TNAG-2318-FCO40-3362-Petitions-from-members-of-the-public-regarding-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 135

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

COUNCIL

28 November 1990-

香港立法局

一九九○年十一月二十八日

20

MR MCGREGOR: Sir, would the Secretary note that many people consider that the "two-week rule" should be changed to a "four-week rule" and, given the fact that the Secretary for Security has indicated that there is very little overstaying among the domestic helpers, that a longer period would be much fairer than the present system?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, I have taken due note of Mr McGregor's suggestion but I am afraid I cannot agree with it. As I mentioned in my reply, the "two-week rule" was not really intended to give foreign domestic helpers the time to look for alternative employment. If they have trouble with their current employer they can always go to the Labour Department for counselling and to the Immigration Department for permission to change their employer. They do not necessarily have to do that at the end of the contract.

MRS CHOW: Sir, given that the Secretary has said that the "two-week rule" was never intended to enable domestic helpers to find alternative employers, what would then constitute a good reason for granting an extension of stay beyond the two weeks?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Sir, there are many circumstances under which the Director of Immigration will sympathetically consider granting an extension of stay. The most common reason is involvement in claims made against the employer, usually before the Labour Tribunal, for sums owing to the helper in respect of wages and passages. These claims and the need to await the award of the Labour Tribunal account for well over 80% of all approved extensions.

譚耀宗議員問:過去三年內有多少外地家庭傭工申請延期居留?而人民入境事務處處長之 批准了多少宗?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: I am afraid. Sir, I do not have the precise number of cases with me at this moment, but the figures look as if they are as follows:

Page 135Page 136