Adrian Ramsay MP: speeches

Yes, that is crucial. With all the shocks that farmers are facing, we have seen that more protection and support are needed. The ambition needs to be a lot higher than 60% if we are to be resilient to the scale of geopolitical and environmental challenges that the world will be facing. We should begin to plan and fund natural infrastructure with the same seriousness as engineered infrastructure. The assessment makes it clear that there is still a chance for major interventions to slow the trend, protect communities and restore national security, but only if we act now—in this Parliament—and at the scale that the crisis demands.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, and I completely agree. Like many Members in this Chamber, I signed the early-day motion calling for a national screening of the people’s emergency briefing. I know that a lot of Members will have hosted or attended screenings in their constituencies, as I have done. I have more coming up in my constituency in the coming weeks. It is incredibly powerful, even more powerful than the showing in November, because we can see how people are responding to that evidence. Of course, we need to look at the solutions as well as the problems, but I absolutely echo that call. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on the call for a national screening, so that we can be really clear on the scale of this challenge, which sadly does not get the same national profile as it did a few years ago. We need to increase that profile again.

I absolutely agree that the impact is seen at a local level in all of our communities and that nature restoration is fundamental. We have to step up the pace of that, as I will go on to set out further. The Joint Intelligence Committee has identified several degrading ecosystems, the destruction of which could be so severe that our own national security and prosperity will be in peril. Those include the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and the Congo Basin, the major river systems of the Himalayas, the richly productive and abundant south-east Asian coral reefs, the aquatic nurseries of the mangrove habitats and the stabilising force of the Arctic boreal forests. That is why our national security cannot only be understood within our own borders. We cannot build a secure island in an insecure world. We must keep to our international obligations, such as the actions detailed in the global biodiversity framework to be reviewed next month at COP17. We can also no longer obfuscate on contributing to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility investment fund that the UK so proudly helped to set up.

Absolutely. I welcome positive action wherever it happens. I have no problem at all in welcoming positive steps from the Government. I want to see more of them. I welcome the Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, to her place and look forward to her response to this debate. I want to be a constructive voice in this debate, and I very much welcome that news. To some extent, countries with more resources like the UK can insulate citizens from the worst effects. Countries that are least able and most exposed to risks may not be able to do so, or to protect their communities from the full force of the impacts, which range from mass displacements to famine. For some of the most vulnerable countries, especially in the global south, water scarcity means famine, an impact on energy supplies and is likely to lead to the displacement and deaths of millions of people. Such instability is intensified further by competition for scarce resources and worsens cascading external risks to our own domestic national security.

I will. I am being generous with interventions, which will mean we wait longer before we get to more speeches, but I trust that those intervening are conscious of that.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a rural constituency, Waveney Valley in East Anglia, where I have done a lot to support and promote local solutions, including natural flood management landscape-scale projects to re-naturalise rivers, which brings significant environmental benefits. I know that the wildlife trusts and others are looking at things such as nature markets as part of the answer to that. I do not think that market forces are going to be anything like the majority of the solution to this problem. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that was the case, but they could be part of the answer, as long as we are clear that the Government are setting out the direction and scale of ambition that is needed and the public funding goes in to make that possible. Crucially, companies must not be allowed to get away with trashing crucial ancient environments in one area by funding them in another. We need to be very careful about how we use those mechanisms in the right way. They could potentially be used as part of a wider mix.

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She is absolutely right that to protect crucial ecosystems internationally, our trade has to be fair and sustainable and that has to be embedded into farming policy. I am sure the Minister will pick up on that point as well. Landscapes where ecosystems are compromised are more prone to natural disasters, such as drought, wildfires and flash floods. I say natural disasters, but those are often the results of decades of destructive policies and practices. Natural systems that reduce exposure to climate hazards are therefore part of our national resilience. We need to invest in adaptation now. Sustainable land management, for example, or harvesting and conserving water supplies, has become absolutely essential. The Climate Change Committee’s 2026 assessment makes the wider point clearly: “Although climate risks are intensifying, the resulting damages are not inevitable. Proven and cost-effective adaptation measures are available for immediate deployment…Their implementation will be critical to protecting lives, infrastructure, and economic prosperity”.

Yes, of course I share that frustration. I am pleased to see many Members, from lots of parties, in the Chamber for this debate. We need to increase those numbers and rebuild the national consensus we had on climate. I hope we can have such a consensus on nature restoration and climate adaptation. We all need to tackle the myths and make this debate less fractious and more about bringing people together than driving culture-war wedges. We can do that with how we put forward the solutions that are needed. Nowhere in this debate are the threats clearer than with regard to food security. This year, water scarcity and drought threaten food production. As all of us representing rural constituencies will be aware, the UK’s agricultural sector has suffered three of the five worst harvests in the past decade, and this year will almost certainly add to that record.

I absolutely agree. That is a strong example of one of the main points I want to make. The Minister will point to a number of welcome measures, but the question is whether the scale and pace of those measures are commensurate with the challenge. At the moment, they are a long way from being so. The funding that needs to be put in place for landscape recovery and the sustainable farming incentive is crucial. Farmers say to me all the time that they will get behind this as long as they can see a long-term funding framework for them to do so. One farmer in Suffolk said to me that he built a pond, which was crucial for natural flood management, in spite of the fact that it actually reduced his farm’s income. Most farmers are not going to be in a position to do that. That has to change.

I agree that on nature, as on climate, leadership starts at home. The UK has a huge leadership role to play. That, of course, has to apply to devolved Government, regional government and local government. We need to make sure that governments at all levels are properly resourced, both for nature recovery and for climate resilience plans. The data that I have recently commissioned work on, and will be releasing soon, shows that we do not have the level of local resilience plans that are needed on this issue. I think the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) also wished to come in on the issue of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about food security later in my speech, but he is absolutely right to draw that point to our attention. On the scale of the risks that we face, if this is not one of the gravest prevailing national security risks of our time, I do not know what is. Without systemic change at national and international level, we are on a pathway to the total collapse of globally critical ecosystems. The trajectory of the collapse means that it will come as soon as 2030 for some and 2050 for others.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published in January 2026. It is fantastic to see how many Members from across the House are here for this fundamental debate. Climate breakdown and nature security are the most immediate and severe national security threats of our age. The fundamentals of human existence—food, water, health—all depend on healthy, stable ecosystems. If anyone still thinks that environmental breakdown is a distant concern, this year should dispel that notion. We have experienced the hottest year on record so far, with prolonged drought, extreme temperatures and wildfires, and we are likely to have the highest number of heat-related deaths ever, forcing Ministers to evaluate where our national resilience is falling short. As the National Heat Risk Commission report published today shows, the country’s leadership have failed to implement measures to protect lives from temperature rises that have been expected for more than a decade. The Climate Change Committee has estimated that temperatures will increase further in the near term. Extremes are projected to become the new normal, and annual heat-related deaths may reach 10,000. This year’s super El Niño will cause further chaos to seasonal weather systems. The breakdown not only is an immediate risk to life, but is rapidly destabilising our natural systems. We talk about tipping points, and there could be no clearer demonstration than the glacial collapse in the Himalayas last month, which unleashed a catastrophic torrent into the river system. Thousands were tragically killed or remain missing. Since then, glaciers vulnerable to collapse are being mapped out, with millions potentially impacted by violent shifts in landscape and the disastrous loss of vital fresh water supplies. Today, we are debating a crucial national security assessment report that warns of the rapid depletion of global biodiversity, the collapse of critical ecosystems and the dismantling of major global food systems. The origins of the report are unclear. Indeed, the only document made public is a redacted summary of the assessment, published after a freedom of information request from Green Alliance. What we do know is that the Joint Intelligence Committee co-ordinated that landmark work to measure the impact of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse on our national security. That Committee is the authority on profiling risks to the country and our society—a group not of environmental campaigners, but of top-ranking specialists and experts from across the intelligence community, responsible for monitoring and providing early warning of threats to Britain. Not only have the Government refused to publish the full version of the report, despite requests from Members of Parliament across parties and from the Environmental Audit Committee—of which, I declare, I am a member—but expert witnesses giving testimony before the Committee, including Lieutenant General Richard Nugee and Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, have noted that the report has not had the official Government response that one would expect for any seminal piece of work, let alone such a stark warning from our intelligence authorities. However, we do have a redacted version of the document, and that is stark enough. The assessment conclusively states that global ecosystem collapse and the loss of biodiversity threaten national security, human life and economic prosperity. The assessment presents a world where cascading risks from climate breakdown lead to crop failures, water scarcity, floods and novel diseases. That would mean billions of people facing likely food shortages, inflation, public health risks, supply chain disruption, loss of livelihoods, mass displacement and conflict.

