, the Government is countenancing, and may be encouraging, this partial subjugation of one great industry by another. It is obvious that the railways would not carry on such a procedure unless it be either to eliminate competition or to add to their eventual earning powers. If it be the latter, then this capacity for obtaining a livelihood should not be wrested from road operators, merely because they find themselves temporarily in a difficult position. There are already far too many road-transport concerns under railway domination, and to employ such a method as this at a time of national crisis cannot, in any sense of the phrase, be described as a "square deal." It may be claimed that no haulier is compelled to sell his business. Certainly any compulsion is not of a legal nature, but may well result from the present difficulties in operating due to fuel rationing, higher wages, trouble in obtaining new vehicles and other circumstances, which are caused by no fault of the user and are not within his power to control.

The Shortcomings of R.H.2 THE Baillie Committee, in reviewing the work of the National Joint Conciliation Board, expressed the opinion that the Board moved "too far and too fast". Amongst the many representations made bythe industry to Parliament during the passing of the Bill which eventually became the Road Haulage Wages Act of 1938, and amongst the many pleas put forward on all sides to the Central Wages Board constituted under that Act, none was more frequent or more urgent than that they should not repeat the mistake of their predecessors, that there should not be any of that undue haste which was so destructive a factor in the work of the N. J.C.B. Neither representations nor pleas have had the desired effect. We have seen, in the haste with which the recent proposals for an increase in wages was approved by the Board, how futile were the pleas. Barely two months have elapsed since the presentation of R.H.2 and the implementation of the Act, and in that period the working of the Order has disclosed such a plethora of loopholes, inconsistencies and omissions as clearly to demonstrate that the Order was conceived and executed in much too hasty a manner. In the article which appears on page 201 some of these weak points are exposed, and suggestions made for their elimination and for improvement in the wording of the Order. Other inconsistencies will be referred to in a second article which will appear next week.


comments powered by Disqus