All eyes have been on Sir Keir Starmer since he sacked Former Foreign Office Chief Sir Olly Robbins last Thursday 16th May. 

This came after a Guardian investigation revealed that despite concerns being raised about Mandelson during his security vetting, the Foreign Office went ahead with his appointment. 

Having been announced as the UK’s ambassador to the US in December 2024, Peter Mandelson was formally appointed as US ambassador on 10th February 2025. However, he was sacked in September last year over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

Over the past week, the Prime Minister has been facing calls to resign over claims he misled MPs when he told them that “full due process” had been followed – a claim 10 Downing Street strongly denies. 

Monday: Starmer addresses MPs

In a statement to MPs on Monday afternoon, Starmer said he takes “responsibility” for appointing Peter Mandelson, and that he shouldn’t have taken that decision. 

Explaining the timeline of events, he said he became aware that the Foreign Office granted Mandelson Developed Vetting clearance against the recommendations of the UK’s Security Vetting (UKSV) agency “for the first time” on Tuesday 14th April. 

He said: “I should have had [this information] a long time ago.” 

Regarding why Mandelson was appointed before security vetting had been completed, he said: “For a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment but before starting in post.” He has since changed this process. 

He also explained that while UKSV’s decision is binding for many government departments, for the foreign office, appointment decisions are ultimately at their own discretion. The Prime Minister has now suspended these powers. 

Continuing his statement, Starmer said it was “absolutely unforgivable” that Sir Olly had let the then-Foreign Secretary David Lammy sign a statement that developed vetting clearance had been granted. 

He said had he known about UKSV’s recommendations, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson.

Sir Adrian Fulford has now been appointed to lead a review into security vetting. 

Closing his statement, the PM called these events “incredible” and “beggars belief” – statements greeted with laughter by the House. 

Leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch claimed Sir Keir had breached the ministerial code in not revealing this information “at the earliest opportunity” – this would have been during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday 15th April. 

Putting six questions to the PM, she asked whether he would stand by his previous assertion while in opposition that a prime minister should resign if they mislead the house. 

Meanwhile, leader of the opposition Sir Ed Davey accused the PM of blaming his officials, asking why he asked “so few questions personally about the vetting process himself”. 

Both he and Green Party Leader Zack Polanski called on Sir Keir to resign. 

Reform UK MP Lee Anderson alongside Your Party MP Zarah Sultana were both made to leave the House after accusing the PM of lying. 

Tuesday morning: Robbins’ response 

Speaking to Emily Thornberry’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Olly said there was an “atmosphere of pressure” from No. 10 over Peter Mandelson’s vetting.

Thornberry opened the meeting by telling him to “feel freer to give fuller answers to us” than he had at his previous appearance before the Committee on 3rd November 2025. “You clearly told us the truth, but you only told us part of the truth,” she said. 

Robbins accused No.10 of taking “a generally dismissive attitude” to Mandelson’s vetting clearance in January last year, saying: “The focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington quickly.” 

He said that when he arrived in post on 20th January, “there was already a very, very strong expectation coming from number ten that he needed to be in post and in America as quickly as possible”. 

By this point, Peter Mandelson’s name had already been submitted to the King as a nomination and the PM had announced his appointment. He said that agrément (the formal process by which the host country accepts the appointment) had also been obtained.

“Throughout January honestly, my office, the foreign secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing,” the former foreign office chief said, with very frequent phone calls asking, “has this been delivered yet?”. 

When questioned by Emily Thornberry over whether there was any evidence of this pressure, he said he was sure there were phone calls showing contact between his office and the No. 10’s private office, but that there were no emails. 

In response, Thornberry highlighted the need for records “to show the extent of pressure the foreign office was being put under by No.10.” 

When pressed on why he didn’t know more about the contents of the vetting decision, Sir Olly explained that while he was told it was a “borderline” case, he’s “never seen a UKSV document”. He also declined to confirm whether anything had been identified that wasn’t already in the public realm. 

He maintained that vetting was completed “to the normal high standard” and that “whilst there was an atmosphere of pressure, the department rigorously followed process […] despite some in government never believing it was a process we needed to follow”. 

In response to a question from Sir John Wittingdale MP, he also confirmed that “it would have damaged” relations with the US to pull Mandelson as ambassador at that stage. 

Alongside this, he revealed that in March 2025 he was asked to “potentially” find Lord Matthew Doyle, the PM’s director of communications, a position as an ambassador. 

Tuesday afternoon: MPs respond 

Downing Street denied Robbins’ claims of an “atmosphere of pressure” and “dismissive attitude” towards Mandelson’s vetting.

In an emergency debate called by the Conservatives on Tuesday afternoon, Kemi Badenoch said the Prime Minister “personally decided to appoint a serious, known national security risk” due to his known relationship with Epstein and links to Russia and China. 

Accusing the PM of using Sir Olly as a “human shield”, she said: “The idea that it is No. 10 who are the victims of others not following due process is quite frankly laughable.” 

She backed SNP MP Stephen Flynn’s call for a no confidence vote, adding: “This Prime Minister has put the country’s national security at risk. He must take responsibility, it is time for him to go.” 

The Lib Dems accused the PM of trying to “appease Trump” with Mandelson’s appointment, while Reform said he is trying to “dump the entire scandal on one official”. Meanwhile the Green Party said the PM showed “totally unacceptable” “wilful ignorance” over the appointment.  

In response, Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, said: “The government has been and remains committed to keeping the House informed.”

Acknowledging that appointing Mandelson was the “wrong” decision, he added: “I’m here however to account for the government’s accountability on the process that followed.” 

Mr Jones also said that the government is working “at pace” to publish the remaining documents related to Mandelson’s appointment, as required by February’s humble address. 

Wednesday: PMQs 

PMQs were, as expected, dominated by questions over Mandelson’s appointment. 

The PM confirmed that Matthew Doyle was considered for an ambassadorial appointment – as is a normal conversation when people leave a position, according to Starmer. But, he said, nothing came of this conversation – and Doyle himself had come out on Tuesday saying he hadn’t known of any such conversations before then. 

In her six questions to the PM, Kemi Badenoch pressed Sir Keir on whether he stands by his statement that “full due process” was followed in Mandelson’s appointment, referring to Robbins’ testimony of a dismissive approach from No.10. 

