LCQ12: Disbursement of a living subsidy to the "N have-nots households"
***********************************************************************
Question:
The Community Care Fund (CCF) implemented the One-off Living Subsidy for Low-income Households Not Living in Public Housing and Not Receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Programme thrice in 2013, 2015 and 2016 respectively to alleviate the financial pressure on such low-income households (commonly known as the "N have-nots households") by disbursing a Living Subsidy to them. CCF has not implemented the Programme again this year. Some households which were previously disbursed the Living Subsidy have relayed to me that the Living Subsidy helped reduce the financial pressure faced by them arising from the incessant rise in commodity prices and rents in recent years, thereby improving their standard of living. On the other hand, the Government launched in May last year the Low-income Working Family Allowance Scheme to alleviate the financial burden on working poor families by disbursing a Family Allowance to them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the number of households previously disbursed the Living Subsidy, (ii) the total amount of subsidy disbursed, (iii) the median monthly rent paid by such households, and (iv) the median ratio of the monthly rent paid by such households to their income, broken down by year and household size;
(2) of the median monthly rent paid by the households which were disbursed the Living Subsidy in the relevant years, broken down by year, type of accommodations (e.g. private building and temporary housing) and household size;
(3) given that the authorities have pointed out that the Family Allowance, when compared to the Living Subsidy, can alleviate the financial pressure faced by the "N have-nots households" in a more sustainable and effective manner, but there are views that the application threshold for the Family Allowance is higher and unemployed households and one-person households cannot benefit from it, whether the authorities have plans to launch a new subsidy programme that may substitute the functions of the Living Subsidy or resume its disbursement, so as to improve the financial situation of the "N have-nots households" ; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) as the number of persons who were disbursed the Living Subsidy each year rose continuously during the three-year disbursement period, and the livelihood pressure on the "N have-nots households" (particularly the expenditure on rents) is getting greater, whether the authorities will consider implementing rent control afresh or building more interim housing for those "N have-nots households" which have been waiting for public housing to reside temporarily, so as to alleviate their financial burden; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
The One-off Living Subsidy for Low-income Households Not Living in Public Housing and Not Receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Programme (the Programme), launched by the Community Care Fund (CCF) in the light of the short-term relief measures introduced by the Budget released in the financial year of the launch, provides one-off cash subsidy to the "N have-nots households" who cannot benefit from such measures. The CCF first launched the Programme in December 2013 (First Launch), with its second launch in January 2015 (Second Launch) and third launch in January 2016 (Third Launch) respectively so that eligible "N have-nots households" may also receive short-term relief.
The various parts of the question involve different bureaux and departments. The Government's response is as follows:
(1) The number of beneficiary households and the total amount of subsidy disbursed under the Programme as categorised by household size are set out below:
| Household size | First Launch | Second Launch | Third Launch | |||
| Number of beneficiary households | Total amount of subsidy ($ M) |
Number of beneficiary households | Total amount of subsidy ($ M) |
Number of beneficiary households | Total amount of subsidy ($ M) |
|
| 1 person | 14 982 | 52.44 | 17 889 | 71.56 | 18 362 | 73.45 |
| 2 persons | 13 020 | 91.13 | 15 494 | 123.95 | 16 621 | 132.97 |
| 3 persons | 13 754 | 137.54 | 15 611 | 171.71 | 16 552 | 182.07 |
| 4 persons | 8 293 | 82.93 | 10 233 | 133.03 | 11 456 | 148.93 |
| 5 persons | 1 678 | 16.78 | 1 967 | 25.57 | 2 378 | 33.29 |
| 6 persons or above | 371 | 3.71 | 428 | 5.56 | 522 | 7.31 |
| Total: | 52 098 | 384.53 | 61 622 | 531.38 | 65 891 | 578.02 |
The median monthly rent^ (MMR) paid by beneficiary households under the Programme and the median rent-to-income ratio^^ of such households as categorised by household size are set out below:
| Household size | First Launch | Second Launch | Third Launch | |||
| MMR ($) |
Median rent- to-income ratio | MMR ($) |
Median rent- to-income ratio | MMR ($) |
Median rent- to-income ratio | |
| 1 person | 2,600 | 40.22% | 2,900 | 40.86% | 3,000 | 41.67% |
| 2 persons | 3,300 | 36.73% | 3,600 | 37.50% | 4,000 | 38.10% |
| 3 persons | 4,000 | 34.28% | 4,500 | 35.22% | 4,811 | 36.23% |
| 4 persons | 4,400 | 31.28% | 5,000 | 33.33% | 5,500 | 34.40% |
| 5 persons | 5,000 | 31.93% | 6,000 | 33.33% | 6,300 | 35.19% |
| 6 persons or above | 5,800 | 32.20% | 6,360 | 34.22% | 7,200 | 36.78% |
^ Since only households residing in private buildings, industrial buildings and commercial buildings are required to report monthly rent payment when submitting applications under the Programme, beneficiary households living in other types of accommodation (such as temporary housing and vessel) are not included in the MMR calculation.
