(a) that the education of children up to a certain age should be subsidized by half-rate travel on major public transport modes (it being pointed out in the memorandum that the application of the subsidy to both rich and poor alike had been the subject of criticism);
(b) that it was highly desirable that all major modes of public transport operations should be treated in the same.
way, i.e. that all transport operators should be subsidized, or none should be; and
(c) that the subsidy should be from the travelling public rather than from the taxpayer.
8 After considering the recommendations, Executive Council decided that the current Government student travel subsidy scheme should be continued, as an educational measure, recognizing that the scheme might need to be extended to other public transport operators not yet subsidized.' The Administration was asked to undertake a full internal review of the administration and operation of the scheme.
9 In a subsequent submission to the Executive Council in 1980, the Council was advised of the view of the working group that as free or highly subsidized education was available without means testing to rich and poor alike, means testing for student travel benefits would be illogical and impracticable. The working group recommended a new scheme which would provide a direct subsidy to parents of students who lived at significant distances from their schools, with different levels of subsidy for different trip lengths. In making the recommendation, the Administration made the point that any scheme which tried to cover all angles and problems of application (in order to be fair to both the public transport operators and to individual students) would be complicated and expensive to administer. The proposal also avoided the need to negotiate with individual transport operators. The Board of Education's view that the problem of student travel subsidy was fundamentally not an educational one, was also reflected in the submission.
10 The Executive Council did not favour the proposed scheme. Members of the Council also expressed the view that consideration should be given to expanding the student travel scheme to subsidize transport expenses for students on recreation activities, such as travelling to Country Parks. The Administration examined a system of grants to schools or youth associations, perhaps on a per capita basis, to enable such organizations to arrange outings at times convenient to them using the modes of transport of their own choice. Subsequently, the Administration was asked to devise a new scheme which:
(a) would apply to all full-time students (over the age of 12 years, where a concession fare was already charged by
the bus companies to those below that age) including first degree University students up to a given age;
(b) would provide travel at half-fare on all franchised public transport modes and on the Mass Transit Railway
for students as defined in (a) for all journeys, preferably including weekends and public holidays; and
(c) would be financed by direct lump sum payments by the Government to each transport company concerned,
with provision for arbitration in the event of disagreement as to the amount.
The present scheme as approved by the Executive Council, was based on the above guidelines.
Comments on Director of Audit's Report
11 The Director of Audit's criticism that the statement in a memorandum submitted to the Executive Council in 1971 that the scheme should be considered as part and parcel of Government's general policy of assistance towards education had given the scheme the stamp of permanence without proper consideration to long-term education policy objectives, is not accepted. The historical development of the scheme shows that Government's policy on subsidized student travel was under regular review in line with the development of both education and transport policies. There were two major reviews of the scheme between 1971 and 1981, and proposals were submitted to the Executive Council to streamline and refine the scheme.
12 The Director of Audit has over-emphasized the reservations expressed by the Director of Education in the context of the 1976 review, about the educational justifications for the scheme. As explained above, the introduction of nine-year compulsory education and the abolition of junior secondary school fees in 1978 substantially changed the grounds upon which the recommendations of the 1976 Working Group report were based. These changes, coupled with the political considerations of a complete withdrawal of the scheme, led to the decision to retain the subsidy. It must be noted that Executive Council directed in 1979 that student travel subsidies should be continued as an educational measure.
13 The decision to extend the scheme to include journeys on holidays and journeys outside school hours on any day was not, as Director of Audit suggests, simply an extension of the policy statement made in 1971 that the scheme should be considered as part and parcel of Government's general policy of assistance towards education. It was a deliberate and conscious decision to promote the opportunity for recreation activities for students.
14 The Director of Audit's various other points in his report are noted. It is relevant to record that well before the Director's report, an inter-departmental working group, under the joint management of the Education and Manpower Branch and the Transport Branch, had started work on a fundamental review of the scheme, which will examine again the education and social policy considerations.
:
44
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.