Greens promise ‘millennial rail card’ paid for by wealthy flyers

A railcard is a travel discount scheme. It reduces the price of train tickets for people who meet specific eligibility rules. The proposed “millennial railcard” matters because the Scottish Greens say people aged 31 to 49 are the only age group without a discounted rail fare scheme.

The card would offer one third off train fares across Scotland. For example, an eligible passenger buying a £30 fare would pay about £20 before any other conditions or restrictions. The Greens propose paying for the discount through a levy on frequent flyers.

The plan is not expected to be included in the Greens’ immediate Budget negotiations with the SNP. The party hopes to introduce it before 2031. It also expects greater rail use to reduce or eventually remove the card’s net cost, although that outcome is a prediction rather than a guaranteed result.

The proposed card would be available to people aged 31 to 49. Ross Greer described this group as the only one not currently offered a discounted rail fare scheme. The proposal therefore targets people in their 30s and 40s, rather than all train passengers.

Cardholders would receive one third off train fares across Scotland. For instance, a £15 eligible fare could fall to about £10, although the article does not specify ticket types, booking rules, or any limits on journeys. The discount would be delivered through a railcard rather than by making every train journey free.

The Greens say the card would support people taking trains and would form part of their wider public transport agenda. The party has previously played a key role in scrapping peak rail fares and supporting free bus travel for under-22s. The railcard is proposed, not yet available.

The proposed millennial railcard would cost about £47 million to provide, according to the Scottish Greens’ initial costings. That figure represents the expected price of offering the discount, not a confirmed final budget. The scheme’s actual cost could change depending on how many people use it and how often they travel.

The possible funding source is a frequent-flyer levy. The Scottish Trades Union Congress estimates that such a tax could raise around £50 million a year. On those figures, the potential annual revenue would be slightly higher than the initial estimated railcard cost.

The Greens also expect the financial gap to narrow as discounted fares encourage more rail use. Mr Greer said Scotland could quickly reach a point where the railcard costs no money. However, the article presents that as an expectation. It also says levy revenue would fall if fewer people took flights.

A frequent-flyer levy would place a charge on repeated air travel. The Scottish Greens propose using it to fund cheaper train travel while also limiting emissions. The idea is to make frequent flying more expensive for people whose travel creates more aviation emissions.

The party says the levy would target the richest and most frequent flyers. Ross Greer contrasted bankers flying between Edinburgh and Canary Wharf several times a week with families taking one holiday flight each year. Regular UK business flights are a particular target in his description of the policy.

The article does not give the levy’s exact rates or explain how individual flights would be counted. It reports an STUC estimate that the measure could raise around £50 million annually. The Greens expect that revenue to fall over time if higher costs lead frequent flyers to take fewer flights.

If introduced, the policy is intended to shift some journeys from planes or cars towards trains. A one-third rail fare discount could make rail travel more affordable for people aged 31 to 49. The Greens link this change to lower emissions and stronger public transport use.

The key mechanism would work in two directions. Cheaper train tickets could increase rail use, while a levy could make repeated flying more expensive. The Greens say this could reduce flights and emissions. They specifically criticise frequent UK business flights, which they describe as contributing to climate breakdown.

The financial effects are uncertain. More passengers could help the railcard become cheaper to fund, according to Mr Greer. At the same time, fewer flights would reduce frequent-flyer levy revenue. The policy is not planned for the next month’s Budget negotiations, and the Greens hope to introduce it before 2031.

The Greens say lifeline flights to Scotland’s islands would be exempt from the proposed levy. The article does not explain the exemption in detail. “Lifeline” suggests these routes provide essential connections for island communities, rather than optional frequent travel, so charging them in the same way could unfairly restrict access.

Other governments could fund discounted rail travel through general taxation or existing transport budgets. They could also use charges on pollution, road use, employers, or high-value travel. Another option would be to use income from fares, although higher fares on other passengers could weaken the benefit of the discount.

These alternatives involve different trade-offs. General taxation spreads the cost more widely. Targeted environmental charges place more of the cost on activities that create pollution. The article’s proposal combines a frequent-flyer levy with cheaper rail travel, but it is not yet an agreed policy or part of immediate Budget negotiations.

Taxes on pollution are designed to make activities with wider environmental costs pay more. In this proposal, frequent flyers would face an added charge. The aim is to discourage repeated flying and raise money for another transport option, rather than leaving climate-related costs outside the price of travel.

Subsidies work in the opposite direction. A one-third rail fare discount would make train travel cheaper for eligible passengers. Someone considering a flight or another form of transport might find a train more attractive when its price falls. The policy therefore combines a financial penalty with a public transport incentive.

This approach tries to change behaviour without banning travel. The Greens say it could limit emissions while supporting bus and train use. Its effects would depend on how people respond, how much rail use increases, and whether flights decline. The article does not quantify the emissions reduction or guarantee a particular financial result.