UK officials are tightening security when handling sensitive trade documents to prevent them from falling into US hands amid Donald Trump’s tariff war, the Guardian can reveal.

In an indication of the strains on the “special relationship”, British civil servants have changed document-handling guidance, adding higher classifications to some trade negotiation documents in order to better shield them from American eyes, sources told the Guardian.

The White House has upended global financial markets and torn up key relationships, with unpredictable and rapidly changing taxes on trading partners including China, the EU and the UK.

Officials were told that the change in protocols was specifically related to tensions over important issues on trade and foreign policy between Washington and London, sources said.

Keir Starmer has prioritised striking a trade deal with Washington, opting not to retaliate over Trump’s decision to impose 10% tariffs on goods exported to the US, and 25% tariffs on UK car and steel exports, instead offering concessions on areas including digital taxes and agriculture.

JD Vance said on Tuesday he believed a mutually beneficial US-UK trade deal was within reach. The US vice-president said officials were “certainly working very hard with Keir Starmer’s government” on a trade deal, adding that it was an “important relationship”.

“There’s a real cultural affinity,” Vance said. “And, of course, fundamentally, America is an anglo country. I think there’s a good chance that, yes, we’ll come to a great agreement that’s in the best interest of both countries.”

However, behind the scenes concern is growing over the vulnerability of UK industries and companies to Trump’s “America first” agenda.

Before Trump’s inauguration, UK trade documents related to US talks were generally marked “Official – sensitive (UK eyes only)”, according to examples seen by the Guardian, and officials were allowed to share these on internal email chains. This classification stood while British officials attempted to negotiate with Joe Biden’s administration, even after a full-blown trade deal was ruled out by the White House.

Now, a far greater proportion of documents and correspondence detailing the negotiating positions being discussed by officials from No 10, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade come with additional handling instructions to avoid US interception, with some classified as “secret” and “top secret”, sources said. These classifications also carry different guidance on how documents may be shared digitally, in order to avoid interception.

Companies with commercial interests in the UK have also been told to take additional precautions in how they share information with the trade department and No 10, senior business sources said. These include large pharmaceutical companies with operations in the UK and EU.

A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: “The US is an indispensable ally and negotiations on an economic prosperity deal that strengthens our existing trading relationship continue.”

Wider questions have been asked about whether the special relationship between the UK and US can withstand increasingly divergent policies on Russian hostility, as well as deep criticisms of Nato and defence collaboration. On trade, pressures are mounting in sensitive areas such as car manufacturing and pharmaceuticals.

Other reports suggest the European Commission has also changed its perspective on the risks of sensitive or secret information being intercepted by the US. Commission employees have been issued with burner phones if they are visiting the US, the Financial Times has reported.

So close has the UK and US position been on defence and security in recent years that secure government material is sometimes marked “UK/US only”, or given a “Five Eyes” marking, in reference to the intelligence-sharing collective made up of the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. So far, the Guardian has only established a change in document-handling related to trade discussions.

Trump’s plan to reboot domestic industry, including in automotive and pharmaceutical manufacturing, has caused consternation among foreign governments keen to protect domestic industries and jobs while trying to strike trade deals to protect against heavy tariffs.

Trump has sought to defend his decision to put vast tariffs in place, saying there would be a “transition cost” from his policies.

The US president also said he would “love” to make a deal with China and that, in his view, he and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, would “end up working out something that’s very good for both countries”.

In a move regarded by some observers as an attempt to soothe market reactions, including a rise in US government borrowing costs, Trump said last week that he would delay further tariffs for 90 days. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said the EU would also delay its response to US tariffs.

Until July, the EU will face a 10% duty on exports to the US, rather than the 20% “reciprocal tariff” rate that was in force for a matter of hours, until Trump’s reversal last Wednesday. US duties of 25% tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars are still in place, however.

Despite suggestions that Trump may be chastened by the markets’ volatile response to his trade policies, the president’s incremental steps have increased duties on Chinese imports to 145%. China responded on Friday by announcing it would increase tariffs on US goods to 125%. The announcement from the Chinese commerce ministry also suggested that it would not pursue higher tariffs in any further retaliatory steps against the US, adding that “at the current tariff level, there is no market acceptance for US goods exported to China”.

“If the US continues to impose tariffs on Chinese goods exported to the US, China will ignore it,” it said, flagging that there were other countermeasures to come. Xi, meanwhile, urged the EU to resist Trump’s “bullying”.

Ministers are having an “active conversation” with UK pharmaceutical firms about the potential impact of US tariffs, amid calls for an emergency taskforce to make sure the supply of medicines is not disrupted.

The UK government has been trying to head off the threat of tariffs to the pharmaceuticals industry, which exports about £7bn of goods to the US – just behind the £8.3bn of car exports.

Ministers and negotiators are fighting to keep the exemption from tariffs for British drugmakers through a possible trade deal, but one Whitehall source said it was “impossible to read the runes” about whether the Trump administration would hit them with the levies.

Government sources said ministers had been talking to industry bosses about the potential impact and what could be done to help pharmaceutical exporters if tariffs were brought in.

One said it was “an important sector for the economy” and there was an “active conversation” about how the government could help if it was targeted by US tariffs.

The industry has refused to comment on the possible imposition of tariffs, but it has been lobbying the UK government hard against the levy on branded medicine sales to the NHS, which they say is higher than in comparable countries.

In Europe, dozens of global pharmaceutical companies have sent a letter to the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, requesting help to maintain operations in the EU in the face of US tariffs threats, including measures to compensate them for the cost of pharmaceutical innovations.

They have said that tariffs would speed up the industry’s shift from Europe towards the US, where the price of medicines is higher.

There are also fears that tariffs on pharmaceuticals globally could cause shocks to the supply chain, threatening the availability of medicines.

The Lib Dems called for an “emergency taskforce” on Wednesday to ensure the security of medicines supply.

Helen Morgan, the Lib Dem health and social care spokesperson, called on Wes Streeting, the health secretary, to “protect NHS funding and millions of patients from drug shortages resulting from Trump’s playground bully tactics”.

“People need to know that the medicines they rely on just to get through their daily lives will be there when they need them, no matter what Trump threatens next, with the government making plans for stockpiling as a matter of urgency,” she said.

“It is vital ministers take steps to reassure the public and prepare for every scenario that the chaotic Trump administration could force upon us.”

No 10 has played down the idea that US tariffs on the trade of drugs and medicinal products will cause shortages. But Streeting has previously said that pharmaceutical tariffs could cause disruption by being “another layer of challenge” to the complicated supply chain for medicines.

Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative chancellor and health secretary, said: “Covid should have meant a lot of work has been done on securing vital supply chains for medicines – but in retrospect it is going to look like an even more tragic mistake for the government to have lost the deal I negotiated with AstraZeneca to manufacture vaccines in Liverpool.”

Earlier this year, AstraZeneca scrapped plans for a £450m expansion of its vaccine manufacturing plant in Merseyside, blaming a cut in the funding on offer from the government.

On Wednesday, Lilian Greenwood, the roads minister, said the government was “aiming for there to be no tariffs”, but that it was all part of a negotiation.

“We know how important the life sciences sector is in the UK. Pharmaceuticals, obviously, very important to us. And that’s sure to be part of the discussions that we’re having on a trade deal, as is the UK automotive sector. And we, as a UK government, are doing all we can to protect those British industries.”

Alongside the risks that pharmaceutical tariffs could cause disruption, some in the industry said it could also create opportunities for the life sciences sector, which is strong in the UK, to be seen as a safer haven for companies than the US, which is slashing scientific research jobs. There could also be the possibility of attracting US scientists with global talent visas, and creating a more favourable climate for innovation investment.

Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP and chair of the science, innovation and technology committee, said: “I would like to see the government recognising that the life sciences strategy needs to adapt to reflect the geopolitical realities – the opportunities as well as the threats.”

Edward Argar, shadow health secretary, said: “Tariffs could have a very real impact on highly complex pharmaceutical supply chains, on costs, and potentially on our world-leading pharma sector here in the UK, which is vital to patients and to our economy.

“Unless they get a grip now, work with our US allies to secure the trade deal with the USA that is essential for our country, and take robust action to strengthen and protect our pharmaceutical supply chains, it is patients and our economy that are likely to suffer.”

Pronouncing himself “disgusted” by Donald Trump’s favorable attitude to Russia and Vladimir Putin, the former UK defence minister Grant Shapps said the US president calling a Russian missile strike that killed dozens in Ukraine last weekend a “mistake” was an example of “weasel language we used to hear … from the IRA” terrorist group.

“All anybody needs Putin to do is get the hell out of a democratic neighboring country,” Shapps told the One Decision podcast, regarding attempts to end the war in Ukraine that has raged since Russia invaded in February 2022.

“And I just have to [put] this on record: it disgusts me, I feel disgusted [by] the idea that the leader of the free world cannot tell the difference between the dictator who locks up and murders his opponents and invades innocent democratic countries and the country itself that has been invaded.

“This lack of moral clarity is completely demoralizing for the rest of the democratic world.”

Shapps, 56, filled numerous roles in Conservative cabinets before becoming minister of defence in August 2023, becoming a key player in maintaining international support for Ukraine. He lost his seat in parliament last July, as Labour won power in a landslide. This month, Shapps was given a knighthood.

One Decision is a foreign policy focused podcast, with co-hosts including Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of the British MI6 intelligence service, and Leon Panetta, a former US defense secretary and CIA director.

On the campaign trail last year, Trump repeatedly said he would secure peace in Ukraine in one day. Instead, he has angered allies by rebuking the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in the Oval Office; sought to extract concessions from Kyiv over access to rare minerals; and deployed a negotiator, Steve Witkoff, whose effusive praise for Putin has attracted widespread scorn. On Monday, Trump repeated his incorrect claim that Zelenskyy started the war.

Though talks have been held in Saudi Arabia, the war has continued. This month has seen devastating Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian cities. First, nine children were among 19 people killed in Kryvyi Rih, Zelenskyy’s home town. In Sumy last Sunday, missiles killed at least 35 and injured more than 100.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said of the Sumy strike: “I think it was terrible. And I was told they made a mistake. But I think it’s a horrible thing.”

Shapps said: “It’s a sort of weasel language. We used to hear it from the IRA [the Irish Republican terrorist group, after attacks killed civilians]. I mean, it’s just appalling to hear this sort of thing. It’s appalling not to be able to condemn it properly.”

Alluding to years of reporting on why Trump has such a favorable view of Putin, with theories ranging from admiration for autocrats to Russia holding compromising material, Shapps said: “I think I do know what hold Putin may have [over Trump] but I mean, it is not right.”

Asked by co-host Kate McCann what he meant by “hold”, Shapps first noted that Trump’s first impeachment, in 2020, was for withholding military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to get Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.

Shapps also said that by appeasing Putin, Trump was offering encouragement to other autocrats with territorial ambitions.

“Even if you are the Trump White House, surely you must understand that if you let one dictator get away with it, what do you think will happen when another dictator walks into a neighboring state or one maybe just over the water and takes it over? Do you think that people will believe the west when we say you can’t do that?”

The Labour chairs of the foreign and trade committees have called for parliament to have a vote on any UK trade deal with the United States.

Emily Thornberry, who chairs the foreign affairs committee, and Liam Byrne, who chairs the business and trade committee, said MPs should have a say on the deal ministers are hoping to strike with Donald Trump.

The government is hopeful of finalising an agreement that would exempt the UK from some of Trump’s most punishing tariffs, including on cars and pharmaceuticals, after positive signals from Washington.

Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, on Wednesday said the US would be announcing its first deals “very soon” and the vice-president, JD Vance, said this week there was a “good chance” of the US agreeing one with the UK.

But ministers have offered controversial concessions, including slashing the digital services tax on US tech giants and reviewing the enforcement of online safety laws, as part of their negotiations.

Byrne said: “The new US-UK agreement may not be a full-blown free trade agreement, but it will still be a treaty of strategic consequence. Its provisions could touch sensitive areas of domestic policy – even legislation like the Online Safety Act.

“Some may see such a deal as a means for economic alignment; others may raise the spectre of economic coercion.

“In light of its significance, its controversy and its speed, it would be both reasonable and responsible for parliament to have its say. Our democratic institutions deserve no less.”

Thornberry said: “Since Brexit we have had responsibility for our own trade policy. Some trade deals can have a profound effect on Britain and yet parliament does not have the automatic right to vote on them. This is a huge hole in our democratic system and I have long campaigned to change this.”

The Liberal Democrats have also called for a vote and warned that avoiding one would be “deeply undemocratic”.

Ed Davey, the party’s leader, said: “Trump is an unreliable partner who breaks deals whenever he feels like it. He and his sidekick JD Vance must not be allowed to bully their way into a bad trade deal for the UK.”

In 2021, Labour called on the Conservative government to give MPs a vote on its proposed trade deal with Australia because of its implications for farmers and food standards. Ministers have insisted they are sticking by their manifesto commitment not to compromise food safety standards in their talks with the US.

There are fears that Washington could seek to exact further concessions from the UK, including by pressuring ministers to stop pursuing closer economic ties with China.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s administration planned to use ongoing tariff negotiations to pressure countries to limit their dealings with Beijing, and had already broached the subject in some of their talks. Trump told Fox News on Tuesday that “we don’t like the China influence”.

Besides the UK, the countries thought to be close to agreeing trade deals with the US are Australia, India, Japan and South Korea.

The Guardian reported that Jonathan Reynolds, the trade secretary, is due to travel to Beijing later this year to revive a trade dialogue that has not taken place since 2018. Douglas Alexander, a trade minister, is the latest government minister to have visited the country for talks last week.

The Lib Dems wrote to David Lammy, the foreign secretary, on Wednesday arguing that ministers should stop making official visits to China until its government explained why Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse was denied entry to Hong Kong last week.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said the key question in Canada’s upcoming election is who is best to deal with Donald Trump as he faced his Conservative rival in a French-language leaders’ debate on Wednesday.

Opposition Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said during the debate Canada needs change after a decade of Liberal party rule and Carney is just like his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. Carney responded: “Mr Poilievre is not Justin Trudeau. I’m not Justin Trudeau either. In this election the question is who is going to face Mr Trump.”

The exchange was the first between the two men since Carney was elected Liberal leader in March.

Trump’s trade war and threats to make Canada the 51st state have infuriated Canadians and led to a surge in Canadian nationalism that has bolstered Carney’s Liberal party poll numbers ahead of the 28 April vote.

The debate took place in Montreal, the largest city in predominantly French-speaking Quebec. The province has 78 of the 343 seats in the House of Commons and is usually regarded as one of the keys to victory.

Poilievre is imploring Canadians not to give the Liberals a fourth term. He hoped to make the election a referendum on Trudeau, whose popularity declined toward the end of his decade in power as food and housing prices rose and immigration surged.

But Trump attacked, Trudeau resigned and Carney, a two-time central banker, became Liberal party leader and prime minister after a party leadership race.

When asked about Trudeau at a news conference after the debate, Carney said: “One of the differences, there are many, but one of the differences between the two of us is that I put much more emphasis on the economy, on growing the economy.

“In fact in this circumstance that we are in, given the scale of the crisis, I would say relentless focus on growing the economy.”

Yves-François Blanche of the separatist Bloc Québécois, whose party is losing support to Carney’s Liberals in Quebec, agreed with the Conservatives’ call for change, saying the Liberals are the same party, the same ministers and the same lawmakers and a new leader does not change that.

But public opinion too has changed. In a mid-January poll by Nanos, Liberals trailed the Conservative party by 47% to 20%. In the latest Nanos poll released on Wednesday, the Liberals led by eight percentage points. The January poll had a margin of error 3.1 points while the latest poll had a 2.7-point margin.

The French debate was moved up by two hours to minimise a conflict with a Montreal Canadiens hockey game. The NHL team faced off against the Carolina Hurricanes at 7pm ET, in a game that could clinch them a spot in the Stanley Cup playoffs.

This isn’t the first time NHL hockey has elbowed its way onto the campaign trail. During the 2011 election, former Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe asked for a debate to be postponed due to a Canadiens hockey game, and his request was granted.

The English language debate is being held on Thursday evening.

With Associated Press and Reuters

The UK supreme court has issued a historic and definitive ruling that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer only to a biological woman and to biological sex.

In a decision that delighted gender-critical activists, five judges ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).

The judgment could have far-reaching ramifications and lead to greater restrictions on the access for trans women to services and spaces reserved for women. It prompted calls for the UK’s laws on gender recognition to be rewritten.

The UK government said the ruling brought “clarity and confidence” for women and those who run hospitals, sports clubs and women’s refuges.

A spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”

The case was brought to the supreme court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which is backed financially by JK Rowling, after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.

Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said the Equality Act was very clear that its provisions dealt with biological sex at birth, and not with a person’s acquired gender, regardless of whether they held a gender recognition certificate.

That affected policymaking on gender in sports and the armed services, hospitals, as well as women-only charities, and access to changing rooms and women-only spaces, he said. However, trans women still have equal pay rights as women, and could have the right to be treated as women in some situations.

In its 88-page judgment, the court said that while the word “biological” did not appear in the definition of man or woman in the Equality Act, “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman”.

If “sex” did not only mean biological sex in the 2010 legislation, providers of single-sex spaces including changing rooms, homeless hostels and medical services would face “practical difficulties”, it said.

The justices added: “Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”

The ruling represents a significant defeat for the Scottish government. For Women Scotland had initially challenged legislation that allowed trans women with a GRC to sit on public boards in posts reserved for women.

Scotland’s first minister, John Swinney, said his government accepted the court’s judgment. He said it clarified the limits of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which introduced gender recognition certificates for trans people.

“We will now engage on the implications of the ruling,” he said. “Protecting the rights of all will underpin our actions.”

The Scottish government defended its actions in the case, which it said were always guided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s advice. It said it would now engage with UK ministers and with the EHRC to look at the ruling’s implications, since the legislation involved was passed by Westminster.

Trans rights campaigners urged trans people and their supporters to remain calm about the decision.

The campaign group Scottish Trans said: “We are really shocked by today’s supreme court decision, which reverses 20 years of understanding of how the law recognises trans men and women with gender recognition certificates.

“We will continue working for a world in which trans people can get on with their lives with privacy, dignity and safety. That is something we all deserve.”

Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of the human rights group Amnesty International UK, which joined with the Scottish government in the supreme court case, said the decision was “clearly disappointing”.

“There are potentially concerning consequences for trans people, but it is important to stress that the court has been clear that trans people are protected under the Equality Act against discrimination and harassment,” he said.

“The ruling does not change the protection trans people are afforded under the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’, as well as other provisions under the Equality Act.”

Susan Smith, a co-founder of For Women Scotland, said the legal action had been “a really, really long road”. “Today the judges have said what we always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex,” she said.

“Sex is real and women can now feel safe that services and spaces designated for women are for women and we are enormously grateful to the supreme court for this ruling.”

In a social media post, JK Rowling said: “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the supreme court,” adding: “I’m so proud to know you.”

Hodge, the deputy president of the court, said it believed the position taken by the Scottish government and the EHRC that people with gender recognition certificates did qualify as women, while those without did not, created “two sub-groups”.

This would confuse any organisations they were involved with. A public body could not know whether a trans woman did or did not have that certificate because the information was private and confidential.

And allowing trans women the same legal status as biological women could also affect spaces and services designed specifically for lesbians, who had also suffered historical discrimination and abuse.

Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, said it was pleased the ruling had dealt with its concerns about the lack of clarity around single-sex and lesbian-only spaces, but would need time to fully understand its implications.

“We are pleased that this judgment addresses several of the difficulties we highlighted in our submission to the court, including the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single-sex spaces, and the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations.”

For all the negative stereotypes, many politicians are thoughtful, diligent and caring. But they are also human, and it is their more self-serving instincts that may have caused some to breathe a sigh of relief at the supreme court ruling on gender recognition.

After a challenge by the gender-critical group For Women Scotland – which started out as a dispute over Scottish government legislation about female representation on public boards – judges ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological women and biological sex.

The verdict will be heavily contested, and could bring serious and perhaps unforeseen repercussions for transgender women. But such an unexpectedly definitive view allows leaders in Scotland and Westminster to (and there is no gentle way of putting this) dodge responsibility over one of the most contentious and toxic debates of our age.

The Scottish government’s response was particularly eloquent. While stressing that no one should see the ruling as cause to triumph, it otherwise talked blandly about “engaging with the UK government to understand the full implication of this ruling”.

There is logic to this. The Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act, the legislative focus of the deliberations, are both UK-wide and thus not something the Holyrood administration can decide unilaterally.

But beneath this reassuring constitutional hum lurks the sound of quiet footsteps, as the SNP’s first minister, John Swinney, shuffles his party away from an era when Nicola Sturgeon’s government was very proudly at the vanguard of transgender rights.

It was little more than two years ago that Sturgeon’s government was openly seeking a battle with Westminster over a plan to make it easier for transgender people in Scotland to get gender recognition certificates – a move blocked by Rishi Sunak.

We are in a very different political climate now, and not just with the open prejudice of the Donald Trump administration, which is purging transgender people from the military on the stated basis that their very identity makes them unfit to serve.

Scotland’s government has been on the receiving end of pushback from other controversies, for example the decision to send Isla Bryson, a transgender woman convicted of double rape, to a women’s prison. To again frame it in slightly unpalatable political terms, this is no longer seen as a vote-winner for the SNP.

For Keir Starmer and the Westminster administration, there had been an unspoken worry about a fudged or unclear court ruling, one that placed the impetus on politicians to decide.

Instead, as a UK government spokesperson said, it gave “clarity and confidence”, both for women and for those who run single-sex spaces. Clarity and confidence, perhaps. Political cover? Most definitely.

Starmer has spent his five years as Labour leader having TV and radio interviewers intermittently asking him to declare, yes or no, whether a woman can have a penis. Starmer’s standard dual response – under the law, a tiny number of trans people are recognised as women but might not have completed gender reassignment surgery – prompted an inevitable and arguably damaging wave of attacks from political opponents.

Kemi Badenoch has been particularly relentless in this, despite having served as equalities minister in a government that did not amend or clarify the Equality Act to reflect her view that, as she put it in a celebratory tweet on Wednesday, “saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact”.

This was not just a Conservative obsession. Starmer faced criticism from some inside Labour – notably from the now independent MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield – for, as they saw it, failing to stand up for women. Others condemned him in the belief he was edging away from trans rights.

From a nakedly political-management perspective, the supreme court decision was ideal, making the decision judicial rather than political. No 10 officials believe there will be no need to tweak the Equality Act, leaving their role as little more than a neutral voice in helping organisations adjust to the new reality.

Starmer’s aides deny he has been on a political journey from a few years ago, when as a Labour leadership candidate he signed up to a pledge from the LGBT Labour group “that trans women are women, that trans men are men” – or 18 months later when he criticised Duffield for saying only women could have a cervix.

This is perhaps disingenuous. But in a debate where niceties and nuance are so often trampled on, the prime minister is very much not the first politician to try to fudge things.

The UK supreme court has ruled on how a woman is defined in the Equality Act, deciding unanimously that this does not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). The judgment could significantly affect how associated rules and restrictions are applied in Scotland, England and Wales.

For gender-critical campaigners, the supreme court’s ruling on the legal definition of a woman was a “huge reset” that left them feeling “vindicated and relieved”.

For transgender rights campaigners, it was a “damaging attack on their rights”, signalling the start of “real issues” in their fight for legal recognition.

“I think this will be the kicking-off point for a very enhanced push for overt restrictions on the rights of trans people,” said Victoria McCloud, who changed her legal sex more than two decades ago.

The UK’s first trans judge, she applied to intervene in the supreme court appeal but was refused. Last year she quit her job as a judge, saying her position had become “untenable” because her trans identity was viewed as a “lifestyle choice or an ideology”. She now lives in the Republic of Ireland.

McCloud said the supreme court ruling came in the midst of “a scary time” for trans people in the UK and would mark the start of a more intense fight for rights. “The rest has been phoney war. The real issues now start,” she said.

“If I was a trans person in the UK today, I would steer clear of using any loo in a public space unless it was a single-sex or combined-sex loo, because I personally cannot, as of this moment, judge whether I should use the male loo or the female loo,” she said.

“I haven’t got my head around the complexities of the judgment and its repercussions will be ongoing for some time. But I’m happy I live in the Republic of Ireland, where this problem is not an issue. They know where I’m allowed to pee here.”

Outside the supreme court on Wednesday morning, Susan Smith, a co-director of the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought the appeal, was one of a number of women jubilantly celebrating the result.

“It was quite something to walk out into banks of photographers and loads of people cheering and clapping. It was very emotional,” Smith said. “We’ve all given up a lot to fight this and we’ve all had to put up with a lot of abuse, a lot of misrepresentation of our motives and our position and our beliefs.

“We’ve finally got clarity on the law, and we know now that when spaces and services are provided under the Equality Act and they’re single-sex, it means exactly that. That feels like a massive relief.”

Smith said the ruling would help women feel safe if there was a male in a female-only space: “They will know that they are well within their rights to object to that.”

She added: “Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, and it is still protected. But saying that women were just some amorphous collection of people and it was an identity anyone could have, it was really downplaying the very real and different issues that affect men and women.”

Maya Forstater, who founded the campaign group Sex Matters after she won an employment tribunal that found she had been unfairly discriminated against because of her gender-critical beliefs, said the ruling brought “relief, vindication, happiness and pride”.

“This judgment has been so clear and it’s from the highest court in the land,” she said. “There are dozens and dozens of women who have had to bring employment tribunal cases because they’ve been victimised for just saying what they think the law says. Now we know that we were right.”

She said the court judgment was about “recognising rules and reality”. “If you’re a man, you can call yourself what you like, you can dress how you like, but you cannot work in a rape crisis centre, you cannot go into a woman’s changing room,” she said.

McCloud said she also shared concerns about protecting women’s spaces – “I don’t want men in the women’s loos myself, thank you”. But she said people with extreme views “regard someone like me as dangerous” simply because of her trans identity.

“Gender-critical ideology is on the ascendancy, and this is obviously a success for them,” she said. “But the struggle starts now, both for them and for us, because they are going to want to enhance this success and we are going to want to clarify and protect the rights that we thought we had.”

Ellie Gomersall, a trans woman and Scottish Green party activist, said she was “gutted” when she saw the news and described it as “yet another attack on the rights of trans people to live our lives in peace”.

“This will only impact trans people who have got a gender recognition certificate (GRC), which actually the vast majority of trans people don’t. But I don’t want to underplay how damaging it is,” she said.

“It sets the idea that even if you jump through all of the hoops, you go through that really dehumanising and stigmatising process to get a GRC, you’ll still never be recognised in law for who you truly are.”

She added: “Some individuals and organisations will see this result and use it as justification or vindication to discriminate further against trans people, and that makes me really worried for my community.”

A giant planet 124 light years from Earth has yielded the strongest evidence yet that extraterrestrial life may be thriving beyond our solar system, astronomers claim.

Observations by the James Webb space telescope of a planet called K2-18 b appear to reveal the chemical fingerprints of two compounds that, on Earth, are only known to be produced by life.

Detection of the chemicals, dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) would not amount to proof of alien biological activity, but could bring the answer to the question of whether we are alone in the universe much closer.

“This is the strongest evidence to date for a biological activity beyond the solar system,” said Prof Nikku Madhusudhan, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge who led the observations. “We are very cautious. We have to question ourselves both on whether the signal is real and what it means.”

He added: “Decades from now, we may look back at this point in time and recognise it was when the living universe came within reach. This could be the tipping point, where suddenly the fundamental question of whether we’re alone in the universe is one we’re capable of answering.”

Others are more sceptical, with questions remaining about whether the overall conditions on K2-18 b, are favourable to life and whether DMS and DMDS, which are largely produced by marine phytoplankton on Earth, can be reliably regarded as biosignatures.

K2-18 b, which sits in the Leo constellation, is nearly nine times as massive as the Earth and 2.6 times as large and orbits in the habitable zone of its star, a cool red dwarf less than half the size of the sun. When the Hubble space telescope appeared to spot water vapour in its atmosphere in 2019, scientists declared it “the most habitable known world” beyond the solar system.

The supposed water signal was shown to be methane in follow-up observations by Madhusudhan’s team in 2023. But, they argued, K2-18 b’s profile was consistent with a habitable world, covered in a vast, deep ocean – a view that remains contentious. More provocatively, the Cambridge team reported a tentative hint of DMS.

Planets beyond our solar system are too distant to photograph or reach with robotic spacecraft. But scientists can estimate their size, density and temperature and probe their chemical makeup by tracking the exoplanet as it passes across the face of its host star and measuring starlight that has been filtered through its atmosphere. In the latest observations, wavelengths that are absorbed by DMS and DMDS, were seen to suddenly drop off as K2-18 b wandered in front of the red dwarf.

“The signal came through strong and clear,” said Madhusudhan. “If we can detect these molecules on habitable planets, this is the first time we’ve been able to do that as a species … it’s mind-boggling that this is possible.”

The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggest concentrations of DMS, DMDS or both (their signatures overlap) thousands of times stronger than the levels on Earth. The results are reported with a “three-sigma” level of statistical significance (a 0.3% probability that they occurred by chance) although this falls short of the gold standard for discoveries in physics.

“There may be processes that we don’t know about that are producing these molecules,” Madhusudhan said. “But I don’t think there is any known process that can explain this without biology.”

A challenge in identifying potential other processes is that the conditions on K2-18 b remain disputed. While the Cambridge team favour an ocean scenario, others say the data is suggestive of a gas planet or one with oceans made of magma, not water.

There is a question of whether DMS could have been brought to the planet by comets – this would require an intensity of bombardment that seems improbable – or produced in hydrothermal vents, volcanoes or lightning storms through exotic chemical processes.

“Life is one of the options, but it’s one among many,” said Dr Nora Hänni, a chemist at the Physics Institute of the University of Berne, whose research revealed that DMS was present on an icy, lifeless comet. “We would have to strictly rule out all the other options before claiming life.”

Others say that measuring planetary atmospheres may never yield a smoking gun for life. “It’s under-appreciated in the field, but technosignatures, such as an intercepted message from an advanced civilisation, could be better smoking guns, despite the unlikelihood of finding such a signal,” said Dr Caroline Morley, an astrophysicist at the University of Texas, Austin, adding that the findings were, nonetheless, an important advance.

Dr Jo Barstow, a planetary scientist at the Open University, also viewed the detection as significant, but said: “My scepticism dial for any claim relating to evidence of life is permanently turned up to 11, not because I don’t think that other life is out there, but because I feel that for such a profound and significant discovery the burden of proof must be very, very high. I don’t think this latest work crosses that threshold.”

At 120 light years away, there is no prospect of resolving the debate through closeup observations, but Madhusudhan notes that this has not been a barrier to the discovery of black holes or other cosmic phenomena.

“In astronomy, the question is never about going there,” he said. “We’re trying to establish if the laws of biology are universal in nature. I don’t see it as: ‘We have to go and swim in the water to catch the fish.’”

A giant planet 124 light years from Earth has yielded the strongest evidence yet that extraterrestrial life may be thriving beyond our solar system, astronomers claim.

Observations by the James Webb space telescope of a planet called K2-18 b appear to reveal the chemical fingerprints of two compounds that, on Earth, are only known to be produced by life.

Detection of the chemicals, dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) would not amount to proof of alien biological activity, but could bring the answer to the question of whether we are alone in the universe much closer.

“This is the strongest evidence to date for a biological activity beyond the solar system,” said Prof Nikku Madhusudhan, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge who led the observations. “We are very cautious. We have to question ourselves both on whether the signal is real and what it means.”

He added: “Decades from now, we may look back at this point in time and recognise it was when the living universe came within reach. This could be the tipping point, where suddenly the fundamental question of whether we’re alone in the universe is one we’re capable of answering.”

Others are more sceptical, with questions remaining about whether the overall conditions on K2-18 b, are favourable to life and whether DMS and DMDS, which are largely produced by marine phytoplankton on Earth, can be reliably regarded as biosignatures.

K2-18 b, which sits in the Leo constellation, is nearly nine times as massive as the Earth and 2.6 times as large and orbits in the habitable zone of its star, a cool red dwarf less than half the size of the sun. When the Hubble space telescope appeared to spot water vapour in its atmosphere in 2019, scientists declared it “the most habitable known world” beyond the solar system.

The supposed water signal was shown to be methane in follow-up observations by Madhusudhan’s team in 2023. But, they argued, K2-18 b’s profile was consistent with a habitable world, covered in a vast, deep ocean – a view that remains contentious. More provocatively, the Cambridge team reported a tentative hint of DMS.

Planets beyond our solar system are too distant to photograph or reach with robotic spacecraft. But scientists can estimate their size, density and temperature and probe their chemical makeup by tracking the exoplanet as it passes across the face of its host star and measuring starlight that has been filtered through its atmosphere. In the latest observations, wavelengths that are absorbed by DMS and DMDS, were seen to suddenly drop off as K2-18 b wandered in front of the red dwarf.

“The signal came through strong and clear,” said Madhusudhan. “If we can detect these molecules on habitable planets, this is the first time we’ve been able to do that as a species … it’s mind-boggling that this is possible.”

The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggest concentrations of DMS, DMDS or both (their signatures overlap) thousands of times stronger than the levels on Earth. The results are reported with a “three-sigma” level of statistical significance (a 0.3% probability that they occurred by chance) although this falls short of the gold standard for discoveries in physics.

“There may be processes that we don’t know about that are producing these molecules,” Madhusudhan said. “But I don’t think there is any known process that can explain this without biology.”

A challenge in identifying potential other processes is that the conditions on K2-18 b remain disputed. While the Cambridge team favour an ocean scenario, others say the data is suggestive of a gas planet or one with oceans made of magma, not water.

There is a question of whether DMS could have been brought to the planet by comets – this would require an intensity of bombardment that seems improbable – or produced in hydrothermal vents, volcanoes or lightning storms through exotic chemical processes.

“Life is one of the options, but it’s one among many,” said Dr Nora Hänni, a chemist at the Physics Institute of the University of Berne, whose research revealed that DMS was present on an icy, lifeless comet. “We would have to strictly rule out all the other options before claiming life.”

Others say that measuring planetary atmospheres may never yield a smoking gun for life. “It’s under-appreciated in the field, but technosignatures, such as an intercepted message from an advanced civilisation, could be better smoking guns, despite the unlikelihood of finding such a signal,” said Dr Caroline Morley, an astrophysicist at the University of Texas, Austin, adding that the findings were, nonetheless, an important advance.

Dr Jo Barstow, a planetary scientist at the Open University, also viewed the detection as significant, but said: “My scepticism dial for any claim relating to evidence of life is permanently turned up to 11, not because I don’t think that other life is out there, but because I feel that for such a profound and significant discovery the burden of proof must be very, very high. I don’t think this latest work crosses that threshold.”

At 120 light years away, there is no prospect of resolving the debate through closeup observations, but Madhusudhan notes that this has not been a barrier to the discovery of black holes or other cosmic phenomena.

“In astronomy, the question is never about going there,” he said. “We’re trying to establish if the laws of biology are universal in nature. I don’t see it as: ‘We have to go and swim in the water to catch the fish.’”

The doctor who carried out the postmortems of the 15 paramedics and rescue workers who were killed by Israeli troops in Gaza in March has said they were mostly killed by gunshots to the head and torso, as well as injuries caused by explosives.

There was international outcry last month after it emerged that Israeli troops had launched a deadly attack on a group of paramedics from the Palestinian Red Crescent, civil defence and United Nations workers, as they carried out a rescue operation in southern Gaza.

Their bodies, along with the crushed vehicles, were buried in a sandy mass grave in Gaza by Israeli troops. After digging up the bodies days later, the UN claimed they had been executed “one by one”.

Ahmed Dhair, the forensic pathologist in Gaza who carried out autopsies on 14 out of the 15 victims, told the Guardian he had found “lacerations, entry wounds from bullets, and wounds resulting from explosive injuries. These were mostly concentrated in the torso area – the chest, abdomen, back, and head.”

Most had died from gunshot wounds, including what Dhair said was evidence of “explosive bullets”, otherwise known as “butterfly bullets”, which explode in the body upon impact, ripping apart flesh and bone.

“We found remains of explosive bullets,” said Dhair. “In one case, the bullet head had exploded in the chest, and the rest of the bullet fragments were found within the body. There were also remnants or shrapnel from bullets scattered on the back of one of the victims.”

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) did not immediately respond to allegations that these bullets had been used in the attack.

Details of the incident have remained disputed. Video footage that emerged from the beginning of the attack shows the convoy of ambulances coming under fire, but the subsequent events that led to the bodies of 15 workers being buried in a mass grave are still unclear.

Israel’s military admitted carrying out the killings but was forced to change its version of events after evidence emerged that contradicted its account that the vehicles had been “moving suspiciously” without lights.

Israel has claimed, without publicly presenting evidence, that six of the unarmed workers killed were Hamas operatives, which has been denied by Red Crescent.

Dhair said his findings did not suggest the paramedics had been shot at close range, but emphasised he was not a munitions expert. He said the shrapnel found in the bodies also suggested they had been hit with some form of explosive devices. “In some cases, the injuries seemed to be a mix of explosive and regular gunfire wounds,” he said.

Responding to the allegations that some of the bodies had been dug up with their hands tied, suggesting they were captured or held before they were killed, Dhair said he had not seen visible signs of restraint.

“Only in one case, there were discoloration and bruising on the wrists that could possibly be due to restraints,” he said. All the men were clearly in their work uniforms and their bodies had begun to decompose.

The findings are likely to increase pressure on Israel to give a full account of the incident amid accusations of a war crime. Israel has said it is still under investigation.

This week it emerged that one of the two paramedics who survived the incident, Assad al-Nsasrah – whose whereabouts had been unknown since – was being held in Israeli detention.

The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières said on Wednesday that Gaza was becoming a “mass grave for Palestinians”.

Aid supplies including food, fuel, water and medicine have been blocked by Israel from entering Gaza since 2 March, more than two weeks before the collapse of the ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian militant group with a return to air and ground attacks on the territory.

Israel has said it will keep blocking humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, as it vowed to force Hamas into releasing the remaining hostages from the 7 October 2023 attacks.

The Israeli defence minister, Israel Katz, said: “Israel’s policy is clear: no humanitarian aid will enter Gaza, and blocking this aid is one of the main pressure levers preventing Hamas from using it as a tool with the population.”

“No one is currently planning to allow any humanitarian aid into Gaza, and there are no preparations to enable such aid,” said Katz, who threatened to escalate the conflict with “tremendous force” if Hamas did not return the hostages.

Amnesty International is among the aid agencies that have described Israel’s blockade on all supplies going into Gaza as a crime against humanity and a violation of international humanitarian law. Israel has denied any violations.

More than 51,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza since the conflict began, including more than 1,600 since Israel resumed airstrikes and ground operations on 18 March. The Gaza health ministry does not distinguish between combatants and civilians but has said more than half of those dead were women and children.

Another 13 people were killed in airstrikes overnight, with a well-known photographer, Fatema Hassouna, among those reported dead in the northern area of the strip.

Doctors and aid groups on the ground said the humanitarian situation in Gaza was becoming graver by the day.

“The situation is the worst it has been in 18 months in terms of being deprived of your basic necessities and the resumption of hostilities and attacks against Palestinians in all of Gaza,” said Mahmoud Shalabi, a director at Medical Aid for Palestinians, a British charity.

Israel has been accused of worsening the humanitarian situation by targeting hospitals and medical personnel working in Gaza, with two hospitals struck and debilitated by airstrikes this week. Israel has claimed Hamas has used medical facilities as a cover for terrorist operations.

The resumption of aid into Gaza has become a highly inflammatory political issue in Israel. There are 58 hostages still in Gaza, who were taken captive after the Hamas attacks on southern Israel in October 2023, with 24 believed to still be alive.

Far-right figures in prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government have said no aid should be restored to the civilians of Gaza until Hamas agrees to the hostages’ release.

“As long as our hostages are languishing in the tunnels, there is no reason for a single gram of food or any aid to enter Gaza,” the national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, said on Wednesday.

Michelle Trachtenberg, a popular TV actor, died of complications from diabetes, according to the New York City medical examiner’s office.

Trachtenberg, 39, was found dead in February and had recently received a liver transplant, according to NBC News, but the cause of her death had been unclear at the time.

Trachtenberg rose to fame at a young age, starting her career at the age of three when she starred in commercials before going on to join Nickelodeon’s show The Adventures of Pete & Pete, as well as the soap opera All My Children.

The actor landed her first lead film role in the 1996 film Harriet the Spy, acting alongside Rosie O’Donnell and J Smith-Cameron. Speaking to Entertainment Tonight in 2021, Trachtenberg said: “There was a lot required of me … I’m extremely grateful for the opportunity.”

Other projects Trachtenberg starred in include the teen comedy EuroTrip, as well as the critically acclaimed drama Mysterious Skin by Gregg Araki.

Reflecting on her experience with Mysterious Skin, Trachtenberg said: “I was this girl who had done glitzy, PG-themed stuff and here’s Gregg Araki, director of Doom Generation, and we sat down and had a cup of coffee and I said: ‘You’re probably not gonna hire me but this is what I got, this is what I feel. If you’re willing to take the chance, I’m willing to go there with you.’ It was the most exhilarating experience I’ve had as an actress.”

Following her death, Trachtenberg’s various cast members paid tributes to her, with her Gossip Girl co-star Blake Lively writing: “She was electricity … You knew when she entered a room because the vibration changed. Everything she did, she did 200%.”

Similarly, Smith-Cameron wrote: “She was always very warm toward me. I feel very shocked and unsettled to hear of her passing.”

Meanwhile, the Buffy the Vampire lead, Sarah Michelle Gellar, said: “Michelle, listen to me … Listen. I love you. I will always love you. The hardest thing in this world, is to live in it. I will be brave. I will live … for you.”

Emmanuel Macron has warned that those behind a wave of apparently coordinated attacks on French prisons and staff will be “found, tried and punished”.

The president’s comments came after at least a dozen assaults on French jails in the past three days. In one attack, gunmen using automatic weapons fired at the entrance to Toulon prison in the south of France.

In other incidents, cars have been set alight and there have been vandalism and arson attempts on prison wardens’ accommodation.

In several of the attacks, the acronym DDPF – Defence of French Prisoners – has been discovered. Le Parisien reported that a prisoner on conditional release had been arrested in the Essonne, south of Paris, on Wednesday morning in connection with the group.

The man was alleged to have been part of an encrypted Telegram message group linked to the assaults. A post in the name of the DDPF made on Tuesday read: “We are not terrorists, we are here to defend human rights inside prisons.”

Telegram has said it has now deleted all the messages and said calling for violence and threats was “explicitly banned”.

French media described the attacks as a “declaration of war” by drug cartels after the government announced a crackdown on traffickers and a toughening of prison conditions for kingpins believed to be operating inside jails.

The justice minister, Gérald Darmanin, has announced his intention to put 200 convicted traffickers in new ultra-high-security prisons this summer, where they will be held in isolation with limited access to visitors and telephone calls. Ministers are concerned about convicted drug dealers continuing to run their networks from behind bars.

“Certain people are trying to intimidate our prison staff and attack our prison establishments with unacceptable violence. They will be found, tried and punished,” Macron wrote on X.

He added the prison force was “carrying out its essential mission of defending the rule of law and keeping the peace with courage and dedication”.

“I restate my full support and that of the nation to all agents of the ministry of justice,” Macron wrote.

Three vehicles were set alight outside Tarascon prison early on Wednesday morning in one of the latest attacks.

France’s specialist anti-terrorist unit has been brought in to investigate the attacks. It said in a statement it had been assigned the inquiry – instead of criminal investigators – because of that the “nature of the facts, the chosen targets and the coordination of the acts committed in several locations”.

In an interview on Wednesday, Darmanin said the assailants were attempting to “destabilise and intimidate the state”.

Emmanuel Macron has warned that those behind a wave of apparently coordinated attacks on French prisons and staff will be “found, tried and punished”.

The president’s comments came after at least a dozen assaults on French jails in the past three days. In one attack, gunmen using automatic weapons fired at the entrance to Toulon prison in the south of France.

In other incidents, cars have been set alight and there have been vandalism and arson attempts on prison wardens’ accommodation.

In several of the attacks, the acronym DDPF – Defence of French Prisoners – has been discovered. Le Parisien reported that a prisoner on conditional release had been arrested in the Essonne, south of Paris, on Wednesday morning in connection with the group.

The man was alleged to have been part of an encrypted Telegram message group linked to the assaults. A post in the name of the DDPF made on Tuesday read: “We are not terrorists, we are here to defend human rights inside prisons.”

Telegram has said it has now deleted all the messages and said calling for violence and threats was “explicitly banned”.

French media described the attacks as a “declaration of war” by drug cartels after the government announced a crackdown on traffickers and a toughening of prison conditions for kingpins believed to be operating inside jails.

The justice minister, Gérald Darmanin, has announced his intention to put 200 convicted traffickers in new ultra-high-security prisons this summer, where they will be held in isolation with limited access to visitors and telephone calls. Ministers are concerned about convicted drug dealers continuing to run their networks from behind bars.

“Certain people are trying to intimidate our prison staff and attack our prison establishments with unacceptable violence. They will be found, tried and punished,” Macron wrote on X.

He added the prison force was “carrying out its essential mission of defending the rule of law and keeping the peace with courage and dedication”.

“I restate my full support and that of the nation to all agents of the ministry of justice,” Macron wrote.

Three vehicles were set alight outside Tarascon prison early on Wednesday morning in one of the latest attacks.

France’s specialist anti-terrorist unit has been brought in to investigate the attacks. It said in a statement it had been assigned the inquiry – instead of criminal investigators – because of that the “nature of the facts, the chosen targets and the coordination of the acts committed in several locations”.

In an interview on Wednesday, Darmanin said the assailants were attempting to “destabilise and intimidate the state”.

The bakery chain Gail’s is to drop its soya milk surcharge after a campaign by a leading animal rights charity argued the fee “unfairly discriminated” against customers.

Gail’s will offer free soya from 21 May, but will continue to charge between 40p and 60p if costumers want oat in their coffee or tea.

With at least one in three Britons now drinking plant-based milks, the animal rights charity Peta welcomed the move to help customers make more ethical choices, but also called on Gail’s to drop its additional charge for oat milk.

The charity’s vice-president of vegan corporate projects, Dawn Carr, said: “Charging more for plant milk leaves a bad taste in customers’ mouths, particularly when it is a choice they make for their health, to be kind to cows, or for the planet.

“Peta celebrates Gail’s taking the first step in offering soya without the surcharge, but to spare cows from harm and reduce methane emissions, the oat-milk upcharge also has to be ground down.”

Pret a Manger stopped charging extra for plant-based milks such as oat, almond, soya and rice-coconut in the UK in 2020 after calls from animal rights advocates. Starbucks dropped its vegan milk surcharge in the UK in 2022. Leon and Joe and the Juice do not charge extra for any standard dairy-free milk alternatives.

Costa Coffee and Caffè Nero do not charge for soya milk, but oat and coconut milk are an additional 45p at both. Costa also has an “ultimate blend” plant-based milk alternative at some coffee shops for 35p.

A spokesperson for Gail’s said: “We understand choice is important, which is why we’re proud to offer British-grown oat milk and soya as dairy alternatives. From 21 May, there will be no additional charge for soya milk in our bakeries.

“We want to make it easier for everyone to enjoy their coffee or tea the way they like it, while remaining dedicated to sourcing high-quality ingredients that are both delicious and sustainable.”

Entire ecosystems have been “decimated” and endangered species put at risk after one of the worst wildfire seasons on record in the UK, charities have warned.

Vast areas of habitat for animals including butterflies, beetles and falcons have been damaged, and some peat bogs may take “hundreds of years” to recover following one of the driest Marches in decades combined with warmer than average temperatures in April.

Abergwesyn Common in Powys, Wales, was consumed by a 1,600-hectare (3,950-acre) fire, an area about 400 times larger than Cardiff’s Principality Stadium.

The common is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI), and a breeding habitat for the area’s last known population of golden plovers. National Trust rangers now fear this rare, protected moorland bird may have been lost to the area entirely.

Chris Smith, the National Trust’s countryside manager for Mid and South Wales, said: “The impacts on wildlife are widespread, with birds’ nests, insects, amphibians and reptiles all scorched by fire.

“Whole ecosystems have been decimated and will remain altered well into the future.

“Alongside this, the huge loss of surface vegetation leaves the peat bogs we have been working hard to restore … vulnerable to erosion and at further risk of fire and carbon loss.

“Where the flames burnt down to the peat soils, they will take hundreds of years to recover.”In 2024, South Wales fire and rescue service responded to 34 wildfire callouts between 1 January and 10 April. This year, it has faced 445 over the same period – a 1,200% increase.

In total, Wales’s three fire services have reported responding to more than 1,300 grass fires so far this year.

In Northern Ireland, recent fires on the Mourne Mountains have scorched land used by an array of wildlife including small heath butterflies, rove beetles, skylarks and peregrine falcons.

Small birds such as skylarks rely on insects and beetles for food, and in turn provide a food source for birds of prey.

In the Peak District, the National Trust said a recent fire on Howden Moor that stretched for 2km had caused £30,000-worth of damage, ruining years’ worth of conservation efforts.

The National Trust said it is adapting its landscapes by making big areas of land wetter and boggier, including by planting special mosses that hold water and by creating wetlands that, once established, act like natural fire breaks.

Ben McCarthy, its head of nature conservation, said the country needs “urgent government action” to help mitigate and adapt to grass fires and other climate risks.

WWF Cymru said the “devastating” wildfires were a “stark reminder that the climate and nature crisis is upon us”.

Earlier this month, the National Fire Chiefs Council warned it needed “long term and sustained investment” to cope with climate change and “increased demand” on its services.

At the time, it said there had been over 100 more wildfires this year than in the first three months of 2022.

The colossal squid, the heaviest invertebrate in the world, has been filmed alive in the wild for the first time since it was identified a century ago.

Growing up to 23ft (seven metres) long and weighing up to half a tonne, the squid, Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni, is the heaviest invertebrate on the planet. The individual captured on film near the South Sandwich Islands, in the south Atlantic Ocean, is a baby, at just 11.8in (30cm) in length.

The video, taken by an international team of scientists and researchers on board the Schmidt Ocean Institute’s research vessel, Falkor, shows the almost transparent juvenile, with eight arms, swimming in its natural habitat, the deep sea. It was captured on video by a remotely operated vehicle, SuBastian, while on a 35-day expedition searching for new marine life.

“These unforgettable moments continue to remind us that the ocean is brimming with mysteries yet to be solved,” Virmani said.

For 100 years, the animal, a type of glass squid, had only been seen in the stomachs of whales and seabirds. Dying adults have previously been filmed in the nets of fishermen, but it had have never been seen alive at depth.

Little is known about the life cycle of the colossal squid, which loses its transparent appearance as an adult.

It took days for the team aboard the Falkor to get verification of the footage. The squid has sharp hooks on the end of its tentacles, which distinguish it from other glass squid species.

“It’s exciting to see the first in situ footage of a juvenile colossal and humbling to think that they have no idea that humans exist,” said Dr Kat Bolstad of the Auckland University of Technology, one of the independent scientific experts the team consulted to verify the footage.

The expedition was a collaboration between the Schmidt Ocean Institute, the Nippon Foundation-Nekton Ocean Census and GoSouth, a joint project between the University of Plymouth (UK), the Geomar Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research (Germany) and the British Antarctic Survey.

This year marks the 100-year anniversary of the identification and formal naming of the colossal squid.