AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Four Tory councils warn the rest

16th February 1968
Page 38
Page 38, 16th February 1968 — Four Tory councils warn the rest
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

• The Tory council leaders in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle have written to their colleagues in every county, borough and urban district council throughout the country heavily criticizing Mrs. Castle's proposals for Passenger Transport Authorities.

In a move timed to coincide with Mr. Michael Heseltine's attack on this aspect of the Transport Bill in the Commons last week, the four leaders sought to underline that there was official opposition to PTAs in each of the four areas chosen for launching the scheme later this year.

Supporting the Conservative efforts being made to amend the Bill, the four wrote that while they agreed there was need for interim measures to alter local passenger transport until the report of the Royal Commission on local Government was put into effect, they opposed:

o The appointment of Ministry nominees to PTAs, which should consist only of members of local authorities, and be only of a consultative and advisory nature.

0 The creation of operating authorities with powers to extend state trading into the running of taxis, hire cars, excursions, cafes, garages and restaurants, etc.

On the first point, the city leaders said the PTAs should only be responsible for preparing plans to rationalize existing bus services which, if there was disagreement, should be settled by the Traffic Commissioners under appropriate additional powers.

On the second, they said the Minister's proposals were a major encroachment of the nationalized sector, and made no contribution to solving the problems of congestion in the cities.

Finally, they were opposed to the plan to charge provincial suburban commuter rail losses to the rates, while London's equivalent losses were charged to the taxpayer. It meant, they said, that provincial citizens would have to pay for their own losses and London's as well.


comments powered by Disqus