CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941 — Page 153

No.14

CONFIDENTIAL

HONG KONG PORT ADMINISTRATION INQUIRY COMMITTEE

Representations received in responso

to an invitation addressed to certain persons by the Chairman on 23.9.46.

(Continued)

From: Mr. F. Groves,

The American Express Company, Inc.

Dated: 14th October, 1946.

With reference to Mr. T. M. Hazlerigg's letter of September 23rd and yours of the 9th instant, I have studied the terms of reference handed to the Hong Kong Port Administration Inquiry Committee and have also read the report by Sir David J. Owen submitting his recommendations regarding the future control and development of the Port of Hong Kong. However, I am afraid that my knowledge of the subject is very limited, and all I can do in the way of assisting the Committee is to draw a comparison between Hong Kong and the Indian Ports of Bombay and Calcutta based upon my own casual observations as to their relative efficiency.

I think that insofar as docking facilities are concerned, both of the Indian Ports, which are managed by a Port Trust, probably provide more adequate piers and wharves and maintain them in a better state of repair than those in Hong Kong, but on the other hand my personal experience with Port Trust warehouses leads me to believe that stevedoring and storage accommodation is likely to be much more efficient and better facilities exist when the operation of godowns is left to private enterprise, particularly when there is an element of competition.

As previously stated, my technical knowledge of the subject is practically nil, but as a layman I should think that probably the best compromise arrangement for Hong Kong, with its very efficient Public Works Department, would be for a Port Trust to control, maintain and operate the actual wharves and piers for the accommodation of both ocean-going and river steamers and to allow private firms to act as stevedores and to operate storage facilities under specific rules and regulations to be laid down by the proposed Port Trust. This arrangement would have the added advantage of making it unnecessary for the Port Trust to bite off more than it can chew in the initial stages of transition. If at a later date, when docking facilities have been improved and augmented under Port Trust control, the secondary stop of taking over the maintenance and operation of warehouses could be considered should storage facilities not then be regarded as sufficiently adequate for the entrepot trade.

(Continued)

158.