Agenda item

Anne Clark (Managing Director of MCL Transport Consultants was in attendance for this item.

The Chairman welcomed Mrs Clark to the Committee.  Mrs Clark was the Managing Director of MCL Transport Consultants Ltd, which specialised in financial systems, concessionary travel schemes administration, smart ticketing projects and E-purse apportionment. 

Mrs Clark’s presentation had been circulated to Select Committee Members prior to the meeting and she used the presentation to explain how the Kent County Concessionary Travel Scheme worked.  Mrs Clark’s presentation can be found via this link and Mrs Clark pointed Members to some facts about MCL including the 14 English National Concessionary Travel Schemes (ENCTS) which MCL administered. 

Mrs Clark was an accountant and an ex bus operator, KCC was MCL’s client but it was necessary to understand the various issues from the point of view of KCC and the bus operators. 

Mrs Clark talked Members through the principles of reimbursement, pages 19 – 24 of the presentation. 

Q – How was it possible to determine the original number of passengers and how many passengers have been ‘generated’?

A – Mrs Clark explained that the Department for Transport (DfT) had produced a calculator to work out how many passengers were generated.  The calculator was based on fare increases but it was accepted that it was impossible to know precisely how many passengers were actually generated, but the principles of the Calculator were accepted by all parties.

Q – With regards to additional buses with additional capacity what cost was this to KCC and how could KCC be sure this was not duplicated between ENCTS and YPTP?

A – Mr Lightowler explained that KCC would look at the data over the summer in order to schedule YPTP and supported services and any services receiving additional costs paid in respect of YPTP would not be considered for additional ENCTS payments.   Mrs Clark explained that, apart from additional costs, it was necessary to look at Young Persons Travel Pass (YPTP) and 16+ separately to ENCTS as operator reimbursement used different methods. 

Mrs Clark referred members to page 28 of her presentation, which illustrated some of the checks that were applied to operator data - non-acceptable journeys took place outside 09.30hours and 23:00hours or were journeys outside Kent. 

Mrs Clark talked Members through pages 36 – 38 of the presentation, this being marginal capacity costs where operators were likely to maximise total reimbursement with local values.  The length of journey was the mean journey length (identified by operator) and this was checked to see if it was reasonable.  There was no option other than to use the calculator provided by the DfT with all services being included by the operator to avoid “cherry picking”. 

Q – How many bus operators received the default costs provided by MCL?

It was generally accepted by the smaller bus operators that it was too time consuming and costly to challenge the default values.  It was mainly the larger bus groups who could afford to provide their own local values.  It was noted however that rural infrequent and special services were paid at higher rates by default.

Q – A Member asked for further details on the taxi voucher scheme

A – Mrs Clark had mentioned a scheme elsewhere which MCL administered where taxi vouchers were given to those too disabled to use a bus or too remote to have a service.  She explained that taxi companies were commercial companies charging regular fares and the vouchers were used as cash towards those fares. 

Mrs Clark referred Members to page 41 of her presentation and the “no better, no worse” principle.  The majority of shire counties used consultants to undertake costing work.  In general it was estimated that the travel passes generated between 35-55% of travel which in turn was reflected in the amount paid to operators. 

Q – Would buses carrying school children receive Additional Capacity Costs (ACC) and did the ‘no better, no worse’ principle enable bus operators to buy new buses to cope with additional school needs and therefore upgrade their fleet of buses?

A – The method of identifying legitimate additional cost claims was explained on page 42 of the presentation, but was complicated; MCL was very rigorous in investigating the information and claims provided by bus operators.  MCL represented KCC not the bus operator and at the same time as challenging the published scheme, bus operators were likely to also put in an appeal to the Secretary of State.  The aim was to avoid the appeal going full term, as this was costly in legal fees and unlikely to achieve a realistic outcome, by reviewing the operator’s figures in detail and negotiating an acceptable resolution. 

The principle of “no better, no worse” by definition only reimbursed operators what they were due.  It did not enable bus operators to invest in better vehicles than they would normally operate as claim values reflected an operator’s actual operating costs. 

It was accepted that this was a complicated area, it was Members view that smaller companies could suffer where larger companies were able to squeeze every penny out of the system.  Mr Lightowler confirmed that, in respect of subsidised services, KCC accepted the most economically advantageous price. 

The Chairman reminded Members of the new bus legislation, the Committee aimed to focus bus transport across Kent to ensure it was the number one network across England. 

Q – Would the Bus Services Bill give opportunity to improve bus services?

A – Yes, those operators with a good working relationship would be more prepared to negotiate, the Bill would bring greater communication and if KCC wanted good services the bus operators should be treated fairly.  Fair and reasonable Concessionary fares reimbursement, including ACC claims might enable operators to keep the borderline services running, so avoiding a greater call on subsidised services.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Clark for her helpful comments and advised that the notes of the meeting would be shared with her for comments prior to publication.