Ministers heading for union clash in bid for hi-tech rail travel
GBRX — a new tech agency within the forthcoming Great British Railways body — will draw inspiration from Google owner Alphabet to create 'a more dynamic, efficient and customer-focused railway', according to a briefing document seen by The Sunday Times.
The agency will help 'break the pattern of slow adoption that has historically held our railways back', according to comments from Lord (Peter) Hendy, the rail minister, in the document. 'Much of that delay is due to fragmentation, contractual complexities and the way our system operates.'
The document cites the roll-out of digital signalling, which took 20 years, as an example of the industry's 'inertia' and slow embrace of new technology.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reeves ‘eyes £5bn windfall from sale of seized cryptocurrency'
Rachel Reeves is eyeing up a £5bn pre-Budget windfall as the government considers selling off seized cryptocurrency to plug a hole in the public finances. The Home Office is reportedly working with police forces to offload at least £5bn worth of Bitcoin and other currencies taken from criminals. It is planning to develop a storage system for the currencies to handle their sale, it has emerged, as concerns about Labour's spending plans mount ahead of the autumn Budget. Home Office plans for a 'crypto storage and realisation framework' would allow law enforcement to securely store frozen digital currencies and sell them, The Sunday Telegraph reported. Ms Reeves has been left with a gap of at least £5bn to fill when she sets out the government's spending plans this autumn, with the government's chaotic U-turn on planned benefit cuts raising the likelihood of tax hikes. The chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer have left the door open to a wealth tax to cover the shortfall. As well as the £5bn black hole left by the welfare climbdown, the impact of sluggish economic growth and Donald Trump 's trade war could leave the Treasury scrambling to find as much as £20bn in tax hikes or spending cuts elsewhere. It is not known how much cryptocurrency law enforcement agencies currently have, but one 2018 raid saw 61,000 Bitcoin seized from a Chinese Ponzi scheme. The value of Bitcoin has surged since Mr Trump's return to the White House, meaning the haul could be worth more than £5.4bn. Responding to the suggestion Ms Reeves could sell the reserves, Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf said: 'This would be a terrible decision. The UK should be implementing Reform's Crypto Bill and increasing its Bitcoin reserves. 'Selling now will go down as a far worse decision than Gordon Brown's fire sale of our gold. 'The Westminster class are dinosaurs who don't get the future.' But Aidan Larkin, the chief executive of seizure company Asset Reality, told The Sunday Telegraph: 'There is oil under our feet in terms of digital assets, from an illicit perspective, that could have hundreds of millions of pounds coming back into the UK each year.' Bitcoin investors have been spurred on by Mr Trump, who has lent his support to the market both by promising new legislation and regulatory changes, but also even launching his own digital currencies. The leading cryptocurrency reached $120,000, marking both an all-time high and an important landmark for those who believe that bitcoin is undervalued.
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
Syria, Japan, Coke sugar and equal pay in women's sports
Follow on Apple or Spotify. Listen on the Reuters app. Residents say no gunfire heard Sunday morning in Syria's Sweida. Japan's exit polls show a defeat for the ruling party coalition in the upper parliament. The fight for equal pay in U.S. women's basketball is on court, while in the UK a female footballer reaches a milestone. Plus, Trump's push for Coke to use cane sugar. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter here. Listen to the Reuters Econ World podcast here. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit to opt out of targeted advertising. Further Reading Japan's ruling coalition likely to lose upper house majority, exit poll shows, opens new tab Calm reported in Syria's Sweida as tribal fighters said to withdraw Rains from Typhoon Wipha batter Hong Kong as it heads for mainland China Trump sues Wall Street Journal over Epstein report, seeks $10 billion Haitian immigrants in Ohio stand firm as Trump threatens deportation Coke's shift to cane sugar would be expensive, hurt US farmers A Nazi document trove raises questions for Argentina Arsenal smash record to make Smith first women's million-pound signing 'Pay them': As WNBA All-Star party wraps up, athlete pay comes into focus
The Guardian
44 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Outwitted': have water companies managed to sidestep Labour's bonus ban?
