BR pension cash 'to go on royal train service'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE Government is planning to take pounds 730,000 from British Rail's pension fund to pay for improvements to the royal train service, and is trying to cover up its plans. That is the apparent implication of documents sent by civil servants to a parliamentary committee and obtained by the Independent, writes Tim Jackson. A paper put before the House of Commons transport select committee asks Parliament to 'increase provision for current expenditure on royal travel . . . with a corresponding decrease in the provision for government support of British Rail pension funds'.
Accounts also show an increase in spending for the year to March 1994 on the royal train service of pounds 730,000, and a cut of the same sum in funding to the pension fund. The changes will bring public spending on royal trains up to pounds 2.6m, and on pensions down to pounds 66.7m.
But a handwritten amendment removes the words 'corresponding decrease', and splits the trains increase and the pensions cut into items running first and last in a list of five items. Civil servants mistakenly sent the committee the draft, rather than the final document.
The Department of Transport maintained it was a routine accounting procedure.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments