The Trump administration will approve its first sale of military equipment to Ukraine since Donald Trump took office, in an indication that the minerals deal signed by the two countries this week may open a path to renewed weapons shipments.

The state department has certified a proposed licence to export “$50m or more” (£37.6m) of defence hardware and services to Ukraine, according to a communication sent to the US committee on foreign relations. It would mark the first permission of its kind since Trump paused all Ukraine-related military aid shortly after taking office.

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said on Thursday evening that the signing of the long-discussed minerals deal – on much better terms for Ukraine than had previously been expected – was a result of the meeting he held with Trump on the sidelines of the pope’s funeral on Saturday.

“Now we have the first result of the Vatican meeting, which makes it really historic. We are waiting for other results of the meeting,” he said, in his nightly video address.

Zelenskyy hailed the deal as “truly equal”, saying it created “an opportunity for quite significant investment in Ukraine”.

A senior aide said Kyiv hoped that weapons deliveries would resume swiftly. “There is no direct link where it’s written that ‘you will receive these particular weapons’, but it opens the possibility for parallel talks on the purchase of weapons,” said Mykhailo Podolyak, an aide to Zelenskyy, during an interview in Kyiv. “The American side is now open to these discussions,” he added.

Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, signed the agreement in Washington on Wednesday, along with the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent. Senior US officials told reporters that they expected Ukraine’s parliament to ratify the deal within a week. The agreement will see a joint fund set up by the two countries, to be financed from new licenses to exploit deposits of critical minerals, oil and gas.

After several weeks when Trump appeared to be soft on Russia and harsh towards Ukraine, authorities in Kyiv hope the dynamic may be changing. Zelenskyy said on Thursday the minerals agreement had “changed significantly during the process” and that it was “now a really equal agreement which allows for investment in Ukraine”.

Most notably, it excludes from its remit money previously sent to Ukraine as military and humanitarian aid, which Trump had repeatedly said he hoped to recoup. It also explicitly states that it should be implemented in a way that does not hamper Ukraine’s integration with the EU and that US companies will not have a monopoly on deals in Ukraine, but merely obtain the right to take part in competitive bids on fair terms.

The final document followed almost three months of back-and-forth negotiation, after the first outline was brought to Kyiv by Bessent and rejected by Zelenskyy as far too punitive to sign. A later signing ceremony was planned at the White House in February, but broke down after Trump and JD Vance turned on Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, prompting an abrupt conclusion of talks and the Ukrainian president being asked to leave.

Asked how Kyiv had been able to improve the terms of the minerals deal, Podolyak claimed that the actual discussions had proceeded in a very different tone to some of Trump’s public statements.

“That’s just the style of this [US] administration, it’s very aggressive with communications. They will allow leaks of the most horrible conditions and so on, but then in reality they negotiate normally and you can achieve a result,” he said. “They just use this aggression to try to improve their starting position,” he added.

Podolyak said that because US weapons supplied would now need to be bought, Kyiv would need to be more selective about what it requested from the US. “I think fairly quickly we will understand which types of weapons, to carefully select the unique weapons the US has. Because if we can produce our own drones, for example, then we will do that here. But there are some critical weapon types which only the US produces and nobody else,” he said.

Zelenskyy has previously expressed interest in spending tens of billions of dollars on buying Patriot air defence systems from the US, suggesting this could be done either through financing from European allies or through the planned minerals fund.

It was not immediately clear what weapons or services the more modest $50m now on the table referred to. The state department is required to notify Congress of significant sales of armaments and military services under the Arms Export Control Act.

Authorisation was sought for a direct commercial sale, which authorises the transfer of “defense articles or defense services made under a Department of State issued license by US industry directly to a foreign buyer”. The intended sale was first reported by the Kyiv Post.

The last aid package to Ukraine came under the Biden administration, when Congress authorised $1bn in spending as the outgoing administration sought to fast-track military aid before Trump took office.

Russia’s reaction to the minerals deal has been muted, with the exception of the hawkish former president Dmitry Medvedev who claimed it was a disaster for Zelenskyy. “Trump has broken the Kyiv regime to the point where they will have to pay for US aid with mineral resources,” he wrote on Telegram. “Now they [Ukrainians] will have to pay for military supplies with the national wealth of a disappearing country.”

• Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has hailed the long-discussed minerals deal with the US as “historic”, and suggested it had been much improved during those talks to now become “an equal partnership”. In his nightly address, he said: “The agreement has changed significantly during the preparation process. It is now truly an equal partnership – one that creates opportunities for substantial investment in Ukraine, as well as significant modernisation of Ukraine’s industries and, equally importantly, its legal practices.” He said the deal was the result of a “meaningful meeting” with Donald Trump at the Vatican on the fringes of Pope Francis’s funeral service and that he looks forward to the further results arising from that meeting.

• Ukrainian analysts have noted that Kyiv has apparently been able to extract some major concessions, despite Donald Trump’s repeated claim that Ukraine “has no cards” to play. “Ukraine held the line. Despite enormous pressure, every overreaching demand from the other side was dropped. The final deal looks fair,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, president of the Kyiv School of Economics, wrote on X. Notably absent from the final text was the insistence that Ukraine should repay previous military US assistance via the deal, something Trump has previously repeatedly demanded.

• The Kremlin was silent on Wednesday’s agreement, but former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev claimed it meant Trump had “broken the Kyiv regime” because Ukraine would have to pay for US military aid with mineral resources.

• The deal will show the “Russian leadership that there is no daylight between the Ukrainian people and the American people, between our goals,” US treasury secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business Network in an interview. “And again, I think this is a strong signal to the Russian leadership, and it gives President Trump the ability to now negotiate with Russia on even a stronger basis,” he said. His remarks appeared to send a signal to Russia that Washington remains aligned with Kyiv despite question marks over its commitment to its ally since Trump’s return to power upended US diplomacy.

• The Trump administration will approve its first sale of military equipment to Ukraine since Trump took office, in an indication that the minerals deal signed by the two countries this week may open a path to renewed weapons shipments. The state department has certified a proposed licence to export “$50m or more” of defence hardware and services to Ukraine, according to a communication sent to the US committee on foreign relations. Trump paused all Ukraine-related military aid shortly after taking office.

• The state department announced a 30-year veteran of the foreign service to run the US embassy in Kyiv “during this critical moment as we move toward a peace agreement to stop the bloodshed”. The appointment of Julie Davis, now the US ambassador to Cyprus, was announced the day after the minerals deal was signed. She has previously served as ambassador to Belarus and deputy ambassador to Nato. She replaces Bridget Brink, who announced she was leaving the post last month as the Trump administration pushed ahead with plans for peace talks that many believed favoured Moscow.

• French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Thursday that the European Union was preparing a 17th round of sanctions against Russia, describing Vladimir Putin as the “sole obstacle” to peace in Ukraine. The 27-nation bloc has hit Russia with multiple rounds of sanctions in response to its invasion of Ukraine and said earlier this year that it would not lift them before the “unconditional” withdrawal of Moscow’s forces from its neighbour. “We Europeans will accompany this American [sanctions] initiative with a 17th package of sanctions and I committed yesterday to [US senator] Lindsey Graham that we would try to coordinate both the substance and the timing of these two packages of sanctions,” Barrot told AFP in an interview.

• A Russian drone attack late on Thursday set buildings ablaze in Ukraine’s south-eastern city of Zaporizhzhia, injuring 14 people, but causing no deaths, regional governor Ivan Fedorov said. Fedorov, writing on the Telegram messaging app, clarified earlier casualty figures, saying a report that one person was killed had proved to be untrue. One man buried under rubble had been pulled out alive, he said. Nine people were being treated in hospital.
  Fedorov said Russian forces had made at least 10 strikes on the city, targeting private homes, high-rise apartment buildings, educational institutions and infrastructure sites.

• Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has hailed the long-discussed minerals deal with the US as “historic”, and suggested it had been much improved during those talks to now become “an equal partnership”. In his nightly address, he said: “The agreement has changed significantly during the preparation process. It is now truly an equal partnership – one that creates opportunities for substantial investment in Ukraine, as well as significant modernisation of Ukraine’s industries and, equally importantly, its legal practices.” He said the deal was the result of a “meaningful meeting” with Donald Trump at the Vatican on the fringes of Pope Francis’s funeral service and that he looks forward to the further results arising from that meeting.

