CO129-616-6 Hotels Ordinance- 1949 21-2-1949 - 21-2-1949 — Page 23

23

I am sorry to have delayed these papers and now send them forward for further

consideration of the petition from the Hong Kong

I

and Kowloon Hotels Association which was sent under cover of the despatch at (19). attach opposite a note of the meeting on the 28th May presided over by Mr. Sidebotham, at which Leading Counsel and Cosel were heard in support of the petition.

2. There can, I think, be no question of granting the petitioners request that the Hotels Ordinance be disallowed and before hearing the Counsel in support of the petition we consulted the Governor by telegram about possible concessions short of disallowance of the ordinance (vide (26)). In his reply at (30) the Governor gave various reasons for his view that such concessions should not be made; it is now for consideration whether any of the points made by the Counsel are of sufficient weight to justify our going back to the Governor in an endeavour to alter his view and induce him to agree to some amendment of the Ordinance or Kegulations.

3. While there is no doubt that the Counsel very ably and convincingly presented the petitioners' case for not wanting control of hotels in Hong Kong and for thinking, in any case, that the present Ordinance is too sweeping, I do not see that any important new arguments have been adduced. It is of course true that Clause 4 of the Ordinance goes further than is necessary merely to implement the Advisory Committee's Report but it seems to me that the Hong Kong Government must be armed with fairly wide powers in the Ordinance itself, both to discourage any attempt to evade the present relatively mild degree of control imposed in the Regulations and to ensure that control is flexible and capable of ready adjustment to meet changes in the situation.

4. The Counsel dwelt at some length on the matter of the "Tuck Lin" and "Lucky" Apartments which, it is alleged, have been singled out for control from the otherwise exempt class of Chinese Boarding Houses. In the petition it was held that these two Apartments should be exempt from control because they catered for a Chinese as opposed to a European clientele. The Counsel took this argument a little further and argued that they catered for a Chinese clientele of a purely transient character. This, if true, would of course remove any justification for control but in view of the Governor's remarks in paragraph 10 of (19) I think we must assume that the petitioners' evidence in this respect is unreliable.

5. I think that, having had every facility in presenting their case, the petitioners have still failed to show that control is working harshly or unsatisfactorily having regard to the

exigencies