2
attention, and we are examining whether the balance of
our investment in education is the most appropriate and
producing the optimum result for the resources devoted
to it.
3.
Mr. F.K. Hu has referred to the suggestions he
made to this Council in 1983 concerning extra-curricular
journeys and the method of administering the Student
Travel Scheme. He has also queried the continued
subsidisation of students who can afford the full fare.
The first two points have been examined previously.
is not really possible to separate school and extra-
curricular travel because of the existence of a.m. and
p.m. sessions in schools. It is also one of the
aims of the scheme to encourage students to participate
in recreational and other leisure activities outside
school hours.
Neither is it likely to be viable to
It
change the scheme to one of direct subsidy of children
through their schools, which would add to administrative
costs yet provide less control.
4.
As regards Mr. Hu's third point, the scheme
is an educational, as well as a social, facility and hence
does not differentiate among students on the basis of
their ability to pay the full fare. Apart from representing
a radical change in concept, the application of a means-
test could also add complexity and increase the cost of
/running