PORT OP LONDON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13666, 6 February 1908, Page 5

PORT OP LONDON.

COLONIAL PRODUCTS. MR. TAVERNER MOVES. By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Copyright. (Received February 5, 11 p.m.) London, February 5. Mb. Tavebneb (Agent-General for Victoria) interviewed Mr. . LloydGeorge (President of the Board of Trade) yesterday, in connection with the Port of London Bill, and urged that greater facilities be provided for discharging perishable products and for reducing the number of handlings „

Mr. Lloyd-George, who gave a sympathetic reply to the representations made, said that he recognised the growing trade, and' would be glad to assist in securing up-to-date facilities, and in the abolition of obsolete accommodation. He asked fov a copy of Mr. Taverner's report concerning a central depot, promising upon the receipt of that and other information to give the subject his best attention.

Mr. Lloyd-George gave notice recently of the introduction of a'Bill for the incorporation of a commission as the port authority of London. The question of establishing a comprehensive authority for controlling and improving the port of London appears likely to b* dealt with properly this year. A private Bill was promoted this year-by the London and India Docks Company, but this aroused much opposition, and when under discussion in the House of Commons last session received adverse criticism both from private members and from the President of the Board of Trade, who announced that the Government would bring in a Bill this year dealing with the whole question. The Bill was therefore withdrawn. In the discussion Mr. Lloyd-Georgo laid down the principles applicable to the subject. The piesent objects in London aro further portfacilities, a deepening and widening of the channel, and improvements in the- accommodation for berthing, discharging, collecting, and distributing goods. To attain these objects a public port authority is required, as the problem xmnof bo left to a private company. The trend of public opinion is against" the control of the Thames being jjiven to any individual municipality, and as a, corollary no single municipality should have a majority of representatives on the public port authority. Another consideration is that the general public must be represented, apart from th« payers of dues, and the best means of securing representation of the general public is by means of rom.inations 'of Government Departments and the municipalities concerned.