I agree with the hon. Member; that is something that farmers in my constituency have raised with me frequently. There must be solutions to the growing problem of far too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times. The solution he outlines is part of how we seriously step up our water management work. The UK imports around 40% of its food from overseas. Our over-reliance on global markets for food and fertiliser exposes the UK to supply shocks that could make the cost of living crisis much worse. Food security is not simply about producing more food; it is about the resilience of the entire system of agricultural production, including soils, water, fertiliser, feeds, distribution, international markets and the natural systems upon which they all depend. We also depend on international food markets, global supply chains and a stable international system, so protecting critical systems abroad is not simply an act of environmental justice; it is an investment in our own food security. [ Interruption. ] I hear you, Sir Desmond, but I have been very generous in the number of interventions I have taken. Had I not been so, there would be a much longer list of speeches for later, so I will persist for now. There is still hope. The Joint Intelligence Committee assessment does not simply describe the threat; it identifies remedies, as it recognises that nature recovery strengthens resilience. Nature restoration and reducing human pressures on nature are both essential. We need to approach nature not as an environmental policy sitting outside national security policy, but as delivering national security benefits and integrated into all areas of policy. The Government have levers to begin this wide-scale transformation, including fully funding the national tree plan; expanding the sustainable farming incentive; investing in natural flood management schemes such as river renaturalisation and wetland restoration; regenerating soil health to boost resilience for food production; restoring rivers and wetlands to rehabilitate freshwater habitat, flood protection and drought resilience; restoring peatlands for carbon storage and natural flood management; establishing more broadleaf woodland to enhance habitat for biodiversity and landscape-scale resilience; and converting to nature-friendly and climate-resilient farming. All those measures will contribute to maintaining the ecological functions on which we depend. We need a stronger institutional approach to treating critical natural systems as national infrastructure and to establishing mechanisms to strengthen resilience and adaptation. That means recognising that healthy, natural systems are themselves a form of critical infrastructure. On the question of transparency, Parliament should have full, unredacted access to the national security assessment as a matter of urgency, to scrutinise the evidence and ensure that our response as a nation is commensurate with the threats. If the Government want the public to become more resilient, the public must be trusted with the facts. Historians will write about our decisions and future generations will judge us for them. They will recount how we knowingly gambled with global stability, the health of the natural world and the safety of human life and called it a growth agenda. As nature decline is a top-tier threat against the economy, weakening statutory protections and falling short of international obligations directly harms our economy and risks future prosperity. There is a temptation in politics to address environmental policy as an optional extra. The Government no longer have the luxury of time, and it would be a dereliction of duty by everyone in the House to disregard these warnings. We need a Minister responsible for co-ordinating resilience to move from a managed decline approach to proactively investing in safeguarding for the future, because this is a cross-Government issue that needs to be addressed at scale. The Prime Minister has created a No. 10 for the north, but we need a No. 10 for the future, in the form of a dedicated climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office to drive the scale and pace of work required to restore nature and protect the public. Nature security is national security, and protecting the natural foundations of our country and our planet is ultimately protecting the security of life itself.

I give way to the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane).

This summer, we have seen extreme heat and prolonged drought, with far too many people losing their lives in heatwaves, huge pressures on farming and many wildfires. We are unlikely to have another cooler summer than this year, and we need to be prepared for an ever-warming world. That requires a cross-Government approach. While there has been lots of talk of a No. 10 for the north—and devolution is welcome—does the First Secretary of State recognise that we could have a No. 10 for the future in the form of a climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office, which is needed to drive the cross-Government approach we must have to keep people safe?

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I want to talk about my experience in my constituency. In Harleston, we have a temporary banking hub that has been operating for some time. I have been working with the community to press for a permanent location to be confirmed, but it is taking some time to do so. In Halesworth, the last remaining banking presence closed in December 2025, leaving the market town without a bank. The post office closed around the same time, and while we have secured a temporary post office, we do not yet have a permanent post office back on the high street. The market town of Eye has no bank branches and was without a post office for two years. It took a huge amount of work by Green councillors to secure the return of a post office, which was thanks to a local shopkeeper taking it on. The market town of Bungay perhaps illustrates the biggest problem here. The town once had branches of HSBC, Barclays, NatWest and Lloyds, but those have all gone. Link concluded that Bungay does not meet the banking hub requirements because cash facilities remain available, but access to cash is not the same as access to banking or the personalised support that staff, branches and banking hubs provide. Link also said that a banking hub would not be granted for Bungay because there is one in Harleston, but in rural communities, getting from one market town to another is not always easy. As the Government review access to banking services, will the Minister look at whether communities such as Bungay, where there is a clear demand for face-to-face services, can qualify for banking hubs even if cash withdrawals are accessible? Can Link’s assessment criteria be updated to reflect that, and can the bureaucratic obstacles to getting replacement post offices and banking hubs be reduced? We have heard clearly from Members across the Chamber how crucial banking services are, particularly to rural communities, to avoiding isolation and ensuring that our market towns can flourish. I hope that Government policies will make that easier.

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. It shows the breadth of issues that we need to contend with. Addressing this issue really is a whole-society, whole-Government matter. I very much support raising awareness of her point. It shows the need to review how we can treat people in a way that gives them the support they need but does not make other problems worse in the context of heatwaves. Where people live also matters. Poorly ventilated homes, upper-floor flats, care homes, social housing and densely built urban areas can trap heat for prolonged periods. Poverty compounds the risks. Those least able to afford adaptations are often the most exposed. In my Waveney Valley constituency, Friends of the Earth analysis has identified neighbourhoods that are both highly exposed to extreme heat and socially vulnerable, with around one in 10 falling into that category. I am grateful to one of my constituents for drawing my attention to the risk of overheating faced by her neighbour, whose council-owned bungalow effectively became a greenhouse during the latest period of extreme heat. The consequences extend beyond individuals to our health and care system. The NHS was built for a different climate. During the June heatwave, hospitals declared critical incidents, elective operations were postponed and temporary cooling equipment was required. Ambulance services experienced unprecedented demand, with the London ambulance service recording its busiest week on record. At the Norfolk and Norwich hospital, which serves part of my constituency, MRI scanners stopped working when the cooling systems failed. Much of the NHS estate was not designed to operate safely during prolonged periods of temperatures approaching 40°, while many care homes remain poorly adapted to protect vulnerable residents. Extreme heat therefore threatens not only individual health, but the resilience of the health and care system itself. Heat health warnings, public communication and targeted support for vulnerable people must become routine. Extreme heat is also an occupational health risk. Employers will increasingly need practical measures such as water, shade, ventilation, rest breaks and adjusted working patterns. Stronger workplace protections would safeguard both workers’ health and productivity. The private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) recognises that existing protections have not kept pace with our changing climate, and that employers need to be supported to ensure that people are working in safe and healthy conditions. Britain’s buildings were designed for a cooler climate. During heatwaves, schools, hospitals, libraries, prisons and care homes can become dangerously hot, placing public services under additional pressure just as demand is rising.

The hon. Member’s example highlights just how much of a risk wildfires pose. We need to take greater measures as a country to prevent them, including seriously looking at her suggestion.

I beg to move, That this House has considered preparedness for extreme heat. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. This issue affects all our constituents, so I will be happy to take interventions. Over recent weeks, Britain has experienced an extraordinary succession of heatwaves that have tested the resilience of our communities and public services. We have talked on our way in today about how we have all been personally affected—we might have been uncomfortable at various points—but this succession of heatwaves poses serious risks. We have seen hospitals declaring critical incidents, ambulance services facing record demand, transport disrupted, schools closed and firefighters battling major wildfires following prolonged hot and dry conditions.

