Freedom Pass to become buses only?

[bakerstreet]

Is there an official figure relating to how much each card costs the London councils per person ?

My calculation is:

£241.86 per card per year in financial year 2024-25.

Arrived at by taking:

£291,500,000 amount paid by London Councils in 2024/25
.
divided by
1,210,238 cards in circulation possibly including both disabled and 66/67 year old versions.

I have managed to find the following figures:

How many Freedom passes?
There are currently 1,210,238 Freedom Passes in use, according to London Councils.

Freedom Pass reviewed: councillors alarmed at soaring cost of London travel freebie

Exclusive: London Councils to examine likely impact of increasing qualifying age and limiting it to a free bus pass

www.standard.co.uk

How much is spent by London Councils?
£291.5m in financial year 2024-2025.

Freedom Pass row: Is it a fair perk or an expensive policy?

The Freedom Pass allows residents over 66 to travel across the capital for free.

www.bbc.co.uk

How many journeys are made using them?
(more than) 279m

Freedom Pass reviewed: councillors alarmed at soaring cost of London travel freebie

Exclusive: London Councils to examine likely impact of increasing qualifying age and limiting it to a free bus pass

www.standard.co.uk

What modes are they used for.
221m bus journeys and 44.7m on the Tube.

Freedom Pass reviewed: councillors alarmed at soaring cost of London travel freebie

Exclusive: London Councils to examine likely impact of increasing qualifying age and limiting it to a free bus pass

www.standard.co.uk

 

[Harratt4]

So what? If they'd spent 40 years paying a more realistic proportion in tax, we may not have such a high debt to GDP ratio today. Unfortunately they didn't, and we do. Governments must balance these issues, we don't get out what we put in equally by definition.

You’re right. That was the only possible solution… eye roll emoji.

 

[RT4038]

Those are both problems of not having a contingency to pay for challenging circumstances, and indeed the country spending money outside its means, which can also be described as not having collected enough tax receipts for future needs.

Well yes, but if only my great grandparents generation had not spent so much of the Country's wealth fighting the First World War, which then led to the expenditure of the Second World War..... etc etc. There is always criticism of the decisions of earlier generations.

Those are both problems of not having a contingency to pay for challenging circumstances, and indeed the country spending money outside its means, which can also be described as not having collected enough tax receipts for future needs.

Many of the younger generations of today have, in that era, had a much better standard of living in their childhoods than their parents and grandparents ever had. Paid for by lower tax take. Today's whinge reminds me of the Prodigal Son story. Nonetheless, there needs to be a sensible conversation on this, as there are clearly some things not right ( various concessions- prescriptions, travel in some areas, before state retirement age / people continuing to work after pension age not paying NI contributions etc) . There is also the issue of those who have saved for their retirement vs. those who haven't. Unfortunately, unless the State interferes in fine granularity into everybody's lives, there is always going to be some unfairness.

 

[Starmill]

You’re right. That was the only possible solution… eye roll emoji.

There are only three possible solutions, to raise the tax take, lower public spending or growing the economy. The second point has proven so damaging every time it has been tried in British living memory that it is as good as off the table, for sensible reasons. So that leaves only some combination of the first and third. The third is largely outside of the control of a government which has committed to keeping most of our existing law and foreign trading relationships as they are, such as the current one. Therefore...

 

[urbophile]

Leaving aside inter-generational squabbles, and claims and counter-claims of 'entitlement', for the moment, what are the overall benefits of allowing free travel? Without it, we are likely to have more older people stuck at home for more time: they are going to think twice before making a trip into town or exploring more widely. It's a bit like the argument for keeping museums and galleries free – yes a single payment to see an exhibition might not break the bank, but the habit of visiting just to see one or two objects now and again will be broken. A planned for excursion will be easily budgeted for by most people, but the ability to travel freely and explore the city, or make frequent spur-of-the-moment journeys, will be removed or at least made less likely. So people will become less mobile, less fit and active, hence NHS costs will increase; fewer shops will benefit from their trade, hence high streets will decline further. Wealthier pensioners who might have left their cars at home will be more likely to drive, adding to congestion on the roads and increasing the risk of accidents.

Additionally, suburban rail traffic usually runs under capacity outside peak hours (I know that is less true on some routes in London, especially on the Tube) so if the trains are running anyway and have spare seats why not let people use them for free?

None of this undermines the argument for offering similar concessions to more groups such as the unemployed. Or indeed to everyone. If Luxembourg can do it why not London and other regions of the UK?

 

[Falcon1200]

Whilst doing precisely sweet FA to avoid ending up in this situation…

And what precisely do you think I could and should have done to change this situation?

