PETROL ALLOWANCES (SEPARATED FAMILIES) (Hansard, 11 November 1948)

§ Mr. Bramall (Bexley)
Tonight I wish to discuss the rule adopted by the Ministry of Fuel and Power for dealing with applications for supplementary petrol for the purpose of visits to families by persons separated from those families because of lack of housing accommodation. Before dealing with this question, I should like to pay tribute to the general manner in which the Ministry of Fuel and Power and their regional officers deal with applications for petrol in those cases in which the Ministry and their officers have reserved to themselves discretion to deal with the cases on their individual merits. The case I want to deal with tonight is one where such discretion has not been reserved, but where the Ministry have bound themselves by a rule which I believe to be one which works very great hardship. In general, where discretion has been reserved, in no case that I have put up to the Ministry have I felt that an unjust or a harsh decision has been taken.
The matter I want to raise came to my notice by way of a case which I believe illustrates the position to the extreme degree in every particular. This 1849 particular constituent of mine had been living with his wife and baby in one very small room; it became physically impossible for the child even to be taught to crawl or walk in the room where they lived, and the man was forced to send his wife and child to live with the wife's mother in one of those remote parts of Norfolk served by about two trains a day and no train on Sunday. The man was fortunate enough to possess a motor cycle, but he was forced to apply to the Ministry for permission to obtain sufficient petrol to enable him to use the motor cycle, that being the only way in which he could visit his wife.
I have checked the train times, and it is a fact that in order that this man might visit his wife at a weekend it was necessary for him to travel for 13½ hours, and then to be able to spend precisely 11 hours with his wife and child. This was because he did not leave work early enough on Friday to catch the last train from London to the place where his wife was staying; he was compelled to wait till Saturday morning; then, as there was no Sunday train service from the place where his wife and child lived to London he had to return by the last train on Saturday evening which left at 4.15 p.m. By travelling by train he had exactly 1½ hours on the Saturday with his wife, whereas if he were able to use his motor cycle he could have got there on Friday night and need not have returned till Sunday.
I give these details in order to show that this case presents, in every particular, an extreme example of the type of case to which I am referring: there is a very great contrast between the time taken by train and the time taken by motor vehicles; there is a very great contrast between not being able to make any effective visits at all and being able to make a fairly long and satisfactory visit; and there is finally the fact that this particular application was only for the use of a motor cycle in order that the man might be able to visit his wife at week ends, at an expenditure of six or seven gallons of petrol.
This case has happily been solved owing to the fact that the man has now obtained accommodation for his wife and family in the area where he lives. But the general principle remains. This application was turned down by the 1850 Ministry, not on grounds of insufficient hardship, but because of a rule the Ministry have laid down for themselves, namely, that petrol sufficient to carry an applicant only 120 miles per month can be granted in cases of separation for purposes of week-end visits. In this case the distance from the man's lodgings to his wife and family was 137 miles one way, and therefore he could not even visit his wife and family once a month. Therefore, under that rule there was no point in giving him any petrol at all. I would point out, in parentheses, that if this man had had sufficient money he could easily have circumvented this rule. Either he and his wife could have arranged to stay at a hotel, or he could have hired a car to take him the whole way there and back, which would have taken very much more petrol. He could not afford to do that, and therefore he was not able to take advantage of his motor cycle to make these visits.
I cannot believe that if the Ministry had been judging this case on its merits, the application would not have been granted. My experience of the Ministry is that applications of this kind are sympathetically dealt with and in a way everyone would like to see. The fact remains that they have tied their hands by this rule, which appears to me to be an extremely foolish one, because it puts people in and out of court on an arbitrary basis, namely, the distance of the separation. The fact is that the greater the distance of separation the greater the need, in all probability, for the use of petrol. It means that if a wife's parents with whom she is living are a long way from the husband, then he is put completely out of court, whereas if the wife lives much nearer to her husband applications can be granted.
I plead for reconsideration of this type of case. I am sure that the Ministry are extremely sympathetic in dealing with cases where health is involved, but I submit that this case involves considerations of mental and moral health which are every bit as serious as consideration of physical health. It is certainly no exaggeration to say that many homes have been permanently broken up by separations of this kind and the fact that husbands and wives have been unable to visit each other. These people are living under very trying circumstances, and I 1851 come across quite a number of such cases in my constituency, which has a population increasing far more rapidly than the housing accommodation. These people are living under distressing circumstances and there is quite enough strain for them without adding this additional burden. I do not think that the number of cases can be very large, or that the extra petrol involved in reconsideration of this rule would be a very great burden on our resources. By reason of present-day circumstances, which are no fault of theirs, these people have been denied the right which should be everybody's right, namely, to live a normal family life. Any Government Department which has it in its power to help to ease this situation should do so.
The Minister will probably ask, "Where is the extra petrol to come from?" There are a number of cases in which petrol is given not on grounds of individual need, but on the grounds of the office or position of the applicant. All of us know of cases of local councillors and justices of the peace who receive small allocations of petrol when the places to which they have to travel are served by public service vehicles. The grant of petrol provides them with no more than an additional convenience, which it is probably desirable that they should have, but their need is certainly not comparable to that in the cases which I have described. There is a small but serious human problem to meet here, and I hope the Minister will give it his serious consideration.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)
You will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, that on more than one occasion I have stressed at this Box that my right hon. Friend and I, in dealing with petrol allocations outside the standard ration, have tried to administer the small resources at our disposal in the most humane way possible, and in a way which would give the greatest satisfaction to the majority of the people concerned. I wish to re-emphasise that we do not deal with the question of petrol allocations in any other way than in an endeavour to meet needy cases. It will be clear, however, that we have only a certain quantity of petrol, and when there are so many 1852 claims upon it we have to be most careful to ration it out so that the needs of the bulk of the people who have a case can be met if not in full at least in part.
I was glad to hear the tribute which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) paid to the regional petroleum officers and their staffs. They have done very good work in very difficult circumstances, and where they have had reasonable discretion they have done their best to meet the cases placed before them by motorists. I believe, however, that it would be unfair to them to say, "You have discretion in every case that reaches your desk." We must say, "Here is a limit for particular cases or classes of users, and up to that you may use your discretion." I agree that where that discretion has been used it has been used in a kindly way—one which we at the Ministry advocate.
In relation to what is known as the week-end travel allowance we decided that the limit would necessarily have to be 120 miles per month. Anyone can say that that is not sufficient; indeed, no one gets enough petrol; everybody wants more. I am only sorry that we have not reached the happy position where we can free all petrol from control and rationing, but while we have to ration it we must restrict the figure to 120 miles per month. Therefore, 120 miles a month has been laid down as the maximum for this weekend travel allowance. I want it to be clearly understood that, although it is called a week-end travel allowance, it does not necessarily mean that it does entitle the individual to travel home every week-end. It really means that it is an allowance of petrol which will enable him at some weekends to get home.
My hon. Friend made out a very good case for an individual who had to travel 13½ hours in order to be at home only 1½ hours. I sympathise with that case, but I must point out that every person who is working a long way from his home has not necessarily got a car or motor cycle to convey him to his home. Such people are not in a position to get home unless they suffer a long, tedious journey. The motorist or motor cyclist has the advantage to this extent that he has a mode of transport which enables him to get home sometime or other.

