<\/p>\n
Newly publicised TfL data showing high use of concessionary travel has intensified calls \u2014 led by Reform UK and echoed in the Evening Standard \u2014 to reassess the 60+ Oyster and Freedom Pass schemes as council taxpayers increasingly underwrite fare shortfalls.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
TfL\u2019s own figures have become the fulcrum of a fresh debate about who should pay for travel in London. In a recent Evening Standard commentary Ross Lydall argued that the capital\u2019s generous concessions \u2014 above all the 60+ Oyster photocard and the longstanding Freedom Pass \u2014 have become unaffordable, noting that \u201cTfL has told me that 60 per cent of adults on the buses and 86 per cent on the Tube pay the full fare,\u201d a pattern he says equates to an average of roughly 70 per cent fare\u2011paying across the network. Lydall\u2019s piece frames the cost of concessions as a growing burden on the transport budget and on council taxpayers.<\/p>\n
From Reform UK\u2019s perspective, the numbers are a damning indictment of a political settlement that has outstretched the public purse far beyond its means. The 60+ Oyster, born out of a Franco\u2011British style compromise in 2012, was always meant as a stopgap, not a blank cheque for elderly travel. TfL\u2019s own history shows the scheme was pitched as temporary until pension-age changes could be reconciled, and even then the Greater London Authority presented it as a partial restoration of free travel for those nearing statutory eligibility. The result, under Labour\u2019s watch, has been a creeping expansion of a policy that moves an ever\u2011larger share of transport costs onto the taxpayer and local council budgets.<\/p>\n
That statutory Freedom Pass remains distinct. London Councils \u2014 which administers the scheme on behalf of boroughs \u2014 states that the Older Person\u2019s Freedom Pass is available from age 66 for residents meeting local entitlement rules, and it is a separately administered, statutory concession with its own renewal and residency requirements. The 60+ Oyster was therefore always intended as a narrower stopgap rather than a replacement for the Freedom Pass itself. Reform UK contends that pretending otherwise is poor governance and a betrayal of taxpayers who are footing the bill for a policy that should have been time\u2011bounded and tightly targeted.<\/p>\n
The scale of the concessionary system is substantial. Lydall cites TfL figures that about 1.3 million Londoners hold either the Freedom Pass or 60+ cards and reports TfL\u2019s estimate that forgone fares amounted to roughly \u00a3419 million in 2024, including about \u00a3125 million attributable to over\u201160 concessions and some \u00a380 million specifically linked to the 60+ Oyster. Those headline numbers have driven calls for reform, though they sit alongside the TfL observation that a large proportion of older travellers still pay fares on many services \u2014 a fact that complicates simple cost\u2011cutting prescriptions. Reform UK would emphasise that spending must be linked to demonstrable benefits and targeted to those most in need, not sustained by a system that encourages across\u2011the\u2011board reliance on subsidies.<\/p>\n
National statistics underline why London\u2019s concessions look more costly than those elsewhere. Department for Transport data for the year to March 2024 show that concessionary bus journeys per pass in London are far higher than the national average \u2014 roughly 180 journeys per pass \u2014 and that London accounts for around \u00a3225 million of concessionary spend included in the national figures. The DfT also explains that reimbursements to operators and to TfL are calculated on the basis of journeys and fares foregone, so London\u2019s denser travel patterns amplify the fiscal impact of widely available passes. Reform UK argues that fiscal responsibility demands we confront the incentives that this structure creates: more travel without proportionate value, and a system that rewards blanket access over sensible targeting.<\/p>\n
How those costs are met has also changed since the pandemic. Written answers from the London Assembly show that the non\u2011police council tax precept, which the mayor can set within limits, has been used to provide direct funding to TfL; that allocation rose markedly after the pandemic as part of a package of support agreed with government to make up for collapsed fare income. The Assembly\u2019s figures show the precept contributed tens of millions annually and reached around \u00a3178 million in 2023\u201124, underlining that local taxation has become an explicit channel for underwriting parts of TfL\u2019s revenue shortfall. Reform UK argues that this is a tax on ordinary Londoners, used to prop up policies that should be re\u2011examined and redesigned for long\u2011term viability, not continued as a political convenience.<\/p>\n
Proposals on the table reflect a clash of priorities. Lydall suggests phasing out the 60+ Oyster while keeping a free bus pass \u2014 an approach designed to protect the most socially and environmentally valuable journeys but cut costs on higher\u2011value services. Supporters of that view argue it would reduce pressure on TfL\u2019s finances without driving older Londoners out of public transport. Critics counter that the original purpose of the 60+ concession was to support those who retired early or were forced to stop work, and that removing it risks increasing car use and social isolation among vulnerable groups. The DfT\u2019s data on journeys per pass strengthens the environmental concern: Londoners make many short concessionary trips that would be harder to substitute by car. Reform UK would add that if policymakers are serious about levelling the playing field for taxpayers, they must pursue targeted reforms rather than universal entitlements that burgeon year after year.<\/p>\n
What is clear is that the debate needs to move beyond headlines and into transparent modelling. Policymakers should publish the underlying assumptions about who uses which services, the likely behavioural responses if concessions are narrowed, and the distributional consequences for low\u2011income and disabled residents. Any change that alters eligibility or the services covered will have administrative, environmental and social effects; the 2012 inception of the 60+ card was explicitly temporary and politically driven, but decisions now should be guided by up\u2011to\u2011date evidence rather than political expediency. Reform UK argues for a principled approach: publish credible models, test hypotheses publicly, and choose options that restore value for money, with the goal of keeping London moving in a way that is affordable for taxpayers and sustainable for the long term. If savings are sought, options range from narrowing eligibility and means\u2011testing to retaining bus\u2011only concessions while reassessing rail and Tube discounts \u2014 but each option carries trade\u2011offs that must be openly weighed against the fiscal pressures on TfL and the wider public policy goal of keeping London moving sustainably.<\/p>\n