NOW ROAD HAULAGE IS NOT I IE NATIONALIZATION LIST

18th September 1964, Page 66

18th September 1964

Page 66

Page 67

Page 66, 18th September 1964 — NOW ROAD HAULAGE IS NOT I IE NATIONALIZATION LIST

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

FROM OUR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

IT is confirmed at last that road haulage 1 is not on Labour's election list for straightforward renationalization. What the Party does intend is still not settled —and the final verdict will be postponed for at least a year. The Conservative reaction is that the nation should be on its guard.

With the expected element of blank cheque in its appeal to the electrorate, the Labour manifesto repeats that: 1. There would be a national transport plan, covering roads, railways and canals, and including regional requirements.

2. Major rail closures would be halted immediately the Party came to power and would remain so while the plan was drawn up.

3. British Road Services would be "given all'necessary powers to extend theIr fleet of road vehicles and to develop a first-rate national freight service ". 4. Nationalized industries would be encouraged to diversify and move into new field.s.

5. There would be vigorous action to stop cut-throat haulage firms" from flouting regulations covering maintenance, loads and driving hours.

6. Public transport would provide the basis of journeys to work, and a reasonable service in rural areas.

But—and up flies the hot potato— licensing reform must wait for the Geddes Report.

At a Press Conference `to launch the manifesto, Labour leader Mr. Harold Wilson emphasized that what would be necessary, in addition to the expansion of the public sector, depended largely on what came out of the Geddes Committee. No-one knew, he said, what they were going to recommend in terms of distance limits, co-ordination and other matters. He then repeated another well-known phrase: "Integration cannot be solved without tackling the C-licence problem ". He referred questioners to his Commons speech some time ago which, he claimed, gave the broad lines of Labour's approach.

Deputy leader Mr. George Brown was equally imprecise about proposals to enforce maintenance and other regulations. He suggested that existing regulations, if properly enforced, would do something to improve safety. He indicated that spot checks alone were not enough, and that all lorries should be checked either at the time of licence review, or in "some other way ".

Mr. Brown said that in the original road transport legislation of the 1930$, there was a good deal covering safety, hours, and so on, which was never brought back into full operation, but instead was virtually left " on some dusty shelf ". A good deal of what was then created should be brought into the light of day and made part of the code which drivers should accept and owners be made responsible for.

Twenty-four hours later, the Conservatives urged the electorate to be on their guard. The Prime Minister declared in London: "Do not let us be deceived by the apparent reprieve for road haulage." Labour, he said, were plugging the line that they wanted more information. "They haVe had a long time to collect it," he added. "The reason they do not commit themselves to the nationalization of road haulage is because they know the public would not stand for two takeovers in one document. (Steel renationalization is a firm Labour pledge.)

"They were right," Sir Alec went on. "I trust the public will not stand for even one."