§ Mr. Bramall
In point of fact, he does not because he must have petrol for 110 miles to get there once.

§ Mr. Robens
He can save it up for more than one month and he can go home one time in three months, which is more than the man who has not got a conveyance could possibly do.
I want to clear up another point which is frequently made to me. It is that if a hired car were used more petrol would be used because of the difference between the consumption of a motor cycle and that of a hired car for the same journey. I want to point out that a hired car gets a fixed allowance, and if the owner uses this petrol for one or two long journeys he has to put the hired car in the garage until the next allocation of petrol comes along. Thus, there is no greater use of petrol in total. I am glad to have this opportunity to make this point, because it is so often brought to my attention in letters from Members of Parliament.
The other point I must deal with is the suggestion that we are issuing petrol to councillors, J.P.s and other such people in public life, and that this petrol is being used in the main for their convenience. Petrol is issued by the Ministry on the strict understanding that it must not be used except where reasonable public transport is not available. Therefore, any public official or public man receiving petrol either for business or public work and who uses it for his convenience is not using it in accordance with the conditions governing its issue. These people are doing something which is illegal. Such petrol is not intended to be a convenience to enable them to do public work or business which could be done by public transport where that public transport is reasonably available.
If I might again return to the question of weekend travel, there is some discretion exercised by our regional petroleum officers in certain cases. The most outstanding case is that of an allowance because of an invalid wife. Although there is a limit of 120 miles, if a man's wife is ill then our regional petroleum officers are authorised, on the production of a certificate that it is necessary that he should be at home for the weekend and public transport is not reasonably practicable to issue at their discretion sufficient petrol to enable that individual to return home every weekend. That is just an indication of the way in which we have tried to meet hard cases, although I agree that it makes it 1854 difficult for people who have not got hard cases of that kind. It would not matter how high we raise this monthly mileage. If we raised it to three times the amount there are some cases which would not be covered. Wherever we have to draw a line there is always some difficult case on the wrong side of it.

§ Mr. Bramall
Why must it be drawn as a mileage limit? Why not issue them with enough to make one visit a month.

§ Mr. Robens
Because we have our own line drawn for us at the Ministry by the amount of petrol we are given and we must estimate how that petrol is to be used. If we were to free it from mileage we should never know how to make our arrangements. If regional petroleum officers gave one weekend per month it might run into an enormous amount of petrol. We might find that our estimates for petrol consumption were far out and we should find ourselves in difficulties. We do not want to do that. We must always honour the coupons that have been issued.
Another point which my hon. Friend has missed is that up to the withdrawal of basic petrol no concession of this kind was given at all. For all the years that basic petrol was in operation, men who were placed in this situation used their basic petrol to go home at weekends. There was no extra. It was only because we recognised that hard cases might arise that we introduced this concession of 120 miles a month which, in effect, was in place of the basic petrol that was withdrawn. What is going to happen as a result? By next April, in view of the decision already announced that standard petrol will not he deducted from supplementary allowances, those people who get weekend allowances will have their standard petrol in full plus their 120 miles, so that when we look at the position in terms of mileage we shall appreciate that that will be 210 miles a month compared with the old basis of 270 miles a month. There is very little in it.
I can only tell my hon. Friend that we have done the best we can with the petrol that we have available. I can assure him and the House that when the petrol position gets easier, we shall be the first to ease many of these restrictions, which I recognise are irksome and make difficult cases. We must be bound by the availability of supplies and we must ensure 1855 that there shall be sufficient petrol to run the business community. We must do what we can to help motorists and other users of the road in the little pleasures and other uses to which they put their vehicles. I am sorry that I am not able to tell my hon. Friend that we can extend this 120 miles a month. That 1856 limit must remain. I can only repeat that when petrol gets easier many of the hard cases, like this, will be given the fullest consideration.