TNAG-0232-FCO40-268-Legislation-relating-to-registration-of-trade-unions-in-Hong-1970 — Page 177

NOTHING TO BE Written IN THIS MARGIN

W(B)L 51-7406

with disturbances, and consider that there are as good arguments against the exclusion of persons convicted of a variety of other

offences. There must be a multitude of

-

offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years, e.g.,

some motoring offences, bigamy, etc.; a

person convicted of such charges might, because of extenuating circumstances, receive a very light sentence (possibly not involving imprisonment at all). I can see no justifica- tion for excluding such persons from holding office and, for that matter, excluding them

for life. It seems to me that this provision is mistaken in equating a potentially serious

offence with a serious offence. I appreciate

that with the consent of the Governor in

Council it would not apply in individual

cases. Nevertheless, subject to the point made immediately below, I consider a restricted exclusion along the lines of the present Section 17(3) to be much more suitable and

defensible.

It is difficult to defend exclusion for

life. You may wish to consider whether, as

is customary elsewhere, it would not be

preferable to limit disqualification to a

fixed period, say of five years, from date of conviction. Again I appreciate that under

the discretion given to the Governor in

Council some such rule could be applied

administratively, but I consider it desirable

that there should be provision in the legislation to this effect.

Clause 13

It is not entirely clear in what

circumstances the Registrar might think it necessary to move under the new Section 17(2) (c). If, for example, the union indicated

a wish to leave the vacancy unfilled, what considerations would lead the Registrar to

apply for a court order compelling fresh

elections to be held?

/ Clause 25