Reiterating her concerns about national security, she said there is “no way” she would have appointed someone with Mandelson’s reputation, asking the PM “what planet” he was on over claims that Mandelson was given access to classified briefings before being cleared.  

Badenoch also said Robbins’ dismissal was unfair – an opinion shared by the Green Party’s Ellie Chowns – and asked the PM to “take responsibility and go”. 

Starmer maintained that due process was followed, and that Sir Olly’s testimony that he hadn’t shared his decision with No. 10 “puts to bed all the allegations levelled at [him] by those opposite in relation to dishonesty”. 

He also reiterated that he was unaware of UKSV’s recommendations. Calling this a “very serious error in judgement,” he said: “Nothing is going to distract me from delivering for our country.” 

Thursday: Back to the select committee

Thursday morning saw Cat Little, Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office (the department’s most senior civil servant) giving evidence to Dame Emily Thornberry’s Select Committee. 

In her evidence, she echoed the PM in saying that “due process was followed.”

Referring to Sir Olly’s claims of pressure, she said that while putting together the documents to be published under the humble address: “I’ve not seen any documentation that would formally confirm that level of pressure”. 

In regards to the vetting summary, she told the committee she asked Sir Olly for a summary of UKSV’s recommendations, but “it was made clear to me that that information would not be forthcoming.” 

Requesting this information directly from security officials, she received it on 25th March but sought legal advice about handling sensitive documents before deciding to share them with the PM on 14th April. 

A lack of records has been a frequent issue throughout this saga, and it continued when Ms Little confirmed there was no formal record of the meeting in which Starmer decided to move forward with Mandelson’s appointment – even though “it is normal” to do so. 

Ms Little’s versions of events also seemed to suggest – in contrast to Sir Olly’s – that the Cabinet Office advised in favour of vetting Mandelson, not that this was unnecessary. 

Beyond the walls of the Select Committee, Thursday also saw an increase in murmurings about the Prime Minister’s future, with political reporters noting unrest among both Labour backbenchers and Cabinet ministers. 

What next?

Friday’s headlines were not dominated by the scandal – much to the PM’s relief. Rather, attention has turned to the failure of the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords. 

However, the row is far from over. On Tuesday, we heard from Morgan McSweeney – the PM’s former Chief of Staff, who resigned over Mandelson’s appointment in February, taking “full responsibility”. 

He, alongside the Foreign Office’s Chief Property and Security Officer Ian Collard and former Foreign Office top civil servant Sir Philip Barton, have all been compelled to give evidence to the Select Committee. 

And of course the polls have opened this Thursday 7th May at 7am, which will likely put further pressure on the PM’s survival. 

Featured Image Credit: Prime Minister’s Office / Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Identifying as a socialist, and placing himself on the soft left of the Labour party, Burnham supports devolving power, having frequently criticised politics’ London-centric approach. 

Now, following ex-Labour minister Andrew Gwynne’s resignation, there’s a vacant seat in the Commons up for grabs. 

So, who is Andy Burnham, and how has he got to where he is today? 

An early Labour supporter

Burnham first joined the Labour party aged 15, saying he was “radicalised” by the 1984-5 Miners’ Strike. He then went on to work as a researcher for Labour MP Tessa Jowell between 1994 and 1997.

Throughout the rest of the 1990s, he kept a foot in the Westminster door, becoming a parliamentary officer for the NHS Confederation in the second half of 1997 following Tony Blair’s landslide ‘new Labour’ victory. 

From 1998 to 2001, he was appointed to be a special adviser to Chris Smith, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and and Sport – a position he held until he himself became a Labour MP.

Rising through the Westminster ranks

(NHS Confederation, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

Burnham began his Westminster career in 2001 when he was elected to be the MP for Leigh. 

Much of his time in London was spent working in health, first as a member of the Health Select Committee between 2001-2003, then as Minister of State for Delivery and Reform at the Department for Health under Gordon Brown before being promoted to Secretary of State for Health in 2009.

Prior to this promotion, he held other roles including being Chief Secretary to the Treasury and serving as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport in 2008. 

In parliament, Burnham raised the issue of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, in which 97 football fans were killed in a crush, triggering the second Hillsborough inquiry. He later made a speech in 2016 after the inquiry found the deaths had occurred as a result of unlawful killing in which he condemned the South Yorkshire Police. 

His other policies included the creation of a National Care Service to introduce a publicly funded system of social care which would be free at the point of use. However, this was scrapped by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition in 2010. 

Leadership contests 

Burnham has twice run for Labour leadership – once in 2010, and then again in 2015. 

Following the 2010 election loss and Gordon Brown’s resignation, he ran in the leadership race, ultimately finishing fourth with Ed Miliband being appointed as leader. His policies including reintroducing the National Care Service and replacing inheritance tax with a land value tax – all part of his philosophy of ‘aspirational socialism’.

Following his loss, he was appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Education, before going back to the Department for Health until 2015.

This then marked his next bid for leadership, standing against Ed Miliband on a ballot which stressed unity. Again, his bid fell short, this time coming second to Jeremy Corbyn, under whom he served as shadow Home Secretary. 

Following Angela Rayner’s resignation as Labour Deputy Leader in September last year, speculation that Burnham would challenge for the leadership began to circle. He backed a new network called Mainstream within the Labour Party which sells itself as a home for “radical realists” and supports democratic socialism. 

However, at the Party Conference, he pointed out that, as he was no longer an MP, he couldn’t run to be leader, and that all he had done was to launch “a debate” about the party’s direction.

Mayor of Greater Manchester

(Scottish Government, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)

Andy Burnham has served as the Mayor of Greater Manchester since 2017. He resigned from his post in Jeremy Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet in 2016 to focus on his mayoral bid, winning with 63% of the vote. 

He has since won two mayoral elections in 2021 and 2024, using his terms to focus on homelessness, public transport and investigations into child sexual exploitation. 

Upon his latest re-election, he announced his plans to introduce a Greater Manchester baccalaureate as an alternative to university. The scheme, which would collaborate with local businesses, aims to be in place by 2030. 

During the Covid-19 pandemic, he was dubbed “King of the North” by the media due to his role in securing an extra £65 million in funding for local Northern communities. 

Is the ‘King of the North’ returning down south?

He now has a chance to return to the Commons, should he decide to run for the recently vacated seat of Gorton and Denton. 

If he chooses to run in the by-election, he could then mount a leadership contest against Sir Keir Starmer, whom he supported in the 2020 leadership election. While he has previously called speculation that he would make a leadership bid “annoying”, he hasn’t actually ruled out putting himself in the running. 

