(Jeffrey Blackler / Alamy)

4 min read1 hr

We are a country whose infrastructure, public services and daily rhythms were built for drizzle, not temperature spikes that strain hospitals, halt transport systems and leave elderly and vulnerable people at risk. And yet, these extremes are becoming familiar. The danger lies not only in the rising heat, but in the creeping normalisation that follows – the sense that this is simply our new weather, something to be endured rather than addressed.

This should not be the case. Moments like this should remind us that climate change is not an abstract, distant threat, but a reality shaping life here in Britain today. From parched fields in the East of England to overheating classrooms and overstretched water systems, the impacts are tangible and unevenly felt. Those with the least – poorly insulated homes, insecure work, fragile health – bear the brunt.

And yet, at precisely the moment when seriousness is most needed, there are growing calls to look the other way. To dilute commitments. To reframe climate policy as an optional extra rather than a central pillar of national resilience. This is simply not a grown-up response to a serious problem.

The role of government is not to chase the easiest argument or yield to the loudest pressure. It is to weigh evidence, act in the national interest, and take responsibility for the long term. Climate change tests all three of these duties. Because while it might sometimes be politically convenient to question the scale of the challenge, or to downplay the urgency of action, the consequences of doing so will not be distributed evenly – and they will not be undone easily.

There is a temptation, particularly in an overheated political environment, to frame climate action as a burden. That framing is as misleading as it is short-sighted. The real burden is the cost of inaction: the damage to infrastructure, the hit to productivity, the strain on public services, and, most importantly, the toll on human lives. There is no better example of this than our privatised water system. Successive governments have failed to grip the issue, trusting the market to take the reins and make long-term decisions for the benefit of the public. As a consequence, we are now dangerously exposed when it comes to water resilience and quality.

We need a government that understands that climate policy is economic policy, health policy, and security policy. That investing in the green transition is not simply a moral choice, but a practical one, shielding us from international shocks and creating jobs in communities that have too often been left behind.

This requires honesty. There will be trade-offs. There will be decisions that cannot please everyone. But leadership is about making those decisions anyway – with clarity, fairness and a sense of shared purpose.

We cannot afford any pretence that we can simply step back from climate commitments. Nor can we indulge the illusion that short-term political gain outweighs long-term national risk. Those urging such paths may offer simplicity, but it is a false simplicity: one that masks, rather than resolves, the challenges ahead.

People understand, instinctively, that the world is changing. They see it in the weather, in the news, and in their own lives. Last summer, the hottest on record, the country recorded more than 1,500 heat associated deaths. The public know they can’t ignore this. What they ask for, rightly, is a plan that matches the scale of the problem and distributes both the costs and benefits fairly.

This heatwave should serve as a reminder of what is at stake. A country that treats such warnings with complacency will find itself on the back foot, reacting to crises rather than preparing for them. A country that meets them with seriousness, however, has the opportunity not only to protect itself, but to lead.

Alistair Strathern is the Labour MP for Hitchin

The NRS socio-economic scheme provided £1,979,721 during 2025-26 to enhance the social and economic wellbeing of communities located near NRS sites.

In addition to the positive social impact from the significant public investment made in decommissioning, each year NRS delivers a targeted socio-economic grant funding programme based on local needs which meets its obligation to support the creation of a positive social, economic and environmental legacy for communities close to sites as they look to the future.

NRS is part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority group which invests around £15 million each year in projects that enable permanent and sustainable change in its site communities.

This year, the NRS socio-economic scheme has supported a wide range of local initiatives, including projects focused on education, sport, wellbeing, sustainability and community development.

Some highlights from the year include:

Gympanzees, a Gloucestershire charity, received a £30,142 grant to support the development of its new purpose-built centre for disabled children and young people. The funding will help install state-of-the-art sensory equipment, creating inclusive, calming spaces that provide essential therapeutic and accessibility support for local families.

West Kilbride Community Initiative (WKCIL) is delivering a £73,000 expansion project at Craft Town Scotland, supported by £37,000 from NRS. The project will add two new craft studios, storage and decking, creating space for specialist makers, community workshops and training. Operating on an affordable rental model, the new facilities will support skills development, local jobs and creative businesses, helping strengthen the site’s long-term sustainability and benefits for the wider community.

The Youth Employment Service (YES) which supports 16–24‑year‑olds across East Suffolk to move into education, employment or training through personalised online and face-to-face support recently received a £95,000 grant. The grant will help expand the service’s reach, improving access for young people in rural areas, strengthening mental health and SEND support, and building stronger employer links. The funding will also support a more preventative approach and help secure the service’s long-term sustainability.

