TNAG-0531-FCO40-626-Application-of-International-Labour-Convention-to-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 356

HXL 7/393/5

14

Mr Foggon (Cverseas Labour Adviser

G66B/G)

in the

ligent of

APPLICATION OF CONVENTION NO 14 TO HONG KONG

A.

1. Please see minutes from ir Hurst's of 18 April 1975. similar situation arises in regard to Convention No. 14 as that relating to Convention No. 98, ie, strictly speaking, the legal position is not fully consistent with the requirements of the Convention but the points at issue are so fine as to suggest that a decision should be taken on a political rather than a conventional basis.

2. It is the case that I suggested in paragraph 6 of my minute of 24 April that we should consider seeking legal advice on the interpretation placed on the Convention by myself and Mr Hurst and this may be desirable. with regard to paragraph 4 of Mr hotton's undated minute, however, we cannot expect Legal „dvisers to assess the likely extent of criticism from the ILO Committee of Experts?

3. Subject to your views we should seek confirmation from Legal Advisers that the points of difference between the law and the requirements of the Convention have been correctly interpreted? (These points are set out in Mr Hurst's minute of 18 April 1975). On the basis of legal advice, it could then be determined whether or not any modification is necessary unless it is considered that the position remains ambiguous, in which case I would suggest that HKIOD, atings are advice yourself and Legal Advisers, should decide whether or not it would be politically desirable for a declaration to be made. In reaching a decision it should be borne in mind declarations of application to Hong Kong are made under Article 35 of the ILO Constitution. In effect this means that the UK Government assumes the responsibility for seeing that the Convention is applied in practice.

ہر

12 May 1975

Wott

cc: Mr Wotton HKIOD

Miss M M Swan

Gibraltar & veneral Department K273A

MA 246