*************************
Following is a question by the Hon Emily Lau and an oral reply by the Financial Secretary, Mr Henry Tang, in the Legislative Council today (February 15):
Question:
Since the establishment of the Commission on Poverty in January last year, the authorities have only developed a set of 24 poverty indicators to reflect the poverty situation in Hong Kong. However, they have failed to specifically set a poverty line for defining the population living in poverty. Besides, the Hong Kong Council of Social Service ("HKCSS") has estimated that the population living in poverty is currently around 1.25 million in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:
(a) how they can implement measures to combat poverty without identifying the size of the population living in poverty;
(b) whether they will take the size of population living in poverty estimated by the HKCSS as a reference for planning and implementing measures to combat poverty; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(c) whether they will set specific targets for combating poverty with a view to reducing the population living in poverty to a particular level within a certain number of years?
Reply:
Madam President,
Understanding poverty and measuring poverty is one of the important tasks of the Commission on Poverty (the Commission). In compiling the 24 poverty indicators, the Commission has reviewed local and overseas experience, and drawn on expertise within and outside the Commission, including the Hong Kong Council of Social Service ("HKCSS").
The Hon Emily Lau's question focuses on the size of the poor population based solely on income. In this connection, Members may draw reference to indicators (2) and (10) compiled by the Commission, which indicate that with sustained economic recovery, the number of persons aged 0 - 59 living in households with income below average CSSA payment has fallen to 730 000 in Q3 2005. The size of the poor elderly is estimated at 220 000*. Together, the "poor" population amounts to 950 000.
Pointing this figure out is simple. However, this is far from adequate for policy deliberation and planning. The figure does not cast light on the specific needs of the disadvantaged groups, nor address the nature and risk of poverty from the perspectives of health, education/training, employment, living conditions and community/family support. For instance, households with the same income can have very different needs depending on whether they have dependent children, elderly and whether they are living in highly subsidized public housing. Indeed, practically, poverty alleviation must be delivered through relevant policies such as housing, health care, welfare provision, education and training. Specific needs must be addressed by specific and directly relevant policy measures. Only a multi-dimensional approach could make this possible.
This explains why the Commission, after detailed deliberation, has adopted a multi-dimensional cum life-cycle approach for measuring and sizing the problem of poverty. This is also the approach adopted by the more developed overseas countries as indicated in LegCo Secretariat's research report in May 2005**.
We have made reference to the size of population living in poverty as estimated by the HKCSS. In fact, in the course of drawing up the poverty indicators, HKCSS has been consulted throughout the process and their views were duly incorporated among the others.
In compiling the income-related poverty indicators, we have made reference to the level of CSSA payment which is widely used and recognized as the level needed to meet the basic living requirements in our community. This is in a way a de facto "poverty line" as far as income-related indicators are concerned. For reasons explained in (a) above, there is little additional practical need for establishing a new poverty line.
The HKCSS has adopted "half of the median household income" as the poverty line for estimating the number of poor people. Although the HKCSS and the Commission apparently adopt different income benchmarks for sizing the poor, they are in fact similar. For example, half of the median monthly household income for a 3-person household is $8,000 in Q3 2005, while the average monthly CSSA payment for a 3-person household is $7,664, just 4% lower than that of the HKCSS benchmark.
The macro poverty indicators are meant to give an overview of how the poverty situation evolves over time. By giving prima facie suggestions of areas deserving focused study, these indicators provide useful reference in policy formulation. For instance, the size of non-engaged youths would reflect the extent to which our basic education and training programmes are effective in preparing youths for further study or work.
We understand some Members consider that the Government should set measurable targets for combating poverty, drawing reference to examples notably in some EU countries. However, overseas experience should always be analyzed in context. For instance, U.K. has succeeded in having significant measurable impact in reducing the number of children in relative low-income households by changing in the tax and benefit system (e.g. introducing tax credits to working families). But such is not applicable in Hong Kong given all low-income employees are already outside the salaries tax net.
In the Hong Kong context, it would not be prudent for the Government to set arbitrary policy targets without taking into account the full policy implications. For instance, the number of children living in workless households should fall with more single parent CSSA recipients working. However, the Government would not set specific policy target without taking into account various implementation concerns, e.g. whether this may inadvertently deprive some young children of their much-needed parental care.
I shall discuss with Members in greater detail later this afternoon on the motion moved by the Hon K.K. Fung on the Report on Working Poverty. Suffice to say at this moment that we welcome the Report which highlights areas for continued efforts. The Government is committed to working with the Legislative Council to combat poverty in ways appropriate to Hong Kong's context.
Remarks:
* For reference: Indicators (16) and (18). Since assessing income of elderly people entails technical difficulties, some other methods have been adopted for measuring the size of elderly poor.
** Research report provided by Research and Library Services Division of the Legislative Council on "Poverty Combating Strategies in Selected Places" [RP05/04-05] (19 May 2005).
Ends/Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Issued at HKT 13:54
NNNN
