The SRC said the policy also risked forcing small shops which are not covered by the proposed legislation to be uncompetitive.

“Scottish consumers benefit from the most affordable food prices in western Europe,” MacDonald-Russell added.

“We know food price inflation is a problem, but the best model to deal with it is the one we have right now and price caps are going to make that worse.

“It is giving a false promise that it is going to be able to help with something.

“In reality, there is as good a chance it is going to make the overall cost of a shopping basket higher, because the cost of the scheme as well as the cap have to be absorbed by businesses.”

It is thought the proposals would require changes to the UK Internal Markets Act of 2020, which was brought in after Brexit to prevent trade barriers and regulatory divergence between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as powers returned from the EU.

The Scottish Government said helping people with the cost of living was a “top priority”.

A spokesperson added: “Ministers have welcomed engagement with stakeholders, including retailers, food producers and farmers on proposals for food price controls.

“A consultation will launch shortly for further views.”

Key Points

Thailand’s journey to join the OECD by 2028 involves rethinking its approach to inequality. Policymakers must broaden their perspective beyond taxation and welfare. They need to integrate competition policy as a core strategy to tackle inequality effectively. This shift requires fostering a fairer market environment where small and medium-sized enterprises can thrive, ensuring that economic growth benefits all segments of society.

These are not the same problem, and the failure to distinguish between them is a large part of why so little has changed.

The uncomfortable reality is this: Thailand’s wealthiest households are not simply outearning everyone else. In many cases, they are the same conglomerates that dominate the industries they operate in, from telecommunications and energy to beverages, retail and airport concessions, with too little regulatory friction to prevent market dominance from converting directly into personal fortune. 

In markets with few genuine competitors, the winners do not just accumulate wealth. They tend to keep it, almost regardless of how well they actually perform.

Telecom offers the clearest illustration.

In 2023, True Corporation and DTAC, then Thailand’s second and third largest mobile operators, completed a merger that reduced the number of major carriers from three to two. That alone warranted serious scrutiny. Instead, the deal fell into a regulatory gap. 

The Trade Competition Commission does not oversee telecom mergers, and the sector’s dedicated regulator, the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, determined that the transaction did not technically qualify as an “acquisition.” 

The two companies had described it as an “amalgamation,” a legal distinction that placed the deal outside the commission’s approval authority. Rather than being approved or rejected, the merger was simply acknowledged, with conditions attached. No regulator with clear authority ever rendered a formal judgment on it.

The consequences followed a predictable pattern. True Corporation’s average revenue per user has risen since the merger, while cheaper mobile plans have become harder to find. That outcome is not incidental. It is what tends to happen when competitive pressure is removed and no regulatory body is positioned to notice or respond.

This is a pattern, not an isolated case.

True Corporation is partly owned by Charoen Pokphand Group, Thailand’s largest conglomerate, with interests spanning agriculture, food, retail, automobiles and telecommunications. Its leaders, the Chearavanont brothers, rank near the top of the country’s rich list. Close behind is Sarath Ratanavadi of Gulf Development, which is also the principal shareholder behind AIS, the country’s other major mobile carrier. Add Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi’s beverage business and the Srivaddhanaprabha family’s airport duty-free operations, and a small number of firms account for a striking share of the country’s concentrated wealth.

This is not merely a matter of historical accumulation. It is recurring in the industries that will shape Thailand’s coming decade. When virtual banking licenses were approved in mid-2025, the successful applicants included CP Group, two of the country’s established banks and PTT, the state oil company. When the Board of Investment approved data center projects in early 2026, five of the seven were linked to True Corporation, Gulf Development or AIS. The names change little, even as the frontier does.

Why this matters more than the inequality figures alone

The figures themselves are stark. Thailand’s wealthiest one percent hold roughly a third of national wealth, and the next nine percent hold close to another third, leaving the bottom half of the population with approximately 3.5 percent. 

But figures of this kind tend to invite responses centered on taxation or redistribution. That response misses the underlying mechanism. If weak competition enforcement is the root cause, redistributing income after the fact addresses a symptom while leaving the structure that produces the imbalance largely untouched.

Some scholars trace this dynamic to the Prayuth Chan-o-cha era, arguing that Thailand has drifted toward a form of hierarchical capitalism in which a small circle of conglomerates now effectively shapes national economic direction. 

The comparison with South Korea and Taiwan is instructive. Large firms in those economies also received substantial state support, but that support came with defined expectations: industrial upgrading, export performance, alignment with long-term national strategy. Thai conglomerates have often gained comparable scale and protection without equivalent obligations attached.

