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

Kent Travel Saver Price Increase

The Scrutiny Committee considered a call-in regarding the decision to increase the price of the Kent Travel Saver (KTS) bus pass scheme by £35 per annum for all fee-paying customers. The decision, taken by Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport Peter Osborne on 27 May 2026, was called in by non-Executive Members Rob Yates, Antony Hook, Paul Thomas, and Mark Hood.

The primary concern raised by the members who called in the decision was that the flat-rate increase of £35 was disproportionately impacting low-income families. They argued that while full fee payers would see a 6% increase, low-income families would face a 26% rise. They proposed that a proportionate, 7% increase across all user groups would generate similar income for the council but would be fairer to those on lower incomes, potentially saving them £25 per year.

Concerns were also raised about the lack of detailed justification and transparency in the decision-making documentation. Specifically, it was argued that the report did not adequately explore alternative pricing structures, such as proportionate increases, nor did it provide sufficient data on future projections, cohort numbers, and the justification for the total projected income of £575,000. Some members felt that the decision was not in line with the council's policy framework, particularly its aim to support residents in need and tackle inequality.

Cabinet Member Peter Osborne defended the decision, stating that the KTS 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 argued that the decision was necessary to ensure the scheme's financial sustainability in the face of inflationary pressures and increasing numbers of users in the low-income and free category cohorts. Officers provided further detail, explaining that the scheme is not statutory and that the increase was intended to balance affordability with financial sustainability. They highlighted that while full payers had seen significant increases over recent years, low-income households had experienced much smaller rises, and that the £35 increase was an attempt to address this growing disparity.

Following extensive debate and questioning, the committee voted on several options. Option C, which would have required reconsideration of the decision, was lost. Option B, to express comments but not require reconsideration and to take account of the summary in future decision-making, was approved. Option A, to make no comments, was also voted on but lost.

The Chair, Richard Streatfeild, MBE, noted that while the information provided during the meeting offered greater detail than was in the original papers, the lack of this information at the time of the decision was the justification for the call-in. He suggested that future decision-making should aim for greater openness and that the administration should consider the points raised by the committee. The meeting concluded with a procedural discussion regarding the management of future meetings and call-ins.