5.
7.
DISCUSSION ON MR. COLMAN'S REMARKS.
Mr. Trevor raised the point that there would need to be some liaison between the Ship Surveyors and the Port Trust in order to ensure that ships did not leave before fees due had been paid. Mr. Colman answered that arrangements would of course be made whereby ships would not be allowed to clear until evidence had been produced that all fees due had been paid.
The Hon. Mr. Landale said that he did not think it was correct to presume that all was not well in the port because Sir David Owen: was asked to come here, and said that primarily Sir David Owen was asked to advise how the question of the renewal of the pier leases should be dealt with, and that as far as the shipping community was concerned arrangements were not unsatisfactory. He thought Sir David Owen had recognized that this was so by suggesting a Port Trust with considerably curtailed powers, which, the Chairman remarked, he had suggested was to be on trial for three years. Mr. Colman said he did know why Sir David Owen was asked to visit the Colony, but his terms of reference, which were read out to the Committee, were, he thought, wider than the Hon. Mr. Landale had suggested, and Sir David Owen had in his report mentioned matters such as the maintenance of certain piers as things which needed to be put right.
Mr. Kadoorie said that the reason for the falling off in the standard of maintenance of some of the piers was, and is, the uncertainty of the lessees as to their tenure of occupation. While acknowledging that this might be so in some cases Mr. Colman instanced the case where a pier destroyed in a typhoon in, he believed, 1907, had not yet been replaced. Mr. Kadoorie said the renewal of piers in the Yaumati typhoon shelter was delayed because tenants had been endeavouring to get a decision from Government for a considerable time as to whether a proposal to reclaim that area was to be proceeded with, and that it was uncertainty alone which, with the outstanding exception of the Kowloon Wharf & Godown Company which had taken the risk and built a new concrete pier, was deterring private enterprise from proceeding with the renewal and improvement of piers. He agreed that individual owners in making provision for their own requirements might not fit into a plan designed to co-ordinate the port facilities and he said that this, and more particularly, political uncertainty, might be used as an argument in favour of a statutory body being responsible for building the piers. The Hon. Mr. Landale said that the piers should be built quickly was more important than who should build them, but he thought that if Government or a Port Trust built them it would presumably have to charge a berthing fee which would have to be very high to recover its costs. Mr. Colman said he did not think that the recovery of interest and sinking fund costs would necessitate a high charge. It was mentioned that small private concerns would not be able to finance long-term schemes owing to the current high rate of interest and it was said that this was an argument for the provision of the capital by a Government-sponsored authority which could borrow, possibly abroad, at a lower rate of interest.
Mr. Kadoorie mentioned that the draft Ordinance vested very comprehensive powers in the Port Trust which it might be argued would permit of a close measure of co-ordination and be consistent with the current trend elsewhere towards nationalization, and he believed that amongst other things the Port Trust would take over godowns. Mr. Colman pointed out that the provision for the Port Trust to have power to take over property which might include godowns did not necessarily mean that it was intended to do so, but that the provision was included against the eventuality that it might be in the interests of the port for the Port Trust to take over or operate property for particular purposes,