***********************************************************
Following is a question by Hon Frederick Fung and a written reply by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Mr Matthew Cheung Kin-chung, in the Legislative Council today (June 24):
Question:
I have recently received complaints about the Continuing Education Fund (the Fund) from some members of the public who suspect that some course providers have deliberately marked up the fees for the courses reimbursable by the Fund (reimbursable courses), giving rise to a situation where persons subsidised by the Fund (subsidised persons) and other persons pay different fees for taking the same course. As each subsidised person may apply for the reimbursement of 80 per cent of the relevant course fees after completing a reimbursable course (subject to a maximum sum of $10,000), the actual course fee paid by subsidised persons may be significantly reduced, a selling point commonly used by course providers to solicit business. If persons enrolling for a reimbursable course have not applied for subsidies from the Fund or have already used up the subsidies, course providers will offer them special concessions, e.g. a discount of 40 per cent or more of the originally indicated course fees. These members of the public consider that course providers have allegedly made up various pretext. Course providers can in fact offer such courses at lower fees but they have deliberately marked up the fees. This practice is tantamount to gnawing the subsidies provided by the Government for applicants, causing loss of public money and reducing the opportunities for subsidised persons to take other courses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number and main contents of the complaints about the Fund received by the authorities in the past three years;
(2) whether it has provided course providers with guidelines or imposed regulations on the fee levels of reimbursable courses; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) whether it has analysed and investigated the fee levels of reimbursable courses; if it has, whether it has discovered (i) any deliberate mark-up of the fees for such courses by course providers, and (ii) the charging of different fee levels for the same course by course providers; and
(4) of its measures to curb the practice of course providers of marking up course fees deliberately to snatch the subsidies otherwise available to subsidised persons, so as to safeguard the opportunities for subsidised persons to pursue study and tackle the moral hazard issue arising from the Fund?
Reply:
President,
My reply to the question raised by Hon Frederick Fung is as follows:
(1) In the past three years (i.e. from 2012-13 to 2014-15), the number of complaints related to course providers received by the Office of the Continuing Education Fund (OCEF) was 16, 10 and 9 respectively. These complaints mainly concerned course or service quality, promotional and marketing practices, and course fee refund arrangements, etc.
(2) The Government has not formulated any guidelines on the fees of reimbursable courses under the Continuing Education Fund (CEF). Nevertheless, OCEF collects information on the fees of CEF courses and publishes the information on its website to enhance the transparency of CEF course fees and facilitate CEF learners in their selection of courses with reasonable fees.
(3) According to the current requirements of CEF, course providers are not allowed to charge CEF learners and non-CEF learners different fees for the same CEF course. In the event of non-compliance, the Government will take corresponding follow-up action against the course providers depending on the seriousness of the case.
(4) The Government has put in place a set of strict requirements on the publicity and promotional arrangements of course providers. To avoid unnecessary increase in course fees, course providers should neither conduct inappropriate publicity activities nor provide financial incentives in any form to attract CEF learners to enrol in CEF courses. Apportionment of course fees between course providers and CEF applicants is also not allowed.
The Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications and OCEF conduct inspections on course providers from time to time to ensure that their operation complies with the requirements of CEF. OCEF will issue a warning to the concerned course provider when non-compliance is detected. If the non-compliance is serious or repetitive, the Government will consider de-registering the concerned course(s) from the list of CEF courses. In case of suspected criminal offences, OCEF will refer the case to the relevant law enforcement agencies for follow-up.
Ends/Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Issued at HKT 12:36
NNNN
