Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Mr Chapman, for whom Miss Morton was substituting, Mr Eustace, for whom Mr Finch was substituting, Mr Shonk, for whom Mrs Emberson was substituting, Mr Hook, for whom Mr Prater was substituting and Mr Brady.

Mr Defriend declared that his children benefitted from the Kent Travel Saver (KTS) Scheme.

Mr Prater declared that a member of his household was a recipient of the Kent Travel Pass.

1.    The Chair set out the format of the meeting and invited Rob Yates, one of the call-in Members to provide reasons for the call-in. Mr Yates raised concerns about the fairness of the proposed bus fare increases, particularly the higher percentage increase for low- income families compared to full fee payers. He questioned the lack of clear justification for a flat rate approach and highlighted that a proportionate model could achieve the same revenue more equitably. Mr Yates emphasised the importance of fairness and encouraged the Committee to vote that the decision be reconsidered by the Cabinet Member.

2.    Mark Hood, another call-in Member, highlighted that the proposed flat increase would place a disproportionate burden on lower- income families and questioned why a tiered approach had not been pursued.

3.    Another call-in Member, Tim Prater, drew attention to the disproportionate impact of the proposals on those eligible for free school meals. He also questioned the overall level of the increase, pointing out that the additional costs to parents appeared to exceed the identified rise in scheme costs and that the papers did not clearly justify this difference.

4.    Paul Thomas, another call-in Member, questioned whether the Cabinet Member’s decision had been based on sufficient information and explanation, raising concerns about gaps in the supporting evidence. These included the absence of clearly referenced budget considerations, impact assessments across income groups, and projected pupil numbers in the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP). He also raised concerns about the lack of detailed justification for additional costs and the limited consideration of meaningful alternative options, particularly proportionate models. It was added that, while concerns remained, it was positive that the scheme would continue to provide a level of service.

5.    Peter Osborne, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, confirmed that he had been satisfied with the information presented when making the decision. He stated that the scheme remained comparatively inexpensive and that the increase equated to approximately 18p per school day.

6.    The Chair invited questions and comments from Members, and the subsequent discussion covered the following:

a)    Shane Bushell, Head of Public Transport, explained that the Council had no statutory duty to provide concessionary travel, but that the Travel Saver scheme supported parental choice by offering subsidised travel. He stated that, despite recent increases, the scheme continued to provide significant financial benefit compared to commercial fares, particularly for low- income families and those in care, who received greater levels of subsidy or full support.

b)    Mr Bushell detailed that increases reflected rising costs, demographic pressures and a growing number of low- income and free- pass users, alongside a decline in full- fare payers. He also provided an overview on how in recent years, full- fare payers had experienced substantially higher increases than low- income families, and that the current proposals sought to address this imbalance.

c)    Mr Osborne reiterated that he was content with the information provided when he made his decision and highlighted that a further officer explanation had also been given  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.