Adrian Ramsay
MP for Waveney Valley · Green Party · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 complete record
Every one of 314 lines we hold for Adrian Ramsay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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. 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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”