It won’t be a straight forward path, as other Labour figures may also be hoping to run, and, as a mayor, he would have to get approval from the National Executive Committee, as per the Labour Party’s rules. 

He is yet to comment on whether he will apply, but said on Thursday that he is “very focused on [his] role as mayor” and that “people shouldn’t rush to conclusions”.

Featured image: (LBJLibraryNow, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

Speaking to The Guardian, Courts minister Sarah Sackman said the new legislation would stop criminals from “gaming the system” by opting for jury trials which can take years to reach the trial stage. 

Why the court changes now?

Nearly 80,000 cases are currently awaiting trial, with the new proposals including the creation of a judge-only division in the crown court. Sackman is set to announce that a large number of cases will be heard by judges and magistrates instead of juries. 

Such cases include complex fraud and petty theft. Sackman said: “For me, the priority is swift justice, fair justice, over prioritising a defendant’s right to choose where that trial is heard.”

Under current law, defendants charged with either-way offences can choose to either be tried by a jury in the crown court, or to keep their case in the magistrates court. 

This comprises 40 per cent of cases, with the percentage of defendants choosing jury trials more than doubling between 2014 and 2022.

It can take years for jury trials to get through the courts, meaning cases can collapse in this time. 

Sackman told The Guardian that defendants electing a jury trial: “Are coming into court and laughing in the face of the justices, knowing they can go back out on the streets and commit further offences”.

Public backlash

Her plans for overhauling the system have proved controversial among legal professionals, with 90 per cent of the Criminal Bar Association opposing the changes. They warn that removing trial by jury would undermine a core principle of the British justice system, and could potentially lead to a loss in public trust. 

Criminal justice charities and racial equality groups have also suggested that reducing the number of jury trials could lead to more miscarriages of justice, expressing concerns that the judiciary is unrepresentative of the public, unlike juries. Currently, ethnic minorities comprise just 12 per cent of judges in England and Wales. 

In response to these concerns, Sackman emphasised the current Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary David Lammy’s commitment to tackling racial disparities in the court system. She cited his chairing of the 2017 Lammy Review, which examined the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System.

The Leveson Report

The proposed changes have come after senior judge Sir Brian Leveson published part one of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts this summer. He urged extreme action to reduce the court backlog, which is currently set to reach 100,000 by 2028 if no changes are made. 

Other recommendations from the report, which the government is expected to legislate on in the new year, include giving crown court defendants the right to choose to be tried by a judge alone, and reclassifying some either-way offences so they can only be tried in a magistrates court.

Leveson appeared before the government’s Justice Committee on Tuesday 11th November to give oral evidence on the report. 

The Committee have since posed further questions to Leveson in a letter sent by the Committee’s chair, MP Andy Slaughter, on Thursday 20th November.

Among these are queries about the basis for some of the report’s claims, such as its assertion that removing juries would provide a 20 per cent time saving in hearings.

The Committee are also seeking further clarification about whether juries are unable to understand serious fraud cases, and concerns about juryless trials exacerbating racial bias due to disparities in sentencing outcomes from judges, particularly for Black defendants. 

Part two of the report, which has been delayed from its initial publication date of this autumn, will focus on the efficiency of the criminal justice system. 

Featured image via Mike Peel / Wikimedia Commons.

Under the pomp and ceremony of US President Donald Trump’s historic second state visit lay pressure for Keir Starmer to shore up diplomatic ties between the UK and US. 

From tech deals to tariffs, and financial deals to foreign affairs, the Prime Minister had a long list of agreements he needed to negotiate with Trump.

The leaders were keen to stress the strength of the special relationship in a joint press conference, with Starmer citing the countries’ “unique bond”, while Trump suggested: “we are forever friends”.

Indeed, the press conference went fairly smoothly – it was only when Trump was asked his opinion on Starmer’s decision to recognise Palestinian statehood that expected disagreement emerged. 

Prior to the state visit, there was speculation as to whether Peter Mandelson’s recent dismissal as US Ambassador due to his ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein would cause awkwardness between the leaders, but the matter was brushed over. When questioned on the matter, Trump merely stated, “I don’t know him”, while Starmer reiterated the stance he has maintained over the past week. 

While initial signs on Thursday may have indicated a successful visit, Trump’s comments as he left the country, criticising London Mayor Sadiq Khan and doubling down on the 25% steel tariffs he has imposed on the UK, indicate that relations between the UK and US are not wholly rosy. So the question remains, has Britain got what it needed from the US? 

Ukraine

Trump and Starmer presented a united front in their condemnation of Russia, with the US President admitting that Putin had “really let [him] down”. Discussing other conflicts he has helped to resolve since he assumed office, he stated: “I feel I have an obligation to get it [the war in Ukraine] settled”. Given the UK’s attempts to make Trump see Putin as the biggest barrier to peace, this comment could be seen as a step in the right direction.

Image: President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine – The White House – Andrea Hanks

While the PM was unsuccessful in getting Trump to commit to sanctioning Moscow, he did push for Western allies to stop buying Russian oil to force Putin into negotiations. In the EU, Hungary, Slovakia, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium are still purchasing oil from Russia. The US President was adamant that such purchases must stop: “I’m willing to do other things but not when the people that I’m fighting for are buying oil from Russia […] that’s not playing fair with the United States and we can’t have that”. 

Recognising Palestine

The ongoing war in Gaza was predicted to be a flashpoint, with Trump stating that he and Starmer did have a “disagreement” on the matter. The British PM is set to recognise Palestine as a state in the coming days, for which he has previously been criticised by Trump, who warned that it would benefit Hamas. 

However, the issue did not cause as much tension as some predicted with Starmer reiterating that Hamas could play “no part” in the future of a Palestinian state, for which the President gave him a pat on the back. Starmer also noted that the timing of his planned recognition of Palestine was unrelated to Trump’s state visit, but merely part of a wider “plan for peace”. 

While it was always unlikely that the two leaders would come to a mutual agreement, the fact that Trump didn’t condemn Starmer outright could be seen as a sign of success for Downing Street. 

Illegal migration

The State Visit took place against a backdrop of concern about the government’s migration policy after an Eritrean man successfully delayed his deportation flight on Wednesday. Yet the leaders seemed united in their determination to tackle illegal migration on both UK and US soil. 