• Ukrainian analysts have noted that Kyiv has apparently been able to extract some major concessions, despite Donald Trump’s repeated claim that Ukraine “has no cards” to play. “Ukraine held the line. Despite enormous pressure, every overreaching demand from the other side was dropped. The final deal looks fair,” Tymofiy Mylovanov, president of the Kyiv School of Economics, wrote on X. Notably absent from the final text was the insistence that Ukraine should repay previous military US assistance via the deal, something Trump has previously repeatedly demanded.

• The Kremlin was silent on Wednesday’s agreement, but former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev claimed it meant Trump had “broken the Kyiv regime” because Ukraine would have to pay for US military aid with mineral resources.

• The deal will show the “Russian leadership that there is no daylight between the Ukrainian people and the American people, between our goals,” US treasury secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business Network in an interview. “And again, I think this is a strong signal to the Russian leadership, and it gives President Trump the ability to now negotiate with Russia on even a stronger basis,” he said. His remarks appeared to send a signal to Russia that Washington remains aligned with Kyiv despite question marks over its commitment to its ally since Trump’s return to power upended US diplomacy.

• The Trump administration will approve its first sale of military equipment to Ukraine since Trump took office, in an indication that the minerals deal signed by the two countries this week may open a path to renewed weapons shipments. The state department has certified a proposed licence to export “$50m or more” of defence hardware and services to Ukraine, according to a communication sent to the US committee on foreign relations. Trump paused all Ukraine-related military aid shortly after taking office.

• The state department announced a 30-year veteran of the foreign service to run the US embassy in Kyiv “during this critical moment as we move toward a peace agreement to stop the bloodshed”. The appointment of Julie Davis, now the US ambassador to Cyprus, was announced the day after the minerals deal was signed. She has previously served as ambassador to Belarus and deputy ambassador to Nato. She replaces Bridget Brink, who announced she was leaving the post last month as the Trump administration pushed ahead with plans for peace talks that many believed favoured Moscow.

• French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Thursday that the European Union was preparing a 17th round of sanctions against Russia, describing Vladimir Putin as the “sole obstacle” to peace in Ukraine. The 27-nation bloc has hit Russia with multiple rounds of sanctions in response to its invasion of Ukraine and said earlier this year that it would not lift them before the “unconditional” withdrawal of Moscow’s forces from its neighbour. “We Europeans will accompany this American [sanctions] initiative with a 17th package of sanctions and I committed yesterday to [US senator] Lindsey Graham that we would try to coordinate both the substance and the timing of these two packages of sanctions,” Barrot told AFP in an interview.

• A Russian drone attack late on Thursday set buildings ablaze in Ukraine’s south-eastern city of Zaporizhzhia, injuring 14 people, but causing no deaths, regional governor Ivan Fedorov said. Fedorov, writing on the Telegram messaging app, clarified earlier casualty figures, saying a report that one person was killed had proved to be untrue. One man buried under rubble had been pulled out alive, he said. Nine people were being treated in hospital.
  Fedorov said Russian forces had made at least 10 strikes on the city, targeting private homes, high-rise apartment buildings, educational institutions and infrastructure sites.

Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and his deputy, Alex Wong, will be leaving their posts after they lost the confidence of other administration officials and found themselves without allies at the White House, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The exit of Waltz and Wong marked the conclusion of a fraught tenure. In March, Waltz inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, to a Signal group chat that shared sensitive information about US missile strikes in Yemen before they took place.

Trump announced in a Truth Social post later on Thursday that he would name his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, to also take on the job of the national security adviser on an interim basis, and that he would nominate Waltz to be the US ambassador to the United Nations.

The president briefly considered firing Waltz over the Signal episode, but decided he did not want the media to claim the ouster of a cabinet official weeks into his second term. Trump was also mollified by an internal review that found Waltz mistakenly saved the Atlantic editor’s number.

The furore over the Signal group chat, if anything, was widely seen to have bought Waltz and Wong additional time after they had both been on shaky ground for weeks. That was in large part because of a strained working relationship with Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, and other top officials.

The interpersonal difficulties extended to Wong, according to a person directly familiar with the ousters. Wong frustrated some officials at other agencies who were involved in national security matters and complained to people in the West Wing that Waltz refused to rein him in, the person said.

In the days after the Signal group chat episode, Waltz sought advice from JD Vance and others in the vice-president’s circle about how to reset relations. Vance counseled Waltz to be more deferential to Wiles, who had pushed for him to get the job, and throw around his weight less.

