CODE 18 - 77
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference...........
28) (207
RE
RE
(30
Mr Milton, Hong Kong Department
HONG KONG: FINES FOR THE ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
4 APR 17/7
HKK 210/1
1. Please refer to your two minutes of 29 March. I do not think we can expect, on the basis of the information so far available, any significant increase in the level of fines imposed by the courts
То in Hong Kong in respect of the illegal employment of children. double a maximum fine permitted by law is of little significance when there is such a wide margin between the present level of fines, HK$ 744, and the present maximum, HK$ 5,000. The draft letter to the Governor for Lord Goronwy-Roberts' signature should therefore be strengthened, I feel. I have two suggestions:
i. In spite of Mr Hobley's advice the Governor should be asked
to consider an approach to the Chief Justice with a view to a High Court circular of some sort being issued on the present inadequacy of fines. Whatever the reservations may be over the judiciary's strong wish to avoid prompting from the Executive, the need to eliminate the illegal employment of children in Hong Kong is great enough, I would say, to justify our asking the Governor to consider this step.
ii.
A minimum sentence or a minimum fine in the Regulations on the employment of children could prove to be a very effective deterrent if the minimum levels were sufficient to make it uneconomic for the Hong Kong employer to run the risk of detection. The present level of fines indicates to me that it is probably economic for the employer to run this risk rather than pay the higher adult wage rates. (Anti- narcotics legislation is another field in which this principle might be applied.)
2. In studying the statistics arising from "Special Inspections of Child Employment in Industry in 1976", a copy of which I sent to you earlier this week, it is not clear whether there is any joinder of charges when an employer is prosecuted, ie whether there is a separate count in respect of each child found to be illegally employed in an undertaking and a separate fine when the charge on each count is proved. A joinder of charges against one employer might well have the effect, I would say, of reducing the total fine and hence the deterrent.
P.R.9. hist
HR G Hurst
Overseas Labour Adviser
30 March 1977
cc Mr Lipsey (K185)
CONFIDENTIAL