The FutureSkills Flexible Training Grant Scheme, delivered by Caithness Business Fund supported by £125,000 from NRS and the NDA can offer grants of between £2,500 and £10,000 to small and medium-sized enterprises operating within the Dounreay travel-to-work area. The scheme supports local businesses to invest in high-quality training that enables employees to upskill and reskill, helping to boost productivity, enhance workforce resilience, and support ongoing professional development.

Isle of Anglesey County Council received £351,000 of NDA funding managed by NRS, enabling accelerated delivery of the 2019 North Anglesey Economic Regeneration Plan. Flagship projects at Amlwch Port including refurbishing the marine terminal will provide high‑quality commercial space and improved welfare facilities, revitalising the waterfront, while ten new business units will support local services and help community‑facing enterprises grow. Crucially, the initial NDA/NRS investment has leveraged a further £8 million from the Ambition North Wales Growth Deal to deliver new commercial buildings, supporting a more diverse and self‑sustaining local economy and generating an estimated £20 million in wider economic and social value for the area.

David Calder, NRS Head of Socio Economics said:

Beyond the considerable economic impact of the decommissioning mission, NRS continues to make significant investment in the grant programme, and has this year supported 129 applications from around our sites the length and breadth of the UK. Local partnership working has been key in identifying and delivering projects which target local priorities, ensuring we align our support to deliver meaningful impact and create opportunities for people and communities to realise their potential.

Rob Fletcher, NRS CEO said:

NRS is proud to be a significant employer and make a positive contribution to communities in all parts of the UK from the north of Scotland to the southern tip of England. We take our commitment to socio-economic development seriously and the funding we provide plays a vital role in strengthening those communities, both now and looking to a future beyond our decommissioning programme. By investing in local causes, we can help create real, lasting opportunities supporting people, skills and wellbeing where it matters most.”

Sellafield Ltd is changing how it deals with legacy nuclear materials. It is doing this by using a new remote ‘flat pack’ approach to dismantle plutonium contaminated gloveboxes. This is improving safety and efficiency across the Sellafield site.

The idea is simple. Break large, complex items into smaller, easier-to-manage parts. This new method changes how bulky, contaminated equipment is handled and stored.

At Sellafield, this is not everyday flat packing. It uses robotics, laser cutting and equipment from older nuclear facilities.

Gloveboxes were used to safely handle radioactive materials. Many are still in older facilities across the site. Taking them apart safely is essential. Reducing their size before disposal is also important.

In the past, workers did this job by hand. They used tools while wearing specialist protective equipment (PPE). While this method works, it can be slow and limits productivity.

Earlier this year, the team achieved a world-first. They took a glovebox from installation through to full remote size reduction and safe packaging. This showed that a fully remote method can work at scale.

This work would not have been possible without the Alpha Active Demonstrator Programme. It has helped develop and prove new ways of working. Using robotics and laser cutting, the team has shown that contaminated gloveboxes can be size reduced remotely. This keeps people out of harm’s way.

The programme combines innovation with practical problem-solving. It supports the site’s long-term mission to reduce risk and deliver clean-up more effectively.

A second glovebox is now going through the programme, with more planned. The team is refining the process and developing a model that can be used across the site.

This approach is safer and more efficient. It could change how hundreds of gloveboxes are dealt with at Sellafield in the future.

Trawsfynydd power station was built in the early 1960s and generated electricity for almost 30 years. It remains the only inland nuclear power station in the UK. Since generation stopped, the site has focused on safely managing the legacy left behind, with much of the effort centred on reducing risk and preparing the site for long term decommissioning.

After two decades of commitment, innovation and teamwork, the Higher Activity Waste (HAW) programme has now been successfully completed. This work focused on the safe management and storage of radioactive waste left behind from operations, a task that required sustained effort and careful delivery over many years.

The programme focused on the highest waste that remained on site, categorised as intermediate-level waste, a mid-range category of radioactive waste which is more active than everyday low-level waste, but not as hazardous as high-level waste.

It involved retrieving legacy material, processing it safely and placing it into secure long-term storage on site. In total, almost 2,300 individual waste packages were completed, representing a significant delivery achievement and the removal of the site’s hazards.

Rob Fletcher, CEO at Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS), said the completion of the programme marks a turning point for the site.

This is not just the end of a major programme, it is the end of an era.

Completing this work safely and successfully has allowed Trawsfynydd to move into its next phase of delivery, reducing the height of the reactors by almost half. This will create the most noticeable change to the landscape in decades.

