Panel on Welfare Services (Minutes) 13 Mar 98

Provisional Legislative Council

PLC Paper No. CB(2) 1494
(These minutes have been seen
by the Administration

Ref : CB2/PL/WS

Panel on Welfare Services

Minutes of Meeting held on Friday, 13 March 1998 at 10:45 am in the Chamber of the Legislative Council Building

Members present :

Hon WONG Siu-yee (Chairman)
Hon CHAN Choi-hi (Deputy Chairman)
Hon Eric LI Ka-cheung, JP
Hon LEE Kai-ming
Hon Mrs Elsie TU, GBM
Hon HUI Yin-fat, JP
Hon CHAN Yuen-han
Hon Frederick FUNG Kin-kee
Hon Howard YOUNG, JP
Hon LAU Kong-wah
Hon CHOY Kan-pui, JP
Hon TAM Yiu-chung, JP

Members absent :

Hon David CHU Yu-lin
Hon HO Sai-chu, JP
Hon Mrs Peggy LAM, JP
Dr Hon LEONG Che-hung, JP
Hon Mrs Sophie LEUNG LAU Yau-fun, JP
Hon MOK Ying-fan
Hon YEUNG Yiu-chung
Hon LO Suk-ching
Hon CHOY So-yuk

Public officers attending :

Item IV
Mr Robin GILL: Deputy Secretary for Health and Welfare (3)
Miss Victoria TANG: Principal Assistant Secretary for Health and Welfare (2)
Mrs Louise S Y WONG: Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Administration)
Item V
Mr Robin GILL: Deputy Secretary for Health and Welfare (3)
Miss Victoria TANG: Principal Assistant Secretary for Health and Welfare (2)
Mrs Louise S Y WONG: Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Administration)
Mrs Patricia CHU: Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Services)
Item VI
Mr Robin GILL: Deputy Secretary for Health and Welfare (3)
Mr CHOI Chi-wa: Commissioner for Rehabilitation
Miss Ophelia CHAN: Assistant Director of Social Welfare (Rehabilitation)
Item VII
Mr HO Wing-him: Deputy Secretary for Health and Welfare (2)
Mr John LEUNG: Principal Assistant Secretary for Health and Welfare (Elderly Services) (2)
Mrs Patricia CHU: Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Services)
Mrs Cecilia TONG: Assistant Director of Social Welfare; (Elderly & Medical Social Services)

Attendance by invitation :

Item IV
The Hong Kong Council of Social Service: Ms Virginia CHAN; Mrs Victoria KWOK
The Hong Kong Social Workers' Association: Mr CHAN Wing-kin; Mr CHUA Hoi-wai
The Hong Kong Social Workers' General Union: Mr CHOI Shing-kiu; Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che

Clerk in attendance :

Ms Doris CHAN: Chief Assistant Secretary (2) 4

Staff in attendance :

Ms Joanne MAK: Senior Assistant Secretary (2) 4

I. Confirmation of minutes of special meeting held on 26 November 1997 and matters arising
(PLC Paper No. CB(2)1201)

The minutes of the special meeting held on 26 November 1997 were confirmed subject to the following amendment -

The first sentence in paragraph one should read -

"Mr HUI Yin-fat declared interest as the Director of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS)."

Neighbourhood Level Community Development Project

2. The Chairman requested the Clerk to check with the Administration on the current position regarding the subject.

(Post-meeting note : The Administrations reply letter to the Clerk enquiry was circulated to members vide PLC Paper No. CB(2)1438.)

II. Date of next meeting and items for discussion

3. Members agreed to hold a special meeting on 24 March 1998 at 3:30 pm to discuss the following items -

the Measurement of Poverty - Research report RP 07/PLC;
review of the Comprehensive Social Security Allowance; and
comprehensive Social Security Allowance / Social Security Allowance inflationary adjustment.