I strongly agree with all the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Food security and water security are absolutely central to this debate, and they are under real threat. I represent a rural area as well, and it is hard to believe that it is so difficult for farmers to get permission to store water on their farms when so many areas have the problem of too much water at some times of the year and too little at others. Surely, we can find an answer by bringing those problems together. As with anything else, Government policies need to support farmers to do things that they want to do that will help with our natural environment and our social preparedness. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that really important point. Our transport networks were designed for a cooler climate. Extreme heat causes rails to buckle, overhead power lines to sag and road surfaces to deteriorate, and that leads to delays, cancellations and rising maintenance costs. As heatwaves become more frequent, transport resilience must become a standard requirement for infrastructure investment. Every road and railway built today should be designed for the hotter climate that it will face over its lifetime, because building in resilience now is far cheaper than repeatedly repairing failures later. Our energy system was designed for a climate where peak demand occurred in winter. As temperatures rise, demand for cooling increases, while extreme heat reduces the efficiency of power generation and places greater strain on the electricity network. Recent heatwaves have demonstrated that hotter summers are creating new challenges for energy security and resilience. The electricity system must become more resilient to hotter summers as well as colder winters. Extreme heat causes one of Britain’s greatest long-term resilience challenges: water security. Hotter, drier summers increase demand, as higher temperatures reduce river flows, lower reservoir levels, dry soils and intensify pressures on supplies, particularly across eastern and southern England. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has repeatedly warned that England faces a serious risk of water shortages unless resilience improves. Ofwat warns that without action, England could face a daily water shortfall of around 5 billion litres by 2055. This year’s record-breaking spring heat provided a warning, with high demand and low storage levels leaving thousands of households in south-east England without water. Building resilience means expanding reservoir capacity, modernising ageing infrastructure, reducing leakage, improving water efficiency and restoring natural catchments. Water security is no longer simply an environmental issue. It is fundamental to public health, food production, economic resilience and national security. Extreme heat is becoming one of the greatest threats facing farmers and our food system. Predictable seasons, reliable rainfall and healthy soils are at extreme risk from climate breakdown. The National Farmers’ Union describes climate change as “one of the biggest threats to UK food security”, while 80% of farmers say that increasingly frequent extreme weather is threatening their livelihoods and reducing productivity. Heat stress is also threatening animal welfare. During the 2022 heatwave, when UK temperatures exceeded 40° for the first time, around 18,500 chickens died from heat in transit. Government figures indicate that more poultry died during the heatwaves we have experienced this summer. Higher temperatures dry soils, increase irrigation demand and reduce crop yields. This year’s dry spring brought harvests forward into late June in some areas, with lower spring yields expected as a result. Many farmers can now harvest only in the mornings and evenings because grain becomes too dry during the hottest parts of the day, which increases storage fire risks and, in some cases, necessitates costly cooling before processing. The Climate Change Committee estimates that heat stress already costs agriculture around £205 million a year. Last year’s spring, the hottest and driest on record, contributed to one of the poorest harvests in recent decades, costing arable farmers at least £800 million in lost revenue. The consequences extend far beyond the farm gate. The UK food security digest concludes that climate-related disruption is already pushing up food prices, while the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit estimates that extreme weather added around £361 to the average household food bill during 2022 and 2023. As Britain becomes more reliant on imported food, we are increasingly exposed to climate shocks overseas, with disruption to just five staple foods estimated to have driven 30% to 40% of food price inflation over the past two years. Climate change is no longer just affecting where food is grown; it is affecting what families can afford. Supporting farmers through resilient farming systems, better water management, healthier soils, stronger animal welfare and continued innovation is essential to protecting affordable food, rural livelihoods and the resilience of Britain’s food supply. Food security is national security. Wildfires are becoming a growing challenge for farmers and fire and rescue services. They are occurring earlier, lasting longer and increasingly threatening homes, businesses, infrastructure and rural communities. Hotter, drier summers dry vegetation and soils, allowing fires to spread rapidly and causing devastating damage to crops, wildlife and property. As the climate warms, fire and rescue services will need greater capability, stronger land management and better public awareness. Wildfire resilience must become a central part of Britain’s climate adaptation strategy. Britain’s wildlife is experiencing the consequences of hotter, drier summers as well. Rivers and lakes warm rapidly during prolonged heat, reducing oxygen levels and contributing to fish deaths and declines in freshwater biodiversity. Wetlands dry out, placing pressures on amphibians, insects and water birds, while prolonged heat and drought weaken woodlands and leave ecosystems more vulnerable to pests, disease and wildfire. Those impacts come on top of decades of habitat loss and ecological decline. The Wildlife Trust warns that climate change is amplifying the nature crisis, while the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has highlighted that important habitats, including peatlands, salt marshes, heathlands and wetlands, are becoming increasingly vulnerable to prolonged heat and drought. The problem we have is a lack of real-time data on ecological impacts. All of that matters, because healthy ecosystems are part of our national resilience. The Climate Change Committee increasingly describes healthy ecosystems not simply as environmental assets, but as part of the nation’s resilience infrastructure. Healthy ecosystems store water, cool communities, reduce flood risk and support biodiversity. Peatlands store carbon and retain water during periods of drought. Wetlands help to regulate river flows, reduce flood risk and provide cooler refuges during heatwaves. Trees and woodlands lower surrounding temperatures, helping to cool both urban and rural environments while supporting biodiversity. If we continue to lose the natural environments that regulate water, cool our towns and cities, retain fresh water and sustain biodiversity, we will become progressively less resilient to the impacts of climate change. Protecting and restoring nature is therefore not simply an environmental ambition; it is an essential part of preparing Britain for a hotter future. In conclusion, the costs of extreme heat are already being paid. Dame Emma Howard Boyd, chair of the National Heat Risk Commission, has described extreme heat as a “force multiplier”, because it increases healthcare costs, disrupts transport and energy systems, damages crops, raises food prices and places growing pressure on water supplies and wildfire risk. The June 2026 heatwave alone is estimated to have reduced UK productivity by at least £2.36 billion and, as that figure reflects only productivity losses, the true economic impact is almost certainly higher. If current trends continue, annual productivity losses could reach £25 billion by 2030. The Climate Change Committee estimates that around £11 billion a year is needed to strengthen the UK’s climate resilience, with around a third of that invested in protection from extreme heat. Adaptation is an investment in resilience, and prevention will always be cheaper than recovery. What is lacking is not evidence, but co-ordinated delivery. Britain needs a heat resilience strategy that is led from the Cabinet Office, with clear ministerial accountability, ensuring that decisions on housing, infrastructure, health, energy and land use are all designed for the climates that we now face. Heat health warnings, public information and targeted support for vulnerable people should become routine before heatwaves strike. Green infrastructure is among the most effective adaptation measures available, but adaptation alone cannot protect us from unchecked warming, and mitigation cannot protect us from the warming already locked in. We need both. A world that warms by 4° would bring dire consequences beyond the limits of adaptation, making climate resilience and decarbonisation inseparable. The challenge before Parliament is therefore not whether to act, but whether we act quickly enough and with enough ambition to prepare Britain for the climate in which we must now live.

I thank the hon. Member for that point. I will come to the question of how we retrofit buildings and how we ensure that new buildings of whatever type, including schools, are fit for purpose for the large numbers of mainly young people who use them. His points are well made. During heatwaves, schools can become unsuitable for learning, hospitals struggle to provide safe conditions for patients and staff, and care homes become hazardous for some of the most vulnerable members of society. The problem does not end when temperatures fall; many buildings retain heat long into the night. One constituent told me her home reached 42.5°, and her young son required urgent care after suffering a severe asthma attack induced by extreme heat in the flat. The Climate Change Committee warns that, by 2050, 92% of existing homes could overheat during summer heatwaves if we do not have a full programme of adaptation measures. Most of the homes that we will live in then have already been built now, which means that national retrofit programmes are essential to keep people safe, including those that deliver shading, cooling, ventilation and green infrastructure. At the same time, every new home, school, hospital and workplace should be designed for a hotter climate through passive cooling measures such as external shading, ventilation, green roofs and reflective materials. Retrofitting later is far more expensive than building resilience from the outset, and every building constructed today should be designed for the climate we are moving towards, not the one we have left behind. As well as changes to the built environment, we must also consider making social changes. We need to question whether the summer period will be the right time for exams in future. We must look to protect young people and help them to do their absolute best in exams, in whatever conditions are comfortable for them to work at their best.

I agree with the hon. Member. I will come on to the impact on schools, and the fact that extreme heat does not affect everyone equally, later in my speech. Some communities and individuals are particularly affected, so I support her call, particularly because it highlights the need for a cross-Government response. The incidents I talked about were not isolated weather events, but a real-world test of our preparedness for a hotter climate, exposing vulnerabilities across our health service, critical infrastructure, emergency response and natural environment. Britain has entered a new climate reality. The Climate Change Committee’s latest UK climate risk assessment warns that climate risks are increasing faster than our preparedness, with progress described as slow, stalled or moving in the wrong direction. Extreme heat is no longer an occasional anomaly, but an increasingly defining feature of the UK’s climate. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2002, and the UK has already warmed by around 1.2° since the pre-industrial period. England has experienced four major summer heat events since 2018, and the three warmest Junes on record have all occurred during this decade. UK Health Security Agency projections indicate that heat-related deaths could more than triple by the 2050s without stronger adaptation. Extreme heat is now a growing threat to public health, infrastructure, food security, nature and national resilience. It is already a public health emergency. Evidence on rising temperatures and mortality shows that recent heatwaves were not merely uncomfortable; they were deadly. New analysis estimates that around 2,700 heath-related deaths occurred during the May and June heatwaves in England and Wales. These are not abstract statistics; they are the human cost of temperatures for which our society is not adequately prepared. Unlike floods or storms, extreme heat rarely creates dramatic images. Instead, people die quietly, in hospitals, care homes or at home. The Environmental Audit Committee described extreme heat as a “silent killer”. It increases mortality gradually, often among those already vulnerable. Extreme heat places significant strain on the body, increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness, dehydration, heat exhaustion and heatstroke. Hospital admissions rise for heart attacks, strokes, kidney injury and respiratory disease, while those with chronic illnesses or pregnancies and the elderly feel the impacts more acutely. Prolonged heat also affects mental health by disrupting sleep, increasing anxiety and impairing cognitive performance.

