ICJ advisory opinion on unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory
-
Dear Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, and Attorney General
On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave a groundbreaking
judgement on the legal consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of
Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
This advisory opinion made crystal clear determinations that:
The Israeli presence in the OPT, including Gaza, is unlawful and its policies
and practices are incompatible with international law.
All Israeli settlements are illegal and must be withdrawn immediately
Israel owes full reparation for all damage of its illegal acts since 1967,
Other states are obliged to not provide any sort of aid or assistance that
maintains Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT, referring to Gaza, the West
Bank, and East Jerusalem.
Following this advisory opinion, the Foreign Office response was that it would
consider “carefully before responding. The UK respects the independence of the
ICJ... the UK is strongly opposed to the expansion of illegal settlements and rising
settler violence”.
The government promised to publish its formal response. One year on since the
advisory opinion was issued, it has yet to do so. Given that the ICJ referred to the
“unlawfulness” as an established fact, the UK has a legal duty to ensure that the
government and British entities take all necessary steps to ensure that we are not
complicit with this unlawful situation. This is particularly pertinent given the
seriousness of the situation, the continued and increasing Israeli violations of
international law, as well as the increase in illegal settlements. Between November
2023 – October 2024, Israel established 57 new settlements and outposts. However,
the UK needs to not just denounce the rise in settlements but the mere existence of
them, as regards the ICJ advisory opinion.
The failure of the government to publish its legal advice on the advisory opinion and
address the unlawful situation occurring in the OPT, as well its own obligations under
international law to avoid complicity, needs to be rectified.
Over the last year, since the opinion was issued, Israel has accelerated its violations
of international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention in the OPT.
We, the undersigned, urge the government immediately to publish its response to
the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation and
take all the necessary measures to adhere to the obligation of 3 rd party states “not to
render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal
presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” as the Court stipulated.
Banning Conversion Practices
-
Dear Bridget,
We are writing to you about the delay to the Government’s plans to publish a draft Bill to ban conversion practices.
LGBTQ+ people have nothing to be ashamed of; their sexual orientations and gender identities are diverse, and it should be self-evident in 2025 that they do not need ‘fixing’ or ‘curing’.
And yet, as you know, conversion practices still take place in the UK today. A report by Galop in 2023 found that 1 in 5 (18 per cent) LGBT+ people in the UK have been subjected to someone trying to change, ‘cure’ or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.
A growing number of countries around the world have passed legislation to ban conversion practices, including New Zealand, Canada, Brazil and Germany. The UK used to be a global leader on human rights, but this year the UK dropped 6 places on ILGA-Europe’s rainbow map to an all-time low of 22 out of 49 countries. Urgent action is needed to restore our position on the world stage.
We were pleased to see a commitment to deliver a fully inclusive ban in the 2024 Labour Party manifesto and plans to publish a draft Bill included in last year’s King’s Speech. Several times at the despatch box, and in answer to our written questions, Ministers have reiterated that a draft Bill will be published before the end of this parliamentary session.
We are concerned that time is running out to deliver on this incredibly important commitment.
This comes at a time when many people in the LGBTQ+ community are worried about what the future holds for them. It’s now vital that the Government demonstrate its commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community by delivering on its manifesto commitments. That includes a ban on conversion practices which is fully inclusive, protects all LGBTQ+ people, and has no loopholes that would allow abuse to continue.
Every day without robust legislative protection is another day in which LGBTQ+ people remain vulnerable to abuse that has been internationally recognised as a violation of human rights.
We urge you to publish the draft Bill without delay.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by Stonewall.
Cross-party letter on phasing out animal experiments
-
Lord Vallance
Minister of State for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
100 Parliament Street
London SW1A 2BQ
Dear Lord Vallance, Lord Hanson and Baroness Hayman,
We are writing to you as the Ministers responsible for producing the Government’s forthcoming strategy to support the development, validation and uptake of non-animal methods.
We support the Government’s commitment to phasing out animal experiments. As well as improving animal welfare, focusing on modern, human-specific methods will accelerate medical breakthroughs and unlock the economic opportunities presented by this growing global market. The non-animal alternatives testing market is expected to grow at a Compound Annual Growth Rate of 12% to reach $4.08 billion in 2029.
Around the world, policymakers are taking bold steps to support the transition to human-specific science. This includes the US FDA’s Roadmap that seeks to make animal testing ‘the exception rather than the norm’ over the next 3-5 years in preclinical safety testing, while the European Union has committed to a roadmap to phase out chemical testing on animals. If we are to keep pace, and position Britain as a global leader in human-specific life sciences, the forthcoming alternatives strategy must be bold and transformative.
As well as measures to increase funding and practical support to enable scientists to transition to non-animal methods, it should commit to:
Introduce Herbie’s Law to provide a clear timeline for the phase-out. Recommended by Animal Free Research UK, Herbie’s Law would set a goal of phasing out animal experiments in medical research over the next decade, working closely with the scientific community to support them with the transition.
As a first step, stop issuing licences for experiments using dogs and cats, as well as non-human primates. It is crucial that these are replaced with non-animal methods, not other species of animal, which would fail to address the scientific and ethical problems.
Institute a thorough overhaul of the licensing of animal experiments to ensure that basic legal requirements to use non-animal methods wherever possible are being properly enforced.
Including these measures will ensure that the strategy has real impact in driving the phase-out of animal experiments. As a nation of animal lovers, we must harness our long-established scientific excellence to lead the transition to future-focused, human- specific medical research, which will transform the lives of people around the world.
