*********************************************************
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 (June 5):
Question:
Although the Government separately replied to my questions regarding the Youth Pre-employment Training Programme and Youth Work Experience and Training Scheme (the Scheme) of the Labour Department (LD) on April 24, May 8 and May 15 this year, quite a number of members of the public and social workers have 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 which had been appointed under the Scheme (ie the persons authorised by the training bodies to sign all applications for reimbursement of course fees under the Scheme and normally the persons-in-charge of the training courses in the training bodies assume such role) had covered up their own fault of improper supervision and shifted, without verifying the facts or by using false information, the blame to those social workers who had already left the positions, so that their training bodies could continue to receive LD's funding for the courses. In its reply to my question on May 8, the Government indicated that "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". Regarding the aforesaid case, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) given that training bodies are required to submit the application forms for reimbursement of course fees which have been duly signed and confirmed by the authorised persons in order to obtain fees reimbursement from LD, and it has been set out in the notes of the form that information provided for reimbursement claims "must be reported accurately. Anyone who wilfully makes false representation or provides false information commits an offence", whether LD had investigated if the authorised person(s) of the aforesaid case had submitted any false information to LD; if so, of the investigation results; whether LD had referred the aforesaid case to law enforcement agencies for follow-up; if not, whether the Government has assessed if the way that LD handled the case has amounted to harbouring some suspected law offender(s) and if this might nullify the warning set out in the form;
(b) whether the authorised person(s) of the training body in the aforesaid case was/were registered social workers; if so, whether LD had referred the case to the Social Workers Registration Board for follow-up; if not, of the reasons for that;
(c) of the date and title of the course concerned in the aforesaid case, the amount of course fee previously reimbursed by LD and the date of reimbursement, as well as the date on which the training body concerned refunded the monies; if LD cannot provide such information, whether the Government has assessed if this might obstruct this Council's monitoring of the use of public money;
(d) whether it has assessed if the relevant LD officers had, when handling the application for course fee reimbursement in the aforesaid case, failed to monitor the reimbursement properly; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, whether such officers had been subject to disciplinary actions; whether it has assessed if LD was lacking awareness in the aforesaid case;
(e) whether LD officers had conducted any inspections during the period when the course concerned in the aforesaid case was being held; if so, of the format, number of hours and times of such inspections, and the reasons why the situation that the course concerned "had not complied with the proposal" still has arisen despite the inspections conducted; if no inspection had been conducted and the course fee had been reimbursed merely based on the information provided by the training body, whether it has assessed if the relevant LD officers had failed to monitor the reimbursement properly;
(f) whether LD had, upon receipt of the notification by the training body of the aforesaid case, conducted any in-depth investigation so as to ascertain if the explanations given by the training body were all true; if it had conducted such an investigation, whether it had gathered information from all persons concerned; if it had not conducted the investigation, whether the Government has assessed if the relevant LD officers had failed to monitor the reimbursement properly;
(g) whether LD had penalised the training body and the authorised person(s) concerned in the aforesaid case; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(h) whether LD had disqualified the training body of the aforesaid case for organising training courses under the Scheme; if so, of the date on which the training body was disqualified; if not, the number of courses organised by that training body with funding provided since the case was revealed, the total amount of funding involved, and whether LD had accepted the application form for reimbursement of course fees signed by the same authorised person(s) of that training body; if so, of the reasons for that and whether it had stepped up its monitoring of that training body;
(i) given that the Government had, in its reply on May 8, refused to disclose to this Council the name of the training body concerned in the aforesaid case, and the names of the five training bodies which had received LD's written advice/warnings, whether such refusal had any legal basis; if so, of such legal basis; if not, whether the Government has assessed if this involved LD harbouring those training bodies which had breached the relevant regulations, and whether this might obstruct this Council's monitoring of the use of public money and undermine the public's access right to information; whether the names of those training bodies will only be disclosed after the public have lodged and won a judicial review in this regard; and
(j) whether the authorised person(s) of the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) (one of the training bodies under the Scheme) had submitted false information to LD, and whether HKFYG had organised any training course not in accordance with its proposal and had previously refunded LD the relevant course fees, in the past four years; if so, of the date(s) and title(s) of such course(s), the amount of course fees previously reimbursed by LD and the date of reimbursement, the amount refunded and the date of such refund by this training body, as well as the way in which that LD handled this case?
Reply:
President,
My reply to the question raised by Hon Leung Kwok-hung is as follows:
(a) and (b) Training bodies of the Scheme have to appoint authorised persons to verify the information submitted for claiming fees and allowances. Since the duties of the authorised persons are administrative in nature and do not involve counselling of trainees, the Labour Department (LD) does not require authorised persons to be registered social workers. As our investigation of the case did not show any suspected offence, the case had neither been referred to law enforcement departments nor other organisations for further action. We must stress that LD handles suspected offence cases in a serious manner and will act strictly in accordance with the law.
(c) and (j) The course mentioned in our reply of May 8, 2013 was organised by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups (HKFYG) under the "Targeted Career Training Mission" (TCTM) held in March to May 2011 targeting youth receiving outreaching services. TCTM is a special training programme under the Scheme tailor-made for young school leavers with special needs, including youth receiving outreaching services, ethnic minority youth, new arrival youth from the Mainland, delinquent youth, youth with learning difficulties/special learning need and youth with disabilities or chronic illness.
In May 2012, LD received a letter from HKFYG reporting that their internal audit uncovered irregularities in the file records of a Professional Bridal Make-up and Hair Styling Training Course under TCTM of the 2010/11 programme year. The above-mentioned course provided 60 training hours while the training hours of the course originally planned should be 120 hours. HKFYG took the initiative to refund all monies related to the course amounting to $78,870, including reimbursed course fees, training allowances disbursed to trainees and administration fees for processing training allowances. LD made payment as mentioned in paragraph (d) and (e) of the reply below in September 2011 and HKFYG refunded the amount in question on June 20, 2012.
(d) and (e) Upon receipt of the claim forms for reimbursement of course fees, training allowances disbursed to trainees and administration fees in processing training allowances and relevant documents in June and August 2011, LD verified the trainees' attendance rate records and results of course evaluation survey. Moreover, sample telephone surveys were conducted to ascertain that the trainees had attended the course and received the training allowance. LD issued full payment to HKFYG in September 2011 after verifying the above information. While LD conducts sample class inspections to monitor the quality of training courses, the above-mentioned course was not selected in the inspection list. In processing the above-mentioned claim, LD officers handled the claims for reimbursement of course fees strictly in accordance with the guidelines.
(f) and (g) LD was highly concerned about the report submitted by HKFYG as mentioned in paragraph (c) of the reply above and conducted investigation immediately. We have counter-checked all relevant records and demanded the training body to submit further information. After reporting the case, HKFYG indicated that it had reviewed and strengthened the units' administrative measures and monitoring mechanism in the provision of training courses, namely, requesting its units to record the arrival and departure time of trainees for monitoring trainees' attendance and devising a series of administrative guidelines for the strict compliance of its units to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.
After conducting detailed investigation into the case and taking into account that HKFYG reported the incident of its own accord, implemented improvement measures immediately and had not previously committed similar irregularities, LD decided to issue a serious warning to HKFYG and reminded it that LD would consider disqualifying it from the provision of training courses and services in case similar incidents recur in future.
(h) Since the incident was reported in May 2012, HKFYG has not organised any course related to TCTM. During the investigation of the case concerned, no suspected offence was detected. Hence, LD would not refuse to accept the signatures of the authorised person concerned in making applications for reimbursement of course fees.
In order to ensure that the training courses organised by the training body are in compliance with the requirements approved by LD, LD has enhanced the monitoring measures on TCTM courses, including conducting more class inspections to TCTM courses, raising the percentage of sample telephone interviews with trainees and issuing notifications to trainees with detailed information of courses enrolled.
(i) Other than the case mentioned above, the name of the five training bodies involved in the non-compliance cases and the nature of the non-compliances are listed as follows: HKFYG did not strictly comply with the established procedures in cancelling a class; the Boys' and Girls' Clubs Association of Hong Kong did not strictly comply with the requirements in enrolling trainees on a course; the qualifications of trainers provided by the Hong Kong Communication Art Centre in individual courses did not meet the requirements; the Knowledge Education Centre did not strictly comply with the established administrative requirements and combine two classes into one; Caritas Hong Kong did not strictly comply with the procedures in cancelling a class and did not enrol a trainee on a course in accordance with the administrative requirements.
All along, LD attaches great importance to the quality of services and training provided by the training bodies of the Scheme. It also takes up its monitoring role seriously. The Director of Audit has made recommendations on our class inspection in its Report No 59. LD will adopt a series of improvement measures to enhance the quality assurance mechanism of training courses, including a review of the strategy and overall arrangement related to training course inspections. Starting from January 2013, officers inspect in a single visit all training courses held at the same training venue as far as practicable and training bodies are requested to produce documentary proof of trainers' qualifications for verification during inspections. LD will review the monitoring mechanism constantly to ensure the provision of appropriate employment services to young people.
Ends/Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Issued at HKT 11:05
NNNN
