Over-60s free travel costs taxpayers three times as much as fare dodgers
A rapidly ageing population means more than 1.5 million people now travel for free across London's buses, Tubes, trains and trams.
They do so via the 60+ Oyster Card, for those aged between 60 and 65, and the Freedom Pass, available to those aged 66 and older.
Telegraph analysis shows the 60+ Oyster Card alone will cost Transport for London (TfL) £135m this year, up from £60m in 2016. By 2027, costs are expected to reach £185m.
The Freedom Pass, which now has more than 900,000 users, costs £350m a year – a bill that is forecast to reach £498m by the end of the decade.
By comparison, traditional fare dodgers – such as those recently exposed by Tory MP Robert Jenrick for skipping barriers at Underground stations – cost the organisation £130m a year.
According to TfL, the majority of 60+ Oyster card holders (60pc) are still in paid employment, and one in five use the free travel to get to and from work.
This is despite the fact that those aged 60 and 64 earn an average salary of £42,000, double that of those aged between 20 and 24 at £24,000.
Reem Ibrahim, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: 'It is difficult to justify a system where the wealthiest age group in the country is having their travel funded by taxpayers.
'The 60+ Oyster card and Freedom Pass schemes are financially unsustainable, and are not targeted to those genuinely in need of support. We urgently need a more targeted approach, rather than entrenching an unfair and costly system.'
Liz Emerson, chief executive of the Intergenerational Foundation, a research charity, said: 'At the very least, the Freedom Pass should be aligned with the state pension age.
'It's a perfect example of intergenerational unfairness at work with younger workers having to subsidise their older colleagues free travel to work.'
The 60+ Oyster Card was first introduced by then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson in 2012.
It is funded by Sir Sadiq Khan's mayoral precept in council tax bills and the congestion charge – the daily fee for driving into central London.
Once Londoners reach the age of 66, they continue to receive free travel in the form of a Freedom Pass, which is also provided to eligible disabled people regardless of age. This £350m bill is shouldered on to London's 33 boroughs – 28 of which increased council tax by the legal maximum of 5pc in April.
The body that runs the scheme on behalf of the boroughs, has warned it will cost taxpayers £498m by 2029-30, a figure it described as 'unsustainable'.
Sir Sadiq, 54, who is five years away from qualifying for free travel himself, banned the use of 60+ Oyster cards and the Freedom Pass before 9am during the pandemic. The move generated an extra £15m in fares.
However, he rejected plans to increase the qualifying age for the 60+ Oyster card by six months a year for the next 12 years, allowing for it to be slowly phased out until it matched the qualifying age of the Freedom Pass.
A spokesman for Transport for London said: 'Both the Mayor and TfL are committed to making public transport in London as accessible, convenient, and affordable as possible.
'We regularly review our range of concessions to ensure that they continue to benefit Londoners, while also remaining affordable for TfL to operate.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fresh trade deal calls as Trump tariffs hit UK exports
British exports to the US have plummeted by 13.5 per cent, or £2bn, in the last three months compared to the same period in 2024. This significant decline is attributed to tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump, which include a 10 per cent levy on most UK goods and a 25 per cent levy on steel and aluminium. The fall occurred despite a US-UK trade agreement signed in June, which failed to include carve-outs for the steel industry. The British Chambers of Commerce said that the effects of the tariffs are clearly being felt by companies exporting to the US. Ministers are now facing calls to secure the outstanding part of the trade deal, particularly concerning the high tariffs on steel and aluminium exports.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
I watched the police arrest hundreds of peaceful protesters – I fear Britain is on a slippery slope towards authoritarianism