Yours sincerely,
Irene Campbell MP (Labour)
Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Phasing Out Animal Experiments in Medical
Research
Parliamentarian signatures
The Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Independent)
The Lord Clement-Jones CBE (Liberal Democrat)
Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Independent)
Louie French MP (Conservative)
Sammy Wilson MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
The Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
The Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
Sam Rushworth MP (Labour)
Lillian Jones MP (Labour)
Seamus Logan MP (Scottish National Party)
Ruth Jones MP (Labour)
Johanna Baxter MP (Labour)
Michael Wheeler MP (Labour)
Douglas McAllister MP (Labour)
The Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
Ellie Chowns MP (Green Party)
Daniel Francis MP (Labour)
Maureen Burke MP (Labour)
Siân Berry MP (Green Party)
Sarah Champion MP (Labour)Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Conservative)
The Rt Hon. the Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Conservative)
Alex Mayer MP (Labour)
Gurinder Singh Josan MP (Labour)
Sorcha Eastwood MP (Alliance)
The Rt Hon. the Lord West of Spithead GCB DSC. (Labour)
Brian Leishman MP (Independent)
Manuela Perteghella MP (Liberal Democrat)
Anna Gelderd MP (Labour)
Bob Blackman MP (Conservative)
Carla Denyer MP (Green Party)
Elaine Stewart MP (Labour)
Tony Vaughan MP (Labour)
The Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
Andrew Ranger MP (Labour)
Iqbal Mohamed MP (Independent)
Andrew George MP (Liberal Democrat)
Patricia Ferguson MP (Labour)
Kim Johnson MP (Labour)
Liz Jarvis MP (Liberal Democrat)
Mary Kelly Foy MP (Labour)
Peter Swallow MP (Labour)
Gregory Campbell MP (Democratic Unionist Party)
Kenneth Stevenson MP (Labour)
Matt Bishop MP (Labour)
Adrian Ramsay MP (Green)
Alex Sobel MP (Labour)
The Rt Hon. Lord McNally (Liberal Democrat)Alex Easton MP (Independent)
Lee Pitcher MP (Labour)
The Baroness Cass OBE FRCP FRCPCH (Crossbench)
The Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)
Christine Jardine MP (Liberal Democrat)
The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
Tan Dhesi MP (Labour)
Terry Jermy MP (Labour)
Celebrit y endorsement
Carol Royle
Dame Joanna Lumley
Diane Morgan
Alan Cumming
Deborah Meaden
Will Young
Kirsty Gallacher
Letter to Commons Leader requesting time to ratify the Global Oceans Treaty
-
Dear Leader of the House of Commons,
We are writing to you as cross-party members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the
Environment to ask you to find parliamentary time to ratify the Global Oceans Treaty. Taking this
action is critical to maintaining the UK’s global leadership on international biodiversity and protecting
the oceans beloved by the British public.
The Global Oceans Treaty - also known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions agreement -
is crucial to establishing marine protected areas in parts of the ocean that lie beyond national
maritime borders. Whilst the treaty was agreed in 2023, it must be formally ratified by each
participating nation, which in the UK requires primary legislation. 28 states have now formally
ratified the agreement, including France, Spain and Portugal. If the UK fails to ratify quickly it will risk
losing its seat at the table for ongoing international negotiations.
Governments had aimed to ratify the treaty by this month’s UN Ocean Conference, to ensure it
enters into force quickly enough to protect 30% of oceans by 2030. This is a core goal of the Global
Ocean Alliance, a 77-country group led by the UK.
The treaty is within the remit of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, who have
continually expressed their support for ratifying it. However, time must now urgently be found in the
Commons for this business to take place.
The ocean produces at least 50% of the planet’s oxygen, is home to most of earth’s biodiversity, and
globally more than 40 million people will be employed by ocean-based industries by 2030. Yet
society is taking more from the ocean than can be replenished, with 90% of big fish populations
depleted and 50% of coral reefs destroyed.
International waters that will be protected by the Global Oceans are vulnerable to exploitation,
including from industrial fishing and oil drilling. Currently, less than 1% of the high seas – which
comprises almost two-thirds of the world’s ocean – is fully or highly protected from human activities.
As an issue supported by politicians from all major parties, where lack of actions risks damaging the
UK’s international reputation for marine conservation, we hope you can find time for this important
piece of parliamentary business.
Yours sincerely,
Joint letter sent to the Prime Minister re Alaa Abd el-Fattah
-
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing about the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British-Egyptian political prisoner who should have been released at the end of his prison sentence in September 2024, and who has now been on hunger strike for more than 80 days. We are requesting an urgent update on progress, given the serious risks both to his health and that of his mother Laila Soueif, who has been on hunger strike in support of him since September 2024.
We welcomed your assurance to the House on 26 February that you would do everything you could to ensure Alaa’s release, and your recognition that this was an “incredibly difficult situation” for his family. We were pleased to see that on 28 February, you pressed President Sisi for Alaa’s release and agreed to speak to him again soon, and that on 2 March the National Security Adviser spoke to the Egyptian Foreign Minister about Alaa’s case.
We were relieved that following these developments, Laila Soueif agreed to ease her hunger strike somewhat by accepting 300 calories per day, in recognition of these hopeful signs of progress, and was discharged from St Thomas’ hospital.
However, we write with mounting concern about the lack of concrete progress on Alaa’s case, more than two months after your call with President Sisi. Time is in desperately short supply in this case. Alaa has been acutely unwell in prison, experiencing vomiting, stomach pains, dizziness and blurred vision. Meanwhile, Laila’s health continues to deteriorate. She has not eaten proper food for more than seven months.
Prime Minister, we remain gravely concerned about the implications for Alaa’s family if the path to resolve his case and secure his release cannot be found very soon. There is also no doubt in our minds that if the health of Laila or Alaa is further damaged by this ordeal, this would have serious long-term implications for the British-Egyptian bilateral relationship. We urge you to deploy every tool at your government’s disposal at this vital stage.
We offer our support to your efforts on behalf of Alaa and his family in any way needed.