Starmer was keen to confirm that a successful ‘one-in one-out flight’ did take off on the morning of the press conference, calling it “an important step forward”, while Trump suggested the UK could deploy the military to secure borders, warning that illegal migration “destroys countries from within”. 

Citing his own efforts to increase the US’s deportations of illegal immigrants, the President explained: “it doesn’t matter if you call out the military, it doesn’t matter what means you use”.

Tech partnership

One of the apparent successes to come out of the State Visit was the “Tech Prosperity Deal”, with tech giants Microsoft and Google pledging to invest billions in the UK. Microsoft will spend £22 billion in the UK over the next five years, while Google has pledged £5 billion in the coming two years, including expanding a data centre in Hertfordshire.

Image: Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks with Jensen Huang, President and chief executive officer of Nvidia – No 10 Downing Street – Simon Dawson

The deal, described as “one of a kind” by President Trump, will see trans-Atlantic cooperation in areas such as AI and quantum computing. Tech company Amentum is planning to create over 3,000 jobs from Glasgow to Warrington and the Midlands, which should contribute to the government’s aim of diversifying employment opportunities throughout the country. In total, the investments are expected to create 7,600 new roles across the UK as a whole.  

Starmer hailed the investments, saying they are “a testament to Britain’s economic strength and a bold signal that our country is open, ambitious, and ready to lead”. However, key political figures including former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg have cast doubt on the deal, with Clegg telling BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme that the UK had to “stand more on our own two feet” to prevent a brain drain of UK start-ups moving across to the US. 

Nuclear partnership

Just two days prior to the State Visit, the UK announced a “golden age of nuclear” with the signing of a US-UK deal on energy security. The deal includes building new nuclear power stations in both countries, with 12 advanced modular reactors planned to be built in Hartlepool.

The nuclear expansion has been hailed as an important step forward in the UK government’s aim to produce clean energy – a point of difference between the two leaders. While Starmer stated he would take a “pragmatic approach” which would see a mix of oil, gas, and renewables, Trump doubled down on his belief that “wind is a disaster”. Instead, he repeatedly told Starmer to “drill, baby, drill” in order to bring fuel prices down, encouraging the PM to make use of North Sea oil. 

Notwithstanding this difference of opinion, the proposed deal should have mutual benefits for both the US and UK economies, with thousands of jobs set to be created across the country. The projects are expected to deliver over £51 billion in economic value to the UK, while a deal worth around £4 million will supply advanced HALEU fuel to the US. 

Discussing the tech and nuclear deal, Starmer said it confirms “our status as the first partners in science and technology, ready to define this century together as we did the last”. 

Steel tariffs

The UK faced disappointment in failing to eradicate the US’s 25% tariff on British steel exports. While this figure is better than the 50% levied on other countries, Starmer had proposed a deal which would see the tariff completely eliminated.

Image: Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosts Donald Trump for the state visit – No 10 Downing Street – Simon Dawson

Prior to boarding Air Force One, Trump did say that “they’d like to see if they could get a little bit better deal. So, we’ll talk to them”. However, it appears that such talks failed to successfully achieve the government’s “path to zero”.

Financial services

While Trump said that the UK and US are still in the process of finalising economic security deals, financial services have been boosted this week. Prior to the State Visit, over £1.25 billion in private US investments were announced, which are estimated to create 1,800 jobs. 

PayPal, Citi Bank, Bank of America, and S&P Global are among the US firms putting money into the UK, with their investments set to benefit London, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Belfast.

During the State Visit itself, further investment was announced to boost a variety of areas including manufacturing and defence. Defence was a key talking point for Trump, who congratulated the UK on its commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence earlier this year, saying he “look[s] forward to working even more closely with” the UK as a result. Starmer reiterated this, stating that “security remains the cornerstone of this special relationship” and that the two countries will continue to work together on new defence technologies.

The US economy will also benefit from the financial deal, with Starmer saying £250 billion will flow both ways across the Atlantic. Among the companies investing in the US are BP, which is planning to invest $5 billion each year over the next five years, and Revolut, which is set to invest over $500 million across the next three to five years. 

Pharmaceuticals 

UK pharmaceutical companies have faced difficulties in recent weeks, with many reducing investment in UK pharma, or transferring operations to the US. AstraZeneca recently halted its plans to spend £200 million expanding its Cambridge research facilities, while US pharmaceutical company Merck (or MSD) also scrapped its £1 billion research centre in London.

These difficulties were reinforced at the beginning of the state visit, when British pharmaceutical firm GSK pledged to invest $30 billion (£22 billion) in the US over the next five years. This is in comparison to the yearly £1.5 billion spent on UK research and development.

Part of the tech deal does, however, aim to boost the UK’s life sciences industry. US firm Prologis will invest £3.9 billion in the UK, part of which will expand the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, while new US-UK collaborations in AI aim to advance AI-powered healthcare solutions. 

These deals should go some way to reducing the sting of the £2 billion loss the UK pharmaceutical industry has faced over the past year, but both recent trends and this tech deal suggest that UK pharmaceuticals are becoming increasingly dependent on the US.  

Food, drink and agriculture 

The majority of the economic deal seems to focus on tech and financial services, with little focus being given to agriculture. The industry has already faced difficulties after May’s deal with the US gave the UK market access to American bioethanol and beef. 

Last month Vivergo, one of the UK’s two bioethanol plants, ceased production, laying off its 160 employees. US bioethanol had been described as “unfair competition” by UK producers, as it is classed as a waste byproduct in the UK unlike its domestically-produced counterpart. 

While Trump did say in the press conference that the economic deal is still being finalised, perhaps suggesting more announcements are to come, for now, it seems that UK agriculture will have to continue competing against the US. 

Conclusion

During Thursday’s press conference, Starmer noted the UK and US’s shared values of “freedom, democracy and the rule of law”, with Trump saying that “immortal bonds of affection and loyalty” unite the British and American people. 

While UK agriculture and steel are still suffering, for the most part, it does seem that Starmer has successfully secured economic deals to shore up areas including defence, nuclear, and tech. 

Flare-ups of flashpoints were avoided, and it appeared that – during the press conference at least – the two leaders were keen to present a united front, reiterating their determination to work together across economic and foreign policy.

Featured Image via No 10 Downing Street – Simon Dawson

Hugh’s Law, named after Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis’s six year old son who passed away from a rare form of cancer in 2021, would give parents job protection and entitlement to statutory paid leave from the first day of their child’s diagnosis. 

