WHAT OF THE USER?

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 108, 3 November 1942, Page 4

WHAT OF THE USER?

In replying to criticism of the regulations providing for simpler styles in clothing, the Minister of Supply (Mr. Sullivan) referred to the point made by us that it might have been preferable for the Government to have avoided hard and fast rules, and to have relied on the cooperation of manufacturers and users to achieve its aim. Mr. Sullivan says that this suggestion "is out of accord with the sentiment of those most concerned, who were almost unanimously of opinion that without Government sanction and enforcement Hhe simplification provisions would be quite ineffectual." By "those most concerned" the Minister apparently means the manufacturers, for the users were not consulted in any way. Thi^ ; WJKPp^inerd.y i toW-that simplifies

lion of clothing was contemplated and all they could do was await the gazetting of the regulations. Surely the point of view of the user, who has to Wear the clothes, is worthy of some consideration. Too often these days the public find themselves regimented in ail kinds of ways without being given an opportunity of expressing any opinion until'the regulations have been passed. By that time protests are of little avail. If, as Mr. Sullivan claims, he lias obtained the almost unanimous support of the trade for his simplification programme, he has been fortunate, for manufacturers generally (not the clothing trade particularly) have been much disposed in the past to protest against over-regulation. The public will be interested' to learn from the Minister the extent of the saving which is expected to result from his proposals. They would be even more interested to learn that they are to receive some benefit from the reduced cost of production in the way of reduced prices. Mr. Sullivan says that the over-all gain over men's and women's clothing will probably be nearly 10 per cent., which could increase the saving to within the vicinity of £1,200,000 per annum. If the Minister's estimate proves correct, there appears to be a clear case for passing on the saving to the consumer. It must be admitted, however, that past experience doe? not justify undue optimism. Necessary wartime restrictions—the elimination of deliveries, for. instance —have resulted in reduced costs, but the public have received little or no benefit. Generally, it costs just as much to buy an article and carry it home as it did before to order llie same article and have it delivered Nobody objects to putting up with inconveniences if they are necessary, in the general interest, but where the elimination of service? reduces costs the public arc entitled to some compensation.