LCQ3: Conditions of stay of domestic helpers
********************************************

     Following is a reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Ambrose S K Lee, to a question by the Hon Li Fung-ying in the Legislative Council today (February 16):

Question:

     At present, foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) may perform driving duties which are incidental to or arising from domestic duties upon their obtaining special permission from the Immigration Department (ImmD). I have received complaints alleging that such special permission has been abused in that the work of some FDHs mainly involves driving duties with little domestic work, which in effect turns them into personal chauffeurs and affected the job opportunities of local drivers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of applications received by ImmD in each of the past three years for special permission for FDHs to perform driving duties as well as the number of approved and rejected applications, with a breakdown by the gender of FDHs, and the respective percentage of the figures in the number of FDHs of that gender in the year;

(b) of the respective numbers of FDHs to whom special permission had been given once, twice, three times and more than three times by ImmD in the past three years, with a breakdown by the gender of FDHs; and

(c) whether ImmD had taken any concrete action in the past three years to prevent FDHs from performing driving duties which were not incidental to or arising from domestic duties; if it had, of the content and number of actions taken, the number of prosecutions instituted, the number of cases in which the persons involved were convicted and the penalties imposed; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

     According to the policy announced by the then Education and Manpower Bureau (EMB), the Government decided that, starting from January 1, 2000, a ban be imposed on driving duties by foreign domestic helpers (FDHs). At the same time, the Government implemented a special arrangement, administered by the Immigration Department (ImmD), under which FDHs employed by employers with genuine need may apply to the Government to perform driving duties incidental to and arising from domestic duties. This special arrangement, on the one hand, facilitates effective enforcement action by the ImmD against abuse and, on the other, allows individual FDH to perform driving duties genuinely incidental to and arising from domestic duties.

     According to this special arrangement, the employer must provide, in the FDH's application form, full justifications and supporting information on the need of driving service to be performed by his/her FDH incidental to and arising from any of the five broad categories of domestic duties, namely household chores; cooking; looking after aged persons in the household; baby-sitting; and child-minding. The relevant FDH must be a live-in helper and possess a valid Hong Kong driving licence, whereas the vehicle concerned must be registered under the name of the employer or his/her spouse. Attached to the application form is an addendum to the schedule of accommodation and domestic duties which specifies, in addition to general domestic duties, the incidental driving duties that the FDH needs to perform. The employer and FDH must both sign on the application form and the addendum to the schedule of accommodation and domestic duties, declaring that both parties agree to and abide by the specified arrangement of driving duties. Upon approval of the application by the ImmD, the addendum to the schedule of accommodation and domestic duties will become part of the employment contract of the FDH, by which the employer and FDH must abide accordingly.

     According to the policy of the then EMB, the ban on driving duties by FDHs and at the same time allowing them to perform specified driving duties upon special permission becomes one of the conditions of stay imposed by the ImmD on FDHs. Therefore, an FDH who contravenes a condition of the special permission or performs driving duties without special permission is in breach of his/her condition of stay. According to the Immigration Ordinance, an FDH is liable on conviction to a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment of two years. The employer may be liable to the same maximum penalty for aiding and abetting the breach of condition of stay by an FDH. In addition, according to the Immigration Ordinance, an employer and FDH who provide false information in the application for special permission is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment of two years.

     Regarding the three parts of the question, my reply is as follows:

(a) The concerned statistics in the past three years are detailed at Annex. In general, the number of special permission cases as a percentage of the FDH population stays at a stable level, i.e. around 30% for male, around 0.1% for female and 0.6% for both sexes. There were no significant changes in the past three years.

(b) The ImmD does not maintain statistics on the number of times FDHs are granted special permission to perform driving duties. Generally speaking, of the cases where special permissions are given, around 90% are applications made upon contract renewal or change of employers, while only around 10% are made by new visa applicants.

(c) As I mentioned just now, since the implementation of the new policy on January 1, 2000, the ban on driving duties by FDHs and at the same time allowing them to perform specified driving duties upon special permission has become a condition of stay imposed by the ImmD on FDHs. An FDH who contravenes a condition of the special permission or performs driving duties without special permission is in breach of a condition of stay.

     In the past three years, the ImmD investigated into six reports where FDHs were suspected to have contravened conditions of the special permission or performed driving duties without special permission. After investigation, there was no concrete evidence that FDHs had contravened the Immigration Ordinance in four cases; the concerned FDH in another case was found not guilty after court hearing; whereas the concerned party in the remaining case was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for overstaying and breach of other conditions of stay.

Ends/Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Issued at HKT 12:57

NNNN