CO129-542-3 Foreshore and Sea-bed Works Bill- correspondence 9-1-1933 - 16-8-1933 — Page 114

2

114

The Chairman suggested that an appeal to the Secretary of State was of some value.

The Hon. Mr. Paterson agreed but contrasted Hongkong Government procedure in cases involving land valuation with that of the Shanghai Municipal Council.

The Hon. Sir William Shenton remarked that in a parti- cular case cited by Mr. Paterson he had no right of appeal to the Courts, but in this Foreshore Bill there would be such a right of appeal. If an owner was not satisfied with the compensation he could go to the Courts who would make an award.

The Hon. Mr. Paterson: That might not be safe: the Courts of this Colony do not understand land.

The Hon. Sir William Shenton said that any proposal under the Bill, even when passed, would have to come before the Legislative Council for the purpose of voting the necessary money. On the Legislative Council there were eight Unofficial Members and if they were unanimous against the Government the Government could not carry the proposal through without referring to the Secretary of State.

The Hon. Mr. Paterson said that Hongkong was not getting ordinary British procedure. Surrenders of land in England were made under clearly defined procedure. Questions of betterment or "worsement" did not enter into it, but the surrenderer was treated as though he was a free and willing seller in the open market. In Hongkong the Government offered $7 a square foot for land which would sell in the open market for $80 per square foot.

In reply to the Secretary, Sir William Shenton said that the Bill would still appear on the Statute Book as a general Bill, but it included the right of appeal to the Courts.

Mr. M.T. Johnson remarked that the China Association was very strongly of the opinion that no general Bill should be placed on the Statute Book, but that a special Ordinance should be passed in each case.

The Hon. Mr. Paterson said his opinion was that a separate Bill in each case with a right of appeal to the Privy Council was the proper solution.

Mr. Shields asked if an appeal was permitted on the question of whether the property was to be taken or not.

The Hon. Mr. Paterson said he understood the appeal was only on the amount of compensation.

In reply to the Chairman, Sir William Shenton said the Chamber of Commerce would be given an opportunity of seeing the new draft of the Bill.

The discussion then concluded.