Less Petrol or No Petrol ?
There is one item in last week's austerity programme regarding which the Government may reasonably be asked to think again. That is the abolition of the basic petrol ration. The avowed desire to suspend " pleasure-motoring " at this time of stress commands some sympathy. But the people who keep a car for purposes of legitimate utility far outnumber those who keep one merely for pleasure. Motoring saves valuable time, makes for health, simplifies holidays and relieves the severe pressure on public transport, both road and rail. In the last resort, of course, almost any' sacrifice must be accepted as the price of national survival. But we have not come to the last resort, as the decision that horse-racing, dog-racing, theatres and cinemas—to say nothing of "pleasure-drinking "—are to continue more or less as usual abundantly testifies. In these cases, it may be contended, dollar-imports are not involved. But what is involved in the case of basic petrol, even if it be true that our needs cannot be fully supplied from the sterling area for lack of tankers? It was stated by the Prime Minister on August 6th that a reduction of the basic ration by one-third, together with a cut of to per cent, in the supplementary ration, would mean a saving of £4,000,000. Now we are to lose the basic ration altogether and save L5,000,000. The disproportion between the trifling dollar-gain and the extensive loss in convenience, in health, in the blow to the motor- industry (for it is idle to suppose that the capacity of the export market is infinite) and in the fall in national revenue through the reduced yield of licence-duty and petrol-tax, is glaringly dispropor- tionate. Let the Government go back to its August 6th proposal and no reasonable person will complain.
Previous page
