Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his great work supporting young carers for decades. We have given tech companies a deadline: introduce the device-level controls that already exist to prevent children from sending and receiving sexually explicit images or we will change the law, with fines for companies or even criminal liability for bosses who fail to comply. When it comes to the safety of our children, standing by is not an option, and further steps will follow.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

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 Prime Minister]

I agree that we must act to protect ecosystems that underpin our food supply and our way of life, and I am really proud that, under this Government, the UK is back playing a leading part on climate change and restoring nature.

National Resilience

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Reed]

There must have been a leak, because I am going to come on to that paragraph straight away.

Beyond the issue of funding, the obvious question that flows from this is who in Government should take the lead in having that conversation with the public about the panoply of threats that we face. That leads to the central argument of this debate: is the British state structured to deal effectively with them? I accept that the machinery of government is a surefire way to send those in this Chamber to sleep, but it is central to the direction of travel we must take.

I was waiting with bated breath to see who the Government would send to respond to the debate this evening, because logic would dictate that the Minister responding should come from the Department that the Prime Minister has charged with leading the national conversation on resilience. Here lies the first problem. The Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office. His portfolio is broad, but it clearly does not cover anywhere near the full range of threats set out in the Government’s own definition of national resilience.

The Cabinet Office has a resilience directorate, which does important work co-ordinating civil contingency planning, crisis management and emergency response across national and local levels. I would not diminish the work that it does for a moment, but let us consider its design: a directorate for preparedness and a Cobra unit for crisis response. Risk and response. Notice what is missing. There is machinery to assess the threat and machinery to manage the emergency, but nowhere is anyone charged with turning to the public and saying, “Here is the threat we face, here is your part in it, and here is what is being done in your name.” The national conversation that we need therefore finds no natural home. It does not emanate from the directorates whose remit is risk and response; nor has the Ministry of Defence acted on the strategic defence review’s own call for a national conversation on defence and resilience.

The result is a system in which responsibility is spread so thinly that no single Minister owns the problem. The danger of that is not merely administrative tidiness but that when a crisis strikes, command and control will fracture at precisely the moment it must hold. For example, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill—which hands the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology sweeping new powers to direct critical entities—illustrates the trend rather than reversing it. Individual Departments are accruing resilience powers of their own, with each cooking up policies to support their own patch. A whistle must be blown on this approach, because we risk spreading responsibility through legislation so thinly that no one truly understands where it lies.

When I speak to civil servants—all of whom want to see a stronger and safer country—I notice that the word “resilience” has itself become something of a buzzword, a phrase to attach to a business case to secure a bigger departmental budget. That is a sign of a system without a clear centre of gravity, not of one that is working. That led me to research in depth how our near neighbours have approached this problem—countries with national stories like our own and populations whose memories of insecurity have faded, just as ours have.

The clearest exemplar I found is Denmark. The Danes have grasped something that we have not yet acted upon: in an age of interconnected threats—where cyber-attacks become supply shocks become public-safety emergencies—danger no longer respects departmental boundaries. For decades they had run, as we still do, on a principle of sectoral responsibility—each Department minding risk in its own lane. They concluded that a system in which everyone is responsible is one in which, in practice, no one is.

In August 2024, the Danes acted, creating a dedicated ministry of resilience and preparedness, the first of its kind in the region, with a Cabinet Minister in charge. Within months, they established a resilience agency beneath it, drawing scattered functions into one organisation—one ministry, one Cabinet Minister, one clear line of accountability.

If truth be told, it is too early to say with certainty whether the model delivers the better outcomes that the Danes expect. The real test will come in the next crisis, not the last reorganisation. But the logic is sound because the alternative—broadly what we have—is a system where resilience is everyone’s second priority and nobody’s first. As someone who wants to see a smaller and sharper state, the answer is not a new layer of governance, but collapsing many duplicated ones into a single, accountable home. It is an idea that the Government should actively investigate.

I have also been struck by how our Danish and Dutch friends have begun to share the responsibility for resilience with their citizens, reinforcing civic duty in a far more deliberate way than we do here in the UK. Both have started speaking plainly to their people about preparedness and, strikingly, they tell them much the same thing: “Be ready to look after yourself for three days, or 72 hours.” The Dutch Government now tell every household to hold enough to manage for 72 hours in the event of war, a cyber-attack or a major disaster—things such as water, food, medication, a battery radio, some cash and key documents. They did not merely issue advice; they delivered a printed survival guide to every door and published it online in dozens of languages. Its message was carefully chosen, and the aim, Ministers said, is not to frighten people but to prepare them, because those who think through the first 72 hours of a crisis feel safer, not more fearful. The campaign’s slogan is simple: “Think Ahead”.