So what? If they'd spent 40 years paying a more realistic proportion in tax,

Is 42% on my earnings not a realistic proportion, plus VAT on those rated items I purchase, plus over £3000 a year Council Tax? How much more tax should I pay?

 

[Starmill]

Is 42% on my earnings not a realistic proportion, plus VAT on those rated items I purchase, plus over £3000 a year Council Tax? How much more tax should I pay?

Everyone needs to be paying rather more tax than today yes, and that certainly includes you and me. I don't think that conclusion has any escape holes - unless you want to withdraw state-funded services for things like healthcare and schools and make people pay for them as they use them. However this is all well off topic.

Leaving aside inter-generational squabbles, and claims and counter-claims of 'entitlement', for the moment, what are the overall benefits of allowing free travel? Without it, we are likely to have more older people stuck at home for more time: they are going to think twice before making a trip into town or exploring more widely. It's a bit like the argument for keeping museums and galleries free – yes a single payment to see an exhibition might not break the bank, but the habit of visiting just to see one or two objects now and again will be broken. A planned for excursion will be easily budgeted for by most people, but the ability to travel freely and explore the city, or make frequent spur-of-the-moment journeys, will be removed or at least made less likely. So people will become less mobile, less fit and active, hence NHS costs will increase; fewer shops will benefit from their trade, hence high streets will decline further. Wealthier pensioners who might have left their cars at home will be more likely to drive, adding to congestion on the roads and increasing the risk of accidents.

Additionally, suburban rail traffic usually runs under capacity outside peak hours (I know that is less true on some routes in London, especially on the Tube) so if the trains are running anyway and have spare seats why not let people use them for free?

None of this undermines the argument for offering similar concessions to more groups such as the unemployed. Or indeed to everyone. If Luxembourg can do it why not London and other regions of the UK?

I agree with those aims wholeheartedly yes. This is why I supported the £2 bus fare cap continuing and indeed extending, rather than increasing, as it's so much easier to understand and brings public transport into competitive territory for many types of trip. I would seek to restore the cap and make it apply everywhere for bus journeys under say 15km. The £2 fare avoids the downside of the free public transport approach where it picks up a lot of people who would otherwise have walked or cycled.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Just want to prefix my comment by saying that I'm open to thoughts regarding some sort of reform of both these concessionary passes (though I'd say the 60+ Oyster card is the more low-hanging fruit here - but of course it's provided for and funded by a very different mechanism than the Freedom Pass, even if the outcome for the user is very similar...).

But the idea that such a change would simply be accepted meekly, quietly and without furious backlash if only it were to presented in a particular manner is for the birds!

(Also, your middle sentence reads a little confused - the London Freedom Pass for older people is very much already valid for use elsewhere on buses in England as it functions as an ENCTS pass, as it has done since the ENCTS scheme started in 2008.).

The 60+ card is not an ENCTS card and it's not valid outside London.
Technically it's not even valid on non-TfL bus services within London.
You may find drivers accept it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I'm entirely aware of that... however I see why you've posted that - my comment about the 60+ Oyster and the Freedom Pass having a 'very similar outcome for the end user' (to paraphrase) is itself rather unclear - what I intended to say was 'very similar outcome for the end user within Greater London'.

 

[Falcon1200]

Everyone needs to be paying rather more tax than today yes, and that certainly includes you and me.

OK. So could you please advise what tax rates I should be paying, over and above 42% on my pension, 40% on savings interest, and over £3000 annual Council Tax?

I recognise, of course, that Government has to raise money in order to spend it, and I do not therefore object, at all and of course, to paying tax. The issue I have is that I do not trust, any Government of any colour at any level, to spend the money they take from us wisely. Two examples; The ludicrous Chagos deal made by the Labour Government, and (as I live in Scotland) the sums wasted by the SNP Government on their pointless (and largely ignored) Independence papers. More locally, my Mum pays Council Tax to Oxford City Council, who spent some widening the pavement at the High Street bus stop, only for gridlock to result when buses stopped there - They had to return and narrow the pavement again!

 

[Starmill]

OK. So could you please advise what tax rates I should be paying, over and above 42% on my pension, 40% on savings interest, and over £3000 annual Council Tax?

I recognise, of course, that Government has to raise money in order to spend it, and I do not therefore object, at all and of course, to paying tax. The issue I have is that I do not trust, any Government of any colour at any level, to spend the money they take from us wisely. Two examples; The ludicrous Chagos deal made by the Labour Government, and (as I live in Scotland) the sums wasted by the SNP Government on their pointless (and largely ignored) Independence papers. More locally, my Mum pays Council Tax to Oxford City Council, who spent some widening the pavement at the High Street bus stop, only for gridlock to result when buses stopped there - They had to return and narrow the pavement again!

