CO129-616-6 Hotels Ordinance- 1949 21-2-1949 - 21-2-1949 — Page 37

37

hotels might very well make little or no profit and

they were generally apprehensive. Mr. Fitzgerald went

on to say that he doubted whether the Ordinance would achieve the desired object of helping the Hong Kong

resident. Any ex-Shanghai refugee who intended to

stay in Hong Kong at least six months could qualify

as a resident; a hotelier could pick and choose which residents he would have, although there would of course

be no financial inventive to discriminate.

Mr. de Comarmon

said he imagined the Quartering Authority would know

the number of 'declared' Hong Kong residents and whether the reserved accommodation corresponded.

Mr. Fitzgerald again emphasised his clients'

objection to the very wide powers taken in Section 4

(which went far beyond the Advisory Committee's

!

recommen ations) and the importance they attached to there being a right of appeal. He remarked that the privilege of making representation to the Governor against the working of control was not very comforting particularly

if accounts had first to be worked out to show that the

hotels were working at a loss. He referred again to the "Lucky" and "Tuck Lin" Apartments which he contended had wrongly been excluded from the exempt category of Chinese boarding houses with the result that takings had dropped about 30%. Mr. Cudden added that it was

suggested that the e two Chinese boarding houses had been singled out for control so that the provisions of the Ordinance should not appear to benefit only Hong Kong residents using European type hotels.

5. Concluding, Mr. Sidebotham said there was no indication that hotels in Hong Kong were being ruined or that control was working harshly or unsatisfactorily.

We

/would