(alamy)

3 min read1 hr

Speaking at a press conference in north London on Monday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said he was confident that Labour MPs would support the government on a plan that puts “work and opportunity at its heart”.

McFadden set out proposals to incentivise companies to hire young people as part of the government’s bid to tackle rising rates of youth unemployment. Around one in eight 16 to 24-year-olds are not in employment, education of training. 

Under the plans, businesses will receive £3,000 for every 18-24-year-old hired who has been on Universal Credit or looking for work for six months. Businesses that take part in the scheme will be paid in two instalments, with the first expected to be a substantial amount to make the scheme worthwhile. The jobs given to young people must be at least 25 hours per week and paid minimum wage. 

Additionally, an apprenticeship incentive of £2,000 will be given to SME’s for each new employee aged between 16 and 24, and a scheme subsidising minimum wage work for benefits claimants who have been looking for work for 18 months will be raised to include those aged up to 24 from its current limit of 21.

McFadden defended young people trying to find work and hit back at claims that young people were “shirkers” and “snowflakes”. He said there was a moral case for helping people get into work, describing it as fundamentally “good for pride, purpose and identity”.

The cabinet minister said: “Two years ago, I had the honour of co-ordinating the general election campaign that led to the first Labour victory for 19 years, and only the fourth majority Labour victory from opposition for 100 years. 

“The reason I say this is because, historically speaking, Labour governments don’t come along too often. I want us to use our time in office well, to understand that every day in office is precious. 

“We are not here to keep things ticking over. We have both a responsibility and an opportunity to take on the challenges facing the country, to change things for the better.”

McFadden said he was confident that a new government bid to reduce spending on benefits would be supported by Labour MPs. 

Keir Starmer was forced to abandon planned reforms to Personal Independence Payments last year after more than 120 Labour backbenchers threatened to rebel in a House of Commons vote.

“Welfare reform should be about opportunity and work, and that’s what I mean by a working state. This is an approach that puts work at its heart,” said McFadden.

“I don’t believe that the best way to do reform is to pluck a figure out of air, and retrofit a policy next to it. I think the best way to approach reform is to give people a chance.”

He added: “I see no reason why Labour MPs should not support welfare reform [with] work and opportunity at its heart.”

Earlier this month, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that welfare spending will rise by nearly 6 per cent to £330bn this year, driven by health-related benefits as well as pensions. It is expected to hit £407bn in 2030-31.

The Starmer government has previously warned that current levels of welfare spending are not sustainable and must be reduced in the long-term.

A new report has shown crucial solutions to limit mineral demand for a green transition. These include public transportation, improved recycling programmes, and advanced battery technologies.

Greenpeace International commissioned the report: Beyond Extraction: Pathways for a 1.5°C-aligned Energy Transition with Less Minerals. The authors are academics from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney in Australia.

The report uses different 1.5°C-compatible energy scenarios to explore pathways toward mineral sufficiency and efficiency. And it shows how Earth’s minerals can be administered for a clean renewable energy transformation. One that protects vital Earth support systems from terrestrial or deep sea mining of so-called ‘critical minerals’.

Elsa Lee, co-head of biodiversity at Greenpeace International, said:

Mining often brings environmental destruction and social harm. It is reportedly linked to child labour, workers’ rights violations, land grabs from Indigenous Peoples, ecosystem damage, and threats to communities.

Around the world, the minerals ‘rush’ repeats extractivist and colonial patterns, disregards the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and threatens to undermine the very possibility of a just and green energy transition.

We all want a just world where energy is clean, affordable and available to everyone, rights are respected, peoples’ land access and livelihoods are protected, and our planet has a stable climate and rich biodiversity.

With this report we underline that it is incumbent upon our governments who regulate the extractive industry to power an ambitious energy transition without mining critical ecosystems on land or at sea.

A key recommendation of the report is that decision makers must prioritise mineral use for essential energy transition purposes. We’re in an era of eroding international cooperation and intensifying conflict. And this underscores the importance of coordinated action to protect people and nature, and achieve climate objectives.