Brendan O'Hara MP, Interim Chair of the APPG
Tim Roca MP, Vice-Chair of the APPG
Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC, Vice-Chair of the APPG
Diane Abbott MP
Shockat Adam MP
Baroness Altmann
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Órfhlaith Begley MP
Apsana Begum MP
Alison Bennett MP
Baroness Bennett
Sian Berry MP
Baroness Blackstone
Olivia Blake MP
Baroness Blower
Baroness Brinton
Jess Brown-Fuller MP
Richard Burgon MP
Ian Byrne MP
Baroness Chakrabati
Wendy Chamberlain MP
Danny Chambers MP
Ellie Chowns MP
Jeremy Corbyn MP
Stella Creasy MP
Pat Cullen MP
The Rt Hon David Davis
Marsha de Cordova MP
Carla Denyer MP
Lord Dholakia
Baroness D'Souza
The Rt Hon Sir Iain
Duncan Smith MP
Neil Duncan-Jordan MP
Colum Eastwood MP
John Finucane MP
Mary Kelly Foy MP
Andrew George MP
Rachel Gilmour MP
Olly Glover MP
Marie Goldman MP
Sarah Green MP
Lord Peter Hain
The Lord Hannay of
Chiswick GCMG CH
Monica Harding MP
Chris Hazzard MP
Baroness Healy of
Primrose Hill
Lord Hendy
Chris Hinchcliff MP
Dayre Hughes MP
Baroness Angela Harris
Baroness Janke
Liz Jarvis MP
Christine Jardine MP
Kim Johnson MP
Clive Jones MP
Ben Lake MP
Ian Lavery MP
Brian Leishman MP
Baroness Lister
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Baroness Ludford
Douglas Macallister MP
Brian Mathew MP
Ben Maguire MP
Cathal Mallaghan MP
Blair McDougall MP
John McDonnell MP
Andy McDonald MP
John Milne MP
Calum Miller MP
Layla Moran MP
Graeme Morris MP
The Rt Hon Lord
McNally
Lord McInnes of
Kilwinning
Edward Morello MP
Paul Maskey MP
Baroness Northover
Sarah Olney MP
Kate Osamor MP
Kate Osborne MP
Dr. Simon Opher MP
Adrian Ramsay MP
Martin Rhodes MP
Lord Rooker
Anna Sabine MP
Lord Prem Sikka
Vikki Slade MP
The Rt Hon Sir Desmond
Swayne MP
Nadia Whittome MP
Sir John Whittingdale MP
Baroness Whitaker
Paul Kohler MP
Chris Law MP
Bell Ribeiro Addy MP
Freddie van Mierlo MP
Caroline Voaden MP
Zarah Sultana MP
The Rt Hon Valerie Vaz
MP
Steve Witherden MP
Munira Wilson MP
Claire Young MP
Cuts to ELMS - and impact on NFM projects in constituency
-
19 May 2025
Dear Minister Zeichner,
Earlier this month, I met with many farmers in my constituency, all of whom were extremely concerned about
the abrupt removal of the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) to new entrants. Despite the recent
announcement of the scheme’s return – which no doubt offered some hope to those committed to its principles
– questions remain, and damage has already been done. For farmers to plan effectively and have confidence
in the scheme’s future, clarity and consistency are essential.
Farmers whose applications were arbitrarily rejected due to the sudden cessation of the scheme’s application
process – and those unable to guarantee eligibility criteria – now face renewed uncertainty. This is especially
damaging given that farmers must plan crops and land use years in advance. Decisions made in previous
seasons – often based on assumptions of continued support – determine what is possible now. They cannot
simply react to abrupt subsidy changes. Financial support must enable and reward long-term planning, not
undermine it. The fact that the NFU was only informed of the scheme’s withdrawal half an hour in advance
(42 days short of the promised notice period) reinforces the impression that decision-makers fail to understand
the economic pressures and instability facing many in our farming community. Farmers must be able to plan
their financial future with greater certainty, and access to public funding must be fair and transparent.
The SFI scheme is not perfect. However, it offered a meaningful replacement for the EU’s CAP payments and
pointed to a future in which farmers could invest in the natural capital of their land. It allowed time, labour and
money to be directed toward restoring hedgerows, improving water quality, reducing flood risk, and providing
vital wildlife habitats – all through natural solutions. The Government stated that record numbers of farmers
had enrolled for the final round. This demand should be lauded as a sign of a new era of nature-friendly
farming, repairing the environmental harm caused by decades of industrial, intensive practices.
In one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, this work is essential to reversing catastrophic
biodiversity decline. Without this incentive, farmers tell me they will be forced to maximise productive land
just to preserve modest gains. That might even include uprooting hedgerows or ploughing parcels of land
previously returned to nature under earlier schemes.
Last week’s statement pledging a replacement scheme offers little reassurance, with key decisions about its
scope and scale left until after the Chancellor’s Spending Review. This raises serious concerns that the
scheme’s future will be shaped by short-term Treasury pressures rather than the long-term needs of farming,
climate adaptation, food security and nature recovery.
I put to you some important questions. Will you confirm when the new eligibility criteria will be published?
What steps are you taking to prioritise farmers affected by the abrupt closure? What reassurance can you give
to those already in the SFI that they will be able to reapply in good time for future phases? And finally, can
you guarantee that the full £2.4 billion annual farming budget will be protected through and beyond the
Spending Review, so that Environmental Land Management schemes deliver on their promises for nature,
food security, and rural livelihoods?
I look forward to your response.
Cross Party Letter re Nature Protection
-
Dear Angela,
We are writing in response to the Government’s recent impact assessment of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which finds that there is almost no evidence that existing environmental protections have significantly impeded development. This directly undermines the core justification Ministers have used to weaken safeguards for nature— namely, that they hinder house building and infrastructure delivery.
The publication of this impact assessment confirms what many of us across parties have long argued: the notion that nature and development are in fundamental conflict is reductive, misleading, and unhelpful.
The framing of housing versus nature is a false choice, and one that distracts from the pressing issues we must address to achieve sustainable and affordable development. We believe it is not only possible but essential to deliver the affordable homes and national infrastructure people need in a way that works with nature, not against it. Our planning system should support thriving ecosystems, climate resilience, and access to green space—not treat them as secondary concerns to be compromised.
The Government’s own analysis makes it clear that the current version of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill fails to meet this test. This concern is echoed by the Office for Environmental Protection, whose legal opinion warns that the Bill in its current form would remove critical safeguards for nature and put protected sites at risk.
Together, these assessments highlight the danger of entrenching short-term thinking at the expense of long-term social, environmental, and economic resilience. Those dangers are particularly apparent this spring—confirmed by the Environment Agency as the driest start to the season since 1956—with rivers running dry and farmers expressing concern about how they will keep crops watered. We cannot afford to ride roughshod over the increasingly fragile natural world we all depend on.
We urge you to champion a more constructive approach—one that aligns ambition for house building and infrastructure with a genuine commitment to nature protection. In this Bill, you have a powerful opportunity to set a different direction and show that strong environmental standards are not a barrier to progress, but a foundation for it.
We would welcome the chance to meet and discuss how we might work across parties to secure a planning system that delivers for both people and nature.
Dear Angela,
We are writing in response to the Government’s recent impact assessment of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which finds that there is almost no evidence that existing environmental protections have significantly impeded development. This directly undermines the core justification Ministers have used to weaken safeguards for nature— namely, that they hinder house building and infrastructure delivery.
The publication of this impact assessment confirms what many of us across parties have long argued: the notion that nature and development are in fundamental conflict is reductive, misleading, and unhelpful.
The framing of housing versus nature is a false choice, and one that distracts from the pressing issues we must address to achieve sustainable and affordable development. We believe it is not only possible but essential to deliver the affordable homes and national infrastructure people need in a way that works with nature, not against it. Our planning system should support thriving ecosystems, climate resilience, and access to green space—not treat them as secondary concerns to be compromised.
