Mr Albert Murray: Although, as the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) pointed out, we did not manage to discuss an Amendment similar to this in Committee, we dealt with the substance of this proposal when we considered another Amendment. We have said, not only in Committee but on Second Reading, that nothing in the Bill will give the N.P.A. a monopoly over common user port services at its harbours. I...
Mr Albert Murray: The hon. Member is talking about temptation, but I was talking about what is actually in the Bill. Whether he can attempt to read what the temptations of the N.P.A. will be is a different matter.
Mr Albert Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 48, line 25, leave out ' transfer date ' and insert: ' date on which the business so vests '. This is purely a drafting Amendment, designed to prevent possible confusion about the wording of the Bill. It results from the insertion of subsection (5) in Committee.
Mr Albert Murray: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) that the Opposition Amendments were well thought out. However, it is their intention that concerns the Government, not just the question whether they were well thought out. The effect of the Amendment would be that only businesses concerned with the management of a cargo wharf or the loading and unloading of...
Mr Albert Murray: I have already made this point on the shipping lines that this would be covered in the rights of objection under Clause 35(3)(a).
Mr Albert Murray: You said a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no extra time. Even if you gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) a lot more time, he would, unlike Chelsea, never win the Cup. The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) came into the Chamber, delivered his " commercial ", declared his interest, and then left. I thought his commercial as...
Mr Albert Murray: The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) complimented my right hon. Friend and said that he was glad that he had always been present in the Committee. The hon. Gentleman could not have been half as glad as I was, for I was sometimes under a little pressure on some of the points which were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins)—like the rest of the House, I am...
Mr Albert Murray: The Railways Board estimates that in 1970, within its approved programmes, it will spend £10·7 million on 427 new passenger carriages, and £5·2 million on 1,429 new wagons.
Mr Albert Murray: This is a matter for the management of the British Railways Board. I suppose that at one time or another every hon. Member makes these sort of complaints about the rolling stock in his constituency.
Mr Albert Murray: The Greater London Transport Group is examining a number of different schemes for improving the approaches to London Bridge and Victoria, but no firm proposals have yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend by the Railways Board.
Mr Albert Murray: As a regular commuter on that line I am well aware, and so is my Department, of the present difficulties. The working group is examining a number of different schemes at the moment.
Mr Albert Murray: None, Sir. Neither the London Borough of Bromley nor the Greater London Council, which are the relevant highway authorities, has yet approached the Department about the improvement of this junction.
Mr Albert Murray: I have no doubt that the hon. Member could do just that by putting pressure on his political friends at County Hall to do something about this matter. We understand that the London Borough of Bromley and Greater London Council are discussing alternative schemes for this purpose.
Mr Albert Murray: No such mileage statistics are available, but we know of 21 bus lanes at present and plans for 10 more. We have asked local authorities to examine the feasibility of introducing more bus priority schemes following the recent report to my right hon. Friend of the Working Group on Bus Demonstration Projects.
Mr Albert Murray: We are aware of the help that this can give and we are encouraging local authorities to review bus routes with operators to see what bus priority schemes are possible.
Mr Albert Murray: These are all points which obviously will be examined.
Mr Albert Murray: 1966, Sir.
Mr Albert Murray: No, Sir. We think it would be misleading to publish in full at this stage. We think the right thing now is to await the final studies.
Mr Albert Murray: As soon as we are ready for the final studies the announcement will be made. That is when this will come before the House.
Mr Albert Murray: The totals for 1969 are not yet available. From 1960 to 1964 the annual average rate of total route mileage closure was 498; from 1965 to 1968 it was 886. For passenger route mileage alone the figures are 478 and 549 respectively.