6.
- 6-
e.
f.
That whether in future the Port continued to be administered
by Government or by a Port Trust, it would be false economy not to have a first-class man in charge of its administration so that his greater knowledge and experience would ensure that the maximum benefit was derived from any development scheme which might be approved.
That a Port Trust would give business interests more opportunities of direct representation than the Secretariat for Transportation which Mr. Colman had suggested as an alternative, but that it would be little more than a co-ordinating body, and once a plan had been agreed and private enterprise had indicated what it was proposing to do, co-ordination could best be effected either by a single person enjoying the confidence of all interests concerned, or by a very strong Port Advisory Committee. The opinion was expressed that once the overall development plan had been approved, private interests would need no guarantee other than that the broad plan would be adhered to, before implementing their development schemes, although they would not consider themselves bound to proceed at once with their proposed schemes.
CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE.
The Committee then considered the views expressed in the following papers which had been circulated to members:
Representations from:
Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China.
No. 9
Mr. D. J. Gilmore,
No.10
Mr. A. A. Dand,
Messrs. 7. S. Bailey & Co. Ltd.
No.11
Mr. J. Kingsley,
The De La Rama Steamship Co., Inc.
No.12
Mr. J. R. Collis,
The Bank Line (China) Ltd.
No.13
Mr. John Fleming,
Messrs. Lowe, Bingham & Matthews.
7. ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting then adjourned until 4.30 p.m. on Monday, 21st October, 1946.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.