What genuine reform would require

The OECD’s 2025 review identified concrete, addressable weaknesses: opaque procedures for selecting Trade Competition Commission board members, unclear investigative rules and, most consequentially, ambiguous jurisdiction between regulators. 

That last weakness is precisely what allowed the True-DTAC merger to escape meaningful review. When a transaction can avoid scrutiny simply by being classified under the right legal term, the underlying law is not functioning as intended.

Thailand does not need a campaign against large enterprise. It needs a Trade Competition Commission with clear, enforceable jurisdiction over sectors, such as telecommunications, that currently fall outside its reach through regulatory ambiguity. It needs transparent oversight of who gains control of emerging markets, including virtual banking and data infrastructure, before those markets settle around the same handful of family-controlled firms. And it needs to stop treating OECD accession as a matter of technical compliance, when the more difficult obstacle is a political economy that has, for years, quietly determined who is permitted to compete and who is simply positioned to collect the returns.

Address the competition problem, and the wealth problem begins to correct itself. Leave it unaddressed, and Thailand may join every international body it seeks membership in without the underlying concentration shifting at all.

WINDSOR, England — The Prince and Princess of Wales have returned to Windsor after wrapping up their traditional late-summer holiday in Scotland, marking the end of the family’s break and the start of preparations for Prince George’s first term at Eton College.

William and Catherine spent the past several weeks at Balmoral Castle in the Scottish Highlands alongside King Charles III and Queen Camilla, a tradition dating back to the reign of Queen Victoria and one that became particularly associated with the late Queen Elizabeth II. The couple has now headed south to their primary residence at Forest Lodge in Windsor Great Park with their three children, Prince George, 13, Princess Charlotte, 11, and Prince Louis, 8, as the family prepares for the start of the new school year in September.

The most significant change facing the household is George’s transition into secondary education. After spending recent years at Lambrook School in Berkshire alongside his younger siblings, George is set to begin his first term at Eton College, following the same educational path taken by both his father and his uncle, Prince Harry. Kensington Palace confirmed the decision earlier this year, stating simply, “Kensington Palace can confirm that Prince George will attend Eton College from this September.”

The choice ends years of speculation over whether George would attend Eton, William’s alma mater, or Marlborough College, the school Catherine attended alongside her siblings Pippa and James Middleton. According to royal commentator Charlotte Griffiths, William was reportedly pushing hard for Eton throughout the decision-making process, telling reporters, “I think that on this one, William was pushing hard for Eton, and they did flip-flop over the issue of where to send George.” Some reporting has suggested Catherine initially had reservations about the boarding school route, with one source indicating she would have preferred a day school for her eldest son, though she is now said to be fully supportive of the decision.

Eton, an all-boys boarding school educating students ages 13 to 18, charges annual tuition of roughly 63,298 pounds, or about 84,000 dollars. Founded centuries ago, the institution has educated 20 British prime ministers, including David Cameron and Boris Johnson, along with William, who attended from 1995 to 2000 and became the first senior member of the royal family to attend the school. William earned 12 GCSEs and three A-levels during his time there, including an A in Geography, a B in History of Art and a C in Biology.

George’s new school carries a practical advantage tied directly to the family’s living situation. Eton sits just across the River Thames from Windsor Castle, roughly a 15-minute drive from Forest Lodge, the eight-bedroom Georgian mansion the family moved into in October 2025 after relocating from the smaller, four-bedroom Adelaide Cottage. The proximity means George will be able to return home relatively easily on weekends, including for family dinners or Sunday lunch following sports fixtures, according to royal commentary reported by Hello! magazine.

Meanwhile, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis will continue their education at Lambrook School, a co-educational day and boarding school spanning 52 acres near Ascot, Berkshire, that has become known for accommodating high-profile students with discreet security arrangements.

The family’s return to Windsor comes just days after Prince Harry and Meghan Markle arrived back in the United Kingdom with their own children, Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5, following more than six years based primarily in California. William and Catherine have made no public comment regarding Harry and Meghan’s return, maintaining the same silence that has generally characterized the relationship between the two households in recent years. Harry and Meghan have reportedly settled on the Cotswolds region as their new UK base, with their children also set to begin school there this September.

It remains unclear how long the Sussex family intends to remain in Britain. Reports have pointed to several possible factors behind their return, including concerns over King Charles’ ongoing cancer treatment, Harry’s stated desire to repair his relationship with his family, and a series of public engagements Harry is expected to attend in the coming months, including the WellChild Awards in London on Sept. 5 and events leading up to the 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham.

