TNAG-0358-FCO40-394-Registration-of-merchant-shipping-in-Hong-Kong-1972 — Page 6

thank you live on

letter

Reference.

HKK 21/2.

101

the 229. X!!

Mr Goodfellow, (Hong Kong and Indian Ocean Department)

With reference to the draft Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping (Recruiting of Seamen) Ordinance, it is aifficult in the absence of the main ordinance and any comparative table to assess the full effect of the amendments proposed but there are a number of points arising which should be considered in relation to obli- gations entered into in respect of application of certain International Labour Conventions to Hong Kong. These are as follows.

IL Convention No 22 concerning Seamen's Articles of

of Agreement has been declared applied to Hong Kong with the following modifications -

Article 1:

Article 4:

Article 9:

Articles

12 and 13:

Applied in respect of British ships and foreign ships of nations not represented in the Colony by a Consular Officer.

There is no specific legislation covering this practice, though it is not in fact permitted.

There is no specific legislation regu- lating agreements for an indefinite period, though they are not in practice allowed.

Though no legislative provision exists there are well defined grounds upheld by legal decision on which a seaman can obtain his discharge.

It will be noted from the Report Form relating to Convention 22 which is now attached that there are a number of requirements to be met in regard to the lawful discharge of seamen provided these are implemented by other provisions of the main ordinance or some other law so that the expression "lawfully discharged" used in Clause 2 may be said to be defined in terms compatible with the Convention there would seem to be no reason why this amendment should not be made.

IL Convention No 105 concerning Forced Labour has also

been declared fully applied to Hong Kong. Article 1(c) requires that forced labour shall not be used as a means of labour discipline. This has been interpreted by the ILO's Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions as requiring that no seaman (as well as any other worker) may be required to perform work if he is sent to prison for a disciplinary offence. I take it that if a seaman resisted attempts to remove him from his ship after he had been lawfully discharged from that ship,md this action led to his arrest and subsequent imprisonment it would be on grounds of say, trespass or disorderly conduct and not because he had committed an offence under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance? If this is not the

/case

DD 897152 154596 500M 2/72 GM 3643/2