While Hugh’s parents have called a consultation a step in the right direction, they are calling on the government to deliver real change. 

Speaking to Politics UK, Ceri said: “After 3 years of tireless campaigning we are pleased that the Government has confirmed a consultation on Hugh’s Law will begin in 2026.

“That recognition matters and is welcomed, but we are cautious as a consultation does not change lives, legislation does.

“Right now, parents of critically ill children are left without protection. They face an impossible choice between being at their child’s bedside or keeping their job.

“Other forms of leave; maternity, paternity, adoption, bereavement are protected in law. Yet the sudden, devastating reality of a child’s illness has no equivalent safeguard.” 

Currently, paid leave and job protection is only given to parents whose children fall unwell in the first 28 days after birth. After that, parents lose their entitlement to the financial support which allows them to stay at their child’s bedside. 

Parents of children over 29 days old rely on taking unpaid Carer’s Leave, unpaid parental leave, or claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA). However, Carer’s Leave is limited to one week per year, with the process of waiting to apply for DLA and the application itself potentially taking 32 weeks – over half a year. 

The announcement came after a parliamentary drop-in on Tuesday (2nd September) held by Ceri and Frances’s charity It’s Never You, which they established after Hugh’s passing. The drop-in received cross-party support from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Ulster Unionist MPs.

Ellie Thompson, founder of Billy’s Batallion, a charity focussed on fighting DIPG, a form of pediatric brain cancer, told Politics UK: “I recently attended the parliamentary event for Hugh’s Law with my MP, Chris Coghlan, who has pledged his full support. Losing my little boy, Billy, to a brain tumour last year, I know first-hand just how important this legislation is.

“It is vital that the government step up to support families better throughout the worst times of their lives. Current law places parents in a cruel and commonplace predicament to choose between their child’s care and their family’s financial survival. 

“Billy’s Battalion is proud to support It’s Never You, a charity founded by parents who, like us, have lived through the darkest days imaginable.”

Posting on X in support of next year’s consultation, Labour MP Grahame Morris wrote: “Parents shouldn’t be forced to take unpaid leave or risk losing [their] job while their child is fighting for life. The financial, emotional & mental strain is devastating”. 

Independent MP Chris Hinchliff similarly pledged his support on X, stating: “Parents of seriously ill children should never have to choose between paying the bills and being at their child’s bedside.”

“The Labour Government announcing a consultation is a crucial step – now we must ensure it delivers for families,” his post continued. 

Ceri also noted the need for the consultation to enact legislative change, telling PoliticsUK: “We need stronger commitment from the Government that any consultation findings will be enacted.

“Parents can’t wait years for ‘reviews’ while families fall into financial ruin. The UK lags behind over 30 OECD countries who already offer this protection.”

A government spokesperson told Politics UK: “We recognise that serious childhood illness represents a challenging and stressful time for families, which is why we have committed to a public consultation on support for parents facing this situation.”

They continued: “We will continue working with It’s Never You as we develop this consultation, and we pay tribute to their tireless campaigning in memory of their son Hugh.”

The charity has already faced delays in getting Hugh’s Law passed through parliament. According to ITV, Labour ordered its peers in the House of Lords to vote against their proposed amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

Analysis of the debate, held on 16th July this year, indicates financial concerns caused the delays in passing Hugh’s Law, referred to as “amendment 97” in the Bill. 

According to It’s Never You, around 4,000 children are hospitalised for two months or more, with the cost of caring for chronically ill children during this two month period estimated at £750 per month. 

The charity suggests that it would cost the government six million pounds to provide financial support to these 4,000 parents for the two months before they are eligible to receive DLA. 

However, the government suggests the costs could be much greater depending on eligibility across the UK and estimated uptake.

During the debate, Labour whip Lord Katz explained: “The actual cost could be significantly higher, depending on how serious illness and other eligibility criteria are defined. Therefore, the overall financial impact will depend on the final definitions and scope used to determine eligibility”.

However, he did suggest that Hugh’s Law could be introduced at a later date, committing to consulting on possible support for the parents of seriously ill children. 

He also stated that other methods of support should be considered, noting the importance for the government to explore all avenues of approach and cost to ensure “good law” and “the very best outcome for parents”. 

Following the debate, the government faced backlash from Ulster Unionist Party MP Robin Swann, who said that Employment Rights Minister Justin Madders MP had “turned his back” on Ceri and Frances, who had attended positive meetings with government ministers. 

In response, the minister suggested the government was not turning its back on families, but rather “having the biggest expansion in workers’ rights and family-friendly policies that we’ve seen in a generation.” 

Posting on X after receiving news of the consultation, It’s Never You stated that they would be moving into “Phase 2” of their campaign. This includes pushing the government to turn the consultation into legislation, pushing “again in the House of Lords”, and pushing MPs to “keep asking the difficult questions”. 

Ceri reinforced the charity’s determination to enact legislative change, telling PoliticsUK: “We will continue to press harder for action. Hugh’s Law isn’t a luxury, it’s about dignity, fairness, and giving families the basic right to be with their child when they are needed most.”

Images supplied by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis.

The summit also saw moves towards a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. 

The leaders’ summit was attended by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Finland, and the UK, alongside the President of the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. 

According to the BBC, European officials were concerned the summit risked alienating President Trump if he sensed Zelenskyy was not committed to a peace process led by the US.

However, before leaving Washington, Starmer said there was “a real sense of unity” between the leaders present, telling the BBC he was “very pleased” with the outcomes. 

He said that the summit should “reassure people in Europe, in Ukraine, but particularly in the United Kingdom”, arguing that significant progress has been made.

While Trump dismissed calls for a pre-negotiation ceasefire, despite both Merz and Macron stressing its importance, progress was made on security guarantees, and on bilateral and trilateral meetings between Ukraine, Russia, and the US. Starmer said these meetings would help to achieve a “peace that is lasting and just”. 

The summit was followed by a virtual meeting of the coalition of the willing – a group of European and Commonwealth allies supporting Ukrainian and seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict – on Tuesday (19th July) during which Starmer outlined plans for the coalition to meet with their US counterparts and prepare to deploy a “reassurance force” in the coming days if hostilities cease. 

This seemingly confirms Trump’s suggestion to Fox News that despite Ukraine not becoming “a part of Nato”,  European nations would have troops on the ground in Ukraine to act as a deterrent. 