III. Draft Report of the Panel for submission to the Provisional Legislative Council
(PLC Paper No. CB(2)1164(01))

4. Members accepted the draft report without comment. The Chairman thanked members for their efforts put into this Panel throughout the year.

IV. Proposal on Social Welfare Services Development Fund
(PLC Papers Nos. CB(2)1004(02) and (03))

5. Mr HUI Yin-fat declared interest as the Director of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS).

6. A representative of the Hong Kong Social Workers' General Union (the Union) referred to the Administration's paper and clarified that their proposal did not recommend that the Government should inject a capital grant of $3.4 billion to the Lotteries Fund. Rather, the proposal only recommended that the Government should set up a Social Welfare Services Development Fund (the Fund) and inject $3.4 billion to it.

7. The representative briefed members on the objective of their proposal which was to secure adequate funding by setting up the Fund to meet the long-term development of welfare services. He pointed out that the Administration had lagged far behind in the provision of welfare services as compared with the programme targets set out in the Social Welfare White Papers and Five Year Plans published in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Administration often put the blame for this on "unavailability of resources"

8. The representative criticized the Government for failing to implement the services as committed in previous White Papers and to provide additional resources to meet new demands. Taking family services as an example, while the target caseload ratio was 1:50, it was currently as high as 1:78. He considered that the Administration should not only emphasize how much it had spent on social welfare but it should examine whether or not the development of welfare services was lagging behind. He also pointed out that in 1992-93, the Government had injected $2.3 billion to the Lotteries Fund for financing the development of welfare services in the next five years.

9. A representative of HKCSS said that the recommended improvements to be made to the existing services as set out in the appendices of the proposal were based on actual demands and they could not be done with the existing resources available to the welfare sector. She considered that many elderly problems and family crises had surfaced and there must be new provision to enable welfare agencies to deal with these problems urgently.

10. In response to Mr CHAN Choi-hi enquiry regarding the basis of the calculation of $3.4 billion, a representative of HKCSS said that the amount was just enough to meet actual demands. She said that the Secretary for Health and Welfare (SHW), who had been consulted, agreed with the levels of current demands for welfare services as set out in the proposal.

11. The Deputy Secretary for Health and Welfare (3) (DS(HW)3) said that the Administration was committed to secure, within the resource constraints, sufficient resources to implement new initiatives in social welfare. He denied that the Government had not provided sufficient resources to the welfare sector over the last six years. On the contrary, he considered that there had been a continuous healthy growth in recurrent expenditure to meet the rising aspirations of the community, and quoted the fact that expenditure on welfare which only made up 6% of total public expenditure in 1992-93 had now grown to 9% in 1998-99. Subvention on direct services in 1992-93 was only $1.8 billion but would reach $5.3 billion in 1998-99.

DS(HW)3 pointed out that the proposal would circumvent the fundamental principles controlling public expenditure in Hong Kong which had served the community very well in the past. He said that the proposal would pre-empt the Government's Resource Allocation Exercise (RAE) and cause major difficulties to the Government in ensuring that the Budget was commensurate with overall economic growth. The setting up of such a Fund would also reduce the flexibility of the Government to deploy resources, if it was committed for the next five years to invest a certain amount of money in a particular sector in the economy. He was also worried that similar requests for setting up various funds would come from other sectors, thereby further reducing the Government's flexibility to deploy resources.

12. Mr HUI Yin-fat considered the Administration explanation unacceptable and disagreed that the setting up of the Fund would curtail the Government's flexibility in deployment of resources. He considered that the Government in any case could apply to the Finance Committee for supplementary fund to finance any urgent service items if needed. As he considered that the amount of $3.4 billion was based on justified needs and the setting up a welfare development fund was not unprecedented, he expressed support for the proposal. He also queried if the Health and Welfare Bureau (HWB) could guarantee that it could bid for adequate resources in all future RAEs to implement the required welfare services if it decided not to adopt the proposal. In response, DS(HW)3 pointed out that as stated in previous White Papers, service commitments would be implemented subject to the availability of resources. He said that it was not feasible for the Government to provide resources in one particular financial year to meet all of the demands in a particular sector. As such, the Administration had to determine priorities and it consulted very widely amongst the welfare sector before determining priorities.

