Adrian Ramsay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. After successive years of failure, we need a water sector that serves people, not profit. We in the Green party have long made a cast-iron pledge to support bringing water back into public ownership. During its passage, I attempted to expand the powers of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 to enable environmental failures—not just insolvency—to trigger Government intervention, and I backed a cross-party amendment on mutual ownership. The Government rejected both, and public ownership itself was denied any place in the legislation by the Minister. Over the last three and a half decades, we have seen companies ripping off consumers while failing to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. While investors receive billions in dividends, the system needs its biggest ever investment programme. More than £50 billion has been pocketed by shareholders since privatisation, while around £16 billion is needed in the next few years just to fix storm overflows and solve poisonous nitrate pollution. Instead of pouring money into profits and managing failures, we need to build a system that is fit for the future. It is no wonder that this privatisation experiment has failed: water is a public resource and a natural monopoly. Fantastical figures are used to scare people off the pursuit of public ownership as a solution. The figure of £90 billion was first cooked up in a Social Market Foundation report paid for by—oh!—four prominent members of the water sector. The Government could leave the debt with the debt holders and look at alternative models, such as Common Wealth’s economic assessment reflecting years of neglected infrastructure, companies struggling with insolvency, and debt leveraging for commercial survival. While costs would be incurred in facilitating the transfer, an honest valuation would put public ownership within reach. As we see company debt and statutory fines loaded on to bills, record sewage spills and billions in dividend payouts, I implore the Government to set out a timetable to restore our water to public ownership and end Thatcher’s failed 37-year privatisation experiment.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Summer Health and Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  During one of the summer heatwaves, a hospital serving my constituency—the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital—had to switch off its MRI scanners, resulting in hundreds of people losing their appointments. Does the Secretary of State agree that that shows the range of challenges facing the NHS? Will the Government’s investment plans look at how to keep equipment working and how to keep patients and NHS staff safe in extreme heat?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The CEO of Healthwatch Norfolk said today: “To cease the statutory functions of Healthwatch without a suitable alternative in place…is to risk another major failing in patient safety and scrutiny of the health system.” Did the Minister’s remarks just now suggest that the Government may be reviewing the plans to scrap Healthwatch?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  At the Government’s request, councillors and council officers have put a huge amount of time into preparing for these proposals—time that could have been put into improving council services. If there is going to be another extended period of instability, that will further worsen that situation. Does the Secretary of State accept that local government funding is extremely stretched, especially for councils that run services such as SEND and social care, and that councils very little money for anything else? Does she agree that if local government reorganisation is to go ahead and devolution is to be meaningful, it needs to put money into the hands of local people, and there needs to be proper funding for local government?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this is a public health issue. Organisations such as the World Health Organisation are clear on that, and it is clear from Natural England’s oral evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday. It is clear not only that there will be risks to public health if action is not taken but that nature as national security infrastructure can help with positive health outcomes, and we really need to embrace that as a country. Nature is a foundational element of national security, and nature depletion, biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate breakdown are not merely environmental problems. Collectively, they will lead to the ruin of critical systems on which lives and livelihoods depend. We are no longer confronted by individual isolated incidents, events or extinctions. What lies ahead is whole-system collapse. As nature provides essential services that protect people, food, water and the economy, it is infrastructure—our most critical infrastructure—and should be treated as such.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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”.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

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

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Extreme Heat: Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Extreme Heat: Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Extreme Heat: Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Extreme Heat: Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  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.