For now, both branches of the royal family are entering a season defined by significant transition, with William and Catherine’s household adjusting to George’s new chapter at Eton even as questions continue to swirl around the broader implications of Harry and Meghan’s return to British soil after years away.

Apple raised the price of its Apple TV streaming service Friday to 14.99 dollars per month, up from 12.99 dollars, marking the fourth increase to the service’s subscription price in four years and pushing the monthly cost to roughly three times what Apple charged when the platform launched in 2019.

The new pricing took effect Aug. 28 for new subscribers, while existing customers will be notified approximately one month before the higher rate applies to their accounts, according to Apple. The annual subscription price also rose, climbing to 119 dollars from 99 dollars. Apple One, the bundle that packages Apple TV together with iCloud storage, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple News+ and Apple Fitness+, saw its individual-tier monthly price increase to 21.95 dollars from 19.95 dollars.

Apple has not publicly attributed the increase to any single factor, but coverage of the price hike from outlets including TechCrunch, Variety and AppleMagazine points to several converging reasons behind the decision.

The most immediate driver is Apple’s rapidly expanding sports programming, which has meaningfully changed the cost structure behind the service. According to AppleMagazine, Apple ended its separate MLS Season Pass model this year and folded every Major League Soccer match directly into the standard Apple TV subscription at no additional charge. Apple TV also became the exclusive U.S. streaming home for the 2026 Formula 1 season, covering every Grand Prix weekend along with practice, qualifying and sprint sessions, while continuing to carry Friday Night Baseball. Unlike scripted television, which can remain in a catalog for years after a single production cost, live sports require ongoing rights agreements and recurring seasonal investment, a distinction industry analysts have pointed to as a key factor behind rising streaming costs generally.

A second factor is the broader trend of price increases across the streaming industry. TechCrunch noted that Netflix raised its prices in March, and rival service Peacock announced its own price increase earlier this month, a move that made Peacock’s ad-supported tier the most expensive of its kind among major U.S. streaming platforms, according to TVLine. Apple’s increase brings its pricing closer in line with competitors that have similarly moved to raise rates in 2026.

A third contributing factor involves broader cost pressures across Apple’s hardware and technology businesses. TechCrunch noted that ongoing shortages of RAM and other components, driven in part by surging demand for hardware used to build artificial intelligence data centers, have pushed up costs across the tech industry more broadly, a dynamic that has coincided with Apple’s decision to raise prices on multiple products and services this year.

A fourth reason relates to Apple’s continued investment in original programming and its expanding content library. Apple TV has added titles including “F1,” the racing drama tied to its motorsports coverage, and a new fourth season of “Ted Lasso,” the company said. The service has also continued to build a reputation for prestige programming, earning multiple nominations at the 2026 Emmy Awards for shows including “Severance” and “The Morning Show.” Apple has framed its growing catalog as justification for the platform’s rising price, even though the service continues to lack the lower-cost, ad-supported tier that most major competitors now offer.

A fifth factor is timing tied to Apple’s broader corporate calendar. The price increase arrives just ahead of the company’s Sept. 9 product event in Cupertino, California, where Apple is expected to unveil new iPhones, updated Apple Watches and, according to widespread industry speculation, its first foldable phone. The event will also mark the first major product launch overseen by incoming chief executive John Ternus, who formally takes over from Tim Cook on Sept. 1, with Cook transitioning to the role of executive chairman. Apple’s announcement of that leadership change earlier this year specifically noted that its services division, which includes Apple TV, has represented a “major focus area” throughout Cook’s tenure, underscoring the growing financial importance of subscription revenue to the company’s overall business.

Apple TV first launched in November 2019 at 4.99 dollars per month, a price the company held for nearly three years while working to build out its subscriber base and content library. Since then, the price has climbed steadily: to 6.99 dollars in 2022, to 9.99 dollars in 2023, to 12.99 dollars in 2025, and now to 14.99 dollars this year. For subscribers looking to soften the impact of the latest increase, the annual plan remains the more cost-effective option, working out to just under 10 dollars per month at 119 dollars for the year, compared with nearly 180 dollars over 12 months under the new month-to-month rate.

The government is paying more to borrow through newly issued debt than at almost any point in the past three decades, a reminder of the tough fiscal backdrop against which prime minister Andy Burnham and chancellor John Healey are drawing up their first budget, now less than two months away.

