Agenda item

Phil Lightowler (Head of Public Transport, Kent County Council) was in attendance for this item.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Lightowler back to the Committee.  Mr Lightowler had originally given evidence to the Committee on 27 September but Members had requested an additional session with him to continue their discussion around Kent Supported Services.  Mr Lightowler explained the criteria around providing funding to support non-commercial bus services which were deemed to be socially necessary. 

Q – Given the changes in demographics in Kent how long did the supported services contracts run for?

A - Mr Lightowler confirmed that the supported services contracts were for 4 years, Members may wish to look more closely at reviewing the criteria process once funding had been provided for support services; Mr Lightowler confirmed that it was possible to terminate contracts with 90 days’ notice.  It was considered that there could be a panel that looked on an annual basis at competing demands for supported services and to determine whether KCC was getting the same service as in previous years.  One Member suggested that it was possible that KCC was providing services out of habit rather than need if there was no review mechanism. 

Q – Was it likely that bus companies were making routes seem uneconomical so that KCC would step in and fund them

A -   Mr Lightowler confirmed that he did not believe that there was an perverse incentive, bus companies could be thought of as retailers running their services in the way they thought best.  One Member did not agree with the description of bus operators being like retailers because there was no option available for the public.  In addition if the bus operators were running at a loss they would tell KCC so there was bias towards the busier more profitable services. 

Mr Lightowler explained that 68million journeys were undertaken across Kent and Medway each year, Kent and Medway had an extremely busy bus network which dwarfed Essex and Thurrock.  Members requested that they be involved in discussions/proposals to cut services and a Member asked how many rural services had been cut from weekly to no service, daily to no service or daily to 2-3 times per week.  Mr Lightowler agreed that communication was key, and he would use email to inform and discuss with Members.  During Mr Lightowler’s time at KCC only one bus route had been physically cut. 

Q – Was it possible to run buses to different villages on alternative days of the week only on routes where part of the journey was empty?

A – Mr Lightowler confirmed that there was scope to undertake different routes on different days. 

Mr Lightowler explained that within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) each journey was recorded and the information was sent off to MCL Transport Consultants Ltd for analysis.  It was expected that 16.9million journeys would be made under the ENCTS in the next financial year at a cost of 97.98pence per journey regardless of distance – this was a cost of £16.8million cost to KCC. 

Q – With 68million journeys taking place did Mr Lightowler have any concern about the two major operators being responsible for the majority of these journeys?

A – Mr Lightowler did not have concerns, however the county might get better outcomes with more rigorous analysis of what was available and what was being funded with more focussed criteria.  The system that Kent and Medway was working with dated back to the 1980s, the bus operators had no public service obligation, they were business people selling a product.  It was useful for the County Council to have strong partnerships with the bus operators, and perhaps there was the ability for enhanced partnerships and in some areas franchises.   

One Member put forward a number of areas which Members might wish to explore in future to enable some more difficult decisions to be made, areas such as:  the alternatives available to bus routes, the reasons for the reduced bus use, changing demographics, increased car use. 

Q – Was it in KCC’s interest to rely on such a small number of large bus companies, was it possible to expand the bus operators in Kent and Medway?

A – It was correct that there were two larger bus operators on the commercial main network.  The Bus Services Bill provided KCC with the opportunity to look at the network and how it could provide an improved service to Kent residents.

Q – It was understood that the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 and the Quality Bus Partnerships (QBP) shifted the emphasis and control from the districts to the county councils. 

A – KCC was the lead authority on the QBP, the districts were responsible for planning and there was often debate around developments and S.106 agreements.  There was a strong partnership with the districts to deliver infrastructure improvements; it was thought that the emphasis may change over the next couple of years depending on the outcome of the Bus Services Bill. 

The Chairman thanked Mr Lightowler for his helpful comments and advised that the notes of the meeting would be shared with him for his comments prior to publication.