Tom Williams, NRS Trawsfynydd Site Director added,

Bringing the HAW programme to a close is a remarkable achievement for everyone at Trawsfynydd. Its completion represents a key delivery milestone in our decommissioning mission; one we can look back on with pride whilst also looking forward with excitement to the start of our new major projects.

The final waste package has now been transferred into storage, bringing the long‑running campaign to a close. Along the way, teams developed practical and innovative ways of working to safely retrieve the waste. This included using a robotic arm to remove material from deep storage areas and specialist vacuum equipment to collect fine dust and small fragments.

Learning from this work was shared with other sites across the country, helping to improve efficiency, reduce costs and support delivery across the wider decommissioning programme.

As Trawsfynydd moves into this new phase, the end of the waste programme stands as a clear example of successful delivery, teamwork and long term commitment and a proud moment for everyone involved.

Clive Nixon, the NDA’s Chief Nuclear Strategy Officer, said:

This milestone demonstrates the significant progress we are making in delivering on our mission, set on behalf of government, to safely, securely and cost effectively clean up the UK’s earliest nuclear sites, prioritising the reduction of the highest hazards and risks while protecting people, communities and the environment.

We look forward to the next phase of work, which will see the height of the reactors reduced, taking a big step towards their dismantling, as we progressively deliver on our mission to decommission the site.

It was announced in October 2025 that Costain had been appointed as principal contractor to reduce the height of the reactor buildings from around 54m to 29m. The project, valued at up to £70 million, is expected to take up to four years to deliver. At its peak, Costain is expected to employ more than 100 people to deliver the programme, creating opportunities to boost regional skills development and make a lasting contribution to the local economy.

Chancellor

Home Secretary

Foreign Secretary

Defence Secretary

Other Top Roles

As part of the UKRI strategic theme Building a Green Future, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) are supporting seven transdisciplinary hubs forming the Net Zero Health Research (NZHR) Network.

The NZHR Network, led by University of Southampton, will facilitate and foster inter-Hub collaborations across partners; mutually support researcher development and research impact; attract new non-academic stakeholders; and convene stakeholders to shape and implement new science-backed knowledge and solutions driving the UK’s transition to a healthy, low-carbon economy. 

The seven hubs are focused on five challenge areas – transport and the built environment (1 hub), the indoor environment (2), sustainable diets (1), extreme weather (1) and decarbonising health and social care pathways (2). Each hub involves multiple HEIs, central and local government agencies, industry and third sector organisations. The NZHR Network is a coordinating resource that will maximise the collective impact of the hubs through resource efficiency, fostering co-creation, and generating practical and policy outcomes.

The NZHR Network will:

Transfer experimental techniques, data, models and scientific insights and knowledge between hubs and challenge areas.

Develop standardised metrics to optimise and measure the impact of interventions across the challenge areas.

Develop new collaborations with shared objectives and interests.

Connect with current initiatives in the net zero and climate change space to build on current research and data.

Enhance translation of project outputs, and bring in new non-academic stakeholders, particularly enablers for the net zero and health agenda.

Professor Louise Heathwaite CBE FRS, UKRI Building a Green Future Lead and Executive Chair of the Natural Environment Research Council, said:

“Creating the Net Zero & Health Research Network will maximise the value of our £42m investment in the seven challenge-led hubs, ensuring they can work as a connected, high-performing community. The network will provide a focal point for collaborative research across a range of disciplines, engaging stakeholders beyond academia and using data-led approaches to translate emerging evidence into practical, solutions-focused activities and impactful interventions. This outcome focused approach will ensure people benefit from the net zero transition by improving health, boosting productivity, and enhancing quality of life across communities.”

Dr Sophia Lentzos, NIHR head of climate, health and sustainability, said:

The establishment of The Net Zero & Health Research Network marks an exciting milestone in the co-benefit hub funding opportunity. Maximising the impact of these transdisciplinary hubs across sectors demands that they communicate and coordinate effectively. By sharing data, aligning metrics, and working together, it will allow us to drive the systemic changes needed to embed health at the heart of the transition to a net zero world.’

Professor Stephen Holgate KBE FRCP FMedSci, Director of the NZHR Network and Clinical Professor of Immunopharmacology, University of Southampton, said:

“The seven hubs were created to explore opportunities that benefit people’s health while reducing environmental impact. A year into their establishment, this is the optimal time to explore the added value of working together. The Net Zero & Health Research Network aims to capitalise on this ecosystem of unrivalled talent, skills, knowledge and expertise, enhancing research activities and amplifying impact as one coherent voice.”

