Residence rights to focus on Basic Law

The city's government wants the Court of Final Appeal to seek a ruling from Beijing on the power of the National People's Congress to interpret the Basic Law, a lawyer for the administration told the top court yesterday.

In the first indication of the exact scope of the administration's controversial request to the court over the issue of awarding right of abode to foreign domestic helpers, David Pannick QC said the government wanted an interpretation of Article 158, which states that the power to interpret the mini-constitution "shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress".

The court is hearing an appeal by domestic helpers whose claim for permanent residence, under Article 24, after living in Hong Kong for more than seven years was rejected by a lower court.

Also yesterday, the court declined an application to join the domestic helpers' appeal that had been filed on behalf of an eight-year-old girl born in Hong Kong to mainland parents. The girl and her mother were concerned that her right of abode would be affected if the interpretation, which has far-reaching implications for children in a similar situation, was sought.

The court said the issues to be raised on behalf of the girl had already been adequately covered.

The appeal stems from a constitutional challenge mounted by Evangeline Banao Vallejos and Daniel Domingo, who have each worked in Hong Kong for more than 20 years. They succeeded in the Court of First Instance, which ruled that section 2(4)(a)(vi) of the Immigration Ordinance was unconstitutional in excluding foreign domestic helpers as a class from being recognised as "ordinarily resident" in Hong Kong, denying their right to apply for permanent residence.