No, because this is primarily a discussion of pension age benefits, so there's no need to go into detail about precisely what each specific group will or will not be paying in tax. It's simply that overall everyone will need to pay some more. How that's achieved isn't actually that important as long as it is.

 

[Harratt4]

There are only three possible solutions, to raise the tax take, lower public spending or growing the economy. The second point has proven so damaging every time it has been tried in British living memory that it is as good as off the table, for sensible reasons. So that leaves only some combination of the first and third. The third is largely outside of the control of a government which has committed to keeping most of our existing law and foreign trading relationships as they are, such as the current one.

Creating a sustainably funded social care system would have been the biggest single thing that should have been taken by the horns 25 years ago. We would not be having this conversion had society (you could blame the politicians, but they are only the members of any society who put themselves forward and get elected - which any one is free to do) done it.

It wasn’t palatable, so it was kicked forward to tomorrow and here we are.

No one in this country has systematically planned financially (individuals will have, obviously, from pension savings or explicitly via other routes, but not as a society as a whole) for their social care costs and councils are left to pick up the bill, today, from the income they get from current tax payers.

Yes that would mean today’s pensioners paying more from long earlier via higher taxes (but over a longer period), an insurance model could be implemented or the government could have said “too expensive, you need it, you pay for it”. I am not arguing for any of the range of possible solutions (and my list is a grotesque over simplification, but this isn’t an economics forum!) but there were options.

That wasn’t done so every penny from the back of every sofa now has to be found unless working people today are willing to pay upwards of 45% of their income in taxes. So I’m afraid…this has to go. Or what else is being gotten rid of instead?

 

[JamesT]

The usual reference point for those that want a higher tax and spend setup is Scandinavia. As I understand it, their top end rates are similar to ours, but their basic rates are higher and kick in earlier. Also their NI-equivalent is higher.
But whereas “tax the rich” makes a good slogan, “tax the middle earners more” not so much.
However, I don’t believe merely higher taxes would solve this problem. Pretty much the whole of Western Europe is having a similar crunch on their public finances with a cohort hitting retirement age and insufficient workers to fund them.

 

[Falcon1200]

It's simply that overall everyone will need to pay some more.

We will have to (continue) to disagree on this! Ever-increasing taxation to fund ever-increasing Government spending is unsustainable.

their social care costs and councils are left to pick up the bill, today, from the income they get from current tax payers.

Not so; My mother-in-law is now in a care home costing thousands of pounds per month and her house has been sold to pay for this.

(I would also like you to answer the question I put to you in Post #157, namely 'And what precisely do you think I could and should have done to change this situation?')

 

[Deerfold]

OK. So could you please advise what tax rates I should be paying, over and above 42% on my pension, 40% on savings interest, and over £3000 annual Council Tax?

If you're paying those rates you must have income significantly above average. Are you paying that on all of your income or is that just on a proportion of it?

 

[Starmill]

We will have to (continue) to disagree on this! Ever-increasing taxation to fund ever-increasing Government spending is unsustainable.

If you have the belief that your ideas are capable of reducing public spending when so many have tried and failed miserably then fair enough. However my view is based on the empirical evidence, that the public wouldn't tolerate it and it will never happen.

 

[Deerfold]

We will have to (continue) to disagree on this! Ever-increasing taxation to fund ever-increasing Government spending is unsustainable.

The fastest growing areas of spending are pensions, social care and health care.

That needs much higher taxes, rationalisation of health care resulting in lower life spans or significant immigration of young people.

Many people are opposed to each of these. Feel free to let me know if there's another option I've missed.

 

[Silver Cobra]

With the exception of London & whatever the PTE areas are now known as (like Merseytravel, TFGM ecc), is there any local authority that allows rail travel in there area to those using ENCTS issued by that authority?

While not allowing free travel, bus pass holders living in Central Bedfordshire can use their pass as a railcard-of-sorts, getting a 50% discount on select Thameslink and Great Northern services.

Bus pass applications - apply for an older person's or disabled person's bus pass | Central Bedfordshire Council

If you’re of the now equalised state pension age for both men and women you are eligible for an older person’s bus pass

www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk

A concessionary bus pass issued by us also allows you to rail travel for half the normal adult fare on the following rail services:

• Thameslink and Great Northern trains between Sandy, Biggleswade and Arlesey and any station as far as Hadley Wood, Crews Hill and Royston
• Thameslink trains between Bedford and Elstree & Borehamwood and stations in between

Discounts are valid from 10am on Mondays to Fridays and all day Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays. At present, discounted tickets may only be purchased from any staffed ticket office in Central Bedfordshire.