William Powrie CBE, Professor of Engineering at the University of Southampton, and HLTH Project Lead, said:

“Each of the seven research hubs is doing important research to realise the benefits of net zero interventions for human health and wellbeing. It will be very exciting to explore the synergies between our different challenge areas and disciplines to open up new avenues of research. The Net Zero & Health Research Network is an important resource not only to facilitate these interactions, but also to amplify consistent messaging about the benefits of the transition to net zero for people’s health as well as the environment”.

The 7 research hubs

Media enquiries: For enquiries to the NZHR Network please contact Tim Yates, Marketing, Communications and Events Manager, email: [email protected]

4 min read21 min

Labour governments are rare. When entrusted with power, we must act with purpose, pursue a clear vision, avoid unnecessary distractions, and deliver the change our constituents expect. I have made no secret of my belief that we are not currently getting this right, and it gives me no pleasure to say so.

A new parliamentary session presents an opportunity for backbench MPs to enter the Private Members’ Bill (PMB) ballot and advance legislation capable of addressing the real challenges people face in their everyday lives. Increasingly, I am of the view that if the government remains unwilling to focus on those priorities, backbench MPs will have to do much of the heavy lifting themselves.

The last PMB ballot saw Parliament spend the best part of 18 months attempting – and ultimately failing – to make Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill workable. Despite hundreds of amendments and an unprecedented 14 sitting days of scrutiny in the House of Lords – far more than most PMBs ever receive – the legislation remained fundamentally flawed. Even Lord Falconer felt compelled to table 74 amendments in an effort to rectify its shortcomings.

Rather than accept that the PMB process was not the appropriate vehicle for such a profound moral question, Lauren Edwards has reintroduced the same assisted dying bill — a move that will further divide an already fractured Parliamentary Labour Party.

At the outset, I supported Kim Leadbeater’s Bill because I am not opposed to the principle of assisted dying. However, we are no longer debating an abstract principle. We are considering legislation that would fundamentally alter the role of the NHS and govern decisions relating to the deliberate ending of human life.

In the end, I could not, in good conscience, support the Bill. I remained unconvinced that adequate safeguards were in place or that sufficient consideration had been given to the profound changes it would make to the relationship between doctor and patient, and between the state and the citizen.

Polling conducted by Whitestone Insight found that 52 per cent of MPs lacked confidence in the Bill’s safeguards, while only 41 per cent said they would vote for it again.

The debate raised profound moral, legal, and societal questions. MPs and peers from across the political spectrum worked diligently to improve legislation that would fundamentally reshape the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, and between individuals and the state. Yet after 18 months of debates, committee hearings, and amendments, key questions remained unresolved. So why bring back the same piece of legislation?

We still do not know how an assisted dying service would operate in practice, which drugs would be authorised to end life, or what the consequences would be – for patients or clinicians – if procedures went wrong. 

If such fundamental questions could not be resolved after such extensive scrutiny, why would Parliament willingly choose to repeat the same flawed process?

Supporters of the Bill argued that safeguards would prevent abuse. Yet safeguards on paper are no guarantee in practice. Pressure is rarely overt. More often, it manifests as a sense of being a burden, financial anxiety, unspoken family expectations, or fear of dependency. These are precisely the kinds of pressures that no safeguarding framework can reliably identify or eliminate.

Those concerns are not merely theoretical. Conditions such as eating disorders fundamentally distort an individual’s perception of themselves and their own worth. To suggest that such vulnerabilities can be neatly separated from end-of-life decision-making is implausible. Once the principle is conceded, the boundaries become increasingly difficult to maintain.

Proponents dismissed concerns about a so-called “slippery slope”, yet evidence from other jurisdictions suggests a recurring pattern: eligibility expands, safeguards are loosened, and the scope of the law gradually extends. This matters because those most at risk are invariably the most vulnerable – disabled people, those with learning difficulties, and those whose lives are too often judged, implicitly or explicitly, as less valuable. In several countries where assisted dying has been introduced, eligibility has expanded over time to include individuals suffering solely from mental health conditions.

Even with the best of intentions, such societal biases cannot simply be legislated away.

In the last parliamentary session, some MPs and peers openly acknowledged that the Bill was flawed, yet argued it should proceed regardless. That is not how Parliament should legislate on matters of life and death.

The Bill risks sending a deeply troubling message: that some lives are less worth living than others, and that the role of the state may extend to facilitating death rather than improving care.

Parliament should address existing failures within our healthcare system – not seek to give the most vulnerable in society a false choice.

Karl Turner is Independent MP for Kingston upon Hull East