The Government’s own analysis makes it clear that the current version of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill fails to meet this test. This concern is echoed by the Office for Environmental Protection, whose legal opinion warns that the Bill in its current form would remove critical safeguards for nature and put protected sites at risk.
Together, these assessments highlight the danger of entrenching short-term thinking at the expense of long-term social, environmental, and economic resilience. Those dangers are particularly apparent this spring—confirmed by the Environment Agency as the driest start to the season since 1956—with rivers running dry and farmers expressing concern about how they will keep crops watered. We cannot afford to ride roughshod over the increasingly fragile natural world we all depend on.
We urge you to champion a more constructive approach—one that aligns ambition for house building and infrastructure with a genuine commitment to nature protection. In this Bill, you have a powerful opportunity to set a different direction and show that strong environmental standards are not a barrier to progress, but a foundation for it.
We would welcome the chance to meet and discuss how we might work across parties to secure a planning system that delivers for both people and nature.
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by Dr Ellie Chowns MP.
Letter to the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that the upcoming Integrated National Transport Strategy delivers for people
-
The Rt Hon Heidi Alexander MP
Secretary of State for Transport
By Email
May 2025
Dear Heidi,
We are writing to you about the urgent need for the government to rethink its transport priorities and to ensure that the upcoming Integrated National Transport Strategy delivers for people, communities and the climate. It is not fair that, because of a broken transport system, so many people are paying through the nose to get to work or simply can’t get to the shops by public transport.
Under our current transport system—particularly in rural areas where public transport is sparse or non-existent—many people are relying on cars not out of choice, but because they have no alternative. We urgently need to plan a transport future that prioritises people over cars.
We believe that your Department’s Transport Strategy is an opportunity to change that by providing reliable, affordable and low-carbon options, thereby giving people a genuine choice in how they travel. This will only be possible if the strategy is also accompanied by the significant investment needed to create accessible and sustainable alternatives to car travel in areas that do not already have them.
Where public transport infrastructure is in place, it is increasingly unaffordable. Train travel has become a luxury, and the price of fares has made regular bus travel inaccessible for many, made worse by your government’s decision to scrap the £2 bus fare. If we want people to choose sustainable travel, it has to be the cheapest and most convenient option. That means shifting investment away from road expansion and into properly funded, affordable and accessible public transport for all.
The Transport Strategy must set clear targets to increase the number of journeys made using clean and healthy modes of transport—such as walking, wheeling, cycling and public, shared or public transport—whether used alone or in combination, with the aim of making these options not only more affordable but also more convenient than driving wherever possible.
It must include commitments for central government to work closely with local authorities to give them the necessary support and confidence to plan for safer and more accessible walking in their areas. It should also provide the investment needed to develop cycling infrastructure that supports safe journeys by bike for everyone from 8 to 80 years old, and which forms part of a joined-up transport network.
We urge you to ensure that the Transport Strategy addresses the injustices embedded in our current car-dependent transport system by:
(i) delivering reliable public transport services in rural and underserved areas;
(ii) reducing the unequal burden of pollution and road danger on low-income communities;
(iii) ensuring all transport infrastructure and services are fully accessible;
(iv) increasing participation in active travel among groups currently underrepresented but likely to benefit most, such as disabled people and those with health conditions.
We further urge you to develop the Strategy with a clear recognition that a well-functioning transport system is essential to achieving net zero targets and cutting air pollution in line with what the scientific and health evidence demands. According to the government’s most recent statistics, cars, trucks and vans accounted for 28% of total domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These vehicles produced twice as many total GHG emissions as from all fossil fuels burned to generate electricity in the UK during the same period. Building an integrated transport system with affordable, accessible and varied options is essential to reducing both car reliance and cutting emissions, easing pressure on both people and planet.
As well as the benefits to individuals, communities and the environment, transport investment provides excellent value for money, aligning with your government’s core mission of economic growth. Every £1 the government spends on bus services and infrastructure returns £4.55 in economic benefit; and for every £1 spent on the rail network, £2.50 value is delivered in the wider economy.
Road building, by contrast, increases congestion, which is estimated to cost the UK economy £7.5 billion every year in lost productivity. It’s therefore especially worrying that according to recent reports, the new £3 bus cap is going to be scrapped—and we hope you will work hard to get the Chancellor to protect this lifeline by making a strong case for the wider economic benefits.
We hope you will acknowledge that including clear and effective measures to encourage a modal shift in the Transport Strategy would support a strong economy while addressing many of the most immediate crises your government is tackling, including pollution, road danger, inactivity-related ill-health, energy dependence, and the climate emergency.
As the lead on transport within our Parliamentary group, Sian would like to meet with you to explore this further. We would be grateful if you would make time for this discussion.
We look forward to your response.
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter along with Sian Berry MP, Carla Denyer MP and Dr Ellie Chowns MP.
Open letter to DEFRA Minister on issue of male chick cullingInbox
-
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by The Vegetarian Society.
Dear Minister,
As Members of the Houses of Commons and Lords, industry representatives and organisations committed to upholding the UK’s reputation for high animal welfare standards, we are writing to express our concerns about the continued practice of male chick culling – also known as “hatch and dispatch”. Every year in the UK, 40 to 45 million male chicks are killed in their first days of life, simply because they cannot lay eggs and are not deemed suitable for meat production.
This routine practice – most often carried out by gassing – is not only unnecessary but also extremely wasteful. The Government’s own Animal Welfare Committee has stated that male chick culling should be made “illegal as soon as reliable, accurate methods for sexing eggs prior to hatch are available to be implemented in GB hatcheries”. These methods now exist. Advances in “in-ovo” sexing technology allow us to identify the sex of chicks before theyhatch. This technology is already in commercial use in countries like Germany and France, and others including Italy and the Netherlands are moving in the same direction.
As a nation of animal lovers, the UK is at risk of falling behind both public expectation and international best practice. In Germany and France, governments not only introduced bans but also worked constructively with the egg production industry to manage the transition. The estimated cost increase of one cent per box of six eggs is modest, and evidence suggests the shift can be made with minimal disruption to consumers and producers. Recent polling by the Vegetarian Society finds that consumers would be very happy to pay more for eggs that are “cull-free”.