Denmark’s advice is almost identical, and the reasoning is the same: if ordinary people can get through the first three days, the authorities can concentrate on those who cannot. Denmark sent that guidance to every adult through its secure Government messaging system and placed 300,000 printed copies in libraries and public offices. It does not shy away from naming why, either. Its Defence Minister told Danes plainly that they and their allies face hybrid war and that each of us should prepare to be without power, water or shops for a short while. In both countries, the principle is the same: resilience is not something the state can simply hand to its people; it is a habit that the public must share in.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

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?

[David Reed]

The hon. Member raises an important point. For anyone who understands the science and sees the effects globally, climate change is happening, the planet is warming up, and we will all feel the effects of a heating planet. What that does to our critical national infrastructure, to businesses and how they operate, and to our energy systems will be profound, and it is something that I do not think we talk about enough. We talked about it a great deal a few years ago, but it sort of slid off the agenda. However, I also understand the challenges that the Government are facing at the moment: there are international threats, which seem to be conjoining, and climate change seems to be a further away problem. I understand the issues, and I hope the Minister can draw that subject in to show the interconnection of threats and how we will deal with them.

The uncomfortable part is that in terms of national messaging Britain has said and tried to do the same thing, but we say the words without a plan behind them, the public get alarmed, the moment passes, and nothing changes. Denmark and the Netherlands said those words and built them into the life of the nation, and that, in a sentence, is the difference between talking about resilience and doing it.

Let me close with three concrete asks of the Government. First, will the Minister confirm whether any Department or Minister has been formally charged with delivering the national conversation on resilience called for by the strategic defence review? If not, that gap must be filled—I think we would all agree on that. Secondly, will the Government commission a review, led from the centre, into whether the current dispersal of resilience responsibilities across Whitehall is fit for purpose, with the Danish and Dutch models considered explicitly? Thirdly, will the Government speak plainly to the British public about the threats we face, and back those words with a sustained public preparedness campaign, not a single statement that fades within a week, but a message built into the life of the nation?

I return to the statement that is made repeatedly in this House, which is that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. Meeting that duty requires a state that is structured to lead, and a public who are prepared to follow. We are not yet that country, but I have faith we can be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work done at the Crystal Palace transmitting station. As he knows better than I, it is an iconic feature of south London, so I am happy to take the opportunity to thank all those involved for their work ensuring that the public stay informed, connected and safe. While I am on that subject, let me also thank all those who work at Emley Moor in West Yorkshire who do similar work. I was privileged to meet them just the other day.

Let me return to the remarks by the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East about international comparisons. There are many similarities with our international partners, but as he will acknowledge, each nation’s approach is influenced by its history, geography, and societal approach to resilience.

Building on the good work of the previous Government, we have set out our strategic vision on resilience. Take for example our work following the covid-19 inquiry: we considered the findings and made deliberate updates to our resilience plans, including strengthening our relationships with the devolved Governments through the four nations ministerial group.

As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also recognise, successive Governments have for more than 20 years anchored the national security risk assessment as the foundation of their approach to the complex resilience landscape. That landscape continues to evolve and the risks that we face today are volatile, varied and interconnected. They include cyber-attacks, threats to energy security, global supply chain pressures and, of course, armed conflict. I am pleased to be able to talk about the Government’s approach to those areas, but first let me say something in response to the hon. Gentleman about accountability.

Under the lead Department model, each risk is owned by a single Department, ensuring those with the relevant expertise are responsible for the work to keep us protected against that particular risk. To support that, the Government will publish a refreshed expectation set for lead Departments. That will clarify how they are expected to deliver their responsibilities, as well as the role of other Departments in supporting them.

The Government have also taken steps to clarify accountability and enhance our readiness for the highest impact whole-of-system crises. We have explicitly embedded the leadership role of the Cabinet Office in our central crisis management doctrine, the Amber Book, and we have strengthened governance on risk planning and mapped key cascading impacts of catastrophic risk to ensure a true whole-of-Government response, so if a catastrophe should happen, no Department can be in any doubt about its role.

Let us take a national power outage as an example. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero remains the lead Department across the whole risk cycle, from assessment to recovery, and continues to lead on the Government’s relationship with the energy sector. The role of the Cabinet Office is to step in to help lead the response, given the significant cross-cutting impacts that a national power outage would bring. That central co-ordination function allows all responding Departments to respond to their impacted areas, with the Cabinet Office providing situational reporting of the whole-system impacts of the risk. That way, the Government collectively understands and is prepared for the risks that the UK faces.

The Cabinet Office also leads on the overall response to severe weather. This is underpinned by the severe weather resilience network, where crucial inputs from the Met Office, which I know the hon. Gentleman will be very familiar with, are shared with individual Departments that lead on the response planning and resilience of the sectors that they represent. That ensures that when the weather turns, our response is unified, rapid and robust.

Our work is not just about how we plan for responding to emergencies; we have informed our understanding of their impact as well. We know that emergencies impact people unequally, and to address that we have developed the risk vulnerability tool and provided further guidance to local resilience forums, so that they can better identify and support those who are most vulnerable.

