***********************************************************
Following is a question by Hon Leung Kwok-hung and a written reply by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Mr Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, in the Legislative Council today (May 8):
Question:
According to the reply of the Government on April 24 this year to my question on the Youth Pre-employment Training Programme and Youth Work Experience and Training Scheme (the Scheme) under the Labour Department (LD), LD paid a total of over $9.8 million of training course fees to the New Territories Association Retraining Centre (NTARC) in the past three Programme Years. Such amount was far higher than the course fees LD paid to some traditional youth service organisations, e.g. The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) and Caritas Hong Kong (Caritas). Quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that LD has showed favouritism towards pro-China organisations in the appointment of training bodies as it procured a great number of training courses from such organisations. On the other hand, some front-line social workers who are case managers of the Scheme's training courses have complained to me that LD's monitoring of the Scheme is not as stringent as what the Government has said. When problems of the courses arise, LD very often allows the training bodies concerned to shift the blame to their front-line social workers without verifying the facts, and has not held the persons-in-charge and supervisors of such training bodies responsible. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective total numbers of training courses under the Scheme offered by NTARC, HKFYG and Caritas in the past three Programme Years (set out the details in Table 1);
(b) whether LD had conducted inspections on the courses offered by the three training bodies mentioned in (a) in the past three Programme Years; if so, of the total number of courses inspected, and set out by training body the names of the courses inspected, commencement date of such courses and mode of inspection (e.g. visits with advance notice, surprise visit and other formats); if it had not conducted inspections, of the reasons for that;
(c) as the Government has indicated that since the 2009/10 Programme Year, LD has issued a total of nine written advice/warnings to five training bodies concerning breaches detected in the courses, of the related details (set out in Table 2 details such as the names of the five training bodies, names of the courses concerned, breaches involved and the form of penalty imposed);
(d) whether LD has conducted in-depth investigation into each of the cases (including gathering information from various persons concerned) before issuing advice/warnings to the five training bodies mentioned in (c); if it has, of the approach of its investigation; if not, whether LD's officers have made their judgement merely on the basis of the reports submitted by the training bodies concerned and issued such advice/warnings without conducting any investigation;
(e) whether the course fees paid to the training bodies, as mentioned in the Government's reply to the aforesaid question, included case management service fees and administrative fees for handling trainees¡¦ applications for training allowances; if so, of the respective amounts of these two categories of fees paid by LD to the three training bodies mentioned in (a) in the past three Programme Years;
(f) of the number of trainees trained by each training body appointed by LD in each of the past three Programme Years in Table 3;
(g) of the average amount of fees paid by LD to the training bodies for each trainee for the "job-search and interpersonal skills" course of the Scheme in each of the past three Programme Years;
(h) of the average number of hours of case management service provided to each trainee under the Scheme and the average hourly fee paid by LD for each trainee for such service in the past three Programme Years;
(i) whether LD had uncovered any false information on the training courses submitted by the training bodies of the Scheme or their staff in the past three Programme Years; if so, of the names of the training bodies concerned and the numbers of supervisors and social workers involved; whether LD had immediately stopped payments to the training bodies concerned for the course fees after uncovering the aforesaid problem; and
(j) given that the Government has indicated in its reply to the aforesaid question that, according to LD's requirements, the training bodies are required to submit the attendance records online within one week after the completion of the training course, and other relevant reports (including the summary of course evaluation questionnaires and the original course evaluation questionnaires completed by the trainees, etc.) within two weeks after the completion of the training course, whether each of the reports submitted by the training bodies must be verified by the persons-in-charge or the supervisors responsible before submission; of the time allowed for LD to verify the information after receiving the reports, and whether LD has stringently vetted each and every report received to ensure authenticity of the information; of the current mechanism put in place by LD for penalising the persons-in-charge or supervisors of the training bodies which have submitted reports with inaccurate information?
Reply:
President,
At present, the Youth Pre-employment Training Programme and Youth Work Experience and Training Scheme (the Scheme) appoints over 50 training bodies for providing different types of courses to suit the varying demands of the trainees. Every year, the Labour Department (LD) invites training bodies to submit proposals of training courses to the Scheme. The Vetting Committee will evaluate the proposals in terms of price and technical factors in order to appoint suitable training bodies to provide training courses for the Scheme which enrols trainees round the year. Whether the courses may subsequently be launched and the number of trainees attending such courses will depend on the actual enrolment situation and the trainees' choices. The good attendance of individual training bodies reflects the wide variety of courses offered and higher popularity among trainees, resulting in the relatively higher amount of course fees approved.
My reply to the question raised by the Hon Leung Kwok-hung is as follows:
(a) The Scheme operates on the basis of Programme Year, running from September each year to August of the following year. In the past three programme years, training courses organised by the three training bodies are listed in Table 4.
The training hours of the listed courses range from 48 to 180 hours. We do not keep record of the total number of hours actually provided.
(b) In the past three Programme Years, LD had conducted a total of 40 inspections to courses organised by the above-mentioned training bodies. Details are provided at the Appendix.
(c) From the 2009/10 Programme Year up to now, LD has issued a total of nine written advice/warnings to five training bodies in respect of irregularities in the provision of training courses. These covered three cases of not complying with administrative procedures, three cases of providing unqualified trainers, two cases of not enrolling trainees according to requirements and one case of not conducting the course in accordance with the proposal. We have not kept information on the number of supervisors and social workers involved. In all these cases, we have taken appropriate follow-up actions and the irregularities have been rectified. In general, for very serious breaches, LD will immediately disqualify the training body from provision of training courses. However, the breaches involved in the nine above-mentioned cases were not serious in nature and the training bodies had taken prompt remedial action. We do not consider it appropriate to reveal the identity of those training bodies which may cast doubt on the part of trainees on the quality of training programmes organised by the training bodies as a whole, thus affecting their provision of appropriate training services to trainees. All five training bodies are currently appointed to organise courses for the Scheme. LD will step up monitoring action on the courses organised by these training bodies in view of the irregularities detected.
(d) In appointing training bodies under the Scheme, LD has clearly stated in the appointment letter the responsibilities of the training bodies which include complying with all administrative requirements stipulated in the Training Bodies Manual. They are also responsible for safeguarding the quality of the training courses and providing training courses in accordance with the commitment made in the training proposals. LD handles cases where breaches of terms and conditions are detected in a serious manner. LD inquires into the case and demands the training bodies to explain. If the case involves a complaint, LD approaches the complainant to understand the situation. Based on information and records collected and having regard to its findings, LD takes appropriate action including issuing advice or warning and LD ensures that rectification are duly made by the training body. For very serious breaches, LD will immediately disqualify the training body from provision of the training courses.
(e) Case management service fee and administrative fee in processing training allowance were not included in the amount of course fee paid to each training body as provided in our last reply.
(f) The total number of persons trained by all training bodies in the past three Programme Years is listed in the table below. We consider it not appropriate to further disclose the number of persons trained by individual training bodies under the Scheme because such information may indirectly expose individual organisation's tendering price and affect the forthcoming procurement exercise of the Scheme.
Programme Year 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
-------------- ------- ------- -------
Total number of
persons trained 12 198 8 729 6 526
(in man-times)
(g) In the past three Programme Years, we paid on average about $2,000 per trainee for the job search and interpersonal skills training.
(h) Under the Scheme, case managers, based on their professional assessment and trainees' needs, provide individual trainees with appropriate support and services. Case management service fee is paid on an hourly basis and for services rendered. The Audit Commission conducted a study on the work of the Scheme last year. It stated in its Report No.59 that around 80% of the claims of case management service fees approved under Scheme involved less than 20 service hours per year. The average amount of service fee per hour was $65.
(i) In the past three Programme Years, a training body reported to LD on its own initiative that its internal audit revealed that it had not complied with the proposal in organising one course and undertook to refund all monies related to that course. LD followed up with the training body and requested the training body to take necessary action to prevent occurrence of similar incidents, in addition to making the refunds. Moreover, we have strengthened our monitoring work on the related courses. The training body reported the case on its own initiative and had taken remedial action. Given this, we do not intend to reveal the name of the training body.
(j) After receiving reports from the training bodies, LD conducts sample telephone checks as soon as possible to ascertain the accuracy of the information. It is the responsibility of the training bodies to comply with the requirements as stated in the appointment letter. They have to ensure the accuracy of the information submitted to LD. If any irregularities are detected, LD will follow up with the training bodies. Having investigated the cases, LD will issue advice or warning if and when deemed necessary, and follow up on the remedial measures taken by the training bodies. However, in the cases where very serious breaches are detected, LD will immediately disqualify the training bodies concerned from provision of the training courses.
Ends/Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Issued at HKT 14:50
NNNN