The latest polling also shows that the British public strongly favours a ban on male chick culling. 72% of the British public are concerned about the practice and 74% would support a ban by mandating the use of existing technology that determines the sex of chicks before they hatch. The current system is not only ethically indefensible, but also increasingly out of step with consumer values and international practices. We cannot justifiably continue to think of ourselves as leaders in animal welfare while this outdated practice continues.
As figures within Westminster and industry, we believe that a transition can be achieved through collaboration and
foresight between government and industry. A ban now, paired with a clear roadmap and appropriate government support, would demonstrate that the UK continues to take animal welfare seriously. We are calling on the UK Government to modernise an industrial process that no longer aligns with our values as a country – a country that prides itself on its high animal welfare standards.
We urge you to take this opportunity to commit to ending hatch and dispatch in the UK and to ensure that our food system is based, not only on efficiency, but on compassion and integrity too.
We would welcome a meeting to discuss how best to support a constructive and inclusive transition. In the interests of transparency, we intend to share both this letter and your response publicly.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by The Vegetarian Society.
Adrian Ramsay, MP for Waveney Valley, Urges the Government to Increase Funding for Rural Schools.
Adrian Ramsay, MP for Waveney Valley, Urges the Government to Increase Funding for Rural Schools.
Adrian Ramsay MP has called on the Secretary of State for Education to urgently address the funding crisis affecting rural schools in Norfolk and Suffolk.
In a letter sent to the Secretary of State for Education, Adrian Ramsay MP highlighted the mounting challenges schools in the Waveney Valley face due to insufficient funding.
Waring that "Schools are struggling to maintain the same level of educational provision with reduced resources."
He continued, "While national pay rises for staff are to be welcomed, the fact that they have been only partly funded by the government is putting further pressure on school budgets, resulting in a reduced staffing model, larger class sizes, and diminished support for students. Schools are facing difficult decisions about staffing levels, redundancies, and service reductions, along with the concomitant impact on staff wellbeing and morale."
The letter also pointed to the deteriorating condition of school buildings, saying, "I am aware of one school which has a leaking science block roof. This has been a health and safety risk while negatively impacting lesson delivery and student morale."
ENDS
Call for review, update and consolidation of wildlife law
-
The Rt Hon Steve Reed OBE MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Cc Mary Creagh MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Cc Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Dear Secretary of State,
RE: Call for review, update and consolidation of wildlife law
We write to highlight a major opportunity to deliver on the wishes of the British people by
strengthening protections for our wildlife, and request that your department conduct an urgent
review of wildlife law to assess the merits of introducing a robust new Wildlife Act following a
recent well-attended event in parliament.
You will be aware of the many threats facing British wildlife including climate change, pressures
on natural habitats and, sadly, reckless and intentional acts of cruelty. As Wildlife and
Countryside Link’s 2024 report on wildlife crime set out, between 2017-2023, there were at least
10,244 reports of wildlife crime but only 216 convictions.[1] One of the major obstacles to
securing convictions for wildlife crime is the sheer complexity of our wildlife laws which can
make it challenging to identify the correct legislation, offence(s) and evidence required. In 2015,
the Law Commission described our wildlife laws as a “complex patchwork of overlapping and
sometimes conflicting provisions. [2] The law is spread across at least 33 statutes, some of which
date back to the early 1800s. These outdated laws also often place unrealistic evidential
burdens on the prosecution and leave significant gaps in protection for some wild mammals and
birds.
Even when convictions are secured, maximum penalties for crimes committed against wildlife
are far lower than for similar offences under animal welfare legislation (which primarily protects
companion and farmed animals). For example, the maximum custodial sentence under the Wild
Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is six months, compared to five years under the Animal Welfare
Act 2006. This is failing to deter criminal intent to harm wildlife, with perpetrators often linked to
organised criminal gangs responsible for violent crime including domestic abuse, drug and
firearms offences. [3] Reforming our wildlife laws is, therefore, an important part of keeping the
communities we represent safe.
In its 2015 report, the Law Commission recommended updating and consolidating all law
relating to wildlife into a single statute. [4] 10 years later, academics at Anglia Ruskin University
(ARU) have re-examined the problems with our wildlife laws and reached the same
conclusion. [5] The RSPCA and Humane World for Animals UK are now leading calls for a new
welfare-centred Wildlife Act. We encourage you to consider this ask, supported by the National
Wildlife Crime Unit, as part of the Government’s plans to improve animal welfare and protection
for nature.
The oldest piece of wildlife protection legislation that we are aware of - the Night Poaching Act -
has been on the statute book since 1828. We respectfully seek your agreement that Georgian
laws cannot offer the protections wildlife need in the 21st century. We would be pleased to
support you and your department to commence the work of updating and strengthening our
wildlife laws.
Thank you for your and your department’s attention to this matter.
James Naish MP (Labour)
Sian Berry MP (Green)
Ellie Chowns MP (Green)
Irene Campbell MP (Labour)
Sarah Champion MP (Labour)
Adrian Ramsay (Green)
Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Labour)
Mary Kelly Foy MP (Labour)
Dr Simon Opher MP (Labour)
Alex Mayer MP (Labour)
Tom Morrison (Liberal Democrat)
Cat Smith MP (Labour)
The Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green)
The Baroness Fookes of Plymouth DBE. DL. (Conservative)
The Baroness Redfern (Conservative)
[1] https://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/assets/uploads/Wildlife_Crime_report_2024_Exec_Summary.pdf
[2] https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wildlife-law/
[3] https://www.nwcu.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NPCC-Wildlife-Rural-Crime-Strategy-2022-
2025.pdf
[4] https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wildlife-law/
[5] [link will be provided once it is uploaded].
Letter to the Secretary of State for Education on school funding
-
The Right Honourable Bridget Phillipson MP
Secretary of State for Education
Department for Education
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BTOur Ref: AR03094
23 April 2025
Dear Secretary of State,
I am writing to express my concerns about the inadequate level of funding available for schools in my constituency. I request that the Government explores options to increase that funding and to ensure that pupils in my constituency are able to access the education that they need and deserve. I would particularly like to highlight the following issues which are particularly affecting rural schools in Norfolk and Suffolk.
Real-Term Budget Reductions:
Ongoing economic challenges and rising inflation have increased operational costs, while funding has not kept pace. Schools are struggling to maintain the same level of educational provision with reduced resources. While national pay rises for staff are to be welcomed, the fact that they have been only partly funded by government is putting further pressure on school budgets, resulting in a reduced staffing model, larger class sizes, and diminished support for students. Schools are facing difficult decisionsabout staffing levels, redundancies, and service reductions along with the concomitant impact on staff wellbeing and morale.