It started before the election. Against a background of growing fury about the conduct of the water companies, Labour promised to end the injustice of their executives getting bonuses while sewage was dumped in England's rivers and seas. In March 2024, Steve Reed, the then shadow environment secretary, said: 'Since the last election the water bosses have paid themselves £25m in bonuses. Labour will ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses until they have cleaned up their filth.' The policy became a significant part of the election campaign two months later. The manifesto promised: 'We will give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute our waterways.' Once in power, Labour went straight into action. One of the first big laws it passed was the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. The legislation contains provisions to ban performance-related payments to senior executives of water companies that repeatedly pollute England's waterways with sewage. Reed, now environment secretary, described it as a means to end the 'undeserved' payments. Under the act, the government banned six water firms including Thames Water from awarding bonuses for this financial year after seven major pollution incidents. However, it was not long before flaws in this plan began to emerge. Thames Water has faced particular challenges this year, with regular discussions over its possible collapse, even as customers' bills soar to pay for infrastructure. In February, as the legislation was going through parliament, a court ruled that Thames could proceed with a controversial £3bn loan from a group of creditors, at a 9.75% interest rate, in order to stabilise the company. In May, the chair of Thames, Adrian Montague, told MPs on the environment, food and rural affairs (Efra) committee that bosses were in line for 'substantial' bonuses linked to the loan, on the insistence of creditors. The company needed to pay the bonuses, he said, 'because we have to keep staff. It is a very competitive marketplace out there … If we are unable to pay bonuses, people will come knocking and try to pick out of us the best staff we have. That is not in customers' interests.' Soon afterwards, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to use the act to block Thames bosses taking bonuses. A week later, Reed appeared in front of the same committee, telling MPs that the bonuses had been withdrawn. At the same hearing Montague conceded in a letter that he may have misspoken when he said the bonuses were insisted upon by creditors. Reed told the committee that Thames Water had 'appeared to be attempting to circumvent that ban, calling their bonuses something different so they can continue to pay them'. Thames responded, saying that rather than having been withdrawn, the bonuses were paused. But in July the Guardian revealed that Thames had already paid bonuses totalling £2.46m to 21 managers on 30 April, and was refusing to claw the money back. Although it had paused the bonus scheme, or management retention plan (MRP), it did not promise that the next tranches would not also be paid, with the managers due to receive the same sum again in December and a further £10.8m collectively next June. Under the Water (Special Measures) Act, the only bonuses that can be stopped to those at the very top of the company, such as the chief executive, the chief financial officer and the chair. Chris Weston, the chief executive of Thames Water, has voluntarily declined his 300% bonus, because, he said, it would have been a 'distraction'. The water campaigner and former Undertones frontman, Feargal Sharkey, campaigned with Keir Starmer during the general election. But Sharkey has been left unimpressed by the bonus ban. He said: 'Driving forward eye-catching policies designed to do nothing more than grab headlines is no way to fix the biggest problem facing this country in the 21st century, the government has been outwitted and outmanoeuvred by the water companies.' Was the Thames package designed to circumvent the rules? Documents it released to the Efra committee show that when designing the payments package, the company hired top consultants and law firms including Rothschild & Co, Linklaters and Mercer to help it come up with a retention programme that was legally sound and would get past regulators. During Thames board meetings set up to discuss the bonuses, members asked 'if any pressure to waive bonus would be a risk generally or under the water (special measures) bill', according to the documents The board was told the bonuses were in line with the specifications of the legislation: 'The [remuneration] committee requested to reconfirm whether the MRP was consistent with the Water (Special Measures) Act and related Ofwat consultation and it was confirmed that the MRP was a retention payment rather than a bonus, and had no performance-related element. As such, it was not restricted by the Water (Special Measures) Act.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Thames Water and its lawyers and advisers believe they could pay its chief executive and chief financial officer under the scheme if they wanted, because they are retention payments. If this loophole remains open, any water company that breaches pollution rules could continue to pay out millions in bonuses to their executives, as long as the payments are not labelled performance related. In a letter to the Efra committee in July, Reed would not directly answer whether these bonuses would be banned. He said: 'Should Ofwat determine Thames Water have breached the performance-related payments rule, then I expect them to take appropriate enforcement action.' A Defra spokesperson followed up and said: 'It is for companies to follow these new rules and help rebuild trust with their customers.' Water companies can also get round the bonus ban by hiking the pay of executives to make up for the lack of compensation. The Guardian revealed this week that Southern Water has nearly doubled its chief executive Lawrence Gosden's annual pay package to £1.4m. Southern has already been allowed to increase average bills by 53% over the next five years and is appealing to the Competition and Markets Authority to charge more. Ofwat says it may bring forward a planned review of the bonus ban, currently set for 2027, to look at the scope of the rules and see whether the net needs to be widened. The regulator added that executive salaries were a matter for the water companies, but said it expected them to be appropriate when taking bonus bans and company performance into account. A Defra spokesperson said: 'Undeserved bonuses for water company bosses have now been banned as part of the government's plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. Any instances of companies trying to circumvent the new rules are completely unacceptable. 'The government will leave no stone unturned against any bosses being made these outrageous payments.' Southern Water said the rise in its chief executive's salary was not an attempt to evade the bonus ban but part of a 'long-term incentive plan' as part of an effort to turnaround the company. It added that the payments were 'common industry practice'. A Thames Water spokesperson said: 'The company's CEO is not party to the MRP and has received no payments. None of the retention payments have been funded by customers. Full details of the plan have been shared with our economic regulator and the Efra committee.'