13. Mr HUI Yin-fat considered that DS(HW)3 had failed to answer his question and criticized the Administration for adopting, in recent years, the policy that service commitments would be implemented only subject to availability of resources. In response, DS(HW)3 said that the Administration had every intention of meeting those commitments but it had to necessarily be subject to the availability of resources. He said that this requirement was nothing new and had been used widely in the 1991 White Paper and in various Five Year Plans.

14. Mrs Elsie TU enquired if the representatives could provide information on the number of families which were split as a result of the policy that the mothers of these families had not been allowed to immigrate to Hong Kong to join their husbands and children here. She also wanted to know how much public money would be spent on these families. In response, a representative of HKCSS said that they did not have such information. However, she emphasized that the rising new demands for social welfare services created by new arrivals from the Mainland was putting a great strain on the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as the Government had not provided them with additional resources. NGOs were therefore experiencing difficulties in maintaining their service standards as the family caseload ratio had risen to one to 78 now.

15. Mrs Elsie TU considered that the immigration policy causing these split families was putting a heavy burden on welfare resources and creating many social problems. She did not think that the Government was facing up to the problems. In response, DS(HW)3 was doubtful as to whether or not all of these split families required welfare services. He also pointed out that the Government had provided over 200 additional family case workers in the past three years. He agreed that demand for family service was on the rise but considered that the Administration was seriously addressing this demand. The Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Administration) (DD(A)) supplemented that provision was made to help new arrival families through the Social Security System. Moreover, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) was subventing the Hong Kong Branch of the International Social Services to provide assistance to new arrivals. She considered that members' concerns had more to do with the immigration policy.

16. Miss CHAN Yuen-han expressed support for the proposaed Fund. She asked what measures the Administration would take to address the serious shortfalls in various welfare services and why the Administration did not accept the proposal. In reply, DS(HW)3 reiterated that there had been substantial increase in social welfare expenditure in the last six to seven years and that the Administration needed to determine priorities in the deployment of resources. The share of Government expenditure on social welfare had increased very significantly in the last six years from 6% to 9%. It was, therefore, unfair to say that the Government was not doing enough and he emphasized the fact that there had not been any cut in manpower in the welfare sector in recent years. He also repeated that the public financial management system (through the RAE) had served Hong Kong extremely well and the Administration saw no justification to deviate from this philosophy or practice.

17. Mr Eric LI said that he had participated in preparing the 1991 White Paper and he agreed that the development of social welfare services had been too slow. He took the view that much of the increase in welfare expenditure had gone to the Comprehensive Social Security Allowance only. In particular, he pointed out that the draft 1991 White Paper actually contained a number of recommendations which had not been adopted after the then Secretary for the Treasury had looked at the financial implications. He considered that it was unacceptable that the Administration was still lagging far behind the targets set in the 1991 White Paper, and there would be only 1.2% real increase in Government expenditure on social welfare next year. A representative of HKCSS supplemented that the 1991 White Paper had not only taken into full account the financial implications but it was made based on an estimated annual growth rate of 4.5% in Gross Domestic Product, which had turned out to be 5% in the past five years.

18. The representative further said that most of the increases in resources on social welfare over the years had been used to provide services required to cope with problems arising from the demographic changes in Hong Kong. There were little resources allocated to make up for the long-existing shortfalls in various services. She considered that the explanation given by the Administration that the proposal would upset the public financial management system was unacceptable as this was only a technical problem. She also pointed out that over the past few years, the real increases in funding for welfare services had come from the $2.3 billion of the welfare development fund and there were little resources obtained through the annual RAEs. She anticipated that there would be serious impact on social welfare services if the Administration did not set up the proposed Fund.