Lack of Capital Spending on Physical Infrastructure:
School buildings are increasingly difficult to maintain as they age. They require substantial maintenance and repair, but there is insufficient capital investment to address these needs. I am aware of one school which has a leaking science block roof. This has been a health and safety risk while negatively impacting lesson delivery and student morale. Additionally, rising energy costs are placing further strain on school budgets and aging heating systems are leaving pupils cold during some lessons. Adequate funding for critical maintenance and repairs is essential to ensure that students can learn in a safe, secure, and comfortable environment.
Insufficient SEND funding:
Schools have seen a significant rise in the number of students with special educational needs, but the funding allocated for SEND support has not kept pace with the growing demand. This shortfall hinders the ability of a school to provide appropriate staffing, resources, and specialized interventions. Without sufficient funding, schools in rural areas like the Waveney Valley struggle to secure the expertise and support that every child with SEND deserves.
Reduction of Support Services and Increased Waiting Times:
Vulnerable students requiring support services such as CAMHS and SEN assessments are facing extended waiting times, negatively impacting their education and well-being. Meanwhile, the number of students requiring Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs) has risen, but funding for SEND support has not increased accordingly. Local authorities are struggling to meet their statutory obligations, leaving schools to supplement inadequate SEND funding from their core budgets, which is simply not sustainable. While the focus is rightly on supporting children to be in mainstream schools as far as possible, this situation is compounded by a lack of alternative provision for those students for whom the traditional classroom environment is not beneficial.
In summary, schools in Waveney Valley need increased capital funding to repair and upgrade their aging buildings, additional SEND funding and specialized support services so that all learners, regardless of their needs, have fair access to education, and improved alternative provision. Meanwhile, core budgets for staffing and operational costs need to be protected to ensure that the basic needs of pupils can be met.
I hope you will consider these points carefully and expand funding for rural schools.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Ramsay MP
Member of Parliament for Waveney Valley
Calling for the UK Government to support a United Nations Convention on the Rights of Older Persons
-
Dear Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs,
We, the undersigned, are writing to express our support for the creation of a new United Nations Convention on the Rights of Older Persons, and to call on you to offer your support as well.
As you may be aware, the need for strengthening the protection of the rights of older persons has been agreed by UN Member States, UN Agencies, National Human Rights Institutions, civil society organisations, experts, and importantly, older persons themselves. The UN Open-Ended Working Group on Ageing agreed by consensus, after 14 years of evidence gathering, that gaps in the protections of older persons’ rights exist internationally, and that an internationally binding human rights instrument should be among the responses to those gaps. You may also be aware that this understanding was further reinforced by a UN General Assembly Resolution in August 2024 that accepted the Open-Ended Working Group on Ageing’s decision by consensus and invited other bodies of the UN to consider and act upon its findings.
As a result of this, it is now anticipated that a resolution will be put to the 58th Session of the Human Rights Council (expected to take place February – March 2025) to agree a process for drafting the contents of a Convention on the Rights of Older Persons.
Therefore, in your capacity as Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, we would like to ask you to support this internationally agreed treaty. Establishing a global minimum standard of legal protections for older people is essential to ensuring the rights of older people are protected. While many Member States may already have domestic legal protections in place for the rights of older people that exceed those set forth in this Convention, their role in providing universality and clarity cannot be ignored. It is therefore our belief that the United Kingdom should be forthcoming and enthusiastic in our support for a new United Nations Convention on the Rights of Older Persons.
We have much to be proud of in the United Kingdom when it comes to respecting and protecting older persons, from institutions such as the NHS, which offers comprehensive care from cradle to grave, to our state pension system. Indeed, it is a point of pride for many in the UK that if one has worked their life, then as they age, they can expect to enjoy security in their older years. As a nation that upholds these values and institutions, it is only right that we offer our support to this new United Nations Convention on the Rights of Older Persons. To that end, we urge you to support this convention.
We look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by Blair McDougall MP.
Safer Screens Letter
-
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by Dr Simon Opher MP and Health Professionals for Safer Screens.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty
Sir Frank Atherton
Professor Sir Gregor Smith
Professor Sir Michael McBride
Dear United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers,
We are writing regarding your February 2019 commentary on “Screen-Based Activities and Young People’s Mental Health and Psychosocial Wellbeing: A Systematic Map of Reviews.” 1 2 For the reasons outlined below, we believe this document is outdated and requires an urgent review.
We recognise that the impact of screen-based activities on mental health is complex, and untangling the various influencing factors can be challenging. However, there is now substantial evidence supporting the concerns of many health professionals that excessive screen time and social media use are contributing to mental health issues in children.3 4 5 6 7 This excessive use affects children in multiple ways, leading to problems with sleep,8 9 eyesight,10 11 12 speech and language development, 13 14 emotional and social growth,15 16 eating habits,17 18 body image,19 educational achievement,20 and cognitive performance.21 Furthermore, research indicates that one in four children and young people are using their smartphones in a manner consistent with behavioural addiction.22 23 As clinicians, we witness these harmful effects daily, and academics are now establishing causal connections.24
ADHD significantly increases the risk of mental health issues in children, and the growing evidence linking excessive device use to ADHD symptoms is alarming.25 26 27 28 We are witnessing a marked rise in ADHD diagnoses,29 with more families seeking assessments for their children - something the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is working to address.30 It is becoming increasingly evident that preventative measures are crucial. We need to focus on how we communicate and advise parents about this specific risk rather than just providing financial support after the fact.
As if the existing harms weren't concerning enough, we know that cases of self-generated Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) continue to increase and children involved are getting younger - including children aged 7-10 in 2023, up 65% from 2022 (104,282 in 2023 vs 63,057 in 2022).31 Additionally, as a likely consequence of greater immersion in radicalised online content, one in five individuals arrested for terrorism offences is now under the age of 18.32 It's crucial to highlight that the most vulnerable children are at the most significant risk from these life altering harms. This theme recurs when considering all the issues above, as children in deprived settings are the most likely to use screens for extended periods without adult supervision.
We, the undersigned, call on you to:
● Urgently revise the February 2019 CMO commentary to include updated evidence linking device use to mental health issues, as well as evidence regarding the broader harms to children.
● Focus the CMO's positioning on child health by highlighting the serious challenges technology companies pose. The current approach seems too sympathetic to potential benefits and lacks urgency regarding the harms children face today. Requesting a "voluntary code of conduct" from the tech industry on safeguarding children is too lenient and not adequately centred on child health or safety.
