Sessional_Paper_1946 — Page 83

79

A note of Mr. Colman's remarks on the former occasion will be found in the minutes of the second meeting of the Committee, and a copy of his remarks on the latter occasion

is to be found in Appendix IV. We deal with the opinions he expressed in paragraphs 9 Appendix IV.

and 13.

(6) Having considered the documents specified in paragraph 5(2), the representa- tions received and Mr. Colman's remarks, the members of the Committee expressed their individual views, in which there was a great measure of unanimity on the major issues. The conclusions of the Committee and its recommendations are recorded in paragraph

15.

6. Interim representation to Government. The need for an agreed comprehensive

Development Plan.

It was brought to the notice of the Committee that several plans in the past for the development of the Port had been prepared, notably by the late Sir Maurice Fitzmaurice, C.M.G., M.INST.C.E., in 1921, and by Mr. John Duncan, M.INST.C.E., then Port Engineer, in 1924, but none of these plans had been formally adopted by the Government and the works actually carried out touched only the fringe of the programmes envisaged in these reports.

The trade of the Port reached its peak in 1924 (vide paragraphs 16 to 20 of Sir David Owen's Report) and the subsequent decline no doubt provided the reason for not proceeding with schemes which had envisaged a progressive increase in trade.

It has been argued before us however, that as some of the schemes provided for reclamations and the consequent re-development of certain areas, an atmosphere of doubt was created in the minds of lessees of land on the water front in the areas expected to be affected, which was responsible for the failure of these lessees to develop their properties or even to maintain such facilities as formerly existed.

We do not unanimously accept this as the sole or even principal cause of past failures to develop or to maintain the facilities of the Port, but we recognize that in some cases it may have been a contributory factor. We are, however, strongly of the opinion that, irrespective of any decisions which may be taken about the future form of port administration, in view of the stage which the rehabilitation of the Colony has reached, it is a matter of great urgency that the possibility of delays through apprehension as to or ignorance of the Government's plans for development should be removed.

In a Colony where a chronic land hunger gives rise to conflict between the need of land for housing purposes and a need for areas close to the water front for storage and other port requirements, it is obvious that port development cannot be planned either by Government or by private enterprise except as an integral part of a comprehensive plan for the development of the Colony as a whole.

Accordingly we decided to submit interim representations to Your Excellency that it was our considered opinion that the lack of an agreed and comprehensive plan was now retarding further rehabilitation and that we felt that it was a matter of great urgency that such a plan should be prepared and agreed as speedily as possible, so that any plans for the improvement of port facilities could be co-ordinated therewith.

These representations were contained in a letter addressed to the Colonial Secretary dated the 11th October, 1946.

7. Consideration of the late Sir David Owen's Report and Recommendations.

(a) Sir David Owen devoted considerable space in his report to a review of the then existing facilities of the Port and the Committee gave most careful consideration to this review, as it might be expected that there would be found therein the reasons leading to the author's conclusion that the then form of control of the Harbour was unsatisfactory and that the establishment of a Port Trust was desirable.

Sir David did not in this review criticize the system of the grant of pier leases or the provision of piers thereunder by private enterprise, though at a later stage of his report (paragraph 72) he pointed out that the piers for the coasting and river services were not in a satisfactory state as to their accommodation and that many of them had been allowed to get into bad condition.

No criticism was levelled at the provision of warehousing and godown accommoda- tion by private enterprise and that provided by the major concerns was referred to as up-to-date and excellent, and at a later stage of his report (paragraph 70) Sir David remarked that he was struck by the lowness of the charges the principal Godown Companies were able to make.

Ship-building and ship-repairing facilities the author regarded as excellent and he showed that there were large, and presumably sufficient, oil installations.

Sir David considered that the railway undertaking had ample port facilities and did not expect that the necessity for more facilities would arise for some years.