***********************************************************
Following is a question by Dr Hon Fernando Cheung and a written reply by the Acting Secretary for Transport and Housing, Mr Yau Shing-mu, in the Legislative Council today (November 25):
Question:
Some members of the public have relayed to me that the waiting time for public rental housing (PRH) is getting increasingly longer at present, and they have no way to know the method by which the Housing Department (HD) calculates the waiting time of the PRH applicants. Furthermore, according to Report No. 61 of the Director of Audit, published in October 2013, the method by which HD calculates the PRH applicants' average waiting time lacks transparency, and the average waiting time claimed by HD is different from the actual waiting time perceived by the applicants. The Director of Audit also suggested that HD should make public the definition of average waiting time and the basis of its calculation. On the other hand, the Government attributes the prolonged waiting time of the PRH applicants to the opposition from members of the local communities and concern groups to some PRH projects as well as the increase in the applications for PRH from young people. Regarding the waiting time for and allocation of PRH, will the Government inform this Council of:
(1) the justifications for HD not making public the actual waiting time for PRH regularly and the basis of its calculation;
(2) the actual waiting time of general PRH applicants in each of the past five financial years as well as the current financial year to date, and set out the relevant information in table 1.
(3) the number of non-elderly singleton applicants on the PRH waiting list in each of the past 10 financial years as well as the current financial year to date, and set out a breakdown by education level (primary or below, secondary, tertiary or above) in a table;
(4) the respective numbers of non-elderly singleton applicants allocated with PRH flats through (i) general application, (ii) compassionate rehousing and (iii) the Express Flat Allocation Scheme, in each of the past 10 financial years as well as the current financial year to date, and set out a breakdown by age group (18-30, 31-40, 41-50 and 51 or above) in a table; and
(5) the total number of the projects opposed by members of the local communities or concern groups among those PRH projects proposed, commenced and completed in the past five financial years, as well as among those PRH projects planned to be built in the next five financial years, and set out the following information of the projects concerned: (i) the project names, (ii) the years in which the PRH projects were/scheduled to be completed, (iii) the number of flats built/planned to be built, (iv) the reasons for opposition, and (v) the modifications (e.g. reduction in the number of flats, abolition or deferral of the construction of the projects concerned) made in response to the objections?
Reply:
President,
The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA)'s objective is to provide public rental housing (PRH) to low-income families who cannot afford private rental accommodation, with the target of providing the first flat offer to general applicants (i.e. family and elderly one-person applicants) at around three years on average. Waiting time refers to the time taken between registration for PRH and first flat offer, excluding any frozen period during the application period (e.g. when the applicant has not yet fulfilled the residence requirement; the applicant has requested to put his/her application on hold pending arrival of family members for family reunion; the applicant is imprisoned, etc). As regards the calculation of average waiting time (AWT) of general applicants, it refers to the average of the waiting time of those general applicants who were housed to PRH in the past 12 months.
My reply to the five-part question raised by the Hon Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung is as follows:
(1) and (2) The definition, calculation basis and release of information regarding AWT for PRH are covered in the Director of Audit's Report No. 61 on allocation and utilisation of PRH flats published in October 2013, and subsequently in the Legislative Council (LegCo) Public Accounts Committee (PAC)'s Report No. 61 published in February 2014. At that time, the Housing Department (HD) already pointed out to the Director of Audit and the PAC that although eligible applicants are given three housing offers, they are already provided with a housing opportunity at the first offer. Whether an applicant accepts the first offer or waits for subsequent offers is entirely a matter of personal decision. Hence, waiting time is only counted up to the first offer. The decision as to whether or not to accept the first, second or third offer rests entirely with the applicant and is not under the control of HA. It is therefore not appropriate for HA to publish information regarding aspects of waiting time over which it has no control to avoid causing misunderstanding.
Furthermore, as applicants who refuse to accept the first or the second offer are already at the forefront of the waiting list, HD will arrange flat allocation to these applicants as soon as suitable flats are available. HD will not change the priority of applicants because of the refusal of the first or the second offer. However, the availability of suitable flats for allocation to these applicants depends on the supply of new and recovered flats in individual districts, as well as various factors such as whether other applicants who are offered flats at the same time will refuse to accept the housing offers and hence release the flats. Therefore, circumstances of individual applicants vary significantly. The average waiting time calculated from the first to the second offer; as well as from the second to the third offer will be of limited reference value to individual applicants.