● We note your call for the technology industry to fund independent research over the next decade. We believe this creates a conflict, as the health and medical science fields should solely fund such research. We also call on you to demand that researchers in this area disclose any income from technology companies.
● We urge you to reconsider your support of the age restriction requiring children 13 and older to consent to data sharing and social media access; we believe the minimum age should be 16. The Chief Medical Officer should also support legislative changes around child-safe phones, as recommended in the Education Select Committee's recent report.33
● Launch a public health campaign addressing screen time and social media use, with clear messaging directed at parents. An example already in use within NHS settings is attached.
● Call upon all Royal Colleges, including the RCPCH, to inform their members about the key issues and evidenced risks of harm.
All signatories of this letter are united in their support for the evidence presented herein and the urgent calls to action it outlines.
Yours sincerely
1 United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on ‘Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews'. (2019). Retrieved from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c5b1510e5274a316cee5be8/UK_CMO_commentary_o n_screentime_and_social_media_map_of_reviews.pdf
2There has been a great deal more compelling evidence since the research that the 2019 commentary above was based on: Dickson K, Richardson M, Kwan I, MacDowall W, Burchett H, Stansfield C, Brunton G, Sutcliffe K, Thomas J (2018) Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health: A
Systematic Map of Reviews, London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London.
3 C, F., A, L., J, S., GL, W., V, B., & M, A. (02/24/2023). Is adolescent internet use a risk factor for the development of depression symptoms or vice-versa? - PubMed. Psychological medicine, 53(14). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291723000284
4Tiraboschi, G. A., Garon-Carrier, G., Smith, J., & Fitzpatrick, C. (2023/12/01). Adolescent internet use predicts higher levels of generalized and social anxiety symptoms for girls but not boys. Preventive Medicine Reports, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102471
5 Carter, B., Payne, M., Rees, P., Sohn, S. Y., Brown, J., & Kalk, N. J. (2024). A multi-school study in England, to assess problematic smartphone usage and anxiety and depression. Acta Paediatr, 113(10), 2240-2248. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.17317
6 Carter, B., Ahmed, N., Cassidy, O., Pearson, O., Calcia, M., Mackie, C., & Kalk, N. J. (2024-01-01). ‘There’s more to life than staring at a small screen’: a mixed methods cohort study of problematic smartphone use and the relationship to anxiety, depression and sleep in students aged 13–16 years old in the UK. BMJ Ment Health, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301115 7 Kalk, N. J., Downs, J., Clark, B., & Carter, B. (2024). Problematic smartphone use: What can teenagers and parents do to reduce use? Acta Paediatr, 113(10), 2177-2179. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.17365 8 AA, W., & L, H. (10/21/2024). Future Directions for Screen Time Interventions for Sleep - PubMed. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.4009
9Carter, B., Rees, P., Hale, L., Bhattacharjee, D., & Paradkar, M. S. (2016/12/01). Use of Screen-Based Media Devices and Sleep Outcomes. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(12).
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341
10 Foreman, J., Salim, A. T., Praveen, A., Fonseka, D., Ting, D. S. W., He, M. G., Bourne, R. R. A., Crowston, J., Wong, T. Y., & Dirani, M. (2021/12/01). Association between digital smart device use and myopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Digital Health, 3(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589- 7500(21)00135-7
11 Liang, J., Pu, Y., Chen, J., Liu, M., Ouyang, B., Jin, Z., Ge, W., Wu, Z., Yang, X., Qin, C., Wang, C., Huang, S., Jiang, N., Hu, L., Zhang, Y., Gui, Z., Pu, X., Huang, S., & Chen, Y. (2024-09-24). Global prevalence, trend and projection of myopia in children and adolescents from 1990 to 2050: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo 2024-325427
12 Screen time linked to risk of myopia in young people. (2021, 7/10/2021).
https://www.aru.ac.uk/news/screen-time-linked-to-risk-of-myopia-in-young-people 13 Brushe, M. E., Haag, D. G., Melhuish, E. C., Reilly, S., & Gregory, T. (2024 Mar 4). Screen Time and Parent-Child Talk When Children Are Aged 12 to 36 Months. JAMA Pediatrics, 178(4). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.6790
14 Takahashi, I., Obara, T., Ishikuro, M., Murakami, K., Ueno, F., Noda, A., Onuma, T., Shinoda, G., Nishimura, T., Tsuchiya, K. J., & Kuriyama, S. (2023). Screen Time at Age 1 Year and Communication and Problem-Solving Developmental Delay at 2 and 4 Years. JAMA Pediatr, 177(10), 1039-1046. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.3057
15 C, F., PM, P., A, L., E, H., FA, R., & G, G.-C. (10/01/2024). Early-Childhood Tablet Use and Outbursts of Anger - PubMed. JAMA Pediatrics, 178(10). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2511 16 Konok, V., Binet, M. A., Korom, Á., Pogány, Á., Miklósi, Á., & Fitzpatrick, C. (2024). Cure for tantrums? Longitudinal associations between parental digital emotion regulation and children's self-regulatory skills. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2024.1276154 17 J, C., KT, G., A, T., AAA, A.-S., DB, J., RF, R., J, H., FC, B., & JM, N. (09/04/2024). Screen time, problematic screen use, and eating disorder symptoms among early adolescents: findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study - PubMed. Eating and weight disorders : EWD, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-024-01685-1
18 Robinson, T. N., Banda, J. A., Hale, L., Lu, A. S., Fleming-Milici, F., Calvert, S. L., & Wartella, E. (2017/11/01). Screen Media Exposure and Obesity in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics, 140(Supplement_2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758K
19 Dane, A., & Bhatia, K. (22 Mar 2023). The social media diet: A scoping review to investigate the association between social media, body image and eating disorders amongst young people. PLOS Global Public Health, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001091
20 Skills, O.-D. f. E. a. (2023). Programme for International Student Assessment. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa.html
21 Böttger, T., Poschik, M., & Zierer, K. (2023 Sep 11). Does the Brain Drain Effect Really Exist? A Meta Analysis. Behavioral Sciences, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13090751
22 Sohn, S. Y., Rees, P., Wildridge, B., Kalk, N. J., & Carter, B. (2019). Prevalence of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes amongst children and young people: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 356. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2350-x
23 Carter, B., Payne, M., Rees, P., Sohn, S. Y., Brown, J., & Kalk, N. J. (2024). A multi-school study in England, to assess problematic smartphone usage and anxiety and depression. Acta Paediatr, 113(10), 2240-2248. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.17317
24 Tiraboschi, G. A., Garon-Carrier, G., Smith, J., & Fitzpatrick, C. (2023/12/01). Adolescent internet use predicts higher levels of generalized and social anxiety symptoms for girls but not boys. Preventive Medicine Reports, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102471
25 KF, H., B, A., K, S., & DS, B. (03/01/2024). Early-Life Digital Media Experiences and Development of Atypical Sensory Processing - PubMed. JAMA Pediatrics, 178(3).
