Latest news with #CraigMunro
Metro
4 days ago
- Business
- Metro
Labour brings c2c into public ownership - What does this mean for you?
Rail services between London and Essex have been brought into government ownership following the nationalisation of a second train operator. On Sunday, c2c became the latest train operating company to be publicly owned as part of Labour's scheme, which will eventually see the creation of Great British Railways. The change means services from Fenchurch Street station on the London, Tilbury and Southend line are now in public hands. It was owned by Italian state-owned rail operator Trenitalia, which purchased the franchise from National Express in 2017. At the time of the takeover, c2c had one of the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the country at 89 per cent. This was the joint sixth best performance out of 22 operators. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. Although the second operator to be brought into public hands, c2c will be the sixth train company managed by the Department for Transport (DfT), which is now in charge of 40 per cent of all rail journeys. As well as c2c, Department for Transport Operator (DfTO) now runs TransPennine Express, LNER, Northern, Southeastern and South Western Railway, the latter which became the first directly state operated network in February. c2c will soon be joined by neighbouring operator Greater Anglia, which is due to be nationalised in October. c2c, a shortened version of the phrase 'city to coast', operates services between London and Essex. The bulk of its trains leave from Fenchurch Street Station, with Liverpool Street Station used as a backup London terminus during engineering works. It operates four trains per hour to Shoeburyness via Basildon and Southend-on-Sea. Another two hourly services go to Southend via Ockendon and Tilbury in Essex and another to Grays, calling at Rainham. In its 2024 manifesto, Labour promised to bring railways back into the public sector following years of complaints from passengers about high fares and poor service. The Labour scheme also includes taking over responsibility for managing rail infrastructure, including stations and lines currently handled by Network Rail. Following the privatisation of British Rail in the 1990s, rail services were franchised out to a variety of private firms. However, despite an initially positive reaction, public support began to tilt in favour of a return to government ownership amid grievances with overcrowding, increasing fares and unreliable services. Concerns over poor performance of private operators led the previous government to take control of LNER, Northern, Transpennine Express and Southeastern via operators of last resort. Labour says the new nationalised network will help standardise the service, improve reliability and cut costs for travellers. c2c followed South Western Railway in returning to public hands, having previously been operated by National Express before being acquired by Trenitalia. The Italian state operator will continue to have a foothold in British railways through its stake in Avanti West Coast, until that goes public next year. Speaking about the latest step, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'Whether you're shopping in Lakeside or walking along the beach in Southend-on-Sea, from today you will be able to get there on a train service run by the public, for the public. 'Public ownership is already tackling deep-rooted problems we see on the railway that's led to spiralling costs, fragmentation and waste. 'A unified network under Great British Railways will take this further with one railway under one brand with one mission – delivering excellent services for passengers wherever they travel.' However one highly profitable aspect of the railway is likely to stay in private hands – the trains themselves. Rolling stock has for three decades been controlled by Rolling Stock Companies or ROSCOS, dominated by three major players, Eversholt Rail Group, Porterbrook and Angel Trains. Due to the prohibitive cost of buying the stock back, Great British Railways will instead lease the trains from these firms for the foreseeable future, trade publication Railtech reported. This means that the fees from use of the trains will remain in the private sector. Under its public ownership scheme, Labour has promised better quality and more reliable services. While the branding of services will remain the same for now, passengers can expect some changes to how they operate. For example, tickets will be valid for all publicly-owned services, meaningin the event of major disruption or line closure, passengers can travel on other routes without extra charge. This already works in the North West, where commuters are able to switch between Northern and TransPennine Express services, both of which are operated by DfT. For c2c passengers, the benefits may become more visible after the neighbouring Greater Anglia network is nationalised in October. In addition, the Government says it will leverage the new control to increase services and capacity on some routes. More Trending As well as improvements to services, ministers and rail bosses say public ownership will save the taxpayer up to £150 million each year. Rob Mullen, the managing director of c2c, said: ' A unified and focused railway can deliver more for our communities, including better growth, jobs and houses. If we are thriving as a train operator it helps our communities to thrive. 'This is the positive feedback loop we are excited to deliver, supported by better and closer collaboration with our partners in the lead up to GBR.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: 'Elegant' UK seaside town gets new direct train to London after it was axed five years ago MORE: Inside the fight against graffiti on trains across the UK's railways MORE: 'Pole hogging' is the latest Tube habit tormenting commuters on the London Underground
Metro
7 days ago
- Politics
- Metro
British spies and SAS soldiers' personal details leaked in Afghan data breach
The personal details of British spies and special forces personnel were included in the Afghan data breach that led to an unprecedented superinjunction, it has emerged. It was previously reported that a list accidentally sent in an insecure email by a military official contained information relating to almost 19,000 Afghans who helped to support British forces in the fight against the Taliban. Following the lifting of the two-year superinjunction on Tuesday, it has been revealed that the document also held data relating to more than 100 British people. They included MI6 spies as well as special forces and SAS personnel. The data breach, which happened in February 2022, was only discovered by the government when an extract was posted on Facebook 18 months later. More Trending Then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace asked a judge for an injunction to prevent the information contained in the dataset being published. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. However, the judge instead placed the case under a superinjunction, preventing any details about the breach or the injunction itself from being published. Meanwhile, the largest covert evacuation in peacetime history was launched to get Afghans out of the country, out of concern their lives could be at risk from the Taliban. The programme, named the Afghanistan Response Route, has cost around £400 million so far and could cost around £850 million by the time it ends. Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ Or you can submit your videos and pictures here. For more stories like this, check our news page. Follow on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here. MORE: Molly-Mae Hague reveals secret for glowing and blemish-free skin is ZO Skin's Complexion Pads MORE: Model's fury at phone snatchers after thieves take her mobile twice in three months MORE: Belgian ticket inspector given warning for using 'bonjour' in Dutch-speaking region
Metro