Last Saturday, I stood in Parliament Square and bore witness to the largest mass arrest in a single day in the last decade. The Metropolitan Police detained 532 peaceful protesters – an operation that will live in infamy. The demonstration was organised by Defend Our Juries, which had called on participants to sit peacefully on the Parliament Square lawn between 1pm and 2pm, holding signs that read: 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.' Organisers had expected around 500 people. In fact, thousands turned up. That morning, I had published an opinion piece in The Independent announcing that I would be there, holding a sign quoting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): 'Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.' I also quoted Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights, who warned that the UK government's proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation 'appears to constitute an impermissible restriction on those rights that is at odds with the UK's obligation under international human rights law'. When I arrived at 1pm, the square was surrounded by police. Hundreds of Metropolitan Police vans were stationed around the square, stretching as far as Oxford Street. Officers formed cordons to prevent people entering, but I managed to squeeze in. For nearly three hours, I stood in silence, holding my sign. The arrests began shortly after the scheduled sit-in concluded at 2pm. Officers began to position themselves to advance against the peaceful protesters seated on the lawn, and the few lying on the ground. Police reinforcements, including officers from Wales, swept into the square. Of the 532 arrests, 522 were for the simple act of holding placards supporting Palestine Action, under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The statistics are as shocking as the scenes I saw. According to the police's own figures, 112 of those detained were in their 70s, and 15 in their 80s. Nearly half were 60 or older, with an average age of 54. The police waged a relentless campaign against the protesters. Many were frail, elderly, or disabled. I saw priests and vicars in clerical collars led away in handcuffs. I saw retired nurses and NHS healthcare workers in scrubs being taken into police vans. One of them, Nick, was interviewed, and asked if he was afraid. His reply was very moving and and it almost brought me to tears: 'I'm absolutely terrified. I'm shaking. I'll be honest with you. I nearly cried earlier. The thought of doing something like this is just awful, but it's even more awful if we don't do it. I mean, I think to myself, you know, I've seen things, not on the mass media. I've seen things that cannot ever be unseen. And if we don't protest about it, we're culpable.' I also saw Jewish protesters critical of the Israeli government's actions being arrested alongside climate and human rights activists, including Chris Romberg, 75, a former British Army colonel and the son of a Holocaust survivor. No one was spared. One image that is seared in my mind: an elderly blind man in a wheelchair being dragged away by multiple officers as demonstrators shouted 'Let him go!' and 'Shame on you, shame on you!' I also watched the police arrest a frail woman in her 80s suffering from Parkinson's disease, while her son pleaded with the officers not to arrest her. The Metropolitan Police's motto is 'Working Together for a Safer London', but it is hard to see how dedicating so many resources to policing a peaceful protest and arresting frail and elderly citizens exercising such an ancient British freedom achieves this objective. Jonathan Porritt, former environmental adviser to King Charles, referred to the UK government's policy as 'absolutely standard authoritarian tactics'. 'I've come to the conclusion that the UK government is incontrovertibly complicit in this genocide not just through the continuing sale of arms to Israel, but because of its reckless refusal to follow guidance to seek to prevent genocide in countries like Gaza.' This is exactly how states erode democratic freedoms – not in one sudden lurch, but in small, calculated steps, until dissent itself becomes a criminal offence. The decision to ban Palestine Action was itself the product of a cynical political ploy. Home secretary Yvette Cooper bundled the group together with two violent white supremacist organisations – the neo-Nazi Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement – and forced MPs to vote for all or none. Many later admitted they felt they had no choice but to approve the ban. As Yasmine Ahmed, UK Director of Human Rights Watch, has warned: 'Proscribing Palestine Action is a grave abuse of state power and a terrifying escalation in this government's crusade to curtail protest rights.' The crucial issue here is that Palestine Action exposed what it – and many of us – see as the UK's complicity in the commission of genocide by Israel against the Palestinian people. Since December 2023, the RAF has flown more than 600 surveillance missions over Gaza, reputedly to locate hostages. This is why ordinary citizens – older people, clergy, disabled protesters – were criminalised for condemning what we believe to be genocide and demanding accountability. It also begs the question: who does prime minister Keir Starmer answer to – the UK electorate, Donald Trump, or the Israeli government and its lobbying organisations? Let me be clear: I unequivocally condemn Hamas for the atrocities of 7 October 2023. I call for an immediate and lasting ceasefire, and the unconditional release of all hostages. I was horrified seeing the images of an emaciated