The Scrutiny Committee of Kent County Council met on Thursday 11 June 2026 to discuss a call-in regarding the Kent Travel Saver price increase. The committee ultimately decided to express comments on the decision but not require its reconsideration, and to take account of the summary in future decision-making.

Kent Travel Saver Price Increase

The meeting focused on a call-in of the decision to increase the price of the Kent Travel Saver (KTS) bus pass scheme by £35 per annum. The call-in was initiated by several non-Executive Members who argued that the decision lacked sufficient justification for a flat-rate increase, particularly concerning its disproportionate impact on low-income families.

Members who called in the decision expressed concerns that the flat £35 increase represented a 26% rise for low-income families, compared to a 6% rise for full fee payers. They argued that this was regressive and did not align with the council's stated aim of supporting residents in need. Mr Rob Yates, one of the members who called in the decision, drew an analogy to income tax, stating that a flat rate would be unfair, and suggested that a proportionate model would result in a smaller increase for low-income families. Mr Mark Hood echoed these concerns, highlighting that the increase placed a disproportionate burden on those least able to afford it. Mr Tim Prater raised concerns about the lack of detailed justification for the additional £100,000 in costs passed on to parents and questioned the overall increase in the scheme's cost. Mr Paul Thomas further elaborated on the perceived lack of information, including budgetary considerations, impact assessments, and projected pupil numbers for future years.

Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, Mr Peter Osborne, stated he was surprised the decision had been called in, asserting that all procedures had been followed. He defended the KTS scheme as one of the most inexpensive outside of Greater London, with the increase amounting to only 18 pence per school day.

Officers provided further clarification on the scheme's financial sustainability. They explained that there is no statutory requirement to provide concessionary travel, but the KTS scheme supports parental choice by subsidising transport to schools not necessarily the nearest. The scheme offers significant subsidies compared to commercial season tickets, with an average subsidy of £411 for full-paying pass holders and £856 for low-income families. Officers presented data showing that while full-paying pass holders had seen a 61% increase in their pass cost between 2021-22 and 2024-25, low-income households had only experienced a 22% increase over the same period. However, they noted a concerning trend of increasing numbers in the low-income and free-pass categories, which, combined with inflationary pressures, necessitated an increase in the application fee for low-income families to maintain the scheme's viability. The number of full-paying pass holders had declined, while the number of low-income and free-pass holders had increased.

During the debate, members discussed the fairness of the increase, the lack of detailed financial projections in the original report, and the potential for a proportionate or percentage-based increase to achieve the same financial outcome with less impact on low-income families. Concerns were also raised about the lack of clarity on how the £96,000 discrepancy in costs was accounted for and the sustainability of the scheme in future years. The Chair of the Committee, Councillor Richard Streatfeild, MBE, guided the discussion, emphasizing the need for openness and clarity in decision-making.

Ultimately, the committee voted on several options. Option C, which would have required the decision to be postponed pending reconsideration, was lost. Option B, to express comments but not require reconsideration and to take account of the summary in future decision-making, was carried. Option A, to make no comments, was also put forward but lost.

The Chair concluded the meeting by noting that while the information provided during the scrutiny process offered greater detail on the scheme's numbers and trends, the fact that this information was not available to members at the time of the original decision justified the call-in. The Chair expressed hope that the administration would learn from the discussion to ensure greater openness in future decision-making processes.