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5923
26 Ra, C. K., Cho, J., Stone, M. D., Cerda, J. D. L., Goldenson, N. I., Moroney, E., Tung, I., Lee, S. S., & Leventhal, A. M. (2018/07/17). Digital Media Use and ADHD in Adolescents. JAMA, 320(3). https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.8931
27 M, K., R, K., R, S., S, H., S, O., T, O., Y, A., K, M., H, Y., & Z, Y. (04/01/2022). Association Between Screen Time Exposure in Children at 1 Year of Age and Autism Spectrum Disorder at 3 Years of Age: The Japan Environment and Children's Study - PubMed. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(4).
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5778
28 Nagata, J. M., Al-Shoaibi, A. A., Leong, A. W., Zamora, G., Testa, A., Ganson, K. T., & Baker, F. C. (2024). Screen time and mental health: A prospective analysis of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study. BMC Public Health, 24, 2686. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20102-x 29 Significant rise in ADHD diagnoses in the UK. (2023). National Institute for Health and Care Research. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/significant-rise-adhd-diagnoses-uk
30 Murphy, L. (2024). Growing pressures Exploring trends in children’s disability benefits. 31 Annual Report. (2024). https://www.iwf.org.uk/annual-report-2023/trends-and-data/self-generated child-sex-abuse/
32 Hymas, C. (2024, 29/09/2024). Children under 10 being reported to counter-terror police. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/29/children-under-10-being-reported-to counter-terror-police/
33 Committee, H. o. C. E. (2024). Screen time: impacts on education and wellbeing. Retrieved from https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/45128/documents/223543/default/
Support for the Landscape Recovery project on the Waveney and Little Ouse
-
Daniel Zeichner MP
Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DFOur Ref: AR01549
26 February 2025
Dear Minister,
Re: Support for the Landscape Recovery project on the Waveney and Little Ouse
Following a visit to the Waveney and Little Ouse Recovery Project in my Waveney Valley constituency, I am writing to express my support of the project. I understand that you have also met with Suffolk Wildlife in the project area and heard from them directly about the great potential of the approach they are taking here. I hope you will agree it is vital Defra maintains its support for this and similar projects that offer the innovative solutions we need in the face of the societal challenges of climate change and the nature crisis. I know that Suffolk Wildlife Trust would be happy to host future visits by Defra Ministers as they look to secure Defra’s commitment to take the project forward, and I would be very pleased to help facilitate in any way I can.
Through the Waveney and Little Ouse Recovery project, Suffolk Wildlife Trust is working with the Environment Agency and local farmers and landowners in the catchment of the Waveney and Little Ouse headwaters to develop a sustainable financial model to pay for the delivery of vital Nature Based Solutions to the challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss.
By restoring biodiversity, ecological connectivity, and resilient ecosystems at a landscape scale, the project would deliver a range of benefits to local communities and businesses, as well as contributing to wider net zero and nature recovery ambitions. Defra’s support for the initial phase of the project, funded through the Landscape Recovery pilot programme, has enabled Suffolk Wildlife Trust and their project partners to take a rigorous evidence-based approach to quantifying and valuing these societal benefits in the form of ecosystem services that can be marketed and sold to fund their delivery.
The Waveney and Little Ouse Recovery Project has capacity to protect the market towns of Diss and Bungay in the Waveney Valley constituency as well as larger nearby towns such as Beccles and Thetford which are also vulnerable to flooding. The financial cost savings would be substantial as would be the benefit to local residents whose homes were kept safe from flooding.
As the MP for Waveney Valley, I wish to support the scheme and the benefits this project could provide to local people, businesses, and the environment in my constituency; but I also recognise its wider potential as a template for how private investors can help the UK to achieve its net zero and nature recovery targets and mitigate the future costs of climate change and biodiversity loss by supplementing public funding for environmental delivery.
Suffolk Wildlife Trust estimates the project’s proposed habitat and ecosystem restoration, and land-use change could deliver:266,803 tonnes of CO2 removed from the atmosphere over 50 years
More than 5,000 Biodiversity Units[1]
9,969kg reduction in phosphorous inputs to land
450,948m3 additional flood water storage capacity
204,286m3 reduction in water run-off into local rivers
The project will soon be reaching the end of its development phase and seeking an extension of Defra’s support to enable it to move into the delivery phase. While the expectation is that income from the sale of ecosystem services will pay for delivery in the long-term, there is a need for upfront investment to cover the capital and ongoing maintenance costs of restoration and land-use change while the market for ecosystem services matures, and to set up the legal business structures needed to bring these ecosystem services to market. In order for this and other landscape recovery schemes to have the positive impacts that they should, it is necessary to provide clarity and reassurance to businesses and landowners who might wish to participate in such a project. Landowners need a guarantee of consistent future payments and businesses need to understand what future sustainability requirements are going to be. Furthermore, licenses and permits need to fit the scale of the landscape change instead of being suitable only for individual sites and small projects.
Suffolk Wildlife Trust have explained that private investment is being sought to match any investment by Defra, and that future income from sale of the ecosystem services would be used to defray the investment in ongoing maintenance costs – providing added value for money to the public purse and a return on Defra’s initial investment that would demonstrate the value of Landscape Recovery.
The Landscape Recovery Scheme has the potential to reverse biodiversity declines, support net zero, improve the health of rivers, protect people’s homes and businesses from flooding, and increase the availability of nature and its many benefits for people. Consequently, this and similar projects can help the Government deliver on its commitments in those areas.
I would only add, and am sure you agree, that fantastic nature recovery and carbon sequestration projects like this must be in addition to and not instead of the wider drive away from fossil fuels and to decarbonise the energy system and wider economy.
I am impressed by the Waveney and Little Ouse Recovery Project and consider that there is a need for similar schemes across the country. Similar projects should restore and enhance our natural environment, helping to mitigate