Other methods of putting pressure on Putin, such as sanctions, were also discussed in Tuesday’s meeting.

Going forward, the UK government seems focused on helping Ukraine into as strong a position as possible ahead of any peace negotiations. 

The BBC noted that Monday’s summit helped this effort, with Trump not reiterating Putin’s demands for Ukrainian land or putting pressure on Zelenskyy to discuss such an emotive matter in front of the cameras. 

This suggests a growing understanding in the White House that any discussions over territory will have to be treated carefully. 

Starmer emphasised the importance of giving Ukraine sole control over questions of territory, stating: “No decision should be made about Ukraine without Ukraine”.

UK officials have also said that Trump’s commitment to “cast iron” security guarantees has given Zelenskyy greater flexibility in his approach to negotiations as Ukraine will now be protected by its allies.

Starmer has consistently said that any deal to end the war in Ukraine would require a strong US “backstop”. 

While details about what the US forces will offer remain scarce, UK military officials including chief of defence staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, are travelling to the US for more detailed discussions about the US’s involvement in security guarantees. 

It remains unclear what Moscow’s next steps will be. According to one individual, Putin might retreat from the pathway to peace created over the past few days. However, with the progress of Trump’s public commitment to security guarantees, they hope that in such a scenario, the US would back Europe rather than Russia. 

Featured image via Simon Dawson / No 10.

The “Do Something Big” campaign will provide a sign-up bonus of £1,000 to incentivise recruitment in 38 regions across the UK needing staff.

The campaign focuses on the benefits of children seeing both men and women in nurturing roles from the beginning of their education.

However, men currently comprise just three per cent of the early years workforce, with almost half of parents saying their nurseries have no male staff.

This aims to boost recruitment ahead of the expansion of government funded childcare in September.

Children from nine months old will be eligible for 30 hours of funded childcare each week during term time as part of a plan which promises to save working parents up to £7,500 per year.

Research from the DfE found that 25 per cent of adults believe gender stereotypes and fear of judgement or false accusations deter men from entering the sector, with 24 per cent suggesting social pressure on men to enter more “masculine” careers is also a factor.

Mike Abbott, Director of Operations at the London Early Years Foundation said: “The government’s renewed focus on recruiting more men into Early Years is a crucial step in challenging outdated stereotypes and ensuring children grow up with diverse role models.

“It’s time we make it completely normal for men to sing lullabies, lead story time, or soothe a baby, just as it is for women to play football or lead science activities. Everyone should be seen to do everything.”

The DfE also found that 90 per cent of parents believe it is important for children to be cared for by both men and women, with the campaign’s adverts showing how fathers in particular are already well equipped to enter early years education.

Minister for Early Education, Stephen Morgan, explained: “We’re making early years careers more appealing – and reminding dads that if you’ve helped your own child learn and grow, you’ve already got the skills to make a difference to many more.”

The campaign builds on the government’s “Best Start in Life” strategy which aims to improve the quality of education and care children receive, making it cheaper for families to access early education and support.

Bridget Phillipson, Secretary of State for Education, wrote: “We know that ensuring the best start in life transforms life chances for individuals – but it does more than that. It helps us to build stronger communities, a fairer society and a more prosperous economy.”

“If we are to deliver on that sacred promise – that we will give our children better opportunities than we have had ourselves – we need a step change in the focus and priority that our society gives to children’s critical early years,” she continued.

Featured image via Department for Education.

As of Friday 25th July, sites featuring harmful or adult content must introduce “highly effective” age assurance techniques.

This “primary priority content” – that which children must be prevented from accessing – includes pornography, and any content encouraging self-harm, suicide, or eating disorders.

If companies fail in this legal duty, they could face fines of up to £18 million, or 10 per cent of their qualifying worldwide revenue.

Ofcom, the UK’s regulator for communications industries, has also said that the most serious cases could see court-imposed sanctions, and sites becoming blocked or restricted in the UK.

If tech companies repeatedly breach their duty of care to children and ignore enforcement notices from Ofcom, their senior managers will be criminally liable, and could be imprisoned for up to two years.

11 companies are already under investigation for breaching aspects of the Online Safety Act, with Ofcom now expecting to announce more investigations into sites which host pornography but fail to meet the new age check regulations.  

Research from Ofcom found that eight percent of children aged eight to 14 had accessed a porn site or app in a month in the UK, including three per cent of eight to nine year olds. Porn sites will now have to enforce rigorous age checks in line with the latest regulations.

Suggested methods include facial age recognition, open banking, digital identity services, credit card, email-based, or mobile network operator age checks, or photo-ID matching. 

Over 6,000 websites containing adult content have introduced age checks, including major pornography provider PornHub. X and Telegram say they are using facial scans to check users’ ages, while Discord and Bluesky claim they are giving users a variety of age verification options. Reddit introduced age checks for forums and threads containing mature content two weeks ago.

Social media platforms are also now responsible for creating age-appropriate experiences for children online. Platforms must assess risks to children who use their platforms, and introduce age-appropriate restrictions. 

Online sites must have clear, accessible ways for children and adults to report content, alongside procedures for quickly taking down any dangerous content. They must also identify an individual responsible for children’s safety, and conduct annual reviews of how they are regulating risks to young users.

Both Meta and X have outlined their methods for ensuring that children only view age-appropriate content. Meta says its teen account feature, which is a default setting for anyone under eighteen, gives these users an “age appropriate” experience. Meanwhile, X defaults users to sensitive content settings if it cannot verify that they are over eighteen. This prevents them from seeing adult content. 

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle stated that these latest regulations mark “the biggest step forward” for children’s online experience since the internet’s creation, with Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes describing their introduction as “a really big moment”. However, she also noted that it would be a “challenging path ahead”. 

Some of the new age verification technologies have faced backlash by users concerned about their privacy. While Ofcom has assured that “age checks can be done effectively, safely, and in a way that protects your privacy”, concerns about data privacy, especially data leaks, have been raised by adult users. 

According to antivirus provider McAfee, age verification systems have built-in protections so that adult websites do not receive users’ personal information. They are compliant with data protection laws, keeping individuals anonymous. Nevertheless, they do recommend choosing facial age estimation rather than photo ID identification where possible to reduce data sharing.

Others have suggested that individuals will try to use VPNs to circumvent the age verification process. Since the introduction of new regulations last Friday, VPN apps have become the most downloaded app on Apple’s App Store in the UK.  

