TNAG-0608-FCO40-756-Planning-paper-on-progress-made-on-social-security-in-Hong-K-1977 — Page 76

CONFIDENTIAL

XCC(77)65

機密

Copy No

Page 8 of 19

of 80

(a) Scale of allowances.

that the scale of allowances should be kept under regular review, and increased from time to time in line with the cost of living to maintain its purchasing power, without further reference to Council. For this purpose, a special Public Assistance Index (the weightings in the index were recently revised to make it more effective) is used. The scale of allowances was last increased in June 1974, when a further rise in the cost of living was assumed and allowed for in calculating the increase. In fact, the rate of increase of the cost of living slowed down after June 1974, so that the assumed figure has not yet been exceeded. Accordingly, there is no need to increase the scale of allowances at present. But the scale will continue to be reviewed regularly.

The Council has previously agreed

(b)

-

Disregarded resources. The UMELCO Office have suggested that the amounts of disregarded resources (particularly the disregard of $10 per family member from a voluntary agency for household needs) should be increased as they have been unchanged since 1971. It is accepted that the amounts will have to be reviewed at some stage; but it seems better to leave any review until the scale of allowances is itself being reviewed. By definition, increasing the disregards does not help those who are worst off those without any disregarded resources and it would be regarded as unfair to increase disregards but not the scale of allowances. The UMELCO Office also favoured increasing the number of disregards, mentioning in particular workmen's compensation. But, for the reason set out earlier (paragraph 18), any increase in the number of disregards should only be made for com- pelling reasons; and it is not proposed that there should be any alteration apart from the introduction of the earnings disregard.

-

(c) Rent rebate allowance. There has been some recent public

discussion about the rent levels in new public housing. A possible way of providing help would be to modify the public assistance scheme so that it provided help in such cases although the family income was above public assistance levels. But the effect would be to discriminate in favour of families who had to pay a relatively high proportion of their income on rent, who would not be eligible for public assis- tance in the normal way because their income was above public assistance levels. Comparable help would not be given to families whose income was above public assistance level, but who had to pay a relatively high proportion of this income on other necessary expenses such as expensive diets or schooling expenses.

CONFIDENTIAL #

•