Ene. E Euc F
Convention No.124 concerning Medical Examination of Young Persons
(Underground Work) 1965.
3.
Delay occurred initially in examining the position of Hong Kong in regard to this Convention because some half-a-dozen non-metropolitan territories signified their agreement to
declarations being made at roughly the same time following ratification by the UK Government, and it therefore seemed con-
venient to make a block declaration. In the event difficulties arose in regard to the other territories because all had indicated that the declaration should be in the "C" (inapplicable category because there were no mines or underground works of any kind in those territories. The position had to be resolved in consultation with the Department of Employment to determine (a) whether a declaration of "inapplicable" would be accepted by the ILO and (b) to examine the reasons for the inconsistency between the proposed declarations in respect of Convention No.124 and those made in respect of an earlier Convention concerning underground work (No.45 concerning the employment of women under- ground) in respect of which some of the same territories had made declarations of "decision reserved". This need not have
delayed the declaration in respect of Hong Kong, but the latter was overlooked while correspondence on these other points was being pursued. A detailed examination of the Hong Kong law in relation to this Convention has recently been made, and my view (which Mr Hurst supports) is that there is ambiguity in regard to the position of apprentices which should be removed before a declaration of full application is made. Further correspondence with the Government of Hong Kong has not served to clarify the position and the point has now been referred to Legal Advisers. Please see copies of saving telegram No.3 of 3 January 1974 from Hong Kong and my minute to Mr Bickford of 18 January 1974 which are attached.
In addition to the Conventions covered by saving telegram No.380 of 2 October 1973, consideration has also been given to the possib- ility of applying Convention No.98. This arises from Parliamentary Questions asked in 1973 concerning labour questions in Hong Kong. Attention was focussed on a number of Conventions, out of which two seemed capable of a degree of application to Hong Kong in the fore- seeable future, if not immediately. These were Convention No.94 concerning Labour Clauses in Public Contracts (1952) and Convention No.98 concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining(1949
/4. The