^^ Since the rent-to-income ratio is not applicable to non-earning households, such households are not included in the calculation.
(2) The MMR of beneficiary households under the Programme as categorised by household size and type of accommodation is set out below:
| Household size | MMR in First Launch ($) |
MMR in Second Launch ($) |
MMR in Third Launch ($) |
||||||
| Private building |
Industrial building |
Commercial building |
Private building |
Industrial building |
Commercial building |
Private building |
Industrial building |
Commercial building |
|
| 1 person | 2,600 | 2,300 | 2,800 | 2,900 | 2,600 | 3,200 | 3,000 | 2,700 | 3,000 |
| 2 persons | 3,300 | 2,800 | 3,233 | 3,600 | 3,400 | 4,000 | 4,000 | 3,800 | 4,000 |
| 3 persons | 4,000 | 3,500 | 4,600 | 4,500 | 3,800 | 5,500 | 4,816 | 4,000 | 6,200 |
| 4 persons | 4,400 | 4,300 | 4,500 | 5,000 | 4,800 | 6,800 | 5,500 | 4,933 | 5,750 |
| 5 persons | 5,000 | 4,580 | 7,000 | 6,000 | 5,250 | 8,000 | 6,300 | 5,000 | 7,400 |
| 6 persons or above | 5,800 | * | * | 6,330 | * | * | 7,200 | * | * |
*As the numbers of relevant households are too small, the relevant figures are not published so as to protect privacy of such households. In addition, as the numbers of relevant households are so small, the relevant figures may not be suitable for comparison with other figures.
(3) Recurrent cash-based programmes, such as the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy launched in October 2011 and the Low-income Working Family Allowance launched in May 2016, aim to alleviate, on a continuing basis, the financial pressure faced by low-income working persons and their families. The Programme, however, was launched in the light of the short-term relief measures introduced by the Budget released in the financial year of the launch to provide one-off cash subsidy to the "N have-nots households" who cannot benefit from such measures. As fewer short-term relief measures were announced in the Budget in recent years, for example, the Government is no longer paying rent for public rental housing (PRH) tenants, there is insufficient justification for the CCF to re-launch the Programme to provide cash subsidy to low-income "N have-nots households" not living in public housing and not receiving CSSA. The CCF will continue to collect views of the public and stakeholders in considering the launch of other programmes to assist the underprivileged and grassroots families.
(4) The Government has conducted detailed study on the issue of tenancy control (including rent control). Empirical findings, both local and overseas, suggest that tenancy control measures often lead to an array of unintended consequences, including those detrimental to the tenants whom the measures seek to assist. Weighing the pros and cons, the Government considers it not in the interest of the inadequately housed households (IHHs) and the general public to introduce tenancy control under the situation of tight housing supply. To address the problem of rent increase attributed to imbalance in demand and supply, the fundamental solution remains to be a continued increase in housing supply. No quick fix is available.
It is the objective of the Government and the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) to provide PRH to low-income families who cannot afford private rental accommodation as a fundamental solution to their housing needs. The Government and the HA have no plan to build new interim housing. In fact, when formulating the Long Term Housing Strategy in 2014, the Government had also looked into suggestions to provide transitional housing on sites which do not have other immediate uses to accommodate the IHHs, but found these suggestions not practicable. First, given the lack of land, suitable sites for housing should be reserved for PRH units as far as possible, which will ultimately benefit those IHHs who are PRH applicants. Furthermore, even if sites which do not have other immediate uses can be identified for transitional housing, they will still require additional infrastructural works, which take time to complete, before housing construction can take place. In any case, the size and number of such temporary sites are bound to be very limited. They may not be able to provide short term relief for a large number of IHHs.
Ends/Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Issued at HKT 14:55
Issued at HKT 14:55
NNNN