CODE 18-7
Mr Hurst
Reference...
LAG 011/393/1...
HONG KONG: APPLICATION OF ILO CONVENTIONS
1. The Governor's letter of ↳ Many confirms our presentiment that the legislative programme world continue to slip back. The legislation relating to Conventions 17, 12 and 90, only recently scheduled for the third quarter of the year, is now put back to the fourth and there is no guarantee that it will in fact all be achieved by the end of December. What
I find surprising is that Hong Kong should have committed themselves to a programme of improved declarations without having first established tho full legislative implications.
2. As Mr Duffy points out, it is evident that the Governor has taken aboard the sense of urgency conveyed in Lord Goronwy- Roberts' letter of 7 April. The question is whether there is anything to be gained by applying further pressure from London at this stage. This is primarily for Hong Kong Department's judgement but on the basis of the Governor's letter I doubt it. Also I am not aware of any grounds on which we might query Hong Kong's assessment of the legislative and other measures which are needed in order to give effect to the proposed improved declarations. In relation to Conventions 17 and 42, for example, it would seem that the Convention cannot be said to be effectively applied until the special fund (C..1.7) and insurance pool (C.42) are established and operational.
3.
HKD should be aware that if the legislation etc. relating to Conventions 17 and 42 is not completed this year it will mean that of the six Conventions listed on page 2 of Lord Goronwy- Roberts' letter of 7 April only four can be the subject of improved declarations in 1977, and, of these, two will have slipped from 1976.
4. We spoke of the possibility that ore or more of the nine Conventions listed as possibles for 1978 onward might be brought forward. (See Appendix III to Sir D Roberts' letter of
4 January). Of these, three (Nos. 10, 50 and 50) are concerned with minimum age restrictions and are presumably linked to the raising of the school-leaving age (due in 1997). Hong Kong have already warned that improvements on No. 32 are unlikely before 1978 and that implementation of the necessary legislation "will depend on our ability to process other labour legislation already in the pipeline". Current progress with legislation does not give much ground for hope here. Conventions 69 and 74 are endorsed "may be improved in 1978", but, being concerned with ships' cooks and the certification of able Seamen, neither is of much significance for Hong Kong labour conditions. Nos. 86 and 97 are shown as "being examined", and we have no further indication of the present position. It might just be worther asking whether there is any chance of progress on these this year.
20 May 1977
R Willcocks