But Waltz also came under fire from other quarters. Even though he was cleared in the internal review into Signalgate, as it came to be known, Waltz faced pressure for being seen as a war hawk and at odds with Trump’s “America first” agenda.

That included scrutiny at a dinner that Waltz attended with Trump and some of Trump’s allies including Tucker Carlson, who has been skeptical of the adviser. The outside pressure campaign to remove Waltz additionally included an effort led by Steve Bannon, the people said.

And the far-right activist Laura Loomer, who pushed a conspiracy theory that Wong had loyalties to China, weakened Waltz’s power after she went to the White House last month at Trump’s invitation and successfully pushed for Trump to fire a number of Waltz’s staffers.

The gutting of Waltz’s staff was widely seen to have weakened his position inside Trump’s orbit. As Carlson, Bannon and Loomer separately pushed a whisper campaign that Waltz would be out before June, officials in the White House concurred that Waltz’s influence was waning.

This week, it was quietly made clear to Waltz and Wong that their time at the national security council would be coming to an end. Waltz tried to extend his tenure by attending a cabinet meeting on Wednesday but was informed of his removal on Thursday, one of the people said.

The removal of Waltz was so abrupt that it only became clear to many in the White House on Thursday morning. Waltz appeared to sense something was going on before he appeared on Fox News in the morning, but he did not know that he was being pushed out, a person familiar with the matter said.

With Waltz departing just months into the job – having left behind a safe seat in Congress – the national security council has been left without an overarching strategy. Ordinarily, the national security adviser develops a strategy by hashing out plans with other agencies over months.

The US strategy for some major foreign national security issues, including how to engage with China on thorny issues such as its posture towards Taiwan, its priorities in the Indo-Pacific region and adversarial military plans against allies, remains a work in progress.

And with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Waltz had pressed Trump to hit Russian Vladimir Putin with deep, punitive sanctions if he failed to agree to a peace deal being brokered by Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff. That sort of moderate recommendation in policy discussions may also be gone with Waltz’s removal.

The top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, welcomed the firing but said that the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was most deserving of losing his job.

“They should fire him, but they’re firing the wrong guy. They should be firing Hegseth,” the minority leader told reporters at the Capitol.

He accused Republicans of confirming a defense secretary who was unfit for the job, and predicted scandals similar to Signalgate – where Hegseth, Waltz and other national security officials shared details of airstrikes in Yemen in a group chat – would happen in the future.

“They fired the [national security council] guy, but there are going to be many more problems, just like Signalgate that come out of the defense department, as long as Hegseth is in charge. This is not a one-off. This is going to happen over and over and over again.”

Trump’s move to name Rubio the interim national security adviser took officials at the state department by surprise. Tammy Bruce, the spokesperson for the state department, appeared to learn about the decision from a reporter during a news conference in real time.

The appointment means Rubio has taken on a total of four positions in the administration. In addition to being secretary of state and interim national security adviser, he is also currently serving as the acting USAID administrator and the acting national archivist.

Chris Stein contributed reporting

People in the most deprived areas of England are almost twice as likely to be admitted to hospital as a result of infectious diseases than their least deprived counterparts, according to a major study.

The report, by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), analysed NHS and government data to look at the state of health inequalities in England due to infectious diseases and environmental health hazards.

The analysis found a stark regional divide across England: those living in the north-west of the country were 30% more likely to be admitted to hospital for an infectious disease, with 3,600 admissions for every 100,000 people between September 2023 and August 2024, compared with the average for England, which stood at 2,800 for every 100,000.

The study found that inequality was highest in the case of respiratory infections, with an estimated additional 260,000 admissions due to inequalities associated with deprivation. People living in the 20% most deprived areas of England were twice as likely to be admitted to hospital for respiratory diseases, seven times as likely for tuberculosis and six times for measles, than their counterparts from the least deprived areas.

The analysis also revealed stark ethnic inequalities. Although admission rates were low overall for tuberculosis, emergency hospital admissions for the disease were 15 times higher for people from a black African background compared with those categorised as white British.

It was also estimated that these inequalities in emergency admissions for infectious diseases cost the NHS in England between £970m and £1.5bn in 2022-23.

Prof David Taylor-Robinson, an academic co-director at Health Equity North and professor of public health and policy at the University of Liverpool, said: “This report echoes past research showing that deprived communities, typically in the North of England, bear the brunt of health inequalities.

