Have a Wet Kipper
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER Mr. Fraser's terse comment in the House of Commons on Tuesday that the Geddes report may or may not prove to be " compatible with other policy proposals ", the road goods transport industry can be forgiven if it feels rather like the maiden who stood waiting, with lips pursed expectantly, or a kiss and received instead a swift slap with a wet kipper.
The conclusions Lord Geddes and his colleagues came to were highly contentious, and it may well be that in some respects they were based on a wrong interpretation. The conclusions were, however, clearly and concisely put with (on the whole) a refreshing absence of attention to irrelevant detail. They will certainly force an•animated discussion within the industry—which basically is a good thing to happen. In many respects the conclusions, which are certainly open to discussion, are less important than the excellent and surprisingly authoritative survey which the committee produced of contemporary road goods _transport. They traced lucidly the conscious and subconscious patterns which govern road haulage and C-licensed operation. Why not let them explore this path to a conclusion?
The report should also have been used to spark off a public debate. What did, the Minister of Transport do? He resorted to the, political expedient of answering a " planted " written question—to which no debate is possible. It is not unlikely that there has been a behind-thescenes battle about whether the report 'should even have been published. In view of his utter lack of interest, one wonders why Mr. Fraser bothered.
The sad fact is that the new Minister, of whom the industry hoped much, is engaged in the age-old Socialist trick of trying to fit the facts to preconceived theories. The only thing he can then do with facts that don't fit is to ignore them. You cannot get national progress this way.