PRIVATE MOTOR CARS (PETROL ALLOWANCE)

HC Deb 23 July 1943 vol 391 cc1347-56

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Sir John Mellor (Tamworth)

I want to call attention to the inconvenience caused to unsuccessful applicants for petrol allowances, and indeed to licensing authorities and others, as a result of the rule of the Ministry of Fuel and Power that an application for petrol allowance cannot be considered unless and until the car is currently licensed. On 10th April, I received a written answer to a Parliamentary Question, which appears in the Hansard of that date. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith) gave this written reply: It is a general rule that regional petroleum officers may consider an application for a petrol allowance for a private car only if it is currently licensed. It is realised that adherence to this rule puts the applicant who is refused petrol to the inconvenience of applying for a refund of his licence payment and satisfying the licensing authority that the car has not been used during the currency of the licence. However, it is unsatisfactory to all concerned to ration on a hypothetical basis: and for this among other reasons my right hon. Friend thinks it desirable to maintain the rule.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1943; col. 1841, Vol. 388.] On 4th May I asked of the Minister of Fuel and Power this Supplementary Question: What objection is there to telling applicants whether they will be able to get a petrol allowance before they license their vehicles? The Minister replied: I think a good indication is given by the Petrol Office if there is a prima facie case for the applicant getting an allowance.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1943; col. 6, Vol. 389.] That was a rather perplexing reply, because it is difficult to see how the petrol officer can form any opinion on the merits of an application without giving it consideration. On 29th June, I asked, in a Supplementary Question: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now correct the inconsistent replies given by himself and the Under-Secretary on 4th May and 22nd April, respectively? and the Minister replied: I do not recognise anything inconsistent, and I do not recognise any cause for a withdrawal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1943; col. 1458, Vol. 390.] I think we are entitled to know precisely what this rule is and to what extent it is being enforced. Admittedly, this rule is liable to cause inconvenience, waste of time, waste of effort and a waste of paper and postage and so on to a number of people, and I think we are entitled to an explanation from the right hon. Friend to justify this inconvenience. The only explanation which I had was that given on 22nd April, by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I repeat his words: However, it is unsatisfactory to all concerned to ration on a hypothetical basis; and for this among other reasons my right hon. Friend thinks it desirable to maintain the rule. That is very vague. Why is it unsatisfactory to ration on a hypothetical basis? Surely ii: is a simple and reasonable course to consider a matter and give a provisional decision. I should like to know what are the other reasons, but those have never been divulged. I have asked that before a man has to go to the length of licensing, and of course, that means insuring too, his car, he should be entitled to obtain a provisional ruling.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell the House what his objection is to that course. Why should a person be put to the embarrassment of trying to guess how the petrol officer will exercise his discretion? If an owner insures and licenses his car and his application for a petrol allowance is rejected, he will then have to satisfy the licensing authority that his car has not been used during the current period, if he is to obtain a refund of the licence duty. Further, he will have to satisfy the insurance company that his car has not been used on the road during the current period, if he is to obtain a refund of the insurance premium—or a portion of it. That all involves a lot of correspondence and waste of time and labour, not only to the owner of the car but to the licensing authority and the insurance company, and possibly to a firm of insurance brokers, the owner's solicitors and so on. In these days when there is a great shortage of staff that, surely, should be avoided. I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend's Ministry is not the only organisation that suffers from shortage of staff.

There is another case. I think this is even a worse example. A man may be contemplating buying a car to use on what he considers to be a proper and essential purpose if he can obtain a petrol allowance for that purpose. He cannot license a car until he has bought it. Supposing he takes the risk and buys the car, insures and licenses it, and then his application for an allowance is rejected, he has to undo all that process and probably sell his car into the bargain at a substantial loss. I really cannot see the sense of putting people to all this trouble, and I cannot see why in answer to the Questions I have put on the Paper there has been reticence. This apparently absurd rule is just the kind of thing that tries people's tempers rather high in war-time. I know my right hon. and gallant Friend is always very skilful at turning away wrath but I hope he will bear in mind that bureaucracy is irritating enough without making it gratuitously irritating. I can hardly suppose that he could wish to use a rule of this kind as a deterrent to discourage people who have what might be called border-line cases, from making applications. I think that that would be an improper form of discouragement. Why should people who conceive that the use to which they propose to put their vehicles is a proper one in present circumstances, one which they regard as essential, not obtain a ruling without being penalised by being put perhaps to a very great deal of unnecessary trouble? I urge the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw this rule, and if he is not prepared to withdraw it I ask him here and now to give a clear explanation of the rule, of how it is administered and how it is justified.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George)

