The London Assembly voted 14 to one on 5 November to urge the Mayor of London to instruct Transport for London to carry out a formal assessment of transport concessions for unpaid carers and to model a Carers’ Travelcard.
The motion, proposed by Keith Prince AM, follows a March 2026 report by the Assembly’s Economy, Culture and Skills Committee which found many unpaid carers in the capital are struggling to make ends meet. Mr Prince said unpaid carers were being ‘priced off London’s transport network’ and called for a Carers’ Travelcard offering free or discounted travel.
Committee findings highlight financial strain
The Assembly report found that 29 per cent of London’s unpaid carers live in poverty, compared with 21 per cent of non-carers, according to the Economy, Culture and Skills Committee. The committee heard evidence that transport is a major expense for carers, and that some families are forced to choose between paying for a young carer’s Zip Oyster Card and paying for food.
The committee’s first recommendation asked TfL’s assessment of transport concessions for unpaid carers to begin before the end of 2026. The motion passed by the Assembly expresses disappointment that the Mayor has decided not to carry out that assessment. It asks him to ensure any TfL appraisal would model a Carers’ Travelcard for unpaid carers receiving Carer’s Allowance or the carer element of Universal Credit.
In addition, the motion asks the Mayor to explore whether the Greater London Authority could establish a London-wide register of unpaid carers, and to set out how any concession might be funded without increasing fares for other Londoners. The motion notes that unpaid carers save the health and social care system billions of pounds every year and says a targeted concession would cost a fraction of the value they provide.
What the motion seeks and what is unclear
The Assembly motion formally requests that the Mayor instruct TfL to assess the options for a concession targeted at unpaid carers, including modelling the costs and eligibility criteria. It specifies eligibility for modelling as unpaid carers in receipt of Carer’s Allowance or the carer element of Universal Credit, reflecting the committee’s aim to target support where it is most needed.
At the time of the Assembly vote, the Mayor’s formal response to the motion had not been confirmed. No costing for a Carers’ Travelcard has been published. The motion therefore leaves a number of practical questions unresolved, including the scale of any concession, the precise eligibility threshold, and the proposed funding mechanism that would avoid a fares rise for other passengers.
The Assembly’s action underlines the financial pressures faced by a substantial cohort of Londoners who provide unpaid care to family members, friends or neighbours. The committee collected evidence indicating transport costs weigh heavily on household budgets for carers, and highlighted the particular difficulties experienced by families with young carers who need a Zip Oyster Card to travel for education or healthcare appointments.
The vote was strongly in favour of the motion, with 14 Assembly members supporting it and one opposing. The motion reflects the committee’s recommendations from its March 2026 inquiry into unpaid carers and seeks to move the matter on to TfL and the Mayor for further work.
Next steps depend on whether the Mayor will revise his position and instruct TfL to carry out the requested assessment. If he does, TfL would be required to produce modelling and options for a concession, and the Mayor would be expected to consider the GLA register proposal and the funding question. If the Mayor maintains his decision not to commission an assessment, the Assembly’s vote will be an expression of cross-party pressure rather than a change in policy.
For now the Assembly has publicly recorded its demand for further work on the issue and set a clear expectation that any assessment should investigate a targeted Carers’ Travelcard and present funding options that do not penalise other Londoners through higher fares.
