The Scrutiny Committee met 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 primary focus of the meeting was the call-in of Decision 26/00020, concerning the price increase for the Kent Travel Saver (KTS) scheme. This decision, made by Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Peter Osborne on 27 May 2026, proposed a £35 annual increase for all fee-paying customers. The call-in was initiated by non-Executive Members Rob Yates, Antony Hook, Paul Thomas, and Mark Hood, who argued that the decision lacked sufficient justification for a flat-rate increase and disproportionately affected low-income families.

During the discussion, Mr. Yates likened the flat-rate increase to a regressive tax system, arguing that a proportionate model would be fairer. He calculated that a 7% increase across the board would generate similar revenue while resulting in a £25 annual saving for low-income families. Mr. Hood echoed concerns about the disproportionate burden on those least able to afford it, questioning why a tiered system or percentage increase wasn't implemented. Mr. Prater raised concerns about the overall increase in costs and the lack of detailed justification for passing on an additional £96,000 to parents. Mr. Thomas highlighted a perceived lack of clear budgetary consideration and impact assessments in the decision-making process.

Cabinet Member Peter Osborne defended the decision, stating that the scheme was already one of the most inexpensive outside of Greater London and that the increase amounted to only 18 pence per school day. He expressed surprise at the call-in, believing the process had been followed correctly.

Officers provided further clarification, explaining that there is no statutory requirement to provide concessionary travel for pupils. They detailed the subsidies already provided, noting that full-paying pass holders had seen a 61% increase in their pass costs between 2021-22 and 2024-25, while low-income households had only seen a 22% increase. The officers argued that the proposed increase to the low-income cohort was necessary due to a growing disparity and the increasing number of pupils in care and young carer categories who receive free passes, placing a financial burden on full-paying pass holders. They also presented data showing a decline in full-paying pass holders and a significant increase in those on low incomes and in care categories.

The committee engaged in extensive debate regarding the transparency of the decision-making process, the adequacy of the information provided in the reports, and the fairness of the proposed price increase. Several members questioned why a proportionate or percentage-based increase, which could generate similar revenue without disproportionately impacting low-income families, had not been explicitly considered and documented in the report. Concerns were also raised about the lack of projected figures for future years and the potential for the decision to exacerbate existing inequalities, particularly in coastal communities.

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

The Chair, Richard Streatfeild, MBE, summarised that while the information provided by officers offered greater detail on the scheme's numbers and trends, the lack of this information at the time of the original decision was the justification for the call-in. He noted that the committee's role was to scrutinise the decision-making process and that the administration should aim for greater openness in the future to prevent similar call-ins. The meeting concluded with a procedural discussion regarding the interpretation of the council's constitution.