XN000022-1995-11-22 — Page 6

4.

-

I have explained many times before in this Council but it bears repeating again today, that the CSSA provides no more than a 'safety net' for those unable to support whether it be because of old age, themselves financially, for whatever reason disability, illness or, indeed, unemployment. The Honourable Fred Li suggested in his speech that we should simplify the current procedures for processing CSSA applications by unemployed persons so that assistance could be given more speedily. We agree with this suggestion and are urgently examining our procedures. Nevertheless, I can assure honourable member that for those in genuine financial need, it can be provided very quickly, sometime within one or two days of application. The level of payments in the CSSA Scheme are set to cover basic needs for food, clothing, housing, fuel, light, water and transport as well as for household goods. In addition, payments are made to meet the educational expenses of children and other specific needs of an individual or his or her family. Medical treatment for recipients at public clinics and hospitals is free. On average, a family of four now receives $8,610 per month and a single person receives $2,650 which is, as a matter of interest, about 30% of the median wage.

The 'Unemployment Assistance Scheme' proposed in the Motion seeks to provide unemployed persons who are in need of assistance with a certain level of income. The Motion does not suggest how it is to be judged whether such persons are in need of assistance.

But the Hon Chan Yuen-han has suggested today in her speech that an unemployed person should be eligible for assistance only if he or she has savings below $116,000. We must then ask ourselves whether it is reasonable to ask taxpayers to provide financial support to a person who may have $116,000 in savings, bearing in mind that some of those taxpayers in lower paid jobs may not even have such a high level of savings themselves. In addition to that $116,000 of savings, the person concerned may also have a spouse and other relatives living with him who may have even higher value assets and savings. This, I understand, would be disregarded since the proposed savings limit would be assessed on an individual rather than on a family basis. It should be noted that in the CSSA Scheme the asset limit is applied on a family unit basis.

Another question this proposal prompts is why should an unemployed person be allowed to keep such a level of assets and yet receive public financial assistance in the form of an unemployment assistance payment, whereas the old, the disabled and the young are allowed to retain only a lower level of assets before becoming eligible to receive public assistance in the form of CSSA Scheme payments.