However, Ofcom has said that platforms must not share, host, or permit VPN usage to avoid age checks, with the government stating that it would be illegal for platforms to do this. 

The government has said that “[p]rotecting children is at the heart of the Online Safety Act”, with Kyle saying he has “high expectations” for the new regulations.

Some campaigners suggest they do not go far enough, with the Molly Rose Foundation calling for additional changes, particularly in content regulation.

To track the success or otherwise of these regulations, Ofcom has launched a monitoring and impact programme. The programme focuses on sites where children spend the most time, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Roblox, and Facebook. 

Sites included in the programme must submit a review of their work assessing risks to children on their sites by 7th August this year.

Featured image via Primakov / Shutterstock.

The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) launched a major consultation today [8 July] to expand care provisions in NHS dentistry. The consultation will last for six weeks, closing on Tuesday 19th August. 

Reforms include making newly qualified dentists work in the NHS for a minimum period – set to be three years – and rolling out an additional 700,000 appointments each year. The plan focuses on the provision of emergency care, aiming to address the immediate needs of patients in pain. 

This comes as more than one in four adults are struggling to access NHS dental care, with satisfaction at an all time low. Health Minister Stephen Kinnock acknowledged this, describing the NHS dental system as “broken” and “in crisis”.

“To get us to a place where patients feel NHS dentistry is reliable again, we have to tackle the problems in the system at their root,” he continued. 

Currently, it is less cost effective for dentists to take on patients requiring extensive treatment including crowns, bridges, and dentures. The reforms aim to tackle this by introducing a new course of treatment for patients with extreme gum disease or with tooth decay on over five teeth.

To incentivise dentists to take on more complex cases, the government plans to increase funding for denture modifications and to establish a requirement for dentists to deliver a set amount of urgent and unscheduled care each year.

Kinnock said: “These reforms will bring common sense into the system again, attracting more NHS dentists, treating those with the greatest need first, and changing the system to make it work.”

A nationwide ‘Golden Hello’ scheme aims to recruit more dentists, with measures to make dental staff feel more rewarded, incentivised, and a bigger part of the NHS also being introduced. 

Kinnock: NHS dental system is broken

Children’s dental hygiene will be prioritised through preventative measures. Statistics reveal that 22.4 per cent of five-year-old school children have experienced obvious dental decay.  

To tackle this, measures include applying fluoride varnish on children’s teeth and making better use of tooth resin sealants for children with a history of dental decay. The government has also introduced a national supervised toothbrushing programme for children aged three to five in the UK’s most deprived areas. This should ease pressures elsewhere in the NHS, with tooth decay being the most common reason for hospital admissions in children between five and nine years old. 

The DHSC’s latest measures form part of the government’s Plan for Change. This includes a ten year Health Plan which aims to benefit millions across the country through a more streamlined and prevention-focused NHS.

Discussing the Plan for Change, Kinnock said these reforms are “essential” to “building an NHS fit for the future and making sure poor oral health doesn’t hold people back from getting into work and staying healthy”. 

This formed part of their wider Modern Industrial Strategy which also saw the announcement of plans to boost areas such as the UK’s creative industries, the digital and technologies sector, and clean energy. 

The plan for the Professional and Business Services sector, which includes areas such as accounting, legal firms, IT specialists, and consultancy, revolves around the government’s ambition to remain at the forefront of the commercial opportunities offered by new technology.

This is to ensure that the UK remains a key global player in these industries, aiming to “be the world’s most trusted adviser to global industry, with the most dynamic and productive PBS sector” by 2035. 

Global and domestic significance

Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary of State for Business and Trade wrote that professional and business services are “vital to enabling wider national prosperity”. Having contributed £300 billion to the UK economy in 2024, this plan makes it clear that the professional and business services sector is “at the heart” of the government’s industrial strategy. 

The government is keen to point out the significance of the professional and business services sector across the whole of the UK. The country hosts the “Big Four” advisory services firms (Deloitte, KPMG, Ernst & Young, and PricewaterhouseCoopers) alongside seven of the largest 20 legal services firms. 

However, the plan stresses that PBS are significant across the country. Over half of jobs in the sector are located outside London and the South East, with hubs in cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

The professional and business services sector is expected to grow by £322 billion in gross value added to the economy by 2035 – an increase of 113 per cent. As such, the government has stated they will increase their annual investment in the business sector from £35 billion to £65 billion by 2035. This is to keep up with the sector’s fast-growing nature to ensure competitiveness on the global stage. 

The sector is also becoming increasingly important to the government’s net zero ambitions, with the new 10-year plan outlining how professional and business services will act in alignment with the clean energy industry and support ESG programmes across the economy.

The impact of AI

Artificial intelligence (AI) features prominently throughout the plan, with Reynolds stating: “PBS are now at inflection point”. While AI and technological evolutions offer ways of improving productivity, they can also disrupt established business models.

The government is aiming to work with industry during this reshaping to ensure the UK’s continued dynamism and innovation. 

According to experts, AI systems able to automate a wide variety of economically valuable tasks could be here by 2030. This requires the government to reinforce the professional and business services sector so that the UK can be the most trusted adviser to global industry by 2035. 

The ten year plan aims to incorporate AI into new, technology-led business models, stating: “We want the UK to be an AI maker, not just an AI taker”. 

The government has committed to a four part plan to achieve these goals.

1. Ease, speed, and long-term stability

To achieve long-term stability, the professional and business services plan focuses on increasing technology adoption and innovation, and developing a highly skilled workforce. 

Building on digital fields to expand growth and higher levels of AI adoption while also addressing gaps between larger firms and the rest of the sector will encourage long-term growth and evolution. 38 per cent of businesses in the sector have already adopted AI into their processes, but the adoption gap is widening between large firms and the rest of the sector. 

The plan dedicates £150 million to support five programmes encouraging innovation and the adoption of technology. Alongside this, the government will appoint an AI Champion for the professional and business services sector this summer to deliver the government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan published in January this year. 

To create high quality, well-paid jobs across the country, the plan prioritises staff reskilling, especially in specialist areas such as digital technologies, climate transition, and cybersecurity.

The sector pays 21.4 per cent above the average wage yet has 17 per cent of the UK’s vacancies. The ten year plan focuses on developing a workforce with the necessary skills to make the most of the new opportunities afforded by technological developments. 