19. DD(A) clarified that when the White Paper was drafted, it had taken into account not only the financial implications but also other constraints such as the manpower factor. She clarified that the mechanism of the White Paper by itself did not guarantee that there would be adequate resources for implementation of the targets specified in the White Paper. In the 1992 Policy Address however, resources were pledged to achieve the White Paper targets by 1997 and these targets had been largely achieved. In the interim years, additional resources had also been acquired through the annual RAE to meet changed demands and targets and new intitatives. She also invited members' attention to the fact that in 1998/99, there would be a real increase of 13% on direct services which did not include expenditure on the Social Security System. However, a representative of the Union considered that the Administration should not merely provide figures but it should provide detailed plans as to how it would implement the required welfare services and achieve the specific targets as set out in the appendices of the paper.

20. In reply to Mr LEE Kai-ming's questions, DS(HW)3 said that HWB always sought to secure additional resources for the welfare sector. Regarding the use of Lotteries Fund, DS(HW)3 explained that the purpose of this Fund was essentially for capital grants. In recent years, an average of about $ 1 billion was allocated each year to the welfare sector for various projects of a capital or pilot nature. As the proposed usage of the Fund set out in the deputations' proposal was more of a recurrent nature rather, it was not suitable to use the Lotteries Fund to finance the items proposed. DS(HW)3 also confirmed that with effect from 1 April 1997, the Lotteries Fund could no longer be used as a source of recurrent funding.

21. Mr CHAN Choi-hi considered that this Panel should make clear its position on the proposal of setting up the Fund. Miss CHAN Yuen-han believed that most members were supportive of the proposal and she suggested that this Panel could move a motion to express support for setting up the Fund. The Chairman then proposed the following motion and put it to vote -

"This Panel supported the deputation's proposal of setting up a Social Welfare Development Fund and the injection of $3.4 billion to it by the Government for the development of welfare services. "

Members unanimously supported the motion.

22. At the Chairman's request, DS(HW)3 agreed to provide a response to this motion at the special meeting to be held on 24 March 1998; although the Administration's deliberations would be also reflected in its response on 1 April 1998 to Mr Eric LI's motion debate on the same subject.	Adm

V. Social Welfare White Paper
(PLC Paper No. CB(2)1164(04))

23. DS(HW)3 said that the Administration's paper was a further elaboration of the SHW's reply to Mr CHAN Choi-hi's written question to the Provisional Legislative Council on 18 February 1998. In brief, DS(HW)3 said that the policy objectives contained in the last White Paper remained as valid today as they were when the White Paper was drafted. He said that although programme details had changed since that Paper was drafted, the Five Year Plan mechanism, which involved a biennial review of social welfare programme, enabled the Administration and HKCSS to propose changes to the targets to meet community needs. On this basis, the Administration did not see any justification to embark on a new White Paper at this point in time.

24. Mr HUI-Yin-fat took the opposite view and considered that Hong Kong, at a time of moving towards the year 2000 and after the reunification, was much in need of a new White Paper to provide new directions and targets for social welfare development. He said that it was also necessary for the Government to take account of the demographic changes in Hong Kong over the past years and assess the new demands for social welfare service. Mr CHAN Choi-hi shared the view and pointed out that the last White Paper was published in 1991 which was seven years ago and at that time Hong Kong was adopting a residual social welfare policy. He requested the Administration to prepare a new White Paper before the year 2000.

25. Miss CHAN Yuen-han considered that the 1991 White Paper failed to cater for the current needs of Hong Kong for social welfare services such as the demands for residential care service by the elderly and child care service by women. She urged the Administration to review the societal changes in Hong Kong over the years and address the new needs which had arisen.

26. DS(HW)3 said that the Administration regularly updated its welfare policies and programme targets to meet the changing needs of society through the Five Year Plan Review. The Five Year Plan was reviewed biennially and planning ratios, extension of services and provision of new services were considered in the light of actual need. He pointed out that the latest review took into account the new population projections. Programme targets which needed to be updated were reflected in the Five Year Plan Review. It was therefore important to read the White Paper and Five Year Plan in tandem to obtain a complete picture.