HD has repeatedly explained the definition of AWT and its calculation basis on different public occasions in the past (including meetings and papers of HA and the LegCo, as well as responses to the media). Nevertheless, we agree with the suggestion of the Director of Audit and the PAC to enhance the publicity through various public channels and have done so accordingly. We have already provided the relevant information on the HA/HD's website and in the Application Guide for PRH for easy reference of applicants. At present, HD also updates information about the AWT of general applicants on the HA/HD's website every quarter. This arrangement enhances the transparency of information.
The AWT of general applicants (according to the definition mentioned above) in the past five financial years are summarised in table 2.
According to the latest figures, as at end-September 2015, the AWT of general applicants is 3.6 years.
(3) As at end-September 2015, there are 142 800 applications from non-elderly one-person applicants under the Quota and Points System (QPS). In the past ten years, the number of QPS applicants is listed in table 3.
As PRH applicants need not declare their education attainment in their applications, HD has not kept information about the education attainment of applicants. For reference purpose, HD conducts survey on PRH applicants every year. According to survey results from 2007 to 2015, the education attainment of non-elderly one-person applicants is listed in table 4. (Note 1)
(4) (i) HD had in the past conducted an analysis on the age distribution of non-elderly one-person applicants housed under the QPS from 2006-07 to 2014-15. The results are listed in table 5.
(ii) and (iii) Whether PRH applicants are housed through Compassionate Rehousing or the Express Flat Allocation Scheme is not directly related to their age. Hence, HD has not conducted any analysis in this respect and therefore cannot provide any figures.
(5) Over the past five years, HA has consulted the District Councils (DCs) on some 80 public housing projects (including PRH and subsidised sales flats projects). Details of these projects are set out in the discussion paper submitted to the LegCo Panel on Housing (LC Paper No. CB(1)63/15-16(05)) in November 2015, and are repeated at Annex for ease of reference.
About 90 per cent of the above projects involve rezoning or planning applications. It is difficult to provide a brief summary on the views received since relevant DCs and members of the general public had diversified views on these projects and their views also varied at different stages of consultation. In general, requests which we usually received during the consultation were mainly on provision of more community facilities (such as community halls, indoor sports centres, etc.); provision of public transport facilities (such as public transport terminus or interchanges, footbridges; parking spaces, etc.); as well as reprovisioning of existing facilities which would be affected by the developments. There were also concerns about the adverse impact on traffic, air ventilation, visual amenity or the property value in the adjacent areas brought about by the developments, and also concerns about infill or high-rise developments.
We must stress that we have all along endeavoured to address the requests of the locals and solicit their support through various community engagement activities and residents' forums, so as to facilitate the smooth implementation of each and every public housing project. Through communication and cooperation between the Government and the DCs, we in the end secured the support or no objection in principle from respective DCs for most of the public housing projects listed at Annex. At this stage, it is difficult for us to forecast or speculate the response of respective districts and DCs on the public housing projects which will commence in the coming five financial years.
We will continue to liaise with the DCs and the local communities and will review with relevant bureaux and departments in order to deliver public housing in a prudent, holistic and cost effective manner. Where possible and where resources permit, we will also address the community's requests for public facilities. These tasks call for additional work and time, but we will proceed with planning applications and make corresponding amendments to scheme design in parallel in order to save time and to minimise the impact on the public housing construction programme.
Note 1: In surveys conducted in 2013 and earlier, non-elderly one-person applicants include (a) one-person applicants aged 58 or 59 who opt for the Single Elderly Persons Priority Scheme; (b) female one-person applicants with pregnancy of 16 weeks or more; and (c) QPS applicants. Since the 2014 survey, we have strictly followed the types of application and removed applicants (a) and (b) above (which belong to general applicants) from the survey on non-elderly one-person applicants. As applicants (a) and (b) above account for less than 1 per cent of all applicants, the difference in coverage should have minimal impact on the use of past statistics for comparison purpose.
Ends/Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Issued at HKT 15:47
NNNN