The government also hopes to ensure greater ease in transferring these skills abroad, heping the UK to enter new markets and grow exports.

This will include renewing focus on negotiating mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications (RPQ) agreements. RPQs enable UK-qualified professionals in regulated sectors to have a smooth route in getting their qualifications recognised in Switzerland, and vice-versa.

The government also aims to provide international leadership in setting standards and regulations, creating more demand for UK services.

Within the UK itself, the ten year plan seeks to improve business growth, enabling access to growth finance in all UK regions.

This will be achieved by increased early-stage support for businesses which will help them raise capital and attract investment, improving both the ease and speed of business growth. 

2. Supporting frontier industries

The focus here is on growth, prioritising those frontier industries with pioneering and world-leading potential. The plan outlines ways in which accountancy, audit and tax, legal services, and management consultancy can make the most of the new opportunities afforded by this focus. 

The growing need for green infrastructure projects is an example of this opportunity for sector growth, tying the plan in with the government’s net zero agenda.

An estimated $3.7 trillion will be spent per year on global infrastructure programmes up to 2030. As a result, the UK’s strategies for infrastructure and decarbonisation will open up new avenues for professional and business services to advise and consult within other growing industries to create a more streamlined and interconnected green economy.

The accountancy, audit, and tax sector contributed £33.3 billion to the UK’s gross value added (GVA) last year. However, firms outside of London and the South East face difficulties in staff retention and traditional methods of accounting are also becoming increasingly automated, particularly with AI causing a reduction in entry level positions.

The ten year plan focuses on expanding ways in which these businesses can provide a broader provision of services while also aiming to attract and retain more talent, ensuring AI is used as a tool to drive growth and innovation, opening doors to more jobs, rather than closing them. 

Demand for consultancy is continuing to grow across the UK and the rest of the world. In this sector the focus remains on upskilling workers to embrace new areas in climate transition, digital, and AI so that the UK will continue to be a global leader. 

3. Realising the UK’s economic potential

Here again, the government is focused on the potential for growth, making the most of regional potential across the UK is described as a “core objective” of the government’s industrial strategy.

The plan hones in on creating the ideal local conditions for business growth, launching five new professional and business services hubs as “centres of national excellence”.

They will be located in Liverpool City Region, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands, and the Edinburgh-Glasgow Central Belt in Scotland.

These locations have been identified as having the greatest potential for PBS growth, also tying in with the government’s reiteration of PBS being vital throughout the country as a whole. 

The government will build on the inherent strengths within each region while also delivering technology adoption and innovation programmes across the regions.

Alongside this, the plan includes embedding professional and business services as a recognised career path from an early age, acting as a further mode of boosting the workforce. 

4. Partnership with industry

The ten year plan was created in conjunction with The Professional and Business Services Council (PBSC), the sector’s leading representative body. It will continue to work with the government to deliver the full professional and business services plan across the UK, supporting voluntary initiatives such as a “regional secondment scheme” in PBS Hub locations. This is all in a bid to ensure growth and sustainability.  

To help with the implementation of the plan over the next ten years, the government aims to develop a proposal for the creation of an Office for Professional and Business Services which will both oversee and develop the programme. 

The plan will be monitored by tracking the five core economic indicators of productivity growth: GVA, labour market outcomes, business investments, trade exports, and the number of new, large “home grown” businesses. 

Final Thoughts

It is clear that “growth, growth, growth” is at the heart of this ten year plan.

While the PBS sector is undoubtedly fast-growing, the continued delivery of growth requires a vast amount of upskilling, innovation, and adaptation. It is promising that the key concerns of AI and the climate crisis are placed at the heart of the plan, showing the government’s commitment to evolving with the modern world rather than resisting change.

Pairing this with a holistic approach to growth, focusing on the depth and breadth of the UK, will ensure that, if successful, the plan will carry the whole of the UK forward into the evolving 21st century. 

The reserve is home to a variety of rare species such as nightjars, sand lizards, adders, and natterjack toads. It comprises 2,765 hectares of greenspace including dry and wet heath, acidic grassland, regenerating woodland, and scrubby heath.

This marks the ninth National Nature Reserve to join the scheme, which was launched in May 2023 to celebrate King Charles II’s coronation. It aims to create or extend 25 National Nature Reserves by 2027 in line with the previous government’s focus on nature recovery.

The reserves also contribute to the current government’s environmental plans, with Labour promising to “deliver for nature” in last year’s election manifesto.

Nature Minister Mary Creagh welcomed the new reserve, saying: “Britain is a nation of nature lovers – proud of our iconic landscapes and charismatic wildlife”

“This new reserve offers wonderful opportunities for people to experience the outdoors and spot rare wildlife in a place which has been a source of cultural inspiration,” she continued.

Located 45 minutes outside of London, the area sees thousands of visitors each year, and contains “Britain’s Favourite Path” – the Thursley Common Boardwalk. 

The reserve’s declaration as a National Reserve hopes to secure its continued enjoyment by future generations and to enhance the area’s biodiversity. 

Heathlands in England have declined by around 80 per cent in the last two hundred years, with this area already forming part of the Heathland Connections Nature Recovery Project.

The project, funded by the Department for Food, Environment, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Natural England works with landowners and wildlife charities to enhance, restore, and connect Surrey’s heathland areas.

Chief Executive of Natural England, Marian Spain, said: “There is a wealth of species here, many of which are very rare, and efforts to maintain the vital habitats in this area will help these plants and animals to thrive again.”

Both sand lizards and natterjack toads were categorised as Priority Species under the UK post-2010 Biodiversity Framework and are listed as European Protected Species. 

Dr Tony Gent, Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust CEO, said: “By aligning conservation goals and underpinning them with robust monitoring, we can develop a shared agenda for conserving these species – while also identifying and addressing areas where biodiversity is in decline.”

The heathland is also a source of cultural importance, inspiring literary figures such as Alfred Lord Tennyson and Arthur Conan Doyle, and being home to the “Devil’s Punchbowl”. This natural amphitheatre is heralded in folklore to have been formed when the Devil “scooped up earth to throw at Thor”. 

Work to create National Nature Reserves in England began during the Second World War, with 221 being declared during Queen Elizabeth II’s 70-year reign. The Lincolnshire Coronation Coast National Nature Reserve was the first to be announced as part of the new “King’s Series”. 

Featured image via Sterling Images / Shutterstocks.