The UK Government are proud to be a part of an international community in which we can both learn from others and share our learnings, but I would not want anyone listening to think that planning and response is all down to Departments. Local resilience forums are a critical part of our resilience system. In fact, the stronger LRF trailblazers programme moves beyond legacy structures to build a local network that is agile, accountable and capable of protecting citizens at the neighbourhood level. The resilience action plan envisages a whole-of-society approach, redefining national resilience as a shared mission where citizens, communities, civil society, businesses and the public sector all play a vital and active role.

Finally, building a truly resilient society requires a fundamental cultural shift in the way that emergency preparedness is thought about. That includes being clear about the risks that we face and the actions that we can all take to improve our collective resilience.

[Adrian Ramsay]

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?

[Dan Jarvis]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. Let me give an undertaking to come back with the technical detail about the report that he has raised, but I hope he can be assured of the seriousness that the Government attach to such matters. All of us in this place, I hope, understand the nature of the climate crisis and the impact it is having now and will have in the future, and we in Government have an absolute responsibility to ensure that we are properly prepared for that.

The Government’s Prepare website provides guidance on the actions recommended for individuals, households and communities to increase their own preparedness and resilience. This debate highlights something fundamental: resilience is not an abstract policy objective, but, I hope, a shared national endeavour. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has spoken powerfully about the importance of strengthening national resilience in the face of evolving risks. We share his determination, and I would be very happy to continue the conversation with him about these matters.

Let me give the hon. Member some further assurance. Next month, the Government will make their annual statement to Parliament on resilience, which will provide a detailed update on the progress we have been making to deliver against the commitments over the last 12 months or so. I hope that will go some way further to address the points that he has made, but, regardless, I give him and the House an assurance that we will continue to learn, adapt and build a robust future for the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Preparedness for National Emergencies

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

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?

Government Resilience Action Plan

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

That is a good and important question. As I said, resilience has to be for all, not just for some. This is taken very seriously at the National Situation Centre. As data gets better—as, for example, energy companies get a better map of their vulnerable customers—we are getting to a better place when it comes to knowing exactly where the Government should direct their effort when an emergency hits. It is a really important part of community solidarity that people of all income groups know that the Government are there for them when an emergency hits.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that climate-related emergencies are a core part of this resilience strategy? Climate breakdown has the potential to threaten our core infrastructure and poses risks to our core support systems, such as food and water, and the Climate Change Committee says that we are woefully ill-prepared for climate-related changes, so does he agree that the issue should be not a political football? Instead, it should be central to the Government’s resilience plans for protecting our citizens.

[Pat McFadden]

I welcome that question. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full list of what is on the risk register, it is a public document, so he can look at that. I referred several times in my statement to energy security. To get the energy security that we need, we will have to invest in a lot of new kit and equipment around the country. It is really important that we are allowed to build that without people objecting to it at every turn.

Ukraine

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right about the impact of the weather on the conflict in Ukraine. I am always struck by the resilience of the Ukrainians, both on the frontline and within their civilian population. After three long years of conflict, their resilience is humbling.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

On behalf of the Green party, I welcome the Prime Minister’s strong support for Ukraine, his work for peace and his commitment that there should be no decisions about Ukraine without Ukraine. However, given the scenes that we saw in the Oval Office on Friday, which people across the country will have been aghast at, given the bullying tactics of President Trump, and given the fact that Trump clearly views this as a business opportunity, how will the Prime Minister ensure that the interests of Ukraine remain front and centre in the peace deals?

[The Prime Minister]

By picking up the phone to President Trump and President Zelensky and making sure that we can focus on what matters most, which is lasting peace in Ukraine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Too many buildings are still unsafe, and the speed of delivery has been far too slow. Our action plan sets out measures to identify buildings at risk and fix them faster. My message is clear: the funding is there to fix this, and there is no excuse not to deliver for residents.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be incredibly irresponsible in the midst of a climate emergency, flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice. The Prime Minister clearly knows that, because he and seven Cabinet colleagues voted against a third runway at Heathrow in 2018. Will he confirm his position?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not going to comment on speculation. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government are committed to growth, to the aviation sector and to our climate obligations. I am not going to take lectures from those who talk about climate change, but oppose vital renewable infrastructure in their own constituencies.

Election of Speaker

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker-Elect, and congratulations on the support you have received from across the House today. I can already say, on behalf of the new cohort of Green MPs, that we have been very pleased with the support you have given us. You have shown that you go out of your way to support new Members in this House, and to support MPs from all parties to be able to hold the Government to account and represent our constituents. I know that I speak on behalf of all the Green MPs—and, I am sure, all new MPs—in saying that we are very conscious that we are here first and foremost to be constituency MPs, to represent our residents. We appreciate your support in enabling us to do that.

May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about the importance of politics being about public service? I very much hope that in this new Parliament we can all move to a less tribal form of politics, where we work together where we can agree and move things forward in the national interest.

Mr Speaker-Elect, thank you for your support, and congratulations.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

I call the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party.