Greenpeace International deep sea mining campaigner Ruth Ramos said:

Lines have been crossed on the land that need never be crossed in the deep ocean. Now we know: not only does deep sea mining run against science, ethics, people and the planet, it’s not even needed for a renewable transition.

What is needed is for the nations of the world to unite against rogue actors like The Metals Company and Donald Trump and their affronts to international law and cooperation, and instead keep moving towards a moratorium on deep sea mining.

Imagine if humans could have protected the world from the harms of the fossil fuel industry before it even started. That is the opportunity when it comes to deep sea mining: it is a historic privilege, and one we must now embrace wholeheartedly.

The report compared potential mineral reserves areas with areas that, due to their exceptional environmental, ecological, and social importance, must be out of bounds to mining. The analysis finds that there is no need to mine these fragile areas, including, amongst others, the global ocean and protected areas on land, for an ambitious energy transition.

Report author Professor Sven Teske said:

This research highlights how sound policies and innovative technologies can limit mineral demand in a 1.5°C-aligned energy transition. Realising this potential, however, requires responsible political leadership and decisive action today.

Featured image via the Canary

1) Wait for 7°C to start mowing…

2) …And stop mowing at 6°C or lower.

3) Never mow a wet lawn

4) Wait until any new grass is at least 5cm tall to cut it

5) Do your first mow on the highest blade setting, too

6) Mow at different rates according to season and lawn type

7) Follow the one-third rule

8) Keep your mower blades sharp and clean

9) Skip the job in May

10) Clear the lawn before mowing

11) Change direction every month or so

Police in England are still making arrests and investigating ‘illegal’ pregnancy terminations, according to the responses to a Guardian Freedom of Information (FOI) request.

That’s in spite of the fact that legal amendments decriminalising abortion are currently passing through parliament. The move was part of Labour’s Crime and Policing Bill, submitted by backbencher Tonia Antoniazzi. In June 2025, it progressed with a massive 379 votes in favour, versus just 137 against.

Abortion: ‘Victorian-era law’

Antoniazzi stated that:

The dystopian treatment of women continues under this Victorian-era law despite the House of Commons being clear that this has no place in modern society. The police and wider criminal justice system cannot be trusted with abortion law.

Women have been targeted, vilified and imprisoned following complications in their abortion treatment, miscarriage, stillbirth or premature labour. Forced to endure acute trauma at the worst moments of their lives for absolutely no reason, because criminalisation is completely unnecessary for upholding abortion law and safeguards.

Advertisement

The amendment would decriminalise abortion in England and Wales. This means that an individual could no longer be prosecuted for obtaining a termination, whether within or outside of a legal framework. However, the popular change has not yet passed into law.

Currently, the framework sets limits on the timeframe for an abortion, and requires two doctors’ signatures. The proposed amendments would do nothing to alter this legislation.

‘Utmost sensitivity and compassion’

The Metropolitan Police and Nottinghamshire Police both responded to the Guardian’s FOI. Both confirmed that, between June and January, they had made arrests over suspected illegal terminations.

However, abortion providers also highlighted the fact that we’re not seeing the full picture from these responses. They stated that they were aware of arrests by polices forces which refused the FoI. Worse still, some of the forces which did respond also made arrests for illegal termination, but didn’t record the cases under relevant legislation.

A spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:

Police do not routinely investigate unexpected pregnancy loss. An investigation is only initiated where there is credible information to suggest criminal activity, and this would often be because of concerns raised from medical professionals.

Each case would have a set of unique factors to be assessed and investigated depending on its individual circumstances.

It would be at the discretion of the senior investigating officer leading the case to determine which reasonable lines of enquiry to follow, again depending on the merits of the specific case.

We recognise how traumatic the experience of losing a child is, with many complexities involved, and any investigation of this nature and individuals will always be treated with the utmost sensitivity and compassion.