The average yield on UK government bonds, or gilts, sold to investors so far this year is 3.8 per cent, according to analysis of figures published by the Debt Management Office, the body responsible for selling the government’s debt. That is not far short of levels last seen in 1998, when the average yield on newly issued debt exceeded 4 per cent.

Yields have held close to that near three-decade high for the past two years, the product of stubborn inflation, investor unease about persistently high public borrowing across the rich world, and hundreds of billions of pounds worth of gilt sales by the Bank of England as it unwinds the bond holdings built up under quantitative easing.

The rising cost of compensating the investors who buy that debt has heaped fresh pressure on the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that debt interest spending will exceed £100 billion a year, the equivalent of the defence and Home Office budgets combined, until at least the 2030s.

Public borrowing has already overshot official forecasts this financial year, and economists have warned the pair that the headroom against the government’s main fiscal rule, which requires day-to-day spending to be funded by tax revenues, may have more than halved from £23.7 billion because of rising gilt yields and the higher energy prices that have followed the outbreak of war in the Middle East six months ago.

That likely erosion has fuelled speculation about tax rises or spending cuts at the budget on 28 October. Burnham said last week that he would not be “unrealistic” about the “challenging” state of the public finances, and refused to rule out tax increases.

Oil, inflation and the Bank

Britain has lived with persistently high inflation since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which forced the Bank of England to lift interest rates to a peak of 5.25 per cent. Bank Rate has since fallen to 3.75 per cent.

Markets began the year expecting several rate cuts in 2026. That calculation changed in February, when the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran. The conflict has left the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed for more than six months, sending oil and gas prices spiralling and keeping central banks cautious, and investors now think one or two rate rises could come before the end of the year.

James Smith, developed markets economist at ING, said: “This year it’s been all about oil. For all the talk about Burnham and what he means for the bond market, government borrowing costs have been driven almost singularly by energy prices and their perceived impact on the Bank of England.”

Tomasz Wieladek, chief European macro strategist at T Rowe Price, said: “The UK’s fiscal fundamentals aren’t bad relative to other countries. But the big difference is poor inflation performance. That is the true reason why gilt yields are higher than in other countries, as investors now require inflation compensation.”

Longer-dated debt has borne the brunt of investor nerves about the appetite of governments in rich economies to rein in borrowing, with 30-year bond yields touching multi-decade highs in August. Britain, however, remains on course to bring down its deficit at the fastest pace in the G7 in the coming years under plans set out by Healey’s predecessor, Rachel Reeves, and some analysts expect gilt yields to fall back before the budget.

The Treasury said: “The OBR will publish its updated forecast alongside the budget in October and we will not comment on rumour, speculation or proposals about its contents ahead of then.”

---

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of MARA either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Sam Jones and Gary Adshead discuss the task ahead for Small Business Development Corporation commissioner Saj Abdoolakhan.

Plus: Hancock hub to take Strike’s gas; Bruce Rock to expand factory; and Ex-Eagle denies duty in liquidated company.

Private sector lender HDFC Bank is set for a leadership change as Sashidhar Jagdishan prepares to retire as managing director and CEO at the end of his current term on October 26, 2026. For investors, the transition comes after nearly six years during which the bank completed its landmark merger with HDFC Ltd, while its shares struggled to regain the levels seen when Jagdishan took charge.

With Jagdishan set to retire at the end of October, the focus now shifts to his successor, the bank’s growth trajectory and the factors that could influence the stock going forward.

The key questions for investors include the pace at which HDFC Bank can improve its deposit mobilisation, restore margins and manage the balance sheet following the HDFC Ltd merger, alongside its ability to deliver stronger growth.

Anand Dama, Anant Dumbhare, Yuval Aiya and Manav Mehta, analysts at Nuvama Institutional Equities, believe Jagdishan’s resignation could be a cleaner outcome for the bank, as securing a further term from the RBI may have been difficult amid the recent operational and governance lapses.

The development also gives the board more time to identify a successor, according to Nuvama. The brokerage said Mr Bharucha, the bank’s deputy managing director (DMD), could emerge as a pragmatic short-term transition candidate for around two years, given the RBI’s 15-year cap on board tenure, while an internal or external successor is groomed.

Alternatively, HDFC Bank could appoint a credible external candidate as MD & CEO for a full three-year term. However, Nuvama said such a process could take five to six months and prolong the uncertainty around the leadership transition.
Nuvama expects near-term weakness in the stock until greater clarity emerges on succession. The brokerage has retained its ‘BUY’ rating on HDFC Bank but cut its target price to ₹875 from ₹1,025, citing the stock’s steady de-rating over the past year.The revised target price is based on 1.6 times estimated September 2028 standalone bank adjusted book value (ABV), along with subsidiary valuation of ₹127. Nuvama noted that the stock was trading at around 1.3 times September 2028E ABV, which it considers inexpensive for a franchise of HDFC Bank’s strength.

“The stock has seen steady de-rating for a year and could remain weak until the board provides clarity on a credible successor,” the Nuvama analysts said.

However, they do not view the CEO’s exit as a fundamental impairment to HDFC Bank’s otherwise strong franchise and recovery story following the difficult merger with HDFC Ltd.

A credible internal transition led by Mr Bharucha could accelerate business normalisation, Nuvama said, while a strong external appointment could take longer but potentially provide a broader governance reset and scope for a longer-term re-rating, similar to the experience of IndusInd Bank.

Ishank Gupta, analyst, Banking and Financial Services, Choice Institutional Equities, said the leadership transition comes after an unsettled period for the lender, with the CEO’s decision not to seek a third term adding another layer of uncertainty for investors.

“It has been an unsettled twelve months at India’s largest private sector lender, and Saturday’s announcement that CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan will not seek a third term closes it on an uncomfortable note,” Gupta said.

The governance shocks

The year turned in March, when part-time chairman Atanu Chakraborty resigned with immediate effect, stating that certain practices at the bank were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics. The stock shed close to seven billion dollars in market value, and the Reserve Bank of India publicly affirmed the bank as well governed.

Two days later, three senior executives were dismissed after an internal probe into the alleged mis-selling of Credit Suisse Additional Tier-1 bonds to non-resident clients through the Dubai and Bahrain operations. The Dubai Financial Services Authority had already barred the DIFC branch from onboarding new clients.

A separate vigilance review examined an alleged ₹0.5 crore payment to MSRDC linked to a government deposit. Both matters have since been closed, and two external law firms found no evidence to substantiate the chairman’s concerns.

A clean sweep of the top three seats

Rajiv Kumar, former finance secretary and chief election commissioner, was named part-time chairman in June. Puneet Sharma, who spent more than six years as CFO of Axis Bank, joins as CFO-designate on September 1 and takes charge on December 1, succeeding the retiring Srinivasan Vaidyanathan.

The chief executive’s chair is now the third to change hands inside a single year, and the only one without a named successor.

Why the CEO exit matters most

CEO Jagdishan had said in March that he had never contemplated stepping away, and the board has confirmed he declined despite its efforts to persuade him.

That reversal matters more than the exit itself. The board must now put names before the RBI and secure approval within eight weeks, against a norm of six months.

Leadership uncertainty of this nature has historically attracted a valuation discount at Indian banks until a successor is confirmed, and the counterparty on the other side of that adjustment is usually the incumbent shareholder.

Big shoes to fill

The incoming management must complete the post-merger transition, restore the growth trajectory the bank has deferred while repairing its credit-deposit ratio, and above all return a settled sense of stability to a franchise that has traded on precisely that quality for three decades.

The succession process will therefore be critical not only for determining who leads HDFC Bank, but also for shaping how investors assess the bank’s valuation and recovery prospects.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)

Architect of the South Wales Metro rail project Professor Mark Barry of Cardiff University on addressing rail underfunding in Wales

Some £94bn was invested in rail enhancements across Great Britain in the period 2009 to 2025.

Of that total, some £44bn was for HS2, while UK Government rail enhancement expenditure in Wales was just circa £1.2bn – a meagre 1.3%.

While rail is not devolved, to get projects realised, the Welsh Government funded £1.4bn – more than the UK Government total – giving a £2.6bn of rail enhancements in Wales over that 16-year period.

So, in effect the Welsh Government has had to use funding meant for health, education to make up the UK Government shortfall.

Had Wales received just a 5% population share – an a more equitable settlement may need to be higher for good reason – then we would have seen circa £3.4bn more from the UK Government over that 16-year period and receiving an additional £200m per financial year.

Under the current arrangements this funding dysfunction is set to persist, with an estimated £80bn to £120bn of rail enhancements likely in England for the period from 2025 to 2040.

To note, the £14bn of political commitments to further rail investment in Wales, while welcomed, is just that – a political statement. The UK Government Treasury in the last spending review, allocated just £300m to Wales versus £34bn for England. The next comprehensive spending review will be the acid test.

For me, this constitutional dysfunction is undefendable and needs to be addressed.

So, should we devolve rail?

