Now, at first glance, this is very good news as the Minister passionately loathes Beardy Bastard Branson and anything that winds him up is alright by this blog.

However, can someone please explain why the hell a company that is to receive more than £1,000,000,000 – that’s ONE BILLION POUNDS – in subsidy from public coffers feels that it “may [have to] raise fares by about 3.5% above inflation”*? 

Now, as a regular rail user I know all too well that there is much wrong with Virgin Trains but has it really performed so badly on the old CrossCountry line that it should have been stripped of its franchise in favour of a company – Arriva – that has performed so badly on EVERY other occasion it has run a rail service that it has lost its franchise and which is simply going to refurbish knackered 30+-year-old rolling stock rather than invest in new carriages?

This decision follows hot on the heels of the Department for Transport’s decision to strip Midland Mainline of its own franchise – despite that company consistently both being the most punctual of all the old InterCity lines and topping rail user satisfaction surveys – and awarding the contract to a business whose plan relies almost exclusively around jacking up many ticket fares by – well, I never – 3.4% above inflation each year.

Some people might wonder just what the fuck is going on at the Department for Transport, were they not too busy watching Simon Cowell on their tellyboxes and chowing down on their Dunkin’ Donuts.

While the ability to print rail tickets at home might be ‘nice to have’ (despite the fact that any such tickets would not be compatible with the rail network’s automatic ticket barriers), I can’t for the life of me think why anyone would like to have that facility enough to want to pay ticket price rises of more than double the rate of inflation for the privilege of doing so.

So – and this is a radical concept, I know – why don’t our “train operating companies” just concentrate first on running trains on time, with as many seats as possible, with the least amount of fuss and nonsense?

* The reason, of course, is that it currently remains the legal duty of every limited company and its directors to “maximise shareholder value” and that this obligation overrides almost every other consideration under English company law.*  As such, Arriva shareholders will demand massive profits to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed, even if those profits depend almost entirely on a public subsidy.  Come to think of it: if the public pays for the service, why does the public not own the service?  Isn’t the current state of Britain’s railways the very antithesis of privatisation…?

While it has not attracted the headlines of some of his other new laws, section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 has the potential to become perhaps Tony Blair’s most significant legislative legacy.

A quiet revolution in English company law is afoot, when – at some point between now and October 2008 – corporate social responsibility becomes one of the obligatory considerations a company director must bear in mind when making business decisions.

Instead of simply chasing a five pound note down the street for this financial year’s P&L account, a company director will have a duty to “promote the success of the company”.

When exercising this duty the director will be required to consider the various (non-exhaustive) factors listed in section 172(1) including:

• the long term consequences of the decision;
• the interests of employees;
• relationships with suppliers and customers;
• the impact of the decision on the community and the environment;
• the desirability of maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct; and
• the need to act fairly as between members of the company.

On occasion some of these factors will inevitably conflict with others and the Act does not in any event define “success”, so much power will rest with our judges and the manner in which they interpret this new law; but for the first time company executives will be legally bound to consider factors other than pure profit and will have to exercise a demonstrable level of care, skill and diligence in deciding which factors they take into consideration when making a decision.

As one noted law firm puts it, “there is concern that the new duty to promote the company’s success will increase the prospect of directors being sued by shareholders.”  And so it bloody well should.

Whether they want to or not, The Suits – or The British Suits at least – might just have to chip in to help save the planet and its inhabitants…