************************************************************
Following is a question by the 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 (November 20):
Question:
In reply to my question on June 5 this year, the Government indicated that in 2011, the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) had irregularities in having wrongly reported the training hours of a Professional Bridal Make-up and Hair Styling Training Course it organised under the Targeted Career Training Mission of the Youth Pre-employment Training Programme and Youth Work Experience and Training Scheme (the Scheme) of the Labour Department (LD), and because of that, HKFYG had taken the initiative to refund LD all monies related to the course. LD subsequently issued a serious warning to HKFYG. Moreover, although the Government had also separately replied to my questions regarding the Scheme on April 24, May 8 and May 15 this year, quite a number of members of the public and social workers still continued to relay to me the problems of the Scheme. They pointed out that when problems of the training courses arose, some "authorised persons" of the training bodies appointed under the Scheme [i.e. the persons authorised by a training body to sign all application forms for reimbursement of course fees (the forms) under the Scheme] often covered up their own fault of improper supervision and shifted the blame to those social workers who had already left the positions. They also pointed out that some training bodies had, through administrative means, required their staff to make advance payments for purchasing materials needed for the courses held under the Scheme, but refused to reimburse the staff concerned afterwards. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of courses organised by HKFYG under the Scheme and the amount of public money involved in each of the past five Programme Years;
(b) other than the aforesaid incident, whether LD had uncovered in the past five Programme Years other incidents of irregularities or submission of false financial records by HKFYG when it organised other courses under the Scheme; if so, of the details of such incidents as well as the sanctions imposed by LD on HKFYG;
(c) whether it knows if the two authorised persons appointed by HKFYG are of the rank of deputy executive director; if so, which one of them was involved in the aforesaid incident of providing incorrect information; if not, of the rank of the authorised persons;
(d) whether the Scheme has any requirement on the lowest rank of staff members who may be appointed as an authorised person; if so, of that rank and the justifications for that; if not, whether a training body may decide to appoint its staff of any rank as an authorised person;
(e) whether it is provided under the Scheme that an authorised person is responsible for ascertaining the accuracy of the information provided on the forms submitted to LD; if so, whether LD has asked the training bodies to clearly inform their authorised persons of such responsibility they have to bear; if there is no such provision, whether an authorised person will not be held responsible for submitting incorrect information;
(f) whether LD has encouraged the training bodies to require their staff to make advance payments for purchasing materials needed under the Scheme and refuse to reimburse the staff concerned afterwards; if so, of the reasons for that; whether the training bodies will breach any requirement under the Scheme if they adopt such a practice; if they will breach any requirement, of the requirement concerned; if not, whether it has assessed if LD has given tacit consent to the training bodies for exploiting their staff;
(g) whether LD has conducted serious investigation to see if the training bodies under the Scheme have adopted the practice mentioned in (f); if it has uncovered such a practice, whether LD will impose severe punishment on the training bodies concerned; whether the Government will reimburse the social workers concerned for the payments they made and request the relevant LD staff to take the blame and resign from their posts only after such social workers have instituted legal proceedings and won their cases; if the social workers concerned do not need to recover their money through legal means, of the mechanism through which they can recover their money; and
(h) given that, in its reply to my question on June 5, the Government indicated that LD had not initiated any prosecution against HKFYG for the aforesaid incident of irregularities, whether it has assessed if the government officials responsible have wilfully harboured the staff of the training body and those public officers who blundered?
Reply:
President,
My reply to the question raised by the Hon Leung Kwok-hung is as follows:
(a) As at the end of October 2013, the amounts of payment for training courses organised by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) under the Youth Employment and Training Programme (YETP) (formerly known as the Youth Pre-employment Training Programme and Youth Work Experience and Training Scheme) are listed in the Annex.
(b) Other than the non-compliance case reported by HKFYG of its own accord in May 2012, the Labour Department (LD) found that HKFYG had not strictly adhered to the administrative procedures in cancelling an elective training course of "Library Assistant Training" in August 2010. LD subsequently issued a warning letter to the organisation in the following month.
(c) The two authorised persons appointed by HKFYG to sign the "Application form for reimbursement of course fees" in the 2010/11 Programme Year are both Deputy Executive Directors of HKFYG. The "Application form for reimbursement of course fees" for the Professional Bridal Make-up and Hair Styling Training Course organised under the Targeted Career Training Mission by HKFYG during March to May 2011 was signed by one of these authorised persons.
(d) and (e) As the duties of the authorised persons are administrative in nature, the training bodies would select suitable persons to hold the post based on their scale of operation and management structure. Before submitting the payment claim form, the training bodies have the responsibility to verify the accuracy of the information and truly report.
(f) and (g) LD pays the training bodies training fees by unit cost instead of the expenses incurred by the training bodies. If the social worker of the case concerned has problems with his/her employing organisation over the reimbursement of expenses, he/she should discuss with the organisation direct in order to resolve the matter. Where necessary, he/she may consider taking appropriate legal action.
(h) As investigation of the case by LD had not revealed any suspected offence, the case had not been referred to law enforcement departments or other organisations for follow-up.
Ends/Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Issued at HKT 15:31
NNNN
