TNAG-0873-FCO40-1083-Employment-of-children-in-Hong-Kong-1979 — Page 114

MR N A LING (HK&GD)

CONFIDENTIAL

Our

Reference....LA/HK/9

Your Reference: HKK 210/2

HKKZ1012

~H)

CHILD LABOUR IN HONG KONG

1.

2.

Please refer to your minute of 5 July. No

Awery (27

1

The authors of the Anti-Slavery Society report have failed' to recognise the significance of the three-pronged attack which is to be made by the Hong Kong Government on those who illegally employ children by making compulsory, and free in the public sector, school education up to the Form III level, by extending to the non-industrial sector the legal prohibitions which apply to the employment of children in the industrial sector, and by greatly enlarging the Labour Inspectorate to enforce these new restrictions. An additional point in Hong Kong's favour, which is not mentioned in the report, is the issue of identity cards, with photographs, to children in the age group 11-17, under the Registration of Persons Regulations of 1973. I believe this exer- cise was due to be completed by 31 October last year.

see (16)

3. That having been said, one must look into, I think, what further criticisms may be levelled at Hong Kong once proper accoun has been taken of the measures described in the Executive Council memorandum. My major concern would relate to the employment of children as outworkers. A definition of this term is included in

Hong Kong's Workmens' Compensation Ordinance. This is, I admit, a difficult problem to deal with, but speaking from memory, out- work was one feature of the Granada Television programme of 1976 which was harmful to Hong Kong's image. The problem was brought to my mind by the reference at paragraph 5(c) of the Exco memoran- dum to excluding premises used for dwelling places from the general inspectional powers of "authorised officers". Have the Hong Kong Government any plans to deal with the problem of children performing industrial work, usually on a piecerate basis, in their own homes ? Does the solution lie in making school attendance compulsory and will the Education Department's Inspectors, the Family Service Officers of the Social Welfare Department and possibly the Inspectors of the Labour Department (paragraph 6 of the 1977 Exco memorandum) be able to cope with the problem by "knocking on doors" ?

4. I would have hoped too that the advice of the Labour Commis- sioner, Mr Henderson, had been followed and that during school holidays the maximum permissible daily hours of work had been limited to 4 (paragraph 16 of the Exco memorandum). This would have accorded more with the advice I gave him in April 1978 based on United Kingdom law and practice. (In the UK the maximum hours children can work on Saturdays and in the school holidays is generally 5 a day, subject to a maximum of 25 hours a week for children under 15, and 8 hours a day, subject to a maximum of 35 hours a week, for children of 15 and over).

5. You will also have seen that Hong Kong's proposals in respect of hours of work are not so restrictive as is the case in Malaysia, Singapore and Korea (paragraph 12 of the Exco memorandum). is at variance with the statement made by the Governor when

This

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL

/opening