PS 503
Department of Health and Social Security 10 John Adam Street London WC2N 6HD
DHSS
Telex 22843/44
Direct line 01-217 5192 Switchboard 01-217 3000
LA|HK/2
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 55
Dr
INCFY
10 Ma
REGISTRY Action Takon
Mr. H. R. G. Hurst,
Overseas Labour Advisor,
Foreign & Commonwealth Office,
Downing Street,
London, S.W.1.
Lew
Harsi
Your reference
.
Our reference
Date
13th March, 1978.
SOCIAL SECURITY IN HONG KONG
It was very good of you to send me a copy of your report of 8th March on your recent visit to Hong Kong. I read it with much interest. If I may say so, it seemed to me a very fair response to the social security position I cannot of course speak about the other areas covered.
It might be helpful if I made a couple of comments on the two points in which I was particularly interested - the real level of the public assistance scheme and the future of the proposed contributory scheme.
At an early stage of drafting the green paper I included the proposition that the Government would, no doubt, wish to consider ways and means of ensuring that those receiving public assistance had their share of the cake of increasing prosperity. This was not, however, a proposition which the Government were prepared to write into the green paper; and were indeed reluctant to accept its validity. In practice, however, the proposal for a long term supplement which would be the same amount as the scale allowance payable to a single person would mean for the average family of 5 dependents an increase in the scale allowance of between one-fifth and one-quarter. If therewwas also a person aged over 60 in the family, then the proposed old age supplement would mean a further increase. Altogether, these proposals will in practice mean a real increase in the value of public assistance for the families that really need it - the long term cases. This is not to say that there is not a case to be made out for what you suggest: but it may be that the Hong Kong Government could reasonably respond that, in the first place, the right course would be to implement the improvements already proposed. The question of abolishing the family means test is a more sensitive issue which is why I have so far thought it more fruitful to push for advance in other fields. Again, however, this is not to say that there is not a case to be made out for what you suggest, and it may be that this is the right time to put down a marker, looking to the future. In practice, the effect of the family means test was limited by the rule I introduced when previously in Hong Kong that a married family member with his own dependents
continued