The UK government has formally approved plans for a second runway at London Gatwick Airport, marking a significant expansion for the country's second-largest airport. Transport Minister Heidi Alexander confirmed the approval on Sunday following a "minded to approve" position announced in February. The £2.2 billion project involves moving the airport's existing northern runway by 12 meters to meet safety standards, enabling both runways to operate simultaneously by the end of the decade.

The expansion is expected to handle approximately 100,000 additional flights annually, primarily accommodating narrow-bodied aircraft like Airbus A320s and Boeing 737s. Government officials project the project will boost trade and tourism while creating around 14,000 new jobs. Chancellor Rachel Reeves emphasized that the privately financed initiative would help "kickstart the economy" and bring billions in investment, noting satisfaction with adjustments made regarding noise mitigation and public transport usage.

Environmental groups and opposition politicians have strongly criticized the decision, citing concerns about increased emissions and noise pollution. The Green Party leader called the approval "deeply irresponsible," pointing to contradictions between asking London residents to change driving habits while subsidizing aviation fuel. Critics also highlighted that only 15% of people take 70% of flights, questioning the economic growth argument when more people leave the country than enter.

The Gatwick approval follows the government's recent backing of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, with officials maintaining that sustainable aviation fuel ensures such expansions don't derail net-zero targets. However, the decision faces potential legal challenges from local communities and environmental organizations concerned about the project's environmental impact. The government will need to ensure the expansion plan is legally sound as opposition mounts from various stakeholders.

A long-awaited report into the practices of former NHS gynaecologist Daniel Hay has revealed significant failings in patient care that contributed to severe physical harm. The review, commissioned by the Gynaecology Review Steering Group and published on Wednesday, examined Mr. Hay's work at University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust between 2015 and 2018. The investigation found that his risky practices and clinical shortcuts resulted in two women suffering severe physical harm and three experiencing moderate physical harm, with the report noting only "good fortune prevented further harm."

The panel reviewed 325 patients treated by Mr. Hay during the specified period, building upon an earlier assessment of 58 women conducted in 2019. The investigation identified numerous clinical deficiencies, including Mr. Hay's failure to take complete patient histories, omission of pre-operation scans, and inadequate documentation. His paperwork was described as "not of an acceptable standard," and he frequently failed to properly explain procedures or discuss risks and benefits with patients, leaving many feeling unsettled and uninformed about their treatment options.

Among the most concerning findings were instances where women underwent hysterectomies without proper consent or understanding of alternative treatments. The report indicated that some patients were made to feel that surgical removal of the womb was their "only option" when less invasive alternatives might have been available. This had profound consequences for women who dreamed of starting families, with the report noting the procedures "adversely affected" their mental health, relationships, and employment.

Following the report's publication, the NHS trust issued a formal apology, expressing being "truly sorry" to the women who received care "below the standards expected." The investigation has prompted recommendations to expand the review to include cases from 2012 to 2015, focusing on major and intermediate gynaecology surgeries. A criminal investigation into Mr. Hay's conduct remains ongoing as the healthcare system confronts the systemic failures that allowed these practices to continue unchecked for years.