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. Water conservation, like energy conservation, is critical, and there must be measures to help households to do their absolute best on that. My region is one of those with a hosepipe ban in force at the moment. She is absolutely right that data centres pose a real risk both to our water conservation and energy conservation targets. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I should declare that I am a member of, is currently doing an investigation into that. She is absolutely right that there is limited point in emphasising other ways of reducing water and energy consumption if we allow massive increases in usage in other ways. As a society, we have to get a grip of the environmental risks of data centres and AI before they take hold.

I thank all hon. Members who have come along to take part in today’s debate. It shows how much interest there is across the House in this issue, which affects our constituents’ day-to-day lives now, and that is before the changes that could come in the future. I thank the Minister for that information. She suggested that she has more to give, and I would welcome a written response to see what more there is, especially if she has gone to the trouble of preparing it. In particular, I would like to hear more about the cross-departmental work that is planned. That is why I called for the Cabinet Office to be the answering Department in this debate. As much as I respect and work with DEFRA Ministers, this is a cross-Government issue, and it is extremely important that it is led by the Cabinet Office. I was also looking forward to the Minister talking about what immediate actions can be taken this summer, given that many measures that will take longer to deliver—in particular, increasing support for tackling wildfires and for A&E departments. If she has more to add on that, I would welcome it. I want to underline what two or three other Members said. I too hosted a screening of “National Emergency Briefing” in my constituency recently. It would be immensely powerful if the Government got behind a public information screening of that film. Alongside that, information could be provided about measures that people can take to adapt as best they can to the changes. We need systemic measures—it is not about what individuals can do—but giving people that information would help to raise the profile of this issue and give them the sense that we are working together. I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) made: if we are to get a grip of this problem, we must first stop making it far worse, which the granting of new licences for oil drilling in Rosebank and Jackdaw would do. Rosebank would produce emissions equivalent to 28 low-income countries; we cannot possibly justify that if we are to get to grips with the scale of the problem. It was reassuring to hear that Members from across the House are concerned about the degree of warming that is already happening. We need to tackle that to protect people—especially the most vulnerable, who are affected the most. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about the range of actions that the Government have planned. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

I welcome the statement from the Nature Minister, and thank her for recognising the crucial link between nature restoration and tackling climate breakdown. Does she recognise that whatever action is taken—we need to see far more action taken both on nature restoration and on decarbonisation—if large-scale new oilfields are granted at Rosebank or Jackdaw, for example, there could be emissions equivalent to 28 low-income countries from just one oilfield, which would undo all the good work that she and all of us in the House want to see?

I have heard from constituents of different ages who are concerned about the planned changes to PIP, and who highlight its importance in enabling them to work and to play a full part in society. I want to ask specifically about young people under the age of 25. What mechanisms are being put in place as part of this review to ensure that young people with cancer and other disabilities are considered, and that their distinct experiences are properly accounted for and heard as part of this process?

At the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday, the Minister for Nature did not have a clear answer for why the national security assessment on ecosystem collapse has not been released in its full form to MPs. I got the impression that it was not her decision to withhold the full unredacted report from MPs. Whose decision was it?

I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful speech. She talks about international law; does she agree with me on the importance of applying it consistently? In particular, given that the UK has rightly imposed sanctions and trade restrictions elsewhere—notably on Russia—does she agree that the same measures need to be applied to the Israeli Government’s illegal settlements on Palestinian territory?

The Secretary of State has referred to the number of people who are already losing their lives annually due to excess extreme heat, and that number will reach 10,000 by mid-century. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that the costs of putting in place the adaptations that are needed are less than the costs of not putting those adaptations in place. Will he be adopting the Climate Change Committee’s “A Well-Adapted UK” recommendations and investment plans in full?

The hon. Gentleman is clearly passionate about the horseracing sector. Did he see the incident at the Grand National festival earlier this year, when Gold Dancer broke his back during the race and was whipped to continue? As a result, when he got over the finishing line, it was too late for the vets to save him. That is not an isolated incident. Last year, there were 254 deaths of horses due to horseracing. In too many cases, the horses could have survived their injuries, but the owners judged that the damage was not worth it in terms of the financial value the horses could bring. Given all that, and the 641 instances of recorded whip abuses, if the horseracing sector is serious about its future—I recognise it matters to many people—it needs to show that horses will not be treated as expendable assets but as the beautiful animals they are, and future deaths must be avoided.

I welcome the work of Flood Re. Later this month, I will be hosting its Floodmobile in my constituency, where 13% of properties are already at risk of flooding. However, according to experts at Flooded People UK, our capital spending on flood defences and maintenance is not at record levels; in fact, it is actually lower than the annual rates in the previous capital spend. Will the Minister commit herself to protecting households in all our constituencies, and to increasing the spending commitments above the level in the 10-year infrastructure plan?

I declare an interest as vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the environment and as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. Green MPs will back these critical climate change orders and regulations. I want to recognise, as others have done, the strength of the cross-party consensus that has given us the historic and world-first Climate Change Act and then the net zero target. As the temperature outside soars to record highs, we must renew our commitment to working on the basis of evidence. It is therefore deeply regrettable to see attempts from the Conservatives and Reform to dismantle Parliament’s climate consensus. We must not go back to the days of denialism; neither must we tolerate any rowing back on climate ambition in response to a perceived electoral threat from the deniers and the delayers. The Paris agreement committed the world to holding global temperature rise to well below 2°C. The science has only become more alarming since then. Global emissions did not peak when many of the international climate policy experts predicted; instead, they continued to rise. As a result, the remaining global carbon budget available to meet the Paris goals now faces an ever smaller window. I support the seventh carbon budget, but we should be honest about the challenge before us, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that specifically. I welcome the seventh carbon budget, but it is imperative that we move with the urgency that the climate reality demands. We are experiencing increasingly frequent and severe periods of extreme heat, with temperatures reaching levels that pose risks to public health and essential services. The Climate Change Committee is clear that we are not prepared in any shape or form for what is to come. Greens are today specifically repeating our call for heat-proofing measures: cooling for hospitals, schools, prisons and care homes, including air conditioning where needed; a maximum temperature limit for workplaces and classrooms; and a street-by-street programme to insulate homes to ensure that we keep them warm in winter and cool in summer. We need a long-term policy framework to support that. Members of the Environmental Audit Committee have heard that mitigation and adaptation cannot be treated as separate challenges. Neither can climate action be separated from action on inequality and the cost of living. Nowhere is that clearer than in our continued dependence on oil and gas. Expanding oil and gas operations will not materially improve UK energy security or protect us against price shocks, and it will not lower household bills. The huge growth in renewables is hugely welcome, but the science demands that we avoid new oil and gas fields. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to unequivocally rule out expansion at Rosebank, given that it would emit emissions equivalent to 28 low-income countries.

The hon. Member is making an important speech. She highlighted the record-breaking June temperatures, and I heard Members behind me talk about how it is lovely and warm, but she highlights the very real human cost and the number of deaths per year that we are already seeing. Did she hear the Climate Change Committee highlighting that on the current trajectory, if we do not take action by mid-century, we will see 10,000 unavoidable deaths per year due to heat? Does that not show how serious the situation is?

I strongly agree with the hon. Member on that point, and we must ensure that our emissions account for all our activities, whether that is offshoring, shipping or aviation. As she pointed out earlier, any Government plans for airport expansion could bust their own climate targets and need to be carefully reviewed. Finally, nature is crucial to this debate. Healthy peatlands, native woodlands, salt marshes and restored ecosystems are among the most effective climate tools available to us, yet we are one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. I encourage the Government to recognise that in their carbon budget delivery plans. Not only can we build a strong resilient economy at the same time as restoring nature, but we will do so only if we successfully put nature front and centre. The science is becoming starker, the impacts are arriving faster, and the time for cautious incrementalism has passed. This House must back the seventh carbon budget, and we must all work together to increase our ambition to the level needed to protect the public.

