CO129-608-7 Future policy- Report on Port Administration by Sir David Owen 24-2-1941 - 24-2-1941 — Page 184

4

The Municipal Council would be a statutory body and would exercise considerable power, and after twenty-five years' experience in a Port Trust working alongside a Municipal Authority, Mr. Colman remarked that his experience was that friction arose between the two bodies, although he admitted that his experience was of India and that in China the relation- ship might be different. He pointed out the likelihood of a

road clash of interests in matters relating to road access, maintenance, drainage and sewerage; and the possibility of the Municipal Council encroaching on other matters concerning the port, for example, the port health arrangements, and he said he would not be surprised by an attempt by a Municipal Council to control the ferries. It seemed to him that it would be somewhat difficult for Government to refuse to act on representations from a newly created Municipal Authority without tho justification of a strong case put up by an equally authoritative body representa- tive of the shipping community.

The resumption of lands held by the Naval and Military authorities had been a bone of contention for some time and Mr. Colman thought the Port Trust could be of powerful assistance to the Civil Government in connection with representations which might be made to the Home Government on this question.

Another advantage of the Port Trust form of administration compared with Advisory Boards was the continuity of responsibility, and Mr. Colman pointed out that in the draft Ordinance it was proposed that some of the Commissioners should be appointed for three years and some for five years, and that they would be eligible for re-election. He mentioned that in other cities the Port Commissioners usually held their appointments for a considerable period and considered it an honour to be appointed a Commissioner, and that the result was that the same people kept a continuous watch over the interests of the port and saw that their resolutions were put into effect without undue delay, thereby ensuring that the efficiency of the executive staff was maintained.

A matter of the utmost importance was that a Port Trust would exercise the closest watch over the financial position. Mr. Colman said he had been astounded, on reading Sir David Owen's Report, to realize that no separate accounts were kept for the Port of Hong Kong. In the port where he had recently been, he could not have carried on successfully without knowing the exact position of the port's finences at any time, and the knowledge had enabled him, when unforeseen circumstances arose, to make the necessary variations in charges promptly, and he felt that if the Port of Hong Kong was to work on a sound economic basis it would be very necessary for the Port Authority to keep its own accounts and be responsible for them. He had heard it said that Hong Kong was the cheapest port in the world and this might be the case, but for all that the accounts can tell you it might be the most expensive port for the taxpayer, although this was not so in fact.

Owing to its geographical position and physical characteristics Hong Kong must and always would be a cheap port. The very small amount of dredging required here compared with the heavy expenditure necessary in many other ports, the small scale need for navigational lighting, the absence of compulsory pilotage regulations, the availability of granite close at hand for the building of quay walls, the restriction of space which resulted in the avoidance of the engineer's inducement to over-provide wet dock facilities and theroby increase loan charges, and the fact that the port lies on an important trade route, were all factors which confirmed Mr. Colman in the opinion that there was no possibility of Hong Kong ceasing to be a cheap port in comparison with others.