10
the Consultative Committee set up here, has, since his return to this country, produced a revised draft Ordinance to make provision for the constitution of a Port Trust and for the exercise by it and its officers of certain powers and functions.
All this action follows, as Mr. Mayle has pointed out, from the Owen report, the adoption of which was
recommended by a majority of the Hong Kong Executive Council and by the Governor in 1941. There was, however, some opposition within the Executive Council and
Mr. MacDougall told us, when he was over here in March, that the whole question of principle raised by the Bill was likely to provoke considerable discussion and possibly meet with strong criticism when the matter comes up in the Legislative Council. Some of the line of criticism that may be taken is foreshadowed by the enclosure to Mr. MacDougall's letter at No. 2. The Bishop of Victoria, it will be seen, takes the view that, if the Port Trust is to have power of control only and not power of operation, the change is not worth making. Others will criticise the new plan on grounds of additional expense without sufficient compensating advantage through the power of control alone.
The Owen scheme did not, as I read it, involve any radical alteration in the public control to be exercised over the Port but was concerned almost exclusively with the kind of public authority which should exercise that control. The old arrangements left navigation under the Harbour-master's Department, major construction under the Public Works Depart- ment while the building and equipment of piers for the use of commercial shipping for trading firms was in the hands of
private
Page 10Page 11
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.