Advertisement

That claim of the “utmost sensitivity and compassion” is a bare-faced lie.

Inappropriate, insensitive and harmful

Jonathan Lord, a co-chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ abortion taskforce, explained:

It is the investigations that cause most harm; few progress to charging and fewer still to prosecutions.

The police and CPS have shown consistently – in multiple areas and in numerous cases – that they do not act appropriately or with sensitivity. In several cases they have only targeted the woman, and not investigated potential abuse by a coercive partner.

In one case, police arrested a woman in her 40s, who had safeguarding concerns and a history of being targeted by domestic abuse.

She called an ambulance after delivering a foetus still inside its gestation sack. Paramedics found her panicking and hyperventilating. Despite believing that she was still early in the pregnancy, the foetus was found to be around the 24-week mark.

Her children witnessed their mother’s arrest, and were forced to leave their home over Christmas whilst police searched the house.

‘What happened was horrifying’

In another case, a woman miscarried at 17 weeks, shortly after arriving in hospital. Staff called the police after finding tablets in her vagina. At the time, a clinician claimed that:

When I called the police, I really thought they would offer her support and protection. What happened was horrifying.

Cops arrived to arrest her whilst she was still in the delivery suite, in spite of her denial of seeking an abortion. Officers searched her home while she was detained on the ward. They confiscated devices that the woman used to monitor her unstable diabetes, which is notoriously difficult to control after pregnancy.

The woman later said that she felt unsafe around both police and the NHS, following their betrayal of her trust.

Harriet Wistrich, chief executive of the Centre for Women’s Justice, stated that:

In some of the cases we have seen women being arrested from hospital shortly after the abortion when they may be extremely traumatised and certainly there is no need to arrest them then and there.

But arrest, investigation and charging will be determined by two tests – is there sufficient evidence that an offence has been committed and if so is it in the public interest. There is a strong argument to make that in circumstances where the House of Commons have voted by a large majority to stop criminalisation, that discretion should be exercised in the public interest not to arrest.

‘A historic opportunity’

Louise McCudden, head of external affairs at MSI Reproductive Choices UK, said:

We know from providing reproductive healthcare across six continents that criminalisation harms women and makes abortion less safe. The House of Lords now has a historic opportunity to end the threat of prosecution once and for all, pardon women who have been previously convicted and drop ongoing investigations.

At a time when we are seeing rollbacks in reproductive rights around the world, most notably in the US, it’s encouraging that our parliament is standing up for women.

On 18 March, the House of Lords will debate Antoniazzi’s abortion decriminalisation clause. The proposed amendments run the gamut from striking the clause altogether, to halting ongoing police investigations, and even pardoning people who were already convicted under the previous law.

Investigations for suspected illegal terminations serve only to deepen the distress of the victims of heavy-handed policing. Our parliament must show their compassion by passing Antoniazzi’s amendment – or confirm themselves willing participants in the degradation of reproductive rights.

Featured image via the Canary

The NHS is one of Britain’s most cherished institutions, providing care to millions of patients each year. Yet questions remain about whether every resource is directed towards its core purpose of treating patients. One example is a law predating the NHS that requires it to pay out vast sums each year for private treatment that may never be used.

This is the real-world consequence of an obscure provision: Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948.

The provision requires courts, when awarding compensation for clinical negligence, to disregard NHS care and assume the claimant will use private healthcare. Yet nothing in law obliges the claimant to do so. Someone injured through negligence may receive compensation for private treatment but still return to the NHS – effectively charging the NHS twice. Repealing this provision would not force claimants to automatically return to the NHS for their future care. Rather, it would allow courts to decide what is reasonable in each case.

The Act was introduced to modernise personal injury law. Yet unlike many other legacies of the Attlee ggovernment, this change has failed to stand the test of time. Much of the Act has since been repealed or replaced. The survival of Section 2(4) is therefore all the more puzzling.

Featured

MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’

Featured

Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court