!
2
(b) On the first page of the confidential report
02 18.9.45 submitted by the Fort Engineer, Mr. Ficol says that he asked the late Sir David Owen when pier rents should be revised, and at to the best of his recollection the answer was that all requests for revision of picz rents should be resisted until immediately prior to the falling in of the pier leases.
Did Mr. Colman subscribe to that view, or did he feel, as many persons do, that decision on this question cells for the earliest possible attention of Government or the Port Trust, as the case may be.
19
Mr. Colman remarked that Mr. Nicol reported Sir David Owen as referring to the rovision of pier rents as distinct from the renewal of pier leases. He said there seemed to be some doubt as to what was meant and why the reference was made, which he
But if, as the thought Mr. Nicol migat be asked to clucidate. Chairman thought likely, Mr. Nicol was referring to the possibility of some decision being reached now about the renewal of the leases instead of leaving the question until the expiry of the present leases, Mr. Colman thought that that was a problem which "ould fall to be dealt with by the Trustees
not by the Chairman of a Port Trust if one were constituted, a alone. He thought it was necessary to remeber that Sir David Owen's remarks were made in 1941 when the leases had eight years to run: whereas now the leases would expire only some two years from now, and that b.fore coming to a decision it would be necessary to decide in an over-all play and know what the private interests themselves planned to do if given freedom of action.
Mr. Colman said that personally he shared the view expressed by Sir David Owen in his report that it would not be necessary to interfere with the private interests which were operating efficiently, and accordingly if such private interests had development plans which they wished to proceed with and those plans were consistent with the general planning for the harbour as a whole, he would consider it right to recommend the renewal of the leases affected as soon as possible.
(c) In para.2 of his memorandum of 7th January, 1946, Mr. Jolly favou's the acquisition by the Port Trust of all port facilities, regarding it as generally agreed that the autonomous body should own the main berthage and warehousing undertakings. He considers that it would be a strange Port Trust which left these features in the hands of strong vested interests. This seemed to go much farther than anything suggested by Sir David Owen.
ف
Mr. Colmar pointed out that Mr. Jolly himself in the reports considered by ne Committee had quoted examples of Port Trusts which did not operate all the facilities of the port, and he insisted that it was not unusual in a port controlled by a Port
important port Trust for strong pri ate interests to oper facilities, and Mr. Colman mentioned the examples of Liverpoo1 and Glasgow. He thought it was clear that because Sir David Owen was satisfied that these strong private interests had not misused their freedom in Hong Kong, he had thought fit to recommend that there should be no change so far as they were concerned. If, however, a Port Trus: were constituted, and difficulties at present unforeseen arose, it would be possible for the Port Trust to take over quite quickly and op rate the facilities now controlled by private interests, without detriment to the users of the Port, although the consequent financial settlement might be a protracted matter.
Page 190Page 191