14
-
277
15
-
pose of controlling the Harbour, with possibly an outside Body to advise on Port matters. There are not many Ports in the British Empire run by the Government, in fact, I believe this is the case only in South Africa where the Government there own and control all the railways and harbours. A Minister of the Government is responsible and directly under him is a General Manager in charge of the railways and harbours. This system does not prove altogether satisfactory to the commer- cial community, although the Government of the country is on a democratic basis and members of the Legislature can air the grievances of their constituents. In Hong Kong there is no form of democratic Government, that being obviously im- possible in the circumstances. Control of the Port, even by a special department of the Government of Hong Kong, would in effect be bureaucratic control, and that form of control is not highly regarded now-a-days. It is feared that it would hardly make for cheapness.
75. In South Africa again, there is a Harbour Advisory Board at each Port, but this also does not give satisfaction. Such Boards can only express opinions and make recommendations without any guarantee that they will be carried out, and it is hardly within the capacity of human nature for a person to spend much time and thought on the problem of Port development with a fruitless result.
76. I therefore rule out direct Government control in the form mentioned, even with the assistance of an Advisory Committee. In this connexion I would refer to the Advisory Board and Committee alluded to in paragraphs 11-15. It is interesting to note what has been done in Hong Kong in that way, for it clearly indicates, as it were, a groping in the dark for some solution of the Port problem. I can only remark that in some respects the constitution of the first Advisory Board seemed hardly a happy one. For instance, the appointment of a Government official in the person of the Harbour Master as the Chairman, could scarcely be expected to lead to the best results, and this not from any personal point of view, but from that of his office.
77. There remains, therefore, course (c) to be considered, that is, whether some form of Port Authority or Trust would meet the case. There is a wide-spread fear among the mercantile interests in the Colony that such a Body would inevitably increase the charges on vessels and goods, and this seems to be founded on the assumption that the creation of such a Body would mean the acquisition by that Body of all the piers and godowns and the operating of them by that Body. must, however, point out that by no means is that necessarily so.
78. The misconception may perhaps have arisen from a statement made by Messrs. Coode, Fitzmaurice, Wilson & Mitchell, Consulting Engineers, who were asked to advise on certain Port matters some time ago. In their Report dated 24th November, 1922, they spoke of the possibility of the "formation of a Port Trust which would take over existing wharves and manage the new wharves and those taken over," the inference which might be drawn being that the formation of a Port Trust would necessarily mean their taking over and managing all wharves, etc.
79. Incidentally, Messrs. Coode & Company were against such a proposal, but the important point to be noted is that a Port may be "owned" or "controlled" by a state, a city, a corporation or a Public Trust, and yet not be "operated" by the owner. The distinction between "controlled" and "operated" as applied to a Port should clearly be borne in mind.
80. "Control" denotes supervision. i.e. the drawing up of regulations and seeing that they are observed, and settling the policy, while "operating" is the actual handling and the business management of all work connected with the berthing of ships, the discharge of their cargoes and the removal of the goods to and from warehouses or godowns.
81. One Port Authority may own and control but not operate, a striking example being Liverpool where, however, while the general operating is left to private enterprise the Authority do carry on an amount of warehousing of goods. Another Port Authority may both control and operate, as at London. No one system can be laid down as the ideal, for it entirely depends on tradition, custom and local conditions.
82. It is, however, significant that at most of the Ports in the United King- dom 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. need only mention London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, Quebec, Montreal, Bombay, Karachi, Calcutta and Sydney, as a few notable examples of large Ports that have come to adopt the Public Trust system. Further proof of the efficacy of the Public Trust system is to be found in its extension to other spheres of activity connected with public ser- vices in Great Britain, as witness the Central Electricity Board and the London Passenger Transport Board.
Proposed Harbour Trust.
83. I have come to the conclusion that it would be to the advantage of all persons and interests dependent on the Port of Hong Kong that a Public Trust should be formed to "control" the Port. I therefore make the following definite recommendations, to each of which I have appended a note of explanation or reason for the proposal :-
(a) That a Body to be called the "Hong Kong Harbour Trust" be established
at the earliest possible moment.
NOTE. There is no reason why the Trust should not get into being and to work as quickly as can be, notwithstanding war con- ditions.
(b) That the constitution of the Trust be as under :—
Three Government officials of high standing, to be appointed by the
Governor.
Three British subjects connected with the trade of the Port, to be appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the General Chamber of Commerce.
One person interested in the trade of the Port, to be appointed by the
Governor on the nomination of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce.
One independent person of business experience and, if possible, with a knowledge of Port affairs, to be appointed as Chairman by the Governor, on the nomination of the other members of the Trust at a Meeting duly held for the purpose.
NOTE. I think the majority of the members should be other than Government officials, otherwise the Government might as well have direct control. Although the unofficial members might be in a majority on a question, there would always be the independent Chairman to balance the situation if needs be, and, if he thought fit, to use his casting vote.
In any case, with the safeguards later provided, it does not seem that such a Body could do anything prejudicial to the interests of the Government or the Colony, even if it wished.
I have provided for all the appointments as Trustee to be made by the Governor who could always veto anyone if he thought him for any reason an undesirable person for the position.
Such a Body, carefully selected, should gain the confidence of the Government and of the commercial community. The members would in fact be Trustees for both.
As to the three Government officials to act as Trustees. the Governor would know who would be the most suitable. I can suggest the Director of Public Works as one likely official, but I think that if the Governor considers it wise to have the Navy represented a Naval officer should be one of the three and not an addition.
278
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.