Primary school headteachers in my constituency tell me that, according to their budget calculations, the cut in funding for physical education will have a real impact on opportunities for young people, especially in rural areas. What assurance can the Government give me that young people, especially those in rural areas such as Waveney Valley, will not lose out on vital sporting opportunities?

I very much agree with the Secretary of State about the gravity of the risks and the need for urgent action to protect young people’s wellbeing online. It is often the most vulnerable young people who are most likely to be exploited online, but it is also often the most vulnerable young people who use online channels to seek support for their vulnerabilities. Will she assure the House that action will be taken to support the most vulnerable young people, and does she agree that addressing the hollowing out of social services is a crucial part of that?

I thank my fellow hon. Member from Suffolk for giving way. He will be aware that the University of Suffolk is running training for dental therapists and hygienists, who are an important part of the jigsaw. The funding model is broken, because training a therapist receives support of only £5,000 a year, compared with £36,000 a year for dental students. Does he agree that that disparity needs to be addressed?

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who made an excellent speech in introducing this debate. Rural communities lose out so often when it comes to health services, and the decline they have seen in dentistry is a strong and worrying example of that. Unless NHS dentistry becomes a place where clinicians can build sustainable careers, new graduates will continue to drift away from NHS practice. If NHS work is too costly for dental practices to deliver, we should not be surprised when surgeries replace NHS service with private care. The Government must pursue contract reform and ensure that dentists are funded for the work they do, with a strong emphasis on prevention. The crisis in NHS dentistry will continue to deepen if immediate action is not taken. If the Government are serious about targeting dental deserts, East Anglia should be one of the first in line. I ask the Minister to do four things. Will he commit the funding needed to restore dental services? Will he support innovative therapist training models, such as Suffolk’s model? Will he review and reform NHS dental contracts, as promised? Will he commit to boosting the dental places in our region, and providing the places that we have lacked for decades?

It is a pleasure to co-sponsor the debate. In my constituency, registering with an NHS dentist as a new patient has become extremely difficult, if not impossible. East of England has the lowest number of NHS full-time equivalent dentists per head of population. When Ministers say that the system is improving, I ask them to picture the reality for patients in rural communities: people travelling miles, sometimes for hours, for appointments, ringing dozens of practices without success, and waiting until pain becomes unbearable before seeking urgent care. Leanne from Halesworth told me that it took three years to find an NHS dentist, while her children still cannot access NHS care. Another constituent, Michael from Dickleburgh, spent more than £2,000 on private treatment after being unable to access NHS treatment. Ministers have admitted that NHS dentistry has only enough budget for fewer than 40% of adults to be seen over a two-year period. The principle that an NHS service should be available to everyone is in tatters when it comes to dentistry. The Government have emphasised urgent appointments, but without additional workforce and funding, there would be fewer routine appointments, undermining the Government’s own prevention agenda. The British Dental Association estimates that the NHS dental budget has been cut by a third in real terms since 2010, reducing the allocation to 1.5% of the overall NHS budget. Further funding will clearly be needed to restore NHS dentistry as a universal service, yet when the Chancellor announced £29 billion of additional NHS funding in the spending review, the Minister indicated that none of that would likely be allocated to dental services. Delayed routine care leads to greater pain, more complex treatment and higher costs for both the patient and the NHS. Nowhere is that clearer than in children’s oral health. Tooth decay is the leading cause of hospital admission among five to nine-year-olds in England—a totally shocking fact Dentists do not grow on trees. I am delighted that, following many conversations, the University of East Anglia will begin training students from 2027. However, the truth is that, at UEA and nationally, not enough funded places are being provided. The previous Government promised a 40% increase in dental training places, but no funding was attached either for training those additional clinicians or for commissioning the NHS dentistry workforce that they would eventually join. The current Government have announced further expansion of dental school places, which I welcome, but the funding remains inadequate.

On the point about transparency, the Joint Intelligence Committee’s national security assessment was partially released in January—it was a redacted version—only after a freedom of information request from Green Alliance. That report highlighted that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are a threat to national security. What action is being taken following that report? In particular, when will the full version of the report be made available to Members of this House?

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this debate and in particular for his focus on the need for cross-Government action and to address the range of threats we face. Does he agree that as part of the resilience planning, addressing the risks attached to climate breakdown and nature collapse are absolutely central? On his point about transparency, does he agree that the two suppressed reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ futures team need to be made available if the Government and Members across parties are to work clearly to address these issues and inform the public?

Q12. A suppressed Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report has concluded that without transformational change, our food and water systems are at risk of catastrophic failure from 2030. Another suppressed Joint Intelligence Committee report concluded that there is a “high likelihood” of ecosystem collapse, putting food production at risk. Does the Prime Minister recognise that many of us across this House are ready to work collaboratively to address these urgent challenges, and will he commit to publishing those two reports in full?

The suppressed report from DEFRA civil servants on critical systems beyond 2030 concludes with high confidence that without “transformational change” Britain’s water and food systems face a realistic risk of “catastrophic failure”. The report highlights that significant parts of the UK already face water scarcity, while high levels of industry debt and woefully inadequate infrastructure investment have undermined system resilience. Can the Minister assure the House that the water Bill will require companies to build long-term climate resilience into reservoir supply networks and waste water systems, so that communities are protected from the climate and water security challenges expected in the coming years and decades?

At a recent roundtable that I held at a high school in Waveney Valley, one young person said: “Social media is dangerous for young people and the government needs to take more control over social media companies because of the harmful content”. A senior teacher said: “The majority of what we are dealing with as safeguarding leads is via social media.” How will the Minister ensure that the out-of-control corporate tech giants are regulated effectively, so that only age-appropriate content can be accessed?

Turning to a second report that sets out grave risks to our national security, DEFRA civil servants have said that there is a realistic possibility that by 2030, our food, water and natural ecosystems will be at risk of collapse. That conclusion could not be more stark. An article in The Times states that it was the conclusion of a 2024 report commissioned to inform the new Government, but it was not included in handover briefings. Can the Minister confirm whether she has seen that second report, and what action is her Department taking to address its stark findings?

9. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of her Department’s report entitled Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published on 20 January 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. One of the greatest threats to public safety is climate breakdown, with the increasing frequency and severity of extreme heat, flooding, food and water scarcity, critical infrastructure failures, and risks to public health and safety. Climate resilience must be embedded at the heart of national emergency planning, yet the Climate Change Committee’s key message in its latest advice is that the UK is woefully ill-prepared for the catastrophic impacts to come. The CCC makes it clear that affordable, practical solutions are available and that the cost of inaction will far exceed the investment required to prepare. Those dangers are not distant: more than 1,500 deaths have been recorded on average each year from extreme heat in recent years, and this could rise to 10,000 a year by 2050. By 2050, one in four properties could be at risk of flooding. The Joint Intelligence Committee report in January made it clear that ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss make our food system extremely vulnerable. The Government and Members of most parties in this Parliament rightly have a strong focus on carbon reduction and climate mitigation, but we must increase our collective focus, and the Government’s focus, on climate adaptation and resilience. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) said, we currently see far too little co-ordinated action across Government. There must be cross-Government approach, which is why I argue that we need a Cabinet Office Minister responsible for climate resilience across Government: preparing the NHS for new public health challenges; investing in flood protection; developing a comprehensive extreme heat strategy and a national drought plan; strengthening transport, water and energy infrastructure; and supporting a farmer-led transition to climate-resilient food production. Climate breakdown is not simply an environmental issue; it is a matter of national security, public health and emergency preparedness. I ask the Minister: will we prepare now, or pay a greater price later?