27. In response to the Chairman's enquiry, DS(HW)3 said that Five Year Plans and White Papers were compatible and complementary. He further explained that White Papers set out the broad framework of provision and the general philosophy surrounding the services to be provided. However, the 1991 White Paper also dealt with certain programme targets. Many of these had been met such as the school social work manning ratio. However, the Chairman took the view that the Five Year Plan served as an implementation plan only for achieving the targets specified in the White Paper as the Five Year Plan dealt more with practical issues. The White Paper was different as it provided directions in service delivery and set out policies and objectives governing the development of social welfare services in Hong Kong. He further considered that with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) now set up, it was a suitable time to prepare a new White Paper for the SAR.

28. Mr Eric LI pointed out that the Five Year Plan and White Paper were very different and the Five Year Plan definitely could not replace a White Paper. He agreed that the Administration should prepare a new Social Welfare White Paper to take account of the changes in Hong Kong after 1991. Moreover, the preparation of a White Paper would provide a good chance for the public to express their views on the priorities in deployment of resources and for the Government to know such views.

29. In response, DS(HW)3 reiterated that the policy objectives in the 1991 White Paper remained valid today and quoted the example of the family welfare policy which had not fundamentally changed. He emphasized that the Administration was not operating in a vacuum as there was a very wide network in place to collect views and opinions from the public and those working in the welfare sector. These were in turn reflected in the Five Year Plan.

30. Mrs Elsie TU considered that the Government did not put low priority to social welfare and SWD had done very well compared with 20 years ago. However, she agreed that SWD should prepare a new White Paper to set new targets and new initiatives and to hear what the public had to say.

31. The Chairman requested the Administration to prepare the first Social Welfare White Paper of HKSAR. In reply, DS(HW)3 said that the Administration could not commit to producing another White Paper today but would reflect on Members' views and comments.	Adm

VI. Remuneration for the Chairperson, honoraria for non-official members and allowances for witnesses of the Guardianship Board
(PLC Paper No. CB(2)1164(06))

32. The Commissioner for Rehabilitation (C for R) briefed members on the proposed remuneration for the Chairperson, honoraria for non-official members and allowances for witnesses of the Guardianship Board to be established under the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136) (MHO). He appealed to members for their support of the proposal.

33. In response to Mr CHOY Kan-pui enquiry, C for R said that in addition to the Chairperson or the presiding member, at least two Board members were required to attend each hearing as stipulated in the MHO. It was also specified that at least one Board member should come from the category of "medical practitioner/social worker/psychologist", and at least one Board member from the category of "other non-professional member"

34. In reply to Miss CHAN Yuen-han's enquiry, C for R said that the Administration had made reference to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and proposed that the Guardianship Board be chaired by a full-time Chairperson, who should have such legal experience as the Chief Executive considered suitable. Apart from the Chairperson, the Board would comprise not less than nine non-official members to be appointed by the Chief Executive. C for R said that appointment of the Board members would be on a part-time basis. 35. At Mr LEE Kai-ming's enquiry, C for R said that the proposed rates of honoraria were based on the existing rates adopted by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The rates were subject to regular review.

36. As to why the Chairperson needed to be appointed on a full-time basis, C for R said that at present there was no basis to show that there would be inadequate workload to justify the appointment of a full-time Chairperson. Although there was only a limited number of cases under the existing guardianship arrangements, C for R had learnt from parents of mentally incapacitated persons that a substantial number of applications would be submitted to the Board under the new and improved guardianship system. As the Guardianship Board would undertake very important responsibilities as detailed in the paper and the Board members were all part-time only, C for R considered it appropriate to have a full-time Chairperson. DS(HW)3 added that the Guardianship Order would be subject to review after one year and it was anticipated that in the first two or three years, there would be substantial workload for the Board. C for R pointed out that as the Chairperson would be employed on a contract basis for two years, the issue as to whether or not he should continue to be appointed on a full-time basis in the subsequent years could be reviewed in the light of actual workload.