“It is particularly troubling to see the high number of hospital admissions due to infectious diseases, especially as some of these are preventable diseases.”

He added: “Our previous analysis has shown that childhood vaccine uptake in England has plummeted among the most disadvantaged families. This is against a backdrop of cuts to local government, pressures on the NHS, and the growing number of children living in poverty.

“Protecting children from vaccine-preventable diseases should be a public health priority, otherwise we will see more hospitalisations and deaths from these entirely preventable diseases.”

Dr Leonora Weil, the interim deputy director for health equity and inclusion at UKHSA, said the report revealed some “stark” facts on the state of inequalities in health security faced by some people, “in particular those living in the most deprived communities and certain areas of the country, some ethnic groups, as well as excluded groups such as those experiencing homelessness.

“These health-protection inequalities – where there are poorer health outcomes based on where you live, your socioeconomic status or ethnicity – are avoidable, pervasive and preventable. That is why it is so important to shine a light on these findings to increase action to support communities to live longer and in better health.”

She added: “This report is just the start. We need to build on these insights, as only through persistent and dedicated effort across all health organisations will we make a real difference to helping all people live longer and in better health.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This shocking report shows the appalling healthcare inequalities this government inherited.

“Our Plan for Change is reforming the NHS to get it back on its feet so it is there for everyone, regardless of who they are or where they live. We have hit the ground running, delivering an extra 3 million appointments since July to cut waiting lists.

People in the most deprived areas of England are almost twice as likely to be admitted to hospital as a result of infectious diseases than their least deprived counterparts, according to a major study.

The report, by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), analysed NHS and government data to look at the state of health inequalities in England due to infectious diseases and environmental health hazards.

The analysis found a stark regional divide across England: those living in the north-west of the country were 30% more likely to be admitted to hospital for an infectious disease, with 3,600 admissions for every 100,000 people between September 2023 and August 2024, compared with the average for England, which stood at 2,800 for every 100,000.

The study found that inequality was highest in the case of respiratory infections, with an estimated additional 260,000 admissions due to inequalities associated with deprivation. People living in the 20% most deprived areas of England were twice as likely to be admitted to hospital for respiratory diseases, seven times as likely for tuberculosis and six times for measles, than their counterparts from the least deprived areas.

The analysis also revealed stark ethnic inequalities. Although admission rates were low overall for tuberculosis, emergency hospital admissions for the disease were 15 times higher for people from a black African background compared with those categorised as white British.

It was also estimated that these inequalities in emergency admissions for infectious diseases cost the NHS in England between £970m and £1.5bn in 2022-23.

Prof David Taylor-Robinson, an academic co-director at Health Equity North and professor of public health and policy at the University of Liverpool, said: “This report echoes past research showing that deprived communities, typically in the North of England, bear the brunt of health inequalities.

“It is particularly troubling to see the high number of hospital admissions due to infectious diseases, especially as some of these are preventable diseases.”

He added: “Our previous analysis has shown that childhood vaccine uptake in England has plummeted among the most disadvantaged families. This is against a backdrop of cuts to local government, pressures on the NHS, and the growing number of children living in poverty.

“Protecting children from vaccine-preventable diseases should be a public health priority, otherwise we will see more hospitalisations and deaths from these entirely preventable diseases.”

Dr Leonora Weil, the interim deputy director for health equity and inclusion at UKHSA, said the report revealed some “stark” facts on the state of inequalities in health security faced by some people, “in particular those living in the most deprived communities and certain areas of the country, some ethnic groups, as well as excluded groups such as those experiencing homelessness.

“These health-protection inequalities – where there are poorer health outcomes based on where you live, your socioeconomic status or ethnicity – are avoidable, pervasive and preventable. That is why it is so important to shine a light on these findings to increase action to support communities to live longer and in better health.”

She added: “This report is just the start. We need to build on these insights, as only through persistent and dedicated effort across all health organisations will we make a real difference to helping all people live longer and in better health.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This shocking report shows the appalling healthcare inequalities this government inherited.

“Our Plan for Change is reforming the NHS to get it back on its feet so it is there for everyone, regardless of who they are or where they live. We have hit the ground running, delivering an extra 3 million appointments since July to cut waiting lists.

British government lawyers have said Israel is bound by the Geneva conventions to give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Palestinian prisoners and cannot justify its refusal to do so by pointing to Hamas’s treatment of Israeli hostages.

