81
Sir David sums up the situation by expressing the view that the doctrine of “laissez faire" well described the attitude of Government to the Harbour. He was of the opinion that taking everything into consideration it was not desirable to allow matters to remain as they were.
(e) The author of the report then proceeds to consider whether it might be desirable to adopt some improved form of Government control and in particular the formation of a special department for the purpose of controlling the Harbour, with possibly an outside body to advise on Port matters.
Such Governmental control he states is not regarded as successful in South Africa and would in effect be bureaucratic and that form of control, he says, is not highly regarded nowadays.
Harbour Advisory Boards be regards as unsatisfactory as they can only express opinions and make recommendations without any guarantee that they will be carried out. In this connection he points to the inactivity of the Harbour Advisory Board which was established in 1929 and the Harbour Advisory Committee which succeeded it in 1931.
For the foregoing reasons Sir David rules out direct Government control in the form mentioned, even with the assistance of an Advisory Board, and thus falls back on his third possible course the establishment of control by some form of Port Authority or Trust.
(d) With the utmost deference the Committee expresses the opinion that the facts stated in Sir David Owen's report do not warrant the conclusion that the existing form of Government control of the Port has resulted in any such failure in administration or inadequacy of facilities as would justify the establishment of control by some form of Port Authority or Trust.
(e) Sir David recommends the formation of a Port Trust to "control" the Port while leaving the "operation" in the hands of private enterprise.
He suggests that the constitution of the proposed Trust should be three Government officials of high standing, three British subjects connected with the trade of the Port nominated by the General Chamber of Commerce, and one independent person of business experience and, if possible, with a knowledge of Port affairs to be appointed as Chairman on the nomination of the other members of the Trust.
(f) He proposes that the Trust should have control over the following matters:
(i) Leasing or letting of piers;
(ii) Construction of new piers as and when necessary and the charges therefor; (iii) Lights and Buoys (Navigational) and the charges therefor;
(iv) Mooring Buoys and the charges therefor;
(v) Ferries and the royalties therefor;
(vi) Licensing of pilots;
(vii) Regulation of Harbour traffic and the promulgation of the necessary by-laws
for that purpose;
(viii) The general policy of the Harbour.
It is noteworthy that Sir David excluded from the scope of the Trust's activities the reclamation of land from the waters of the Harbour. This he considered should continue to be done by Government.
It seems desirable here to consider by whom these matters have been controlled in the past and what, if any, advantage would accrue to the persons and interests dependent on the Port if control were to be handed over to a Port Trust:-
(1) The leasing or letting of piers has been effected, on the application of interested parties, by Government on the advice of the Director of Public Works. The Land Officer was responsible for the issue of the leases.
Unless the Crown is prepared to hand over to the Port Trust its foreshore rights in general or any such foreshore rights as the Trust might call for, the present procedure would have to be adhered to.
That the form of lease requires revision is undeniable.
(2) The construction of new piers as and when necessary has (with the exception of piers required for Government use) generally been left to private enterprise. When piers were required for the vehicular ferry the work was undertaken by Government.
There is no evidence before the Committee that private enterprise and Government between them have failed to make actual provision of piers, but it is abundantly clear that, for a variety of reasons, some of those constructed and operated by minor private interests had been allowed to fall into decay.