***************************************************
Following is a question by the Hon Wong Kwok-hing and a written reply by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Professor Anthony Cheung Bing-leung, in the Legislative Council today (January 6):
Question:
The Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) introduced in September 2005 the Quota and Points System (QPS), which is applicable to non-elderly one-person applicants, to rationalise the priority in the allocation of public rental housing (PRH) units to these applicants. HA has implemented the refined QPS since February 1 last year to enable older applicants (particularly those who are above the age of 45) to enjoy relatively higher priority in the allocation of PRH units. However, some members of the public have pointed out that in the past nine financial years, not a single one-person applicant below the age of 30 was allocated PRH unit and the number of applicants aged between 30 and 39 accounted for less than 4% of the total number of applicants who were allocated PRH units each year, reflecting that the original QPS was already able to achieve the policy objective of enabling older applicants to enjoy higher priority in the allocation of PRH units. Regarding the allocation of PRH units to non-elderly one-person applicants, will the Government inform this Council:
(1)of the number of non-elderly one-person applicants allocated with PRH units since the implementation of the refined QPS, together with their age profile and average waiting time;
(2)of the number of new non-elderly one-person applicants since the implementation of the refined QPS; their (i) age and education attainment profiles, and (ii) highest and lowest points accorded to them on submission of applications;
(3)of the current number of non-elderly one-person applicants and the average length of waiting period since the time of application, and set out at Annex 1 a breakdown by the age group to which they belong; if such figures are not available, of the reasons for that, and whether it will conduct a relevant analysis to facilitate the study on ways to improve QPS;
(4)of the number of applications received in each round of the Express Flat Allocation Scheme in the past five years, and among them, (i) the respective numbers of family and non-elderly one-person applicants and their respective percentages in the total number of applicants, (ii) the number of cases in which the applicants were allocated PRH units, and (iii) the age profile of the non-elderly one-person applicants who were allocated PRH units;
(5)given that if the Social Welfare Department is, upon assessment, of the opinion that the applicants concerned have pressing housing needs and their cases have sufficient social or medical grounds, it will recommend to the Housing Department that compassionate rehousing be given to such applicants, in each of the past five years, (i) of the number of applications for compassionate rehousing, and among them, the number of applications made by non-elderly one-person applicants, and (ii) the number of cases in which compassionate rehousing was recommended for non-elderly one-person applicants and their percentage in the total number of cases in which compassionate rehousing was recommended; whether the Government will improve the policy on compassionate rehousing, e.g. by putting in place a mechanism whereby the non-elderly one-person applicants, who have pressing housing needs but whose applications for compassionate rehousing have been rejected, can lodge complaints; and
(6)whether it has conducted a study to ascertain if the refined QPS will result in slim chances for non-elderly one-person applicants aged below 45 to be allocated PRH units; if it has conducted such a study and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities will state the case clearly in the PRH application forms, e.g. the waiting time could be as long as 10 to 20 years; whether the authorities will provide temporary housing units as temporary accommodation for non-elderly one-person applicants whose living environment is poor and whose housing needs are not the most pressing?
Reply:
President,
It is the policy of the Government and the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) to accord priority to general applicants (i.e. family and elderly one-person applicants) over non-elderly one-person applicants in the allocation of public rental housing (PRH) units. Towards this end, HA introduced the Quota and Points System (QPS) for non-elderly one-person applicants in September 2005. Unlike general applicants, the allocation of flats under QPS is subject to an annual quota and the priority of applicants is determined by a points system. Besides, the target of providing the first flat offer at around three years on average is not applicable to QPS applicants.
QPS was discussed in the process of formulating the Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS), the public consultation on LTHS conducted in 2013, the Director of Audit's Report No. 61 published in October 2013, the Legislative Council (LegCo) Public Accounts Committee's Report No. 61 published in February 2014, and the Subcommittee on LTHS under the LegCo Panel on Housing. Relevant views include: conducting a comprehensive review of QPS, reducing the built-in incentive for applicants to apply for PRH early under QPS, regularly removing those applicants who are no longer eligible, and giving additional points to applicants who are above the age of 45. Taking into account all the views, HA's Subsidised Housing Committee decided to refine QPS on October 14, 2014, as follows -
(1)starting from 2015/16, the annual PRH quota under this category is increased from 8% to 10% of the total number of flats to be allocated to general and QPS applicants, subject to a cap which is increased from 2 000 to 2 200 units;
(2)to reduce the inadvertent incentive for early application under QPS, the scale of age points is increased from 3 to 9 points per year of age increase at the time of application;
(3)applicants reaching the age of 45 are awarded a one-off bonus of 60 points to offer them a higher priority over other younger QPS applicants;
(4)to enable HA to have a more realistic grasp of the situation of QPS applicants and to better assess the demand, HA will conduct checking on those QPS applicants who have waited for five years but are not yet due for detailed vetting within the next two years; and
(5)the refined points system and the regular checking of the eligibility of QPS applicants to be implemented on February 1, 2015.
