*********************************************************
Following is a question by the Hon Leung Yiu-chung and a written reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, in the Legislative Council today (July 17):
Question:
Last month, the Subsidized Housing Committee of the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) endorsed the new arrangements for tackling under-occupation (UO) in public rental housing (PRH), which will take effect from this October. Under the new arrangements, the threshold for one-person "Prioritized UO households" will be adjusted downwards from 34 square metres to 30 squares metres, and the thresholds for households of other sizes will also be adjusted downwards accordingly. UO households with living space exceeding the relevant thresholds are required to transfer to PRH flats of appropriate size. Moreover, UO households with disabled members or elderly members aged 70 or above are not required to transfer. Other UO households with members aged between 60 and 69 will be placed at the end of the transfer list. Some PRH residents have pointed out that HA has revised the transfer policy for UO households without consultation, which not only is against the principle of democracy but also has brought about significant impact on elderly PRH residents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of UO households with elderly members aged between 60 and 69, together with a breakdown by housing estate;
(b) whether HA will hold the new arrangements in abeyance temporarily and conduct consultation on such arrangements; if it will not, of the reasons for that;
(c) whether it has assessed if the new arrangements, which will force the elderly aged between 60 and 69 to move out of their residence where they have lived for many years, have violated the elderly-care principle of ageing in place; if the assessment result is in the negative, of the justifications for that;
(d) whether the authorities have considered what difficulties UO households with elderly members aged between 60 and 69 will encounter with the transfer; how the authorities will help them overcome such difficulties, including whether these households will be exempted from the transfer; if they will, of the criteria adopted; if not, the reasons for that; and
(e) whether the authorities will consult PRH residents before further tightening the thresholds for Prioritized UO households in future; if they will, of the consultation procedures; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
Public rental housing (PRH) is a precious social resource heavily subsidised by public funds. To ensure the rational use of PRH resources, it is the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA)'s established policy to require those households with living space exceeding the prescribed under-occupation (UO) standards to move to another PRH flat of more appropriate size. The existing UO standards are as follows:
Family Size 1 2 3 4 5 6
(Person)
Internal Floor Area 25 35 44 56 62 71
(IFA) exceeding
(square metres)
The Audit Commission (AC) undertook a study on the UO problem in 2006/07 and recommended a phased approach to deal with the UO cases and to take enforcement actions against those households who refused to transfer. Having considered the AC's recommendations and the overall demand and supply of PRH flats, the HA endorsed in 2007 various measures to deal with the UO cases in order of priorities, i.e. to begin with handling those Most-serious UO (MUO) households (now known as Prioritised UO (PUO) households) of living density exceeding 35 square metres per person and without elderly or disabled family members. Thereafter, the HA reviewed the relevant policy in 2010 and endorsed the continuation of a phased approach to deal with the UO cases and lowered the MUO households (now known as PUO households) threshold from living density exceeding 35 square metres to 34 square metres per person.
Recently, the HA conducted a further review on the UO policy in June 2013 and endorsed a series of revised measures to continue the phased approach to handle the UO households in PRH. Under the revised measures, households with disabled or elderly members aged 70 or above will be excluded from the UO list, and those with elderly members aged between 60 and below 70 will continue to be placed at the end of the UO list in the order for transfer until the next review. As the HA will arrange for transfers for the UO households to PRH flats of more appropriate size in accordance with their order on the UO list, transfers will not be arranged for those placed at the end of the UO list in the short term. Also, the HA renamed MUO households as PUO households, and redefined it as those with living space (according to family size) exceeding the prescribed internal floor area (IFA) and without elderly family members aged 60 or above. The PUO standards are as follows:
Family Size 1 2 3 4 5 6
(Person)
IFA exceeding 30 42 53 67 74 85
(square metres)
PUO households would be given (i) a maximum of three housing offers in the residing estate or estates in the same District Council constituency area, (ii) Domestic Removal Allowance (DRA) upon transfer to smaller flats; and (iii) transfer opportunities to flats of newly completed estates subject to availability of resources. They could be subject to termination of tenancy if all the three offers are refused without reasonable grounds. As for the non-PUO households (Note 1), we have no deadline for transfer at present. However, they can opt for voluntary transfers to PRH flats of more appropriate size before the HA arranges transfers for them, irrespective of their order of transfer, to suit their needs and be given DRA as well as offer of flats in newly completed estates, subject to availability of resources. The revised measures will take effect from October 1, 2013 and a further review will be conducted after three years of implementation.
My reply to the five-part of the question raised by Hon Leung Yiu-chung is as follows:
(a) As at end March 2013, there are about 13 000 UO households with family members aged between 60 and below 70, distributed in various PRH estates. The number of households by each management region is as follows:
Management Region Number of UO Households
with elderly members
aged between 60 and
below 70
------------------ ----------------------
Kwai Chung 1 500
Kowloon East 1 700
Kowloon West and Hong Kong 2 500
Tuen Mun and Yuen Long 2 200
Tai Po, North District, 2 100
Sha Tin and Sai Kung
Wong Tai Sin, Tsing Yi, 3 000
Tsuen Wan and Islands
----- ------
Total 13 000
As mentioned above, they will be placed at the end of the UO list until next review.
(b) When formulating and reviewing the UO policy, the HA has all along been open-minded and held meetings with relevant concern groups and tenants to listen to their views. The Subsidised Housing Committee (SHC) of the HA, at its meeting in June this year, conducted a comprehensive review of the UO policy in which the views of the concern groups and the tenants were discussed and considered in details. Given the fact that PRH resources are precious and heavily subsidised by public funds, the HA decided to implement the revised measures to ensure a fairer and more rational allocation of PRH resources to meet the aspirations of the community at large.
To tackle the UO problem in a phased manner, the HA would handle those MUO households (now known as PUO households) with priority. The Government consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Housing in 2007 on measures to tackle UO, and reported to the Panel in 2011 that the MUO households (now known as PUO households) threshold had been lowered from living density exceeding 35 square metres to 34 square metres per person. The relevant measures were generally supported by the Members.
At present, as most of the PUO cases with living density exceeding 34 square metres per person have been handled, in order to continue handling the UO households in a phased manner, the HA has to further revise the PUO households threshold, such as lowering the threshold for one-person households to living density exceeding 30 square metres (detailed above). Indeed, the present revised measures are basically continuation of the previous revision to the threshold of MUO households (now known as PUO households).
(c) and (d) The HA has all along adopted a flexible approach in dealing with the UO households with elderly members in order to minimise inconvenience caused arising from transfer. Under the revised measures, UO households with elderly members aged between 60 and 69 will continue to be categorised as non-PUO households and be placed at the end of the UO list for transfer.
The HA would first handle the PUO households in the coming three years. However, if those non-PUO households opt for voluntary transfer in advance, they will be provided with DRA. If they have problem on removal, the Housing Department would liaise with the Social Welfare Department and other non-governmental organisations to provide appropriate assistance.
(e) As mentioned above, the HA has all along been open-minded in collecting views from the community and to exchange views with the stakeholders when formulating and reviewing the UO policy. The SHC has discussed the policy and the views collected in details under a pragmatic approach at its meetings. The revised measures will be further reviewed after three years of implementation. By then, we would conduct an overall review on the effectiveness of the revised measures, taking into account tenants' aspirations, views of the stakeholders as well as the demand and supply of PRH, etc in order to determine the way forward of the UO policy.
Note 1: Including (i) UO households with elderly members aged between 60 and 69 (irrespective of their living space); and (ii) other UO households not reaching the threshold of PUO.
Ends/Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Issued at HKT 12:43
NNNN