37. Mr CHAN Choi-hi requested the Administration to provide additional information on the annual estimated cost to be incurred by the Board and projection of workload.	Adm

38. Mr LEE Kai-ming said that he was one of those former Legislative Council Members responsible for scrutiny of the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill 1997 and he recalled that the relevant deputations had put forward many strict requirements on the Chairperson to guarantee that he was impartial and competent for the post. He also reminded members that there was an urgent need to establish the Guardianship Board.

Mrs Elsie TU considered that even if the Chairperson was full-time, he needed not to be appointed on a contract basis but could be paid by the day he worked. She also considered that the Administration should make sure that the appointee should be one who not only possessed legal competence but also understood the mentally handicapped people well.

VII. Staffing provisions in private care homes for the elderly (PLC Paper No. CB(2)1164(05))

39. The Principal Assistant Secretary for Health and Welfare (Elderly Services) (2) (PAS(ES)2) briefed members on the salient points of the Administration's paper.

40. Miss CHAN Yuen-han said that her information indicated that the average monthly wage of Care Workers in private care homes for the elderly was only $5,000 and they had to work 12 hours a day. She requested the Administration to increase subventions to these private care homes in order to improve their operating environment and their service quality by raising staff salaries.

41. In response, PAS(ES)2 said that through the Bought Place Scheme (BPS), the Administration had purchased 1,200 places from private care homes. A further 2,400 places would be purchased under an enhanced BPS in the three years 1998-2001. The Ad Hoc Committee on Housing and Residential Care of the Elderly Commission was reviewing the terms of the BPS. The purchase prices would be increased to enable private operators to enhance their service quality and pay competitive salaries to their staff. He expected that the enhanced BPS would be implemented within the next few months.

42. In response to Miss CHAN Yuen-han's enquiry, PAS(ES)2 said that the Administration had made available ex-staff quarters at the Prince of Wales Hospital for operating private care homes. The Hosing Authority (HA) had also identified premises in four public housing estates for the same purpose. The Deputy Secretary for Health and Welfare (2) (DS(HW)2) added that the demand for residential care places was very high particularly in urban areas. The use of public housing accommodation for this purpose was an important element in the provision of quality private care homes. He said that the HA was willing to consider expanding the scheme if the responses were good. He pointed out, however, that it was difficult for the Administration to provide premises for all private care homes (numbering over 400). The private operators should be responsible for securing premises themselves.

43. Mrs Elsie TU said that some landlords were unwilling to let their premises to private care homes. She took the view that the Government should help operators to find premises when they could not.

44. In response to Mr CHOY Kan-pui's enquiry, the Deputy Director of Social Welfare (Services) (DDSW(S)) said that about 50% of the participants of the Health Worker Training Courses had jointed as Health Workers. DS(HW)2 said that under the enhanced BPS, purchases prices would be increased to enable operators to raise the salaries of their staff, thus alleviating recruitment difficulties.

45. Mr LEE Kai-ming pointed out that the availability of imported labour under the Supplementary Labour Scheme had indirectly encouraged private operators to offer harsh working terms and conditions to local staff. He suggested that there should be a condition in the enhanced BPS prohibiting the employment of imported labour. The suggestion had the support of Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mrs Elsie TU. Miss CHAN Yuen-han further pointed out that many local women were willing to join as Care Workers if not for the low salaries and long working hours. She considered that the Government was obliged to give first priority to the local people in providing employment opportunities.

46. Mrs Elsie TU supported that the increased subsidies should be conditional upon employing local labour and not given to those who wanted cheap imported labour. The Chairman requested the Administration to take into account members' views and comments. He also requested, and DDSW(S) agreed, to provide information on the number of imported labour for private care homes.	Adm

47. The meeting ended at 12:50 pm.

Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat
22 June 1998