My reply to the six parts of the question raised by the Hon Wong Kwok-hing is as follows -
(1)The Housing Department (HD) compiles statistics on applicants who are allocated PRH units on a quarterly basis. According to the latest figures as at end-September 2015, in the two quarters from April to September 2015, a total of 1 025 QPS applicants were allocated PRH units. The age distribution of these applicants was at Annex 2.
As the target of providing the first flat offer at around three years on average is not applicable to QPS applicants, HD has not compiled the average waiting time of these applicants.
(2)HD compiles statistics on the number of newly registered PRH applicants on a quarterly basis. According to the latest figures as at end-September 2015, in the two quarters from April to September 2015, there were about 9 000 newly registered QPS applicants. The age distribution of these applicants was at Annex 3.
Since PRH applicants do not need to declare their education attainment, HD has not kept information about the applicants' education attainment. Nevertheless, for reference purpose, HD conducts survey on PRH applicants every year. According to the 2015 survey results, in the first quarter of 2015, the education attainment of QPS applicants was at Annex 4.
We have not specifically compiled statistics on the highest and the lowest scores of newly registered QPS applicants at the time of application in different time periods. However, we have to point out that individual applicant cannot assess his/her waiting time simply based on the points he/she obtained at the time of application. This is because after he/she submitted the application, new applicants may come in, and there will also be applicants leaving. All these changes may alter the priority of other applicants in the queue. Besides, the progress of PRH allocation is affected by factors such as the number of PRH units reserved for allocation, the supply of newly built and refurbished PRH units in different districts, whether applicants accept flat offers, etc. Therefore, individual applicant cannot estimate his/her own waiting time based on the highest and the lowest scores under QPS at a specific point of time.
(3)HD compiles statistics on the number of applicants who are waiting for PRH allocation on a quarterly basis. As at end-September 2015, there were 142 800 QPS applicants. The age distribution of these applicants was at Annex 5.
As the target of providing the first flat offer at around three years on average is not applicable to QPS applicants, HD has not compiled information about the average waiting time of these applicants.
(4)In the past five years, the number of applications and allocations under the Express Flat Allocation Scheme (EFAS) were at Annex 6.
Whether PRH applicants are housed through EFAS is not directly related to their age. Hence, HD has not compiled information about the age distribution of QPS applicants who are allocated PRH units through EFAS.
(5)Compassionate Rehousing (CR) is a housing assistance scheme which aims at providing housing assistance for individuals or families who have genuine, urgent and long-term housing needs but are unable to solve the housing problems by themselves. CR is different from normal PRH application. Eligibility for CR is not determined based on the date of registration or a points system. It has to be assessed by professional social workers having regard to the multifaceted circumstances of the persons concerned. In the past five years, the number of CR cases recommended by the Social Welfare Department (SWD) to HD and the number of cases which were allocated PRH units were at Annex 7.
As some recommended cases received towards the end of a year will be allocated PRH units in the next year, the number of recommended cases received is different from the number of cases which are allocated PRH units in the same year.
SWD has devised procedural guidelines for handling CR cases to assist social workers in assessing the housing needs of individual cases in an objective and professional manner. The guidelines set out in details the assessment criteria and the procedures in processing CR applications. Each CR case will be subject to the review and endorsement by the District Social Welfare Officers to ensure consistency in the assessment yardsticks. If the applicants are not satisfied with the CR assessment results, they can appeal to the officer-in-charge or the supervisor of the service unit to which the assessing social worker belongs, or the District Social Welfare Officer of the respective district.
(6)The existing application guide for PRH has already explained the points system of QPS in details.
In the process of public consultation for formulating the LTHS in 2013, the public generally agreed that older applicants might have relatively limited upward mobility and therefore should be given higher priority. The objective of the QPS refinement in giving a one-off additional 60 points to applicants who have reached the age of 45 is to offer these applicants a higher priority. Therefore, after the refinement, generally speaking, the priority of applicants under the age of 45 will inevitably be relatively lower. However, the actual priority of individual applicants is determined by their points under the refined system, and is ultimately subject to the supply of PRH and the circumstances of other applicants.
Same as other PRH applicants, non-elderly one-person applicants with pressing housing needs can apply for CR upon recommendation of SWD. As regards the suggestion of providing transitional housing to accommodate inadequately housed households, the Government has earlier examined the suggestion before but considered it not practicable. First of all, given the lack of land supply at present, suitable sites for housing should be reserved for PRH as far as possible. This will ultimately benefit those inadequately housed households who are PRH applicants. Besides, even if sites which do not have other immediate uses were to be granted under short term tenancy for the development of transitional housing, they would still require additional infrastructural works by the Government that take time to complete (such as the provision of sewerage). The size and number of such temporary sites are also bound to be very limited. They may not be able to accommodate a large number of inadequately housed households within a short period of time as envisaged by the advocates. Furthermore, the fact is that there is high demand for short term tenancy sites for various social and economic uses.
Ends/Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Issued at HKT 15:05
NNNN
