SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2024
Deputy President, when the Social Workers Registration Board (“Board”) was established in the last century, it was aimed at handling matters relating to the registration of social workers and monitoring the professional conduct of registered social workers, while safeguarding the credibility of the social work profession and promoting its long-term development. However, several incidents in recent years have exposed that the Board, which is vested with public powers, has many shortcomings and problems in its operations, including a complete lack of measures in safeguarding national security. These shortcomings and problems have raised many queries and concerns from various sectors of the community. So, the purpose of this amendment is to enhance the governance of the Board, enabling it to safeguard national security and protect the interests of service users and the public more effectively.
Despite the resignation of another incumbent elected member last week, which leaves only one of the eight elected members still in office, it is believed that if today’s Social Workers Registration (Amendment) Bill 2024 (“the Bill”) is passed, the operations of the Board will be reasonable and in line with the public expectations in the future. In this way, public confidence in the Board will be restored swiftly.
Although I am not a member of the Bills Committee, I have been paying attention to the discussions at its meetings. I have the following views and suggestions regarding the Bill.
Firstly, concerning the composition of the Board, the Bill proposes to increase the number of Board members from 15 to 27, including registered social workers from various backgrounds and positions, such as public officers, so as to ensure a more balanced representation. Having served as a member of various statutory bodies, I fully understand the importance of different views brought by members from diverse sectors to a statutory body, as such views can help the statutory body make more ideal decisions and requirements. After the reconstitution, 14 members of the Board will still be social workers, so social workers will still constitute the majority. This arrangement will not compromise the Board’s professional autonomy and will ensure that its decisions align with the standards of the social work profession.
I have noticed that the daily operations of the Board are handled by various committees, including the Disciplinary Committee Panel and three committees, namely the Committee on Administration, the Committee on Professional Conduct, and the Committee on Qualification Recognition. The membership of these three committees primarily consists of the original 15 members, with each committee comprising 10 to 14 members. From a practical point of view, if the number of members in each committee were to reach the current 20-odd members in future, I believe it would be difficult to operate. So, I suggest that the 27 members should consider evenly participating in these three committees, maintaining approximately 10 or more members in each committee. I believe this arrangement might be more appropriate and could enhance the efficiency of handling the matters needing discussion in the meetings.
Regarding the method of selecting the Chairperson of the Board, many Honourable colleagues have also mentioned the original practice is that Board members elect from among their number a Chairperson. However, the Chairperson is responsible for overseeing and leading the Board’s work, and plays a crucial role in ensuring the effective performance of its functions. In view of this, during scrutiny, members have expressed their hope that the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will be appointed by the Chief Executive. The Administration has readily followed good advice and made the amendment right away. I strongly support this approach as it aligns with the practices of many other statutory bodies. In fact, the Disciplinary Committee Panel and the three committees are crucial to the future operations of the Board. I hope the committees and the members who opt to join these committees will exercise prudence in selecting future committee chairs.
As for the qualifications of Board members and registered social workers, in fact, generally no one with a criminal record will be appointed as a member of a statutory body or as a professional. I believe the social work profession should be no exception, and the introduction of an oath-taking requirement is a manifestation of the fact that Board members will act in the interest of Hong Kong as a whole, which is definitely worthy of support.
Another point concerns the transparency of information, which is also a key to maintaining the credibility of public institutions. The Board seemingly has not provided the public with a more detailed account of the reasons for issues which involve a wider scope and have broader implications, such as the earlier cessation of the operation of the Voluntary Continuing Professional Development Scheme for Registered Social Workers (“VCPD Scheme”). It is imperative that the Board ensures its future operations and decision-making processes are transparent to external supervisors to enhance public trust and credibility.
In terms of professional development, there is a common saying: “There is no limit to knowledge”. Currently, most of the professional sectors in Hong Kong (such as doctors, accountants, lawyers and teachers) are required to fulfil continuing professional development requirements, and so are we in the banking sector. However, the Board’s decision by a majority vote to cease the operation of the VCPD Scheme from the end of 2023 has resulted in a de facto regression in the professional development of social workers. The Bill now re-establishes the continuing professional development requirements for registered social workers, stipulating that if social workers fail to meet these requirements within a specified period, the Board may refuse their renewal applications. This initiative brings registered social workers in line with other professionals, so I strongly support this. As for when and how this should be implemented, I concur with the judgment of the Labour and Welfare Bureau that it should be left to the newly formed Board to handle appropriately.
I also note that the Bills Committee has received 65 unsolicited submissions from members of the public, social welfare organizations, members of the welfare sector, and groups from other sectors, all of which unanimously support the Bill. This indicates that the community has reached a consensus on this reform of the Board and the amendments to its governance framework and structure.
I hope that following the passage of the Bill, the Board will be able to perform its duties more effectively, just like other statutory professional bodies, so as to ensure the professional development of social workers and the due protection of the public interest.
Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the Bill and all the amendments today.