These concessions are not available when buying tickets online. You must carry your valid concessionary travel pass with you throughout the journey and must show it on demand.

No additional discount is available with any railcard.

If you are purchasing an additional full price (or railcard discounted) ticket to continue your journey beyond the above named stations, you must ensure you are travelling on a train that actually stops at those stations. A discounted rail ticket, purchased with your bus pass, used in conjunction with a full price ticket for the remainder of the journey is not valid on a fast train that passes through those specific stations without stopping.

We're not liable for any penalty fares incurred if these rules are not observed.

 

[monxton]

I am a member of a generation for which it is almost impossible to buy a house.

This assertion is overdone. Yes it is hard, but it has always been hard. My DD bought in Yorkshire without an inheritance. She works in tech, so reasonably well paid. London is exceptional, as in so many aspects, but that's why people commute, and have done for generations.

Personally I'd not be at all bothered by a fall in the "value" of my home, because it has the same value to me whatever the market prices it at. It's the second-home owners and buy-to-let landlords who would would be affected, and if they didn't own so much housing there would be more available to younger people.

 

[Harratt4]

We will have to (continue) to disagree on this! Ever-increasing taxation to fund ever-increasing Government spending is unsustainable.



Not so; My mother-in-law is now in a care home costing thousands of pounds per month and her house has been sold to pay for this.

(I would also like you to answer the question I put to you in Post #157, namely 'And what precisely do you think I could and should have done to change this situation?')

You personally, I am not suggesting anything, but as a population as a whole we should have grabbed the aging population ticking time bomb by the horns.

I am not suggesting you should have done anything in isolation as you could have saved up enough to fund every penny of your social care needs (you may have for all know) but it would have required everyone alongside you to have done the same for it to have made a difference.

Again, this is a very mature (excuse the pun) debate because it is about populations as a whole; not individuals!

 

[Starmill]

With the exception of London & whatever the PTE areas are now known as (like Merseytravel, TFGM ecc), is there any local authority that allows rail travel in there area to those using ENCTS issued by that authority?

In addition to the Hertfordshire one, here's an older thread here about a Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire area one: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-and-bus-passes.257976

I do not know if it's ongoing today though others may do.

I'm sure I recall a Dorset one, but perhaps it was just a low season offer like the Cambrian ones.

 

[Falcon1200]

Are you paying that on all of your income or is that just on a proportion of it?

On that above the relevant thresholds! (Which I worked exceedingly hard, and saved responsibly, to achieve).

That needs much higher taxes

There are ways of increasing tax revenue without increasing taxation rates, not that the current Government seems to understand this. And there are also ways of reducing spending without adversely affecting a single UK citizen, cancelling the absurd Chagos deal being an example.

You personally, I am not suggesting anything, but as a population as a whole we should have grabbed the aging population ticking time bomb by the horns.

Understood, thanks.

 

[PeterC]

In addition to the Hertfordshire one, here's an older thread here about a Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire area one: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-and-bus-passes.257976

I do not know if it's ongoing today though others may do.

I'm sure I recall a Dorset one, but perhaps it was just a low season offer like the Cambrian ones.

I have always thought that an ENCTS card should double as a railcard.

Wales and Scotland would need to issue separate 60+ and pensioner cards of course. A separate paid for 60+ railcard could remain.

 

[Deerfold]

On that above the relevant thresholds! (Which I worked exceedingly hard, and saved responsibly, to achieve).

So, on the total, considerably less than 42%? I don't doubt you did, but many work hard without being able to do that - especially with housing costs like today's.

There are ways of increasing tax revenue without increasing taxation rates, not that the current Government seems to understand this. And there are also ways of reducing spending without adversely affecting a single UK citizen, cancelling the absurd Chagos deal being an example.

Which no UK government seems to have managed. In terms of total government spending, the Chagos deal, good or bad, is tiny. The amount spent on it each year would keep the NHS going for less than 4 hours.

In addition to the Hertfordshire one, here's an older thread here about a Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire area one: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-and-bus-passes.257976

I do not know if it's ongoing today though others may do.

I'm sure I recall a Dorset one, but perhaps it was just a low season offer like the Cambrian ones.

South Yorkshire give half fare.

Free Senior bus pass - Travel South Yorkshire

Apply for a free senior bus pass on first issue to help you travel around South Yorkshire for free

www.travelsouthyorkshire.com

Benefits

• Free travel on local bus services and trams within South Yorkshire between 0930 and 2300 on weekdays, and at any time during the weekend and on Bank Holidays
• Half fare on Northern train services (does not apply to advance purchase tickets/fares, only applicable to single and day returns) for travel between stations on the South Yorkshire rail network between 0930 and 2300 on weekdays, and at any time during the weekend and on Bank Holidays

They used to get free rail travel including journeys into or out of West Yorkshire.