On the fourth day of proceedings at the international court of justice in The Hague, Sally Langrish said there had been “repeated credible reports of ill treatment of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli custody” since the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas on Israel.

She said Hamas’s refusal to give ICRC access to Israeli hostages seized during the attacks could not serve as justification for Israel’s actions. She added that the ICRC played a vital role in protecting and promoting the lives and dignity of the victims of arms conflict.

The UK lawyers also clashed with Israel by insisting that Unrwa, the UN’s Palestinian relief agency, should be regarded as a neutral and impartial body with which the Israeli government had a duty to cooperate to provide aid to the Palestinian people.

Langrish said: “Israel must facilitate full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian provision to the population of Gaza, including food, water and electricity, and must ensure access to medical care in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

Her submission reflected a UK government determination to stand by international law even if it caused severe political difficulties with its close ally Israel. It also exposed clear legal differences with arguments put to the court by the US the day before.

Israel has mounted a total blockade of aid into Gaza since 2 March, leading to mounting reports of desperation among its 2 million people. The ICJ has been asked by the UN general assembly to give an advisory opinion on Israel’s obligations to allow aid into Gaza, and on its duty to cooperate with UN bodies, notably Unrwa.

Israel, along with its chief legal backer, the US, claims ending all cooperation with Unrwa is justified since under the Geneva conventions it is required to facilitate only the provision of aid with neutral bodies, a description it said Unrwa had forfeited because of alleged infiltration by Hamas.

More than 40 countries and bodies, including the UN itself, are giving oral submissions to the UN’s top court.

Dismissing Israeli claims that Unrwa was a Hamas front, Langrish said: “The United Kingdom considers that Unrwa is an impartial humanitarian organisation for the purposes of article 59 of the fourth Geneva convention. Insofar as impartiality is understood as meaning neutrality, Unrwa also satisfies that requirement.”

She said Israel was bound under article 59 as the occupying power “to facilitate the provision of food, stuff, medical supplies and clothing into the occupied Palestinian territories”.

“That obligation continues to apply for so long as part of the population is inadequately supplied. A refusal to negotiate or agree to relief schemes will constitute a violation of article 59,” she said. “This obligation is unconditional. Facilitation requires wholehearted cooperation in the rapid and scrupulous execution of these schemes. This includes the provision of transport, storage and distribution facilities.”

She also pointed out that under article 55, for Israel to meet its obligations to provide relief through a third party such as Unrwa, “the occupying power must ensure the safety and security of that third party as far as possible”.

Israel, she argued, had only a limited right to choose the agency to distribute aid.

A Soviet-era spacecraft meant to land on Venus in the 1970s is expected to soon plunge uncontrolled back to Earth.

It’s too early to know where the half-ton mass of metal might come down or how much of it will survive re-entry, according to space debris-tracking experts.

Dutch scientist Marco Langbroek predicts the failed spacecraft will re-enter about 10 May. He estimates it will come crashing in at 150mph (242km/h), if it remains intact.

“While not without risk, we should not be too worried,” Langbroek said in an email.

The object is relatively small and, even if it doesn’t break apart, “the risk is similar to that of a random meteorite fall, several of which happen each year. You run a bigger risk of getting hit by lightning in your lifetime,” he said.

The chance of the spacecraft actually hitting someone or something is small, he added. “But it cannot be completely excluded.”

The Soviet Union launched the spacecraft known as Kosmos 482 in 1972, one of a series of Venus missions. But it never made it out of Earth orbit because of a rocket malfunction.

Most of it came tumbling down within a decade. But Langbroek and others believe the landing capsule itself — a spherical object about 3ft (1 metre) in diameter — has been circling the world in a highly elliptical orbit for the past 53 years, gradually dropping in altitude.

It’s quite possible that the 1,000lb-plus (nearly 500kg) spacecraft will survive re-entry. It was built to withstand a descent through the carbon dioxide-thick atmosphere of Venus, said Langbroek of Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.

Experts doubt the parachute system would work after so many years. The heat shield may also be compromised after so long in orbit.

It would be better if the heat shield fails, which would cause the spacecraft to burn up during its dive through the atmosphere, Jonathan McDowell at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in an email. But if the heat shield holds, “it’ll re-enter intact and you have a half-ton metal object falling from the sky”.