The hon. Gentleman who raises this question asks that I should give him an explanation of what this rule is. He has had in this House on several occasions a perfectly clear explanation of what the rule is. It is true that on one occasion, in answer to a Supplementary Question, I inadvertently twisted one thing round but it was not really of such importance because the rule itself was made perfectly plain. In a way, I wish that he had not raised this matter to-day because I think I have made perfectly clear to him the reasons for which this rule is in operation and that it is essential to the purpose which we have in mind. He talks about inconvenience to the applicant. I am well aware of them, and nobody regrets more than I do causing inconvenience and extra trouble to genuine applicants for petrol at the present time. I can assure him that I have no desire to make things any more difficult for people, but restrictions, unfortunately, have to be made. While the hon. Member tells me that this is the kind of thing which is apt to try people's tempers, I am bound to confess that we have no evidence in the Ministry that that is so. Indeed we have had practically no complaints from any area apart from his own, and even in his own area it is confined to something like half a dozen cases. I do not think he can say that people generally throughout the country regard the method by which petrol is to be got as something which is very trying to their temper.

I did not want to give the reasons and I rather asked the hon. Member to accept my suggestions to him but he has made it necessary that I should do so. I think that after I have explained why we insist on an applicant for petrol first licensing his car before his application is considered, the House will agree that the reason is a good one. Last year it was decided to restrict still further the use of petrol in this country, for two purposes. One was, naturally, to conserve petrol, and the second was to get as many cars as possible off the road in order to conserve rubber—two absolutely vital things for the war effort of this country. If you are not licensed, you cannot, under this rule, get an allowance. Consequently, your vehicle becomes liable, because it is a laid-up vehicle, to having its tyres requisitioned. There are many people in this country—I am not complaining about this, I am not saying that there is anything improper about it—who would rather not have their tyres requisitioned. They look possibly to changed circumstances, to the period after the war, when if they have tyres on their car they will be in a position to use it. Therefore, if there is any chance whatever of getting an allowance that puts them outside the "laid-up" category.

Because of that there is a very strong incentive to make applications for petrol allowances "on spec", in the hope that an assurance may be obtained from the Petroleum Office that the applicants will get petrol allowances if they license their cars. They do not need to license the cars at that time, nor do their need to have the allowance but they have the assurance that their case is such that they are entitled to petrol allowances, and unless circumstances change it can be assumed that in the future they will be entitled to allowances. So that if there was a threat of tyre requisitioning in that district they would rush and get their cars licensed. That is one reason why we think that to prevent that is essential and that it should be necessary to take out a licence before an application can be considered. It is a very good check, in fact, to prevent that kind of thing happening, and as far as genuine appli- cants are concerned, I reply as I said at the beginning, that I do not think that in the hon. Member's area there have been more than half a dozen complaints.

There is another reason. Supposing you want to sell a car and you yourself are not eligible for a petrol ration or allowance. There is nothing to prevent you going round to all your prospective customers and asking them also to put in applications for a petrol allowance. The one who gets it, or who gets the assurance, can then buy a car and take out a licence. The hon. Gentleman talked of the need for saving labour and of not wasting the time of these people by making them go to the licence office and so on. But his suggestion would increase my staff enormously—and I am doing my best to cut it down—and would add enormously to the time that had to be used on these applications, because on most applications consultations are necessary: sometimes with the applicants' employers, sometimes with other Government Departments, and sometimes with the police. If people were allowed to put in applications without having previously taken out a licence, the number of applicants would be very greatly increased, and the amount of checking put upon my staffs in the regions would be increased. There would be exactly the opposite effect of what the hon. Member rather suggested. I would remind the hon. Gentleman what the purpose of this restriction is. The purpose is to consume less petrol, and to take cars off the road.