Clearly, we have a problem. The systemic underfunding has had and continues to have, a very substantive impact on Welsh Government finances. However, as I am sure previous Welsh Government ministers have found, Wales has limited leverage in any negotiations with Treasury and the Department for Transport ( DfT). Furthermore, in my view, any deal has to go beyond just a 5% population share.

One key point I also like to restate, and this often gets lost in translation, the current unfair funding position, via the Barnett Formula – is not just about HS2, butrail funding. The way Barnett works currently (and this could be changed) means that just focusing on HS2 undercooks the amount of underspend in Wales very significantly as making HS2 “England only” will only change the comparability factor from 33% to about 52%.

A previous letter from Mark Drakeford on this matter showed a £431m gap (for the period 2016/17-2024/25) if HS2 was defined as “England only” under the current non-devolved arrangements. However, this figure would be circa £1.5bn if rail was fully devolved. Furthermore, Barnett allocations have also been squeezed given HS2 has also resulted in reductions elsewhere in the DfT budget, reducing the scale of Barnett adjustments in any case.

What happens if rail is devolved and what are the key issues to address?

If, as it should, rail is fully devolved, then any future changes to the DfT budget could be subject to a more equitable Barnett adjustment and a 90% plus Barnett comparability figure. In so doing, the more challenging issue is how the block grant should be adjusted to reflect these new devolved powers. How should it be calculated?

And how does this impact future Barnett adjustments? This does not necessarily need to be related to the population, other factors are relevant, for example: The Wales and Borders Route is circa 10% of the UK rail network (and circa 8% of the track) and includes some sections in England (Marches Line, Severn Tunnel).

Should the Severn Tunnel be included? This a piece of UK strategic cross-border infrastructure that may merit different treatment.

The Network Rail (NR)Wales and Borders Route has supported the UK economy for 200 years.

Its condition, one might argue, is more depreciated than other parts of the UK network, and that depreciation has been built up over those 200 years – not the last 25 since devolution.

It is more exposed to unsighted issues and liabilities and to the need to mitigate climate change impact. For example, it is understood that on the CVL, rain intensity measurements (which are monitored) have already exceed expectations for 2040 in 2025. Rainfall intensity and the susceptibility to unsighted issues is an increasing challenge – and one with ongoing costs implications.

Based on this, it could be argued 5% of UK expenditure may not be a sufficient basis to calculate a block grant adjustment; rather it may form the baseline for a more protracted and bespoke negotiation.

Just looking at the comprehensive spending review publications last year and combining the committed annual expenditure to HS2 and NR, one can see a total of £23bn. With a 5% allocation for Wales and an adjustment to the block grant would be circa £1.1bn per annum, while 10% would be circa £2.3bn.

Wales is supposed to be part of an equitable union where more nuance can and should be applied in situations like this.

Also, if Welsh Government did take full responsibility for rail it would have to fund not only the full costs and enhancement to the Core Valley Lines (CVL) and Wales and Borders Route, but operations, maintenance and renewal (OMR). OMR for the Core Valley Lines and NR Wales and Borders Route is currently £400-500m per year. One might include the entire Marches line given its strategic importance to Wales and the reality that Welsh Government are much more likely to invest to enhance the Marches line than the DfT. If I was living in Shrewsbury or Hereford, I would get behind this.

GB Railways

The UK Rail industry and ecosystem is going through its biggest upheaval in 30 years as part of the GB Railways Bill. This is a generational opportunity to get it right. However, that bill falls a long way short of what Wales needs.

The bill needs a radical overhaul and include the full devolution of rail powers and funding to Welsh Government (and a NR Wales and Borders organisation subordinate to and eventually to merge with, Transport for Wales to create a vertically integrated organisation like GBR in England). This needs to be accompanied by a block grant adjustment and bespoke Barnett arrangement (or ideally a new funding mechanism) that reflects and accommodates the considerations I set out above

An interim alternative to a fully devolved settlement would be for Welsh Government to agree with the UK Government a dedicated line in the DfT budget for Wales rail enhancements (separate from the current England and Wales rail network enhancement programme) that is more proportional and transparent, which is not the case currently. A minimum of £450m a year is a reasonable ask, which is circa 5% of the current annual enhancement total (circa £9bn to10nn) across Great Britain.

The Welsh Government is making the case for a fair funding deal. If new Prime Minister Andy Burnham is serious about constitutional reform, and taking power out of Whitehall, this should be centre stage for his new government. If not, then he will rightly be accused of engaging in performative politics.

So, show us what you are about Andy and let’s fix it once and for all.