The spacecraft could re-enter anywhere between 51.7 degrees north and south latitude, or as far north as London and Edmonton in Alberta, Canada, almost all the way down to South America’s Cape Horn. But since most of the planet is water, “chances are good it will indeed end up in some ocean”, Langbroek said.

In 2022, a Chinese booster rocket made an uncontrolled return to Earth and in 2018 the Tiangong-1 space station re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere over the south Pacific after an uncontrolled re-entry.

Amid concerns about his health, Ozzy Osbourne has insisted he will perform in July at what is being billed as his final concert, fronting the original lineup of Black Sabbath.

Speaking along with his bandmates to the Guardian’s Alexis Petridis in an interview to be published on Friday, he said: “I’ll be there, and I’ll do the best I can. So all I can do is turn up.”

The concert, titled Back to the Beginning and held at the band’s beloved Villa Park in Birmingham, features an all-star supporting lineup of metal greats including Metallica, Slayer and Anthrax. But this week, the frontman of another supporting act, Tool, voiced doubt about Osbourne’s ability to perform.

“I’m cautious about saying, ‘Yeah! All in, he’s gonna do it’,” Maynard James Keenan said. “I don’t know what kind of modern miracles we’ll come up with to get him on stage to do the songs, but this is gonna be a challenge for them. So, I’m honoured to be a part of it, but I’m kinda preparing for the worst, but hoping for the best.”

Osbourne has experienced an extraordinary run of back luck with his health in recent years, including a 2019 fall that exacerbated an earlier spinal injury, requiring numerous surgeries. He has also suffered pneumonia and a longstanding infection, and has been diagnosed with a form of Parkinson’s.

Speaking to the Guardian, he acknowledged the psychological toll: “You wake up the next morning and find that something else has gone wrong. You begin to think this is never going to end.” He said the reunion concert was conceived by his wife, Sharon, as “something to give me a reason to get up in the morning”.

Back to the Beginning will reunite Osbourne with his original Black Sabbath bandmates for the first time in 20 years: guitarist Tony Iommi, bassist Geezer Butler and drummer Bill Ward. After forming in 1968 in Birmingham, the almighty weight of their sound, topped with Osbourne’s penetrating holler, ushered in an entire genre of heavy metal and resulted in classic albums such as Paranoid and Master of Reality. Osbourne left in 1979, then returned in 1997. The classic lineup played together until 2005, continuing without Ward for further tours and a final studio album, 2013’s 13.

Osbourne detailed his preparation for the reunion concert to the Guardian. “I do weights, bike riding, I’ve got a guy living at my house who’s working with me. It’s tough – I’ve been laid up for such a long time. I’ve been lying on my back doing nothing and the first thing to go is your strength. It’s like starting all over again. I’ve got a vocal coach coming round four days a week to keep my voice going. I have problems walking. I also get blood pressure issues, from blood clots on my legs. I’m used to doing two hours on stage, jumping and running around. I don’t think I’ll be doing much jumping or running around this time. I may be sitting down.”

He said he won’t be performing a full set. “We’re only playing a couple of songs each. I don’t want people thinking ‘we’re getting ripped off’, because it’s just going to be … what’s the word? … a sample, you’re going to get a few songs each by Ozzy and Sabbath.”

Elsewhere in the Guardian interview, the other band members speak about their own reasons for returning, and Sharon details her and Ozzy’s plans for retirement.

The concert, on 5 July, will raise funds for three charities: Cure Parkinson’s, Birmingham Children’s Hospital and the Birmingham-based Acorns Children’s Hospice.

A long-awaited assessment of the impact of assisted dying legislation will put a price on administrating the procedure for the first time and is expected to conclude it will save parts of the NHS money by accelerating the deaths of terminally ill people.

The Whitehall document, which is expected as soon as Friday, is likely to make difficult reading for both sides of the campaign, government sources have suggested.

One warned the language used in the impact assessment could be dehumanising as it set out to quantify the costs and savings of the state helping people to end their lives in England and Wales.

It is expected to put a figure on the costs of enacting the change, including a tribunal-style system for assessing requests for an assisted death and potential costs to the health service.

But it will also assess if there will be savings from allowing people with intensive care needs to end their lives more quickly. The bill would only allow terminally ill people with fewer than six months to live to end their lives.