Sir J. Mellor

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman rather suggested that I had been guilty of some sort of impropriety in requiring him to explain this matter publicly. What valid objection has he to giving this explanation publicly? Surely people have a right to know what the rules are.

Major Lloyd George

I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of impropriety; it is for him to judge. All I did was to beg him not to raise this matter.

Sir J. Mellor

I asked for the reason.

Major Lloyd George

I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman not to raise it. It is for him to choose. The hon. Gentleman was in full possession of all the facts at that time, and I did not think it necessary for him to raise the matter here. I am sorry that I have had to explain it now. The hon. Gentleman had a plain statement from me, and I asked him not to raise it. I gave him an answer which I thought would satisfy him. If there had been hundreds of complaints, it would be different—

Sir J. Mellor

rose—

Major Lloyd George

I am not going to give way now. Quite frankly, this was a trifling matter, about which there had been no complaints from other parts of the country, and about which, after careful inquiries, it was found that only six people were concerned in the hon. Member's own area.

Sir J. Mellor

Might I say—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams)

The hon. Baronet should not insist on interrupting, unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will give way. It would be better to let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman finish his sentence, and then perhaps he will give way.

Major Lloyd George

I am prepared to give way if I can finish my sentence. If I had thought this a matter which affected many people, it would have been different; but it does not affect any other region, and, after careful inquiries, I have been able to find only about six people who are affected in the hon. Gentleman's own region.

Sir J. Mellor

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to a correspondence which was marked "Confidential" I have never been able to understand why it was marked "Confidential," and I should be pleased if it could be read; but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has touched upon it, and I did not expect him to do so. He has admitted that I was quite entitled to raise the matter in the House. Will he also admit that the public who are concerned have a right to know the explanation which he has given?

Major Lloyd George

The public will know if they read the papers to-morrow.

Sir J. Mellor

Have they not a right to know?

Major Lloyd George

No, not necessarily. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of this is to take cars off the road. Most people have done so. Unfortunately, there are people in this country, not only in connection with petrol but in connection with everything else, who will get around a regulation if they can do so. The majority of people will loyally abide by a regulation if they are told that it is in the national interest. They have done so in this case. But I do not want to encourage the small number who will take advantage of any loophole. So I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be content with my explanation, which was given after careful inquiry and consultation, and after finding that there is no great number of people affected. The hon. Gentleman has talked about a confidential correspondence. What on earth does he mean? I asked him not to raise this matter. After he has raised it there is nothing for me to say but that I have nothing to add.

Sir J. Mellor

I did not raise that point. The correspondence was marked "Confidential," and I thought in not referring to it I was taking the proper course.

Major Lloyd George

I still say that I am sorry I had to give this explanation, because I did not want to encourage applications at the present time. I have enough to do at present as it is. If there were a great public demand, it would be different, but there is no evidence of any demand, in any part of the country on this subject. In the hon. Gentleman's own district there have been only six complaints, after most careful investigation by my own staff in the district. I repeat that it is the purpose of the restriction to take cars off the road. What the hon. Gentleman suggests will make it easier to put more cars on the road. When you put forward a restriction, it means that you want to restrict. After having carefully reviewed all the circumstances, I very much regret that I cannot see my way to alter the Order.

Sir J. Mellor

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants a deterrent, why not apply a direct deterrent, instead of using this hole-and-corner method?

Major Lloyd George

I have asked the hon. Gentleman before whether he will tell me of a direct deterrent.

Sir J. Mellor

I have suggested one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This is getting much too like an argument.

Sir J. Mellor

Perhaps I might answer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? I have already suggested at Question time—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, the hon. Gentleman has already made one speech, and he cannot make another on the Adjournment. He can put another question, but he must not start answering questions.

Sir J. Mellor

I am sorry; the Minister asked me a question, and I am answering it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is just where the hon. Gentleman is going wide.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.