********************************************************************
Following is the translation of the opening statement by the Secretary for Housing, Mr Dominic Wong, at the Legislative Council Select Committee on Building Problems of Public Housing Units today (May 12):
Madam Chairman,
I am grateful for the opportunity to make an oral statement. The policy objective of the Government is to achieve better housing for all, through an adequate supply of affordable housing for ownership or rent. In response to Members' more specific concerns, I wish to give Members my view of three specific areas. First, land supply for public housing. Second, the bunching of public housing production in certain years. Third, the Housing Bureau's relationship with the Housing Authority and the Housing Department.
Before I proceed, some background information may be useful. The first Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS) was promulgated by the Government in 1987. In it, the Government announced that an average of 40 000 public housing flats per year would be built from April 1987 to March 2001. In other words, about 560 000 public housing flats would be built in the 14-year period. In April 1988, the Housing Branch was abolished. The Housing Authority was given the responsibility to keep the 1987 LTHS under review, including the original assessment of housing demand, and for planning, co-ordination and monitoring of the public housing production programme.
In October 1994, in accordance with our reliance at that time on the Housing Authority's information, the Government pledged to provide 141 000 public rental flats and 148 000 subsidised flats for sale (excluding Sandwich Class Housing flats) during the six-year period from April 1995 to March 2001. These targets reflected the Housing Authority's production forecast for the six-year period concerned. Totalling 289 000 flats, this quantity represents, on average, nearly 50 000 flats per year. These targets were repeated in the 1995 and 1996 Policy Addresses, with a modest increase of 3 000 home ownership flats in 1995 to reflect a minor change in the Housing Authority's production schedule.
The Housing Branch was re-established in November 1994 and was re-named the Housing Bureau in July 1997. Since 15 December 1994, I have been the Secretary for Housing. My primary role and responsibility is to formulate and co-ordinate housing policy at the macro and strategic level, and to monitor its implementation. I regard the re-establishment of the Housing Branch as a positive and important step of the Government.
I turn now to specific issues of concern. Concerning land supply for public housing, I wish to make three points.
First, who decided on realistic levels of public housing production and therefore on the Housing Authority's land requirements before 1997? The complex task of developing a model to project housing demand more realistically was completed by the Housing Bureau in the latter part of 1997. In the meantime, public flat production targets referred to in the 1994, 1995 and 1996 Policy Addresses were, of necessity, based on the Housing Authority's public housing production forecasts. These forecasts took into account the Government's original 1987 LTHS, and also revisions of housing demand subsequently made by the Housing Department.
Secondly, the Government has provided sufficient land to the Housing Authority so that the announced public flat production targets can be delivered on time to satisfy the housing demand of those in genuine need. A substantial proportion of Housing Authority flat production (up to about 30%) comes from redevelopment of existing sites.
Our records show that during the ten-year period up to 1996-97, about 490 hectares of new land were allocated to the Housing Authority to enable it to meet its flat production targets.
Thirdly, the question of uneven supply of land to the Housing Authority. When flat production targets change because of changes in housing demand, so too does the demand for land supply for housing. There is, of course, a varying lead time involved in land production, planning and provision of infrastructure. Land supply for housing development is bound to fluctuate from year to year. Despite these practical constraints, the Government provided sufficient land to meet the Housing Authority's estimated construction dates.
I now turn to the "bunching" of public housing production in certain years. Members may wish to know if the Government or the Housing Bureau ignored warnings of this "bunching effect". The answer is definitely no. In fact, when the Housing Authority urged the Government in 1995 to allocate more land to meet its own flat production targets, the Housing Branch drew attention to early signs of the bunching problem, which had been caused in part by slippage in the Housing Authority's Public Housing Development Programme in earlier years. We asked the Housing Authority to consider carefully if additional land was actually required: our own preliminary assessment suggested that this was questionable. The Government's own housing demand model was then in the process of development. Having considered the assessment of housing demand provided by the Housing Department, the Government allocated an additional 30 hectares of land to the Housing Authority in December 1995. Members may recall that the then Legislative Council repeatedly urged the Government to provide sufficient land to the Housing Authority so that the announced public housing targets over the six-year period would be met.
Having allocated the land to the Housing Authority which it had requested, the Housing Branch helped the Housing Department to contain further slippage of its developments through bureaucratic inertia. Through the Housing Project Action Team (HPAT) chaired by me personally, we facilitated the delivery of individual projects, resolved site-specific problems drawn to our attention and, where necessary, streamlined Government planning and approval procedures (not construction procedures). We also urged the Housing Authority/Housing Department to take positive measures to address any problem arising from years in which production was likely to be high.
The Housing Branch also brought the issue of construction industry manpower capacity to the attention of relevant Government Bureaux and departments. The Government worked out a contingency plan to cope with the possibility of a labour shortage in the construction industry. Eventually there was no need to take such measures as the Asian financial turmoil in October 1997 slowed down substantially activity in the construction sector.
Madam Chairman, while I referred to the measures taken by the Housing Bureau to address the issues of land supply for public housing and the "bunching" of production, I wish to point out that: nothing to my knowledge suggests that the level of public housing production or the type of slippage that affected some public housing sites was a contributory factor to the four specific incidents under investigation by this Select Committee.
The third area I wish to address briefly is the Housing Bureau's relationship with the Housing Authority and the Housing Department.
The main role of the Housing Bureau in respect of public housing is to set public housing policies at the macro and strategic level. The Housing Authority implements the majority of the public housing programme. It formulates "operational policies" under the strategic framework set by the Government. The Housing Department is the executive arm of the Housing Authority.
In conclusion, shortly after the Housing Branch was re-established, we noticed the Housing Authority's slippage of production and the Housing Authority's concern over land supply. We helped to address these problems so that our overall housing strategy could meet the rising expectations of the public as well as this Council in relation to flat production and public rental housing waiting time. It is a major achievement for the people of Hong Kong that we have, as a result, shortened the waiting time for public housing for those in genuine need from an average of 7.5 years in 1994 to an average of 4.7 years today, one year ahead of our original target date. We have rehoused over 270 000 families in need of public rental housing. In doing so, we have substantially reduced the number of families living in inadequate accommodation in Hong Kong. To Hong Kong people, this is an important achievement.
As regards the four incidents with which this Select Committee is definitively concerned, I remind Members that three independent and thorough investigations have been conducted, and Members have access to the concerned reports and their findings.
Madam Chairman, I wish to pay tribute to members of the Housing Authority and staff of the Housing Department for their overall achievement. While the past two years have been a difficult period, they have continued to discharge their duties faithfully and have drawn up a comprehensive package of reform initiatives so as to improve the quality of public housing for the benefit of the people in Hong Kong.
END/Saturday, May 12, 2001
NNNN
