TNAG-0644-FCO40-792-Employment-of-children-in-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 48

Diy Is

Mr Mixton

seè minute below

Reference...

HKK 210/1

Mr Stewart

A

HONG KONG: FINES FOR ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN

1.

47)

Please see the letter at E44 from the Governor of Hong Kong to Lord Goronwy-Roberts. According to his Assistant Private Secretary, Lord Goronwy does not propose replying unless the department thinks it is necessary.

2. Whilst the proposed increase of the maximum fine and the raising of the average level of fines is welcome, the real answer to child labour is not just as Sir Murray suggests the provision of school places for all children, it also requires compulsory education up to the age of, at least, fourteen.

3. In Para 7c Sir Murray says that once secondary education places have been provided then options for further action should be considered and doubtless he has in mind the enforcement of

However, it may compulsory education up to the age of fifteen. However be as well if this is raised with him. prepare a submission to the Minister. W. Willen

yes

If you agree, I shema

shown Ke

Let us emoult in Hunt "I don't think that the 5'0-5' would trunk us it ve ceshed min to neded the Grovenous letter.

Jelly

T Duffy

45

9 May 1977

1.

Hong Kong & General Department K 245

233 4377

I think we need Mr Hust's advice before deciding how to proceed. It was on the strength of his minute of 30 March that Lord Goronwy- Roberts put forward the idea that the Governor might speak to the Chief Justice and that a statutory minimum sentence or fine might be introduced. The Governor has responded positively to the first idea but not to the second.

2. I am doubtful whether we should use the Govem or's letter as a peg on which to hang an approach about the enforcement of compulsory education

the age of 15 (paragraph 3 of Mr Duffy's minute).

I think that, if we are to pursue this point, we should make it the subject of a separate communication on education matters, even though I appreciate that there is a connection with the illegal employment of children. On the whole, subject to Mr Hurst's views, I should have thought that further action with Hong Kong at this stage on child labour might be limited to Lord Goronwy-Roberts' sending a brief acknowledgement of the Governor's letter. Within the Office, I think that the Governor's letter should be submitted to Mr Cortazzi and Mr Murray, and, subject to Lord Goronwy-Roberts' concurrence, should be shown to the Secretary of State. It was the concern that he expressed about the level of fines being imposed for offences against the child labour laws that resulted in Lord Goronwy-Roberts' letter to the Governor (Mr Dales' minute of 21 March).

10 May 1977

"Daf Millen

D F Milton

Hong Kong & General Department