The Government present this legislation as technical, restructuring NHS England and reconfiguring integrated care boards. They also say that they want to devolve power from Whitehall and give patients more control over their care. However, there is a mismatch between this presentation and the contents of the Bill. While some responsibilities are being devolved, other powers are being drawn upwards to the Secretary of State, with greater control over spending, appointments and key operational decisions. There are serious concerns about how the patient voice is to be treated, and hearing that voice is essential if we are to address inequality and replace the negative health impacts of austerity, bad planning, poor housing, weak transport and divisive social policies. With the Bill, we have the chance to address the totally unacceptable 16-year gap in life expectancy between different postcodes in the UK. I therefore urge Ministers to amend the Bill to include clear legal frameworks and a cross-Government strategy to mirror new duties on strategic authorities for tackling health inequalities—inequalities that I see in my constituency, where those without the means to pay for a private dentist endure horrible pain and suffering, and where children go without care; inequalities that mean men in the most deprived areas can expect to live, on average, 11 fewer years in good health than those in the least deprived areas. It is a real concern that the Bill will permit the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. How might that power be used in the hands of a pro-privatisation Secretary of State? As for the issue of patient voice, it beggars belief that, as drafted, the Bill abolishes the statutory duty underpinning local independent patient and public voice, including the entire network of local healthwatch organisations. That must be rectified. We need independent challenge, because without it accountability is at risk. Healthwatch Norfolk has pointed out that it has a legal power to visit health and social care services and see them in action, but the Bill does not mention that statutory power, or how it might sensibly become the responsibility of the ICB or the local council. What will happen to it? Healthwatch Suffolk has pointed out that recognition of an independent voice for patients has been a principle supported by Governments for 50 years, but if this Bill passes into law unamended, it will end that recognition. Finally, ensuring that the different records in the health system are in one place so that patients do not have to repeat their stories is an important principle, but that single patient record must be safeguarded. I therefore urge the Minister to rule out awarding the contract for its development to Palantir, so that we can ensure that clear safeguards are in place.

The Joint Intelligence Committee report described ecological collapse and climate breakdown as posing catastrophic and irreversible risks to UK security, including conflict, food and water insecurity, supply chain disruption and forced migration. Does the Minister agree that the destabilising impact of the climate and nature crisis is one of the biggest national security risks facing Britain? What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to co-ordinate critical actions across Government?

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). The first duty of any Government is to keep the public safe. This duty must shape everything we do in this House, and it must shape how we think about defence. There is no doubt that Britain today faces profound defence challenges, as we have heard in this debate, from international instability to cyber-threats and increasing pressure on our energy and supply chains. But if we are serious about defence, we must also recognise that the types of threats that we face are changing. In debating security, we must also look at whether our most vulnerable people are protected from extreme heat, whether our communities can cope with flooding, and whether we can secure food, water and energy in an increasingly unstable world. Today, the Climate Change Committee published its report on climate adaptation, and its warnings could not be clearer. We are on a path to 2°C of warming by 2050. That means that in just a couple of decades or so, nine in 10 of our homes will be at risk of overheating. Peak river flows may rise by 45%, water supply shortfalls may exceed 5 billion litres per day, and 40° heatwaves will become the new normal across the UK, potentially leading to an additional 10,000 heat-related deaths per year. The CCC is also clear that without action, warming of up to 4° by the end of this century remains a possibility, which would be catastrophic, with temperatures in the UK nearing 50°, infrastructure pushed beyond what it was ever designed to withstand, and profound consequences for public health, economic stability and social cohesion. Those are not distant projections, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituents and yours are already having to live with the consequences of climate breakdown. We see it in the thousands of deaths caused by the increasingly regular heatwaves, in the communities repeatedly devastated by flooding, and in rising food prices, rising insurance costs and growing pressures on the services and systems that people rely on every day. None of this should come as a surprise. Earlier this year, the Government’s own Joint Intelligence Committee warned that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to national security, threatening food and water supplies, disruption to infrastructure and supply chains, increased flooding, risks to public health and wider economic instability. It also warned of the cascading effects of displacement, conflict and competition for resources. Yet despite the scale and seriousness of warnings by the Government’s own advisers, and despite repeated calls for parliamentary time, this House has still not been allowed a dedicated opportunity to debate its findings or scrutinise the Government’s response. Our children will have to live with the consequences of inaction. It would be a dereliction of duty to let political dramas around by-elections and leadership contests distract us from this most fundamental responsibility. The evidence is clear, and we are not without options. Today’s report sets out practical, costed solutions: better cooling for hospitals, schools and care homes, so our most vulnerable are protected during extreme heat; stronger flood defences and investment in natural flood management for our communities; a serious approach to water security, so shortages do not become routine; support for British farmers, so British food production remains viable under changing conditions; retrofitting homes so they are fit for a warmer climate; and infrastructure built to withstand climate impacts rather than fail under them. The economics are equally clear. The cost of action is about £11 billion a year, but the cost of inaction could rise to between £60 billion and £260 billion annually. This must be a turning point. We can no longer treat climate adaptation as a secondary environmental issue; it is a matter of national defence, a matter of economic security and, above all, a matter of protecting people. However, it needs to be far higher up the agenda for the Government and for Parliament. That is why I am calling for a dedicated climate protection unit in No. 10, with the sole purpose of working across Departments to fund and drive forward the recommendations in this report. I am also supporting amendment (g) to the King’s Speech on the threats that nature collapse poses to national security. Defence is not about responding after disaster strikes; defence is about reducing risks before crisis becomes catastrophe. If the first duty of Government is to keep people safe, climate adaptation cannot sit at the margins of the King’s Speech, but must be placed firmly at its heart.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) and the petitioners for securing the debate. Nearly 120,000 people from up and down the country have supported this petition and many of my constituents in Waveney Valley have taken the time to write to me about the debate. Such a level of public engagement reflects a clear and growing concern that the continued use of animals in testing is not ethically or scientifically justified. Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. In 2024, more than 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in the UK, with 2,646 using dogs; 82 using cats, 1,936 using monkeys, and 11,483 using horses. Behind those horrifying numbers are sentient beings subjected not to abstract procedures, but to confinement, physical invasion, distress and pain. Investigations by organisations such as Animals International and Animal Aid have documented those practices in stark detail. Footage emerging from UK laboratories lays bare a deeply troubling reality: animals immobilised in slings, straining against restraints or confined for months in barren cages while subjected to repeated invasive procedures. Dogs, overwhelmingly beagles, as we have heard, are routinely force-fed substances through tubes pushed down their throats or made to inhale chemicals via tightly strapped masks, while others endure surgically implanted catheters delivering infusions into the veins. Those are not short-lived interventions, but prolonged procedures, often involving twice-daily dosing for months, with consequences that can include vomiting, diarrhoea, seizures, internal bleeding, organ failure and paralysis. Yet the studies continue regardless. Some animals are kept alive until they reach the brink of severe physiological collapse, or even heart failure, and even those that survive are invariably killed so that their organs can be dissected and examined. This is not incidental suffering. It is systemic, deliberate and embedded within the process itself. The Green party has long been clear that we should reduce suffering for all animals, guided by the evidence. I am pleased by today’s strong cross-party support for that in welcoming what the Government have set out, but calling for the stronger ambition that we must see under Herbie’s law. The way we treat animals reflects our values as a society. We have a responsibility to recognise animals as sentient beings and reduce suffering whenever it occurs. However, this is not just an ethical question, but a scientific one. We are often told that animal testing is essential for human health, yet over 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals never make it through to approval for human use. That extraordinarily high failure rate points to a system that is not only causing harm to animals, but failing to deliver for patients. The evidence is clear: animals are not reliable proxies for human health, and differences in biology mean that results often do not translate. Substances that are harmless to us can be toxic to other species, and vice versa, meaning that outcomes can mislead in both directions. At the same time, the science is moving on. Non-animal methods, such as advanced cell models, organ-on-a-chip technologies or AI-driven approaches, are increasingly able to deliver results that are more accurate and more relevant to humans. Those are not distant possibilities; the methods are already being used and are improving quickly. The UK should be leading on this issue. The Government have already accepted that there is no legal requirement to carry out animal testing and that regulators can approve medicines based on non-animal data, yet progress remains too slow. If we are serious about change, we need a proper plan to move away from animal testing altogether. That is why Herbie’s law matters. Named after a rescued beagle, it would set out a practical framework to phase out animal testing by 2025 while supporting researchers and industry to transition to modern alternatives. It is practical and achievable, and it already has strong support across Parliament and among the public. The calls to suspend generic new licences, and to review existing ones, also merit serious consideration. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, experiments on animals are authorised through licences. Concerningly, those can take the form of broad five-year service licences granted to research organisations, and they can allow experiments to continue even when non-animal alternatives become available during the licence period. Furthermore, even though the law requires a harm-benefit analysis before animal use is approved, under those broad licences the specific substances to be used, and therefore the harm that the animals will face, are not always known at the point of approval. It is difficult to see how that meets a statutory duty. This debate is not about being anti-science. Far from it: it is about recognising that better science is available. By shifting investment and policy support towards human-relevant methods, we can improve outcomes for patients while ending unnecessary suffering for animals. The petitioners are right: the system is failing both animals and humans. We have the evidence, we have the technology, and we have the public backing. What is missing is the pace of change, so I urge the Government to suspend all new generic service licences for toxicity testing immediately, to conduct a full review of every current licence held, and to deliver urgently on their promise to replace animals in science. That is the change that we and animals deserve.