The document, which has been prepared by civil servants, will also assess equality and human rights issues.

The timing of the release has caused some anger among MPs who suggested the report was being deliberately released to coincide with the aftermath of the local elections. But one government source denied it was a deliberate comms ploy. “When something like this is ready, you can’t sit on it,” they said.

The Labour MP Meg Hillier, who voted against the bill, said: “Releasing this long-delayed impact assessment while MPs are focused on local election counts far from Westminster and only weeks before the bill comes back to parliament is another example of the failure of this process to live up to the promises made to MPs at second reading.

“This is a weighty piece of legislation, with significant changes from second reading, such as the removal of the high court judge. It’s essential that MPs have a real opportunity for proper scrutiny and improvement to do justice to a bill of such consequence and to all those potentially impacted by it.”

MPs will vote again on the private member’s bill, sponsored by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, on 16 May after it was delayed by three weeks to avoid a clash with local elections and allow more time for the impact assessment to be prepared.

The Commons speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, is said to have resisted calls for the final Commons stage to be wrapped up that day and – should the bill pass in May – a final vote is expected on 13 June.

Campaigners who oppose the change have stepped up efforts in recent weeks to get wavering MPs to change their minds and vote against the bill in a fortnight’s time.

Labour MPs organised a “committee of the unheard” with campaigners against the bill who were not among those experts chosen to give evidence to the bill’s scrutiny committee. The bill had a majority of 55 at the last parliamentary vote, needing 28 MPs to change sides.

But those in favour of the bill believe there are few who are changing their minds – just two have gone public so far.

“Every media outlet that is looking to run ‘support draining away’ stories has so far failed to identify a single MP other than two from Reform who have switched to opposing the bill,” one of those backing the bill said.

“MPs now have the chance to examine a bill that has been made even stronger and safer when it returns to the Commons on 16 May. They will make their own minds up and not be influenced by opponents who claim to know what they think but don’t.”

The government has taken a neutral position on the bill, with MPs voting according to their conscience. Plans are being drawn up in the Department of Health and Social Care for the care minister, Stephen Kinnock, to take over the implementation of the bill should it pass the Commons. The health secretary, Wes Streeting, has said he opposes the bill.

Since the initial vote, the high court’s role in approving assisted deaths has been scrapped and replaced by a panel of experts. Additionally, the implementation period has been doubled to a maximum of four years for an assisted dying service to be in place.

The legislation argues that someone in England and Wales who is terminally ill, with fewer than six months to live, should be legally allowed to end their life, as long as it has been approved by two doctors and an expert panel.

Tourist Nash Core admits he felt some fear when he and his 11-year-old son waded into the ocean off the Australian coast to help rescue a three-metre great white shark stranded in shallow water.

Three local men managed to return the distressed animal from a sand bank into deeper water after an almost hour-long rescue effort on Tuesday near the coastal town of Ardrossan in South Australia.

“It was either sick or … just tired,” said Core, who was visiting with his family from the Gold Coast in Queensland. “We definitely got it into some deeper water, so hopefully it’s swimming still.”

• Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter

Core came across the unusual human-shark interaction while travelling around Australia with his wife, Ash Core, and their sons, Parker, 11, and Lennox, 7.

Nash Core used his drone to shoot video of the writhing shark before he and Parker decided to help the trio who were struggling to move the shark into deeper water.

“To be honest, I did have some thoughts about, ‘oh, why am I going out here?’” Core said on Thursday.

“As we were going out, my young son, Parker, turned to me and said … ‘My heart’s pounding’. I said, ‘Yeah, mine’s beating pretty fast too’.”

The three men had used crab rakes – a garden rake-like tool for digging small crabs from sand – to move the shark into deeper water by the time the father and son arrived.

Core said he decided against pushing the shark himself.

“They … got it into deeper water where I thought it’s probably not a good idea to go any further. That’s its territory and I’ll stay back,” he said.

Core said the rescuers later told him they had never seen a beached shark before.

Macquarie University wildlife scientist Vanessa Pirotta said while shark strandings were not common, they were becoming more visible through social media.

There could be a number of reasons why marine animals like sharks might strand, including illness and injury. The shark could also have chased prey into the shallows, Pirotta said.

“If you see something like this, human safety comes first and foremost,” Pirotta said. “You can contact environmental authorities … who will get someone appropriate to come and assist.”