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Metro
Voting age to be lowered to the age of 16 by the next general election
People aged 16 and 17 will be able to vote in the next general election, after Labour announced a major move to lower the voting age in England and Wales. Last year's Labour Party manifesto committed to lowering the UK voting age to 16, in order to 'increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy'. Today's announcement comes alongside other election reforms, including extending voter ID to include bank cards and the introduction of new rules against foreign political interference and abuse of campaigners . Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'We are taking action to break down barriers to participation that will ensure more people have the opportunity to engage in UK democracy, supporting our Plan for Change, and delivering on our manifesto commitment to give 16-year-olds the right to vote. 'We cannot take our democracy for granted, and by protecting our elections from abuse and boosting participation we will strengthen the foundations of our society for the future.' The next general election is due to take place before August 2029, as the last one took place in July 2024. However, the Prime Minister is able to call one at any point before that date. That is currently unlikely, as Labour holds a considerable majority in the House of Commons. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. In Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds have been able to vote in local and Scottish Parliament elections since 2015. The voting age is still 18 in most of Europe, though it is 16 in countries including Germany, Belgium and Austria. Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ Or you can submit your videos and pictures here. For more stories like this, check our news page. Follow on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here. MORE: Here's how it could become harder for people-smugglers to reach the UK MORE: Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do? MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest
Metro
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Metro
Why was a superinjunction put on the Afghan evacuation story and what did it do?
On Tuesday, it was revealed for the first time that the British Government had used a superinjunction to keep a secret from the public. The term 'superinjunction' may be familiar to people who paid attention to the news in the 2010s, thanks to their deployment by several high-profile figures who wanted to stop people reading about their private lives. It is a court order a step above an injunction, which is used to stop details of the case being published in public. In a case with a superinjunction, not even the existence of the injunction can be made public. These orders are powerful enough when used by an individual. The use of one by the government to keep the entire UK in the dark is unprecedented. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money was spent without the public's knowledge, to bring a large number of individuals to the UK from Afghanistan without anyone being allowed to learn why. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. It all stemmed from an accidental data breach in February 2022, which exposed the personal details of more than 18,000 Afghans who had assisted British forces in their fight against the Taliban. When the government learned about this breach 18 months after it happened, then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace requested an injunction in the courts. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The reason for this, according to court documents, was to 'preserve the confidentiality of the personal information for as long as possible in order that His Majesty's Government may do everything it reasonably can to help those who might have been put at further risk by the data compromise'. But when the time came for the injunction to be placed, Judge Robin Knowles decided to go a step further. More Trending He wrote: 'I conclude that it is an environment of no publication that best protects lives, although again the matter must and will be kept under constant review.' This decision was made for eight reasons listed in the judgement: 'The risk in question is to the lives of many individuals and their families, and of torture.' The confidentiality of the data was not completely lost, though it had been breached. The order would create a period of time where the data compromise is 'not known or widely known'. It would be less likely for the information to fall into the wrong hands during that period. The period would provide an opportunity for the government to do 'everything it reasonably can' to help those at risk. The impact on freedom of expression was 'justified in the particular and exceptional circumstances of this case'. The fact the injunction would probably no longer be needed at some point and be lifted would limit that impact. The operation and duration of the injunction would be kept under close review. This order was so stringent, then-shadow Defence Secretary John Healey did not tell his party leader about the situation when he was briefed before last year's election. Instead, Sir Keir Starmer learned about it after he became Prime Minister. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: What changes in ISAs could mean for you and where you should invest MORE: Middle class parties hit by lumpy skin disease MORE: What changes to mortgages for first-time buyers means for you
Metro
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Metro
Thousands of Afghans brought to UK in secret £850,000,000 scheme after data leak
Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on a secret scheme to relocate Afghan victims of a data leak to the UK, it can be revealed. Around 19,000 Afghan nationals who helped support British forces had their personal details revealed when a dataset was released 'in error' in February 2022. More than two years later, in April 2024 – three months before the 2024 election – a secret relocation scheme called the Afghanistan Response Route was set up. It is understood this programme has cost around £400 million so far, and is projected to cost around £850 million once completed. Additional legal costs and compensation are expected to add millions more to the total bill. More Trending It took more than a year for the Ministry of Defence to become aware of the data breach, which was the result of an apparent mistake by a defence official. Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here. The extent of the issue was discovered when excerpts from the dataset were posted to a Facebook group in August 2023. Details of the scheme can only be revealed now, after an unprecedented superinjunction was lifted. The court order prevented the media, Parliament and the public from finding out about the Afghanistan Response Route. It is thought to be the first time the government has ever used such an order against the media. Court documents show the Ministry of Defence only initially asked for the superinjunction to stay in place for four months. But it took more than two years for it to finally be lifted at the High Court today. Judges said in 2024 that between 80,000 and 100,000 people could be at risk of harassment, torture or death if the Taliban obtained the data in the breach. But an independent review commissioned by the government in January this year concluded the data breach was 'unlikely to profoundly change the existing risk profile of individuals named'. Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ Or you can submit your videos and pictures here. For more stories like this, check our news page. Follow on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here. MORE: Middle class hell after brie and Camembert are blocked from entering UK MORE: What changes to mortgages for first-time buyers means for you MORE: You could be given £3,750 off electric cars under new government grant scheme