I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?

I thank my fellow Member from East Anglia for securing this crucial debate. He is right to highlight the vulnerability in our energy system that this war has exposed and the particular impact on rural communities. Does he agree that older people in rural communities are particularly impacted? As he says, we have seen a doubling or even tripling of costs and a huge financial outlay, which is resulting in some of my constituents having to pay by credit card because they do not have the cash. According to Age UK, 28% of pensioners were already struggling before this crisis. Does he agree that this is further evidence that although the Government’s package is welcome, they need to go further and put in place a price cap to ensure that constituents, including older constituents, are supported?

T6. The British Dental Association has highlighted that current budgets allow just 39% of adults to access NHS treatment within a two-year period. Is that really the height of the Government’s ambition, and if not, what access percentage are the Government aiming for?

The Daily Mirror reports that of the nearly 1 million urgent dental appointments that have been commissioned by integrated care boards since April, 900,000 have not been taken up because of strict rules around the scope of treatment. Meanwhile, in my constituency and around the country, too many people are going without the treatment that they need. Will the Minister update us on when the Government expect to meet their targets on urgent appointments?

rose—

I was waiting for the appropriate point to pre-empt the fact that the hon. Lady is clearly talking about banking hubs in rural areas. In my constituency of Waveney Valley, the market town of Bungay has been told that it cannot have a banking hub because there is already one seven miles away in Harleston, but of course in rural areas, proximity does not necessarily mean accessibility when it comes to travel times or public transport access. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in determining the criteria for banking hubs, real accessibility in rural areas needs to be accounted for, and there needs to be flexibility in the system to achieve that?

I welcome the ambition in the White Paper, particularly to ensure that young people are supported earlier. It has to be the right aim that more young people can be supported within mainstream settings. Is the Secretary of State committed to understanding the reasons for the big increase in the number of young people who cannot be supported in mainstream school and to providing the necessary funding and support to schools? Does she accept that, at the same time, there is not currently enough capacity in alternative provision for young people for whom mainstream school is not working?

The Government’s own national security assessment warns that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse pose serious risks to the UK’s long-term food security and may intensify natural disasters. Given that Parliament has not yet had the opportunity to debate this assessment, will the Secretary of State support my call for a dedicated debate, so that the risks and the actions across Government can be properly scrutinised by this House?

The hon. Member is making a strong case. The number of dentists leaving the NHS across the UK is driven by chronic underfunding and the failed dental contract. Last month, the Minister suggested that long-term fundamental reform might only be introduced from 2027 onwards. Does the hon. Member agree that that reform must be brought forward as soon as possible and that we need clarity on when? Does he also agree that the one-third cut in real terms of the dentistry budget that we have seen since 2010 must be reversed by this Government?

I thank the Minister for highlighting the need for the dental workforce to be strengthened. We have a dental desert in East Anglia. The University of East Anglia stands ready to open a new dental school. It has permission from the General Dental Council but is awaiting the funded undergraduate dental places that will be needed to start training new dentists from 2027. Can the Minister set out how those places will be made available on the basis of regional need, so that dental deserts such as the east of England can start to build a sustainable dental workforce?

I welcome the national cancer plan, and in particular the Minister’s focus on early diagnosis and ending the scandal of postcode inequality. Cancer Research UK has highlighted that limited funding could significantly impact on progress against the plan, so can the Minister assure us that she is allocating funding in order to meet her own rightful ambitions, and say whether she is engaging with Cancer Research UK and others in the sector on the funding that is needed?

The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?

This week we have seen, at last, the Government’s national security assessment and its stark warning that global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse threaten UK security and prosperity. Given those catastrophic risks, can the Leader of the House explain why the publication of the report was delayed from October? Can we have a debate about what the Government are doing to step up the vital preparedness for these risks and whether they are ensuring that the nature and climate emergency is treated as a major national security priority?

I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for leading this important debate. The UK prides itself on having some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I welcomed last month’s animal welfare strategy, which promises to go further still. I particularly welcome the planned ban on farrowing crates for sows and cages for hens—crucial steps forward in our animal protection in this country—and have called on the Government to set out clear timescales for their delivery and support for farmers during the transition. The animal welfare strategy reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change, and marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on animal welfare standards—but there are some glaring gaps. What is illegal to produce here because it is too cruel remains legal to import and sell. That is incoherent, undermines public confidence and leaves higher-welfare British farmers facing unfair competition. The principle should be straightforward: if a practice is too cruel for food produced in Britain, it should be too cruel for food imported into Britain. Yet reality tells a different story. Some 97% of our pork imports come from countries where sow stalls are still legal, despite the practice having been illegal here for 25 years. Battery cages may be banned here but they remain widespread elsewhere, and imports of eggs have increased more than twelvefold in the last year alone. Since the Australia trade deal was signed, lamb imports have risen by over 160%, despite cruel practices such as mulesing—illegal here—remaining common there. This is not a niche concern. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming, 95% of countries with UK market access have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that non-EU imports of eggs have more than tripled since 2020, poultry imports have risen by 60%, and pork by over 80%. In trade discussions with the United States Administration, Ministers focused on food safety and sanitary standards, but that focus risks leaving a huge loophole for imports produced in ways that would be illegal here, widening the welfare gap instead of closing it. While the UK will rightly maintain its ban on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken coming from the US, it is “looking to compromise in other areas”. Higher-welfare British farmers are paying the price. The NFU has been clear: farmers want trade deals, but not at the expense of being undercut by food produced to standards that would be illegal on their own farms. Over 90% of British livestock farmers support restricting low-welfare imports, and the public agree: more than four in five people support banning imports produced using methods outlawed here. We need a statutory requirement that animal products sold in the UK, whether produced here or imported, meet British welfare standards. We also need mandatory welfare labelling that applies equally to imports. The animal welfare strategy’s consultation commitments on that do not go far enough. In conclusion, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to close this loophole and ensure that our individual trade deals and overall policy fully reflect the ambition that is rightly included in the animal welfare strategy. The standards of our higher-welfare British farmers at home should not be undermined by lower welfare standards abroad. We should not be importing cruelty, and our farmers deserve a level playing field.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) for securing this important debate today. I come to this debate with the simple belief that animals should not suffer at our hands. That is why I welcome the animal welfare strategy, which was published last month. It reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change. It also marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on cages, crates, wildlife protection and welfare standards. I look forward to supporting the Government in making sure that those commitments are kept and change happens. A strategy is only as good as its delivery. As organisations such as Humane World for Animals and Compassion in World Farming have made clear, without clarity about how and when the strategy will be delivered, there is a real risk that it will remain aspirational, rather than being the transformative instrument for change that we all hope it will be. The scale of the challenge is stark. In 2024, around 280 million animals were kept in intensive farming in the UK, and that number is going in the wrong direction—an increase of 23 million since 2017. That growth has not been driven by rising domestic demand but by cost pressures, economies of scale and policy choices that continue to favour factory farming over higher welfare alternatives. That is why the strategy’s commitment to ending the use of cages and crates matters so much. Around 200,000 sows still spend weeks of their lives confined in farrowing crates, unable even to turn around, while around 8 million laying hens remain in cages that are little larger than an A4 piece of paper. Warm words are not enough. The reforms must be time-bound, properly resourced and backed by financial support to help farmers transition. The Nature Friendly Farming Network and Compassion in World Farming are clear that improving animal welfare must go hand in hand with supporting farmers, rather than their being left to shoulder the costs of transition on their own. Crucially, we must ensure that the higher standards that will be required in the UK are applied to imports, so that any higher welfare British farmers do not find themselves being undercut. As others have said, mandatory welfare labelling for both domestic and imported goods is also vital. There are welcome things in the strategy for animals in the wild, such as the imminent complete ban on the use of snares and the action on trail hunting, but there are crucial omissions in the strategy. It is silent on ending greyhound racing, which the Labour Government in Wales are doing. It also fails to mention the prohibition of imports of fur and hunting trophies, as well as regulation to limit the noise from fireworks in order to protect animals. There is much to welcome in the strategy, but there are also some omissions. It acknowledges the need to reduce animal experimentation, yet we have heard that 2.5 million animal experimentation procedures were carried out last year. The Government are on the right path to replacing animal experiments with modern, reliable alternatives, judging from the plans that they announced in November. However, we need clear, time-bound plans that cover experiments on all types of animals. Finally, none of these things will work without enforcement. Animal Aid, Cats Protection and many others warn that weak inspections and under-resourced regulators undermine even the best legislation. Whether we are talking about farms, laboratories or companion animals, standards without enforcement are standards in name only. The public, the science and morality have aligned. We have the evidence and the expertise and, with this strategy, we have the momentum. The question now is how we can support the Government to match ambition with action, clear timelines, robust enforcement and real support for those doing the right thing. I urge the Government to ensure that the strategy delivers not just promises, but real lasting change for animals—and I will support them in doing so.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He makes the point very strongly that long waiting times mean that children are being left behind. As we have heard, it was revealed last week that many integrated care boards are capping the number of assessments without telling GPs or patients. Does the hon. Member agree that a child’s access to diagnosis and support should not depend on where they live or whether their parents can afford to go private?

Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are at the heart of my constituency, yet family-run village pubs such as the Blue Boar in Walsham le Willows face significant increases in business rates from this April. If the Minister does recognise that the current system is failing businesses, when will he commit to meaningful reform and action, including giving local authorities greater powers to support socially and economically essential local businesses, which village pubs in rural areas undoubtedly are?

Farmers in Waveney Valley are relieved at this change, but they are also frustrated that the Government have not been listening about the underlying causes of why it is so difficult for farmers to make even a living wage to put food on our table. It has been obvious from the outset that the Government needed to review the threshold, so it is baffling that it took 14 months for them to do so. Does the Minister recognise the emotional and financial cost of this 14-month delay?

We are indeed a nation of animal lovers, yet every year 200,000 sows are kept in farrowing crates where they cannot even turn around, while millions of hens are kept in tiny spaces no bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Those are cruel, cramped conditions that cause a short life of pain and suffering. Following the recent cross-party letter that I initiated, will the Secretary of State confirm that the animal welfare strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages and, importantly, support for farmers through this transition so that people can have confidence in so-called welfare-assured systems?

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The Animal Law Foundation’s report “The Enforcement Problem” shows that only around 2.2% of farmers were inspected in 2024 and only around half of complaints about farmed animal welfare led to any inspection. Even when non-compliance is detected by local authorities, only 2% of cases lead to prosecution. Allowing those breaches is terrible for animals and terrible for the farmers who do comply with the rules. How will the forthcoming animal welfare strategy ensure that credible complaints are consistently investigated, and that enforcement bodies have the resources and duties needed to act when animal welfare concerns are raised?

12. What steps her Department is taking to help support farmers to adopt higher animal welfare standards.

Yesterday I co-ordinated 36 MPs and Members of the other place in calling on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to include in the forthcoming animal welfare strategy a timebound plan to end the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the strategy will be brought out, as the Government committed to do, by the end of the year? Will there be a statement to this House, before rather than after the House rises for Christmas, that the strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages?

The hon. Lady is making an important case for upgrading Ely junction. Would she agree that alongside that, as per Network Rail’s business case, we need to upgrade the Haughley junction in my constituency, so that we can realise the many benefits of moving freight on to the rails from the port of Felixstowe and through the east to the midlands?

This Budget was billed as a plan for renewal. In Waveney Valley, renewal is measured by what people actually feel: lower bills, better services, affordable local food and the protection of our irreplaceable natural environment, yet Kevin, a trustee of the Waveney food bank, told me a few days ago that demand continues to grow, reflecting hardship nationwide. Trussell reports that around 14 million people, including 3.8 million children, faced food insecurity last year. Scrapping the two-child limit in universal credit is very welcome indeed, and something I have long called for, but it alone cannot tackle structural poverty. The Budget raises £26 billion, but most is held back to expand fiscal headroom rather than easing household pressures. Threshold freezes hit low and middle-income families, creating a disproportionate burden on ordinary households, while the wealthiest are still not paying their fair share. Opportunities to tax extreme wealth have been missed, and this decision punishes the many to protect the privileges of the few while families and public services continue to struggle. Schools are facing severe financial pressure. Headteachers in my constituency report cutbacks to subject options and support services, and recruitment and retention remain challenging. Special educational needs are under particular strain. Demand for special educational needs and disabilities services has doubled, with deficits rising from £6.6 billion to £13.4 billion in three years and councils warning of insolvency. Thousands of children face long waits for assessments, and schools must meet needs without sufficient staff, training or funding. Urgent action is needed to stabilise SEND and schools funding in order to improve access and support. The Budget was also a missed opportunity for farmers already struggling with rising costs and succession pressures. Agricultural property relief remains capped at £1 million per person, hitting ordinary family farms rather than the people I know the Government are trying to target: those buying up farmland to avoid tax. Along with experts such as Dan Neidle, I have argued that the APR threshold should rise to around £10 million to clamp down on tax avoidance without penalising family farms that make little money day to day. Core farm costs have also been frozen. The environmental land management schemes remain underfunded, complex and difficult for smaller farms to access, preventing investment in nature restoration, climate-resilient practices and improved animal welfare. The sustainable farming incentive remains closed to new applicants, stalling access to properly funded schemes that are essential for environmental protection and a secure food supply. The Budget promises 250 new neighbourhood health centres, which I very much welcome—they could restore rural services, and I look forward to seeing them in market towns across Waveney Valley—but there is no clarity on what it will mean for dentistry, which is already at a crisis point. Financing the health centres through public-private partnerships raises concerns and questions about long-term costs given the failures of PFI. Public investment must serve patients, not private profit. This Budget makes promises with some welcome elements, but does not deliver the scale of renewal that our country needs. Public services are stretched, farmers are struggling, schools and councils face unsustainable pressures, and families across Waveney Valley continue to battle hardship. Kevin at the Waveney food bank hopes that one day he will be able to close the food bank for good, but on the basis of this Budget, there is a long way to go.

Upgrading the Ely and Haughley junctions would enable a substantial shift of freight to the rails, which is important for net zero targets, for relieving congestion and for supporting haulage and logistics businesses. Will the Secretary of State therefore meet me, regional businesses, cross-party political leaders and the Suffolk chamber of commerce to look at the options for funding and upgrading this project, as outlined by Network Rail?

Flood Re’s report earlier this year highlighted that, in the face of more extreme weather and more frequent flooding, many insurers are increasing excesses and premiums often to eyewatering levels or withdrawing insurance support altogether. What immediate support are the Government putting in place for people who find themselves without insurance?

More than 50 countries have endorsed the tropical forests scheme launched at COP30 in Brazil. It is one of the most significant global initiatives to protect tropical forests. The UK’s decision not to contribute is a shocking failure in emissions reduction, international nature finance and our relationships with South America. Might we have a debate about the important need for the Government to revisit and reverse that decision before the end of COP30?

I thank the Minister for her answer. Animal Equality estimates that around 200,000 sows in the UK spend nearly a quarter of their adult life confined in farrowing crates, which are metal barred cages that severely restrict their movement—they cannot even turn around. Some 75% of vets are concerned and research suggests that two thirds of the public oppose their use. When it comes to the animal welfare strategy, will the Minister commit to phasing out the use of all farrowing crates and the equally cruel cages for birds, and what practical steps will be put in place to support farmers with the transition?

3. What her planned timeline is for moving away from the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming.

This morning the Chancellor spoke of difficult decisions for everybody but the ultra-rich. With billionaire wealth soaring while living standards for most people fall, does she agree that it is time to double down on gross inequality in our country and tax extreme wealth fairly, so that we can tackle the cost of living crisis, end child poverty and invest in our public services?

My constituent Nicola is from one of 29 families who lost loved ones in the Chinook helicopter crash. Many documents have not been released, and the families have been denied truth and justice. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the matter? In the meantime, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to meet the families, and the cross-party group of MPs supporting them?

It is horrifying that Netanyahu has bombed Gaza in a clear violation of the ceasefire. The suffering in Gaza is unimaginable. To move forward, we must demand justice and reparations for all victims of atrocity crimes and hold to account the perpetrators. What are the Government doing to uphold UK obligations under international law to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? What are the Government doing to push for journalists to be allowed in, given the Israeli Government’s outrageous restrictions, which prevent them from documenting the horrors?

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate and for highlighting the importance of addressing branch closures. In the market town of Halesworth in my constituency, the post office closed its doors for the final time last Saturday—I have been pressing the Post Office for a replacement facility as soon as possible—while Barclays, which is the only bank provider in the town, will cease its weekly facility at the library in the coming weeks. This reinforces his point about the importance of banking hubs as a potential solution for in-person support. Will he reiterate the importance of the Government speeding up the roll-out of banking hubs, particularly for rural communities?

I welcome the approval of plans for a new dental school at the University of East Anglia. What arrangements and incentives will the Minister put in place to keep dental graduates in the most poorly served areas, such as my constituency of Waveney Valley?