hostage. These crimes demand justice, but not through the carpet bombing of Gaza from North to South, the slaughter of civilians, and what is surely a deliberate policy of starvation of the population. Renowned human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who has defended Guantánamo Bay detainees, has drawn direct parallels between this crackdown and authoritarian measures elsewhere: 'Supporting Palestine Action's right to protest is not the same as supporting Palestine Action. It's time for Keir Starmer to remember why human rights exist.' Even conservative voices such as Andrew Neil, who strongly disagrees with Palestine Action's aims, have condemned the terrorism designation as absurd and a waste of police time and public resources. What I saw on Saturday was not public order policing. It was the suppression of lawful dissent, and the deliberate targeting of vulnerable people to send a chilling message: no cause is safe from criminalisation. This is the logic of authoritarianism – a steady erosion of freedoms under the pretext of security. I know what authoritarianism looks like. I was born in Nicaragua. In 1981, in Honduras, I faced Salvadorian death squads armed with M16 assault rifles. I had a terrifying experience that changed the course of my life. That experience taught me the importance of bearing witness. I came to Parliament Square to stand with ordinary citizens calling attention to the genocide against the Palestinian people – and the UK government's complicity. The UK government has embarked upon a dangerous path. The right to peaceful protest, the cornerstone of our democracy – from the suffragettes to the anti-apartheid movement – is under attack. The government has conflated dissent with terrorism, and the police have acted as enforcers of political orthodoxy rather than guardians of public safety. When Benjamin Disraeli said in 1845 that 'a Conservative government is an organised hypocrisy', who could have imagined that his words would describe so aptly the current Labour government and its authoritarian home secretary? The question we must ask ourselves is simple: When history judges us, will we be remembered as those who stood against injustice, or those who stood by in silence? Parliament Square on 9 August was not just a police operation. It was a test of our democracy – and it is a test we are in danger of failing.
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Street preacher who lost Spectator libel case to challenge High Court ruling
An Islamic street preacher who lost a High Court libel case against The Spectator and the magazine's associate editor has said he will be appealing against the decision. Mohammed Hegab, known online as Mohammed Hijab, sued the publication and Douglas Murray over an article that alleged he was a 'street agitator' who whipped up his followers and made disparaging comments about Hindus in the wake of the 2022 Leicester riots, which he denied. In a ruling last week, Mr Justice Johnson found that the article from September 2022 was 'defamatory' at common law, but dismissed the claim. He said: 'The publication has not caused, and is not now likely to cause, serious harm to the claimant's reputation. 'In any event, it is substantially true, and it is not materially inaccurate.' The judge also found that, as a witness, Mr Hegab was 'combative and constantly argumentative'. In his written judgment, he said: 'He sought, at every turn, to debate with counsel, responding to questions with rhetorical questions of his own, arguing his case rather than giving straightforward responses, and denigrating the character of the second defendant to whom he bears palpable personal animosity. 'I am satisfied that he lied on significant issues, with the consequence that his evidence, overall, is worthless.' In a YouTube video posted on Wednesday, Mr Hegab said he had 'learned a lot' from the process, adding that he would be appealing against the ruling. He said: 'I didn't expect it to go that way. I was very disappointed, very disheartened with the ruling.' He added: 'I will be appealing this judgment.' In the clip, Mr Hegab also accused the judge of being biased, adding that he had made the mistake of 'putting a bit too much trust in the justice systems in the West'. The defamation trial centred around a video Mr Hegab made amid violence between Muslims and Hindus in Leicester in the summer of 2022, which was sparked after India won a cricket match against Pakistan in August that year. In it, he said: 'If they believe in reincarnation … what a humiliation and pathetic thing for them to be reincarnated into some pathetic, weak, cowardly people like that. 'I'd rather be an animal. I'd rather be reincarnated as a grasshopper…' During the trial in London, Mr Hegab claimed it was clear from the context that he was not talking about Hindus, but Hindutva, an extremist far-right ideology. But Mr Justice Johnson said that Mr Hegab 'knew exactly what he was doing' and 'chose his words deliberately'.
