i
**
81
11 of 1902. I venture to suggest therefore that it may be
preferable to amend the provisions of Section 1(1) of Ordi-
inance No. 11 of 1902 so as to render it free from objection,
rather than to repeal the sub-section entirely.
3.
With regard to sub-section (2), I may
point out that piers are necessary in large numbers for the
shipping of this port. There are at present no less than 110
permanent piers for which permission has been granted. These
piers are in many instances very valuable structures and are
no more obstruction to navigation and fishing rights than are
vessels lying alongside quays or even ships at anchor. There
seems therefore no adequate reason for dealing with such
structures under the Foreshores and Sea Bed Ordinance.
A.
Licences only for varying periods up to
one year are issued for temporary piers, and the objections
to applying all the formalities of the Ordinance relating to
Foreshores and Sea Beds to such structures are obvious. They
are erected for every kind of purpose, reclamation works,
building, in substitution for piers under repair, to give
temporary access to the shore in front of which reclamations
are contemplated and many other objects.
5.
You have suggested that licences terminable
at will would not come under the Foreshores and Sea Bed Ordi-
nance, but such tenure is too precarious, in view of the
considerable expense entailed in the erection of these piers
and would not justify the large investment of capital required.
Should you, however, after the perusal
6.
of these explanations he still disposed to advise His Majesty
to disallow sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 1 of Ordinance
11