§ 34. Mr. Pageasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in the interests of road safety and to avoid the closing down, possibly permanently, of many motor driving schools, he will ensure that such schools have a fair priority in the allocation of available petrol.
§ Mr. Aubrey JonesI would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to 872 my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on Monday, 26th November.
§ Mr. PageYes, but that reply stated only that driving schools would be entitled to the basic ration and could apply for a supplementary allowance. Would my right hon. Friend indicate what supplementary they can apply for, and say that if they do apply for a supplementary they will not be told that because driving tests have finished there is no more need for driving schools?
§ Mr. JonesIt has been said that driving schools will be entitled to a supplementary allowance. I have said also that where livelihood is affected, special consideration will be given to individual cases. In the light of both those statements, I should have thought that driving schools could be reasonably reassured.
§ Mr. JayCan the Minister say why it has taken four weeks to introduce rationing in this country, whereas France and some other countries have apparently done it in a week or ten days?
§ Mr. JonesHon. Members cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they are asking me for more and more detailed supplementary allowances. On the other hand, they ask me for a more rapid introduction of the scheme. The two things do not go together. This scheme has taken three weeks to introduce, which is roughly the same as the last rationing scheme, though the number of cars on the roads is larger. As for the difference between this and the French scheme, each country has its own habits and practices, and I am quite sure that, were we in this country to introduce the French scheme, the number of complaints and grievances would be far greater even than it now is.
§ Mr. ShurmerDoes not the Minister think that all hon. Members opposite who supported the Government's policy over Suez should be refused any supplementary allowance?
§ 39. Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many Members of Parliament have informed him that it is not their intention to claim their basic petrol ration and to forgo their claim to supplementary ration.
§ Mr. Aubrey JonesNone, Sir.
§ Mr. LewisIn furtherance of the admirable supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer), may I ask the Minister whether it is true that in the 1922 Committee the Suez rebels have stated—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Minister is not responsible for the 1922 Committee. Mr. Darling.
§ Mr. LewisI am not speaking to hon. Members opposite. If I leave out reference to the 1922 Committee, Mr. Speaker, may I put my supplementary question?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member did not leave it out when he asked it.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. Member will let me hear what it is, and if it is in order.
§ Mr. LewisCan the Minister give an assurance that the Suez rebels are not refusing their supplementary petrol as a protest against the Government's action in Suez?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that the Minister is responsible for what the hon. Member calls the Suez rebels either.
§ 41. Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the order making petrol coupons available from post offices on Thursday, 22nd November, 1956, caused a rush of motorists to the post offices, and made difficulties for the staffs; that this order coincided with the issue of old-age pensions, which normally takes place on a Thursday, necessitating these aged people having to wait for long periods in queues, at personal inconvenience; and whether, on similar occasions, he will cause petrol coupons to be issued on a Monday or other such day which is normally recognised as a day when there is rather less work required on the part of post office staffs.
§ Mr. Aubrey JonesAfter it became clear that rationing must be introduced, Thursday, 22nd November, was the earliest possible date on which the issue of 874 basic rations books could start. I regret any inconvenience the arrangements may have caused old-age pensioners, but the heavy responsibilities which fall on Post Office staffs at this time of the year restrict the choice of timetable in dealing with sudden calls such as this to undertake additional agency work. Should a further issue of basic ration books be necessary, my right hon. Friend and I would again do our utmost to meet the convenience of all concerned in deciding the day on which issues should begin.
§ Mr. LewisMay I thank the Minister for the sympathetic tone of that reply and ask why it had to be announced on a Thursday at all and why there was the three weeks' notice? Would it not have been possible to do it last Monday, or today? Why was it necessary to give three weeks' notice?
§ Mr. JonesAgain, hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot both complain of the timing and call for the earliest possible start. It had to be three weeks because the post offices had to issue over 5 million books. The regional officers had to examine individual applications from farmers for petrol for tractors and stationary machines. Without all this, the scheme would have been started with people not knowing where they were, which would have created far more difficulty. It is because of these factors that the scheme was started at the earliest possible date. The fact that it was a Thursday is something which I can only regret.
§ Mr. W. R. WilliamsWhat prior consultations took place between the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry and the Post Office in regard to the important decision that he took?
§ Mr. JonesI certainly consulted my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who agreed to curtail the time as much as he could and to expedite the introduction of the scheme as much as possible.
§ 42. Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why the regulations for the basic petrol ration do not treat motor cycles and motor cars on an equal basis; why a motor cycle of 1,000 cubic centimetres capacity does not receive the same allocation as a motor car of similar engine capacity; and if he will amend his regulations to remove this hardship.
§ Mr. Aubrey JonesA motor cycle can do more miles to the gallon than a motor car of the same cubic capacity, and the basic ration quite rightly takes account of this fact.
§ Mr. MulleyIs the Minister not aware that some motor scooters which are on the motor car ration are advertised to do more than 500 miles, whereas those with the motor cycles in question will only get 100 to 150 miles out of their basic allowance of 4½ gallons? Does he not consider that the distinction between different sizes of cars but not between the different sizes of motor cycles smacks of class prejudice, and will he not at least put this matter right?
§ Mr. JonesIn the light of that question, it would help tremendously to restrict consumption if people were to substitute motor scooters for motor cars.