'We shall not be stopped': Freedom Riders force Northern Rail to meet over free travel cuts

Using tactics familiar from the American civil rights movement, pensioners in Barnsley have forced a rail company to listen by staging regular protests in South Yorkshire. Ben Blosse was at their latest demonstration

www.theguardian.com

For the group are the now-famous South Yorkshire “Freedom Riders”, a protest group formed back in March after free travel for pensioners and disabled people was taken away in the county’s transport committee’s bid to reduce a £243,000 transport deficit.

 

[Bevan Price]

Leaving aside inter-generational squabbles, and claims and counter-claims of 'entitlement', for the moment, what are the overall benefits of allowing free travel? Without it, we are likely to have more older people stuck at home for more time: they are going to think twice before making a trip into town or exploring more widely. It's a bit like the argument for keeping museums and galleries free – yes a single payment to see an exhibition might not break the bank, but the habit of visiting just to see one or two objects now and again will be broken. A planned for excursion will be easily budgeted for by most people, but the ability to travel freely and explore the city, or make frequent spur-of-the-moment journeys, will be removed or at least made less likely. So people will become less mobile, less fit and active, hence NHS costs will increase; fewer shops will benefit from their trade, hence high streets will decline further. Wealthier pensioners who might have left their cars at home will be more likely to drive, adding to congestion on the roads and increasing the risk of accidents.

Additionally, suburban rail traffic usually runs under capacity outside peak hours (I know that is less true on some routes in London, especially on the Tube) so if the trains are running anyway and have spare seats why not let people use them for free?

None of this undermines the argument for offering similar concessions to more groups such as the unemployed. Or indeed to everyone. If Luxembourg can do it why not London and other regions of the UK?

I would add that I still have pretty good eyesight, but many older people do not. If "free" travel encourages them to use public transport, rather than drive, then it is a very good idea.

 

[Tester]

In addition to the Hertfordshire one.....

I'm not aware of a Hertfordshire one.

Were you meaning the Central Bedfordshire one mentioned above, or is there something I don't know about?

 

[jfollows]

Today’s Standard reports that this bus-only idea has been killed, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tra...-block-review-travel-london-tfl-b1266528.html

The Standard first revealed the threat to the Freedom Pass last week.
Councillors on London Councils’ transport committee asked for officials to establish the impact on Londoners of changing the rules on who qualifies for a Freedom Pass - currently all London residents aged 66 or older and disabled Londoners.
There was also a plan to consider whether the Freedom Pass could be limited to providing only free bus travel, rather than also Tube and train travel (other than during the morning peak) across Greater London.

On Tuesday The Standard revealed that more than 50,000 people had signed a petition opposing the review.
The threat to the Freedom pass threatened to become a massive issue on the doorsteps in the run up to the May borough elections.
Some Labour sources felt they had been “bounced” into authorising the proposed review by officials after some Lib-Dem councillors raised concerns at the bill having to be picked up by town halls at a time many council finances are in dire straits.

Londoners, including those with free passes, will doubtless continue to complain about their public transport which is simply in a different league ahead of most of the rest of the country.

 

[Broucek]

Londoners, including those with free passes, will doubtless continue to complain about their public transport which is simply in a different league ahead of most of the rest of the country.

True but we also have hugely clogged roads....

 

[90019]

True but we also have hugely clogged roads....

And the rest of the country doesn't?

 

[aron2smith]

And the rest of the country doesn't?

Not anywhere to the same extent. Doesn't help that London's transport system is really fragmented around the edges in the commuter areas, leaving larger numbers of people than it looks, with no choice but to drive everywhere. Most parts of the country at least have some space between each town or city. South East England isn't like that. Bristol, Birmingham and Liverpool amongst others are busy but things actually move at a decent pace at least. Places like Devon, rush hour barely exists at all outside Exeter.

 

[Starmill]

Not anywhere to the same extent. Doesn't help that London's transport system is really fragmented around the edges in the commuter areas, leaving larger numbers of people than it looks, with no choice but to drive everywhere. Most parts of the country at least have some space between each town or city. South East England isn't like that. Bristol, Birmingham and Liverpool amongst others are busy but things actually move at a decent pace at least. Places like Devon, rush hour barely exists at all outside Exeter.

That sounds like every big city in the country to be honest. Have you actually attempted to drive in Manchester or Birmingham?