13
3. A redraft on the following lines is suggested:
The Commissioner of Labour, speaking in Hong
Kong on 29 September, gave an assurance that in the
light of observations and criticisms received on the
draft Bill he would consider what changes were
necessary before making, recommendations on its final
text. I am confident that the need for some amend-
draft
*
ments to the original draft proposals will be carefully
considered before the Bill is introduced into the
Legislative Council. "
The Labour Commissioner's assurance on this point will be found at p.29/E.
*
Asthant
(H.R.G. Hur st)
Deputy Overseas Labour Adviser.
6 November 1970.
Mr. Kinnear
I fear that the draft replies may draw further letters complaining that we have not answered the question. All the letters received were concerned to ask what was HMG's attitude to this Bill. Our holding replies said that we were studying it and the Memorandum, and hoped to be able to give our views fairly soon. The draft substantive replies do not give any views and indeed give the impress- ion that we have tendered no advice at all to Hong Kong and are generally passing the buck to them.
2.
I agree that we must preserve the freedom of action of the Hong Kong Government and must make it clear that the decision is primarily theirs, and I therefore accept Mr. Hurst's redrafted final paragraph even though it still further waters down the drafts. I also accept that it may be politic to avoid giving a direct answer on our own views but I think the sidestep would be more acceptable if we pointed out that we had been in touch with Hong Kong on the matter, and continued to do so, and that our own con- sideration of the Bill was continuing. The letter to Mr. Feather mentions the discussions the 0.L.A. is to have with Trade Union Leaders, and gives a much better impres- sion as a result. Is there any reason why we cannot mention this in the other letters?
3.
I would therefore favour an additional penultimate
Paragraph