Thank you, Deputy President. The Liberal Party firmly supports the Social Workers Registration (Amendment) Bill 2024 (“the Bill”) proposed by the SAR Government, as well as the Committee stage amendments (“CSAs”) to be proposed later.

The purpose of the Bill is to rectify the chaotic situations that have arisen in the Social Workers Registration Board (“Board”) in recent years. Examples of such chaotic situations, which have aroused particular concern, include: firstly, the Board’s approval of the registration or renewal of registration as social workers of a number of persons who have been convicted of and sentenced to imprisonment for serious criminal offences (including drug possession, drug trafficking, theft and contempt of court); and secondly, the disregard of the law by appointing a social worker who had been charged of an offence of riot to serve on the Board’s Disciplinary Committee Panel while legal proceedings regarding the criminal charge were ongoing. If similar incidents were to occur in other professional self-regulatory bodies, they would certainly lead to a social uproar and calls for rectification. How, then, can the Board be an exception?

Undoubtedly, the existing section 17(4) of the Social Workers Registration Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) does provide the Board with the discretionary power to approve the registration of a person as a social worker who has committed an offence punishable with imprisonment or may bring the social worker profession into disrepute. At the same time, Schedule 2 to the Ordinance outlines five types of offences that preclude a person from serving as a registered social worker, including ill-treating a child, involvement in sexual violence, serious infringement on personal safety, child abduction, and endangering national security, which was introduced in 2022. However, section 17(5) of the Ordinance still provides an “escape route” for offenders of the offences listed in Schedule 2, that is, a person may be registered as a social worker if all the members for the time being of the Board, after considering all the circumstances of the case, unanimously agree to resolve that the person be so registered. Given the policy intention of Schedule 2, the requirement in section 17(5) is indeed a surprising arrangement. 

A review of the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) records reveals that LegCo passed the relevant provision before the handover of sovereignty in 1997, aiming to fully respect the unique nature of social workers serving the disadvantaged groups. In reality, there are social workers who committed offences punishable with imprisonment at a very young age but later reformed. Many years later, they became excellent social workers, serving people with similar experiences as their own, and proving their worth over time. In this regard, the then LegCo gave full recognition to these individuals. 

Therefore, insofar as the offences listed in Schedule 2 are concerned, it is reasonable to give the Board the discretion to handle cases that occurred a long time ago, thus giving the individuals concerned a chance to reform and repay society. At that time, the then LegCo even provided flexibility to the Board at the request of individual Members, offering an extremely stringent “escape route” mechanism for Schedule 2 offences. This mechanism required unanimous consent and was not easily exercisable, but the old age of the cases involved was certainly considered a necessary element. The good intentions behind establishing the “escape route” are not universally agreed upon, but it is certainly not without merit. 

However, in recent years, the Board has given a “green light” to individuals who have recently committed the offences listed in Schedule 2 and punishable with imprisonment, allowing them to register as social workers. This clearly constitutes an abuse of the original intent of the discretionary power conferred on the Board under section 17(4) of the Ordinance. On the other hand, as far as the offences in Schedule 2 are concerned, particularly the recent case involving endangering national security, the Board, as a self-regulatory body, has ignored the fact that the relevant judicial procedures are not yet completed; without obtaining the unanimous consent of all the members for the time being of the Board, it has allowed a person involved in the case to serve on the Disciplinary Committee Panel. This is clearly an intentional exploitation of legal loopholes, or even a disregard for the law, openly defying societal expectations. This is totally unacceptable and must be addressed squarely and rectified.

 Therefore, I must point out that the Bill cannot fully address the confrontational mentality and reality of the social work sector. The Liberal Party supports the CSAs to be proposed later, including the following: First, an amendment is proposed to provide that the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Board are to be appointed from the members of the Board by the Chief Executive, replacing the current arrangement under the Bill of Board members electing from among their number a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson. Incidentally, I would like to thank the Secretary for his willingness to propose this amendment. I had told him during the meeting on that day that I would propose the CSA myself if he did not do so. Now, his willingness to do so saves me a lot of work. Second, an amendment is proposed to explicitly require that a Board member must, on the date, and at the time and place, specified by the Secretary, take an oath before the Secretary or a person authorized by the Secretary to administer the oath, instead of the original proposal in the Bill for taking the oath by a written oath. Third, on the premise of not affecting the “escape route” mechanism, an amendment is made to remove an offence endangering national security from Schedule 2 and to exclude the offence from the “escape route” provision. 

During the scrutiny of the Bills Committee, I cited the experience of the Council of The Chinese University of Hong Kong after reform, pointing out that the voting of the Board (especially the voting relating to the “escape route” in Schedule 2) should be conducted by way of a secret ballot to enable its members to discharge their duties fearlessly. As the current voting provisions in Schedule 1 to the Ordinance, the Bill and the CSAs do not touch upon whether a vote should be cast by name, it is hoped that after the reform of the Board, the Secretary will give some thoughts to this operational issue.

Deputy President, the Liberal Party supports the Second Reading of the Bill.