CONFIDENTIAL
HONG KONG PORT ADMINISTRATION INQUIRY COMMITTEE
Observations submitted by Mr. A. Nicol in response to an invitation to relate the views expressed in his Memorandum dated 18th September, 1945, more closely to present conditions and the Committee's terms of reference.
APPENDIX I (H)
11th October, 1945
"In reply to your letter of the 30th September, 1946, No.25/581/46. I have the honour to submit the following brief observations for the information of the Committee.
2. In my opinion the advantages that would accrue from the establishment of a Port Trust in Hong Kong seem to be overwhelming. No harbour can develop if it has to depend on a fluctuating revenue. Port works are expensive no matter in what part of the world they are constructed and Hong Kong is no exception. It is this fact that has pushed private enterprise out of harbour control with very few exceptions and Sir David Owen has pointed out in his report that 'it is significant that at most of the Ports in the United Kingdom and the Empire some form of Public Port Trust has evolved, the obvious lesson to be learned being that it has been proved to be for the best'.
3.
Harbour development can only take place if the body in control has unlimited vision, is prepared to call for a long term plan and when it has approved of that plan, is determined to carry it out with vigour and perseveranoe. This postulates that the finances of the Port are stabilised, capital works being met by loans, and revenue being sufficient to equate maintenance, overhead and loan charges.
4。 In the past 25 years I have witnessed the submission to
Of the works Government of three major reports on the Harbour. recommended in the reports of Sir Marice Fitz-Maurice and Mr. Dunoan none has been attempted apart from:
5.
(1) part of a reclamation and quay wall at North
Point which private enterprise was enticed to construct and which eventually lay idle for many years,
(2) part of a reclamation at Kennedy Town, and
(3) the vehicles ferry.
John
There
From my experience, Government control is ineffectual because in the past no person or body, particularly interested in the Port as such, has been entrusted with the duty of developing it. has been no guarantee that a plan, even if it were accepted by Government, would be adhered to and carried out, partly because of financial instability and partly because the ideas of Government, dominated as they are by the Governor for the time being, change from period to period. As an example of this in 1924, Government decided that the best solution
This of the harbour problem was to form a Port Development Department. was done but two years later, with a change of Governor, the decision was reversed and the Port Development Department ceased to exist. About 1927 a need arose for a dumping ground for debris at North Point but Govern- ment in that year had not accepted the Duncan proposals. A seawall was therefore constructed at considerable expense some distance back from the line proposed by Mr. Duncan. Later, Government decided to proceed in part with an amended scheme and another seawall was formed in front of the first. Dumping is now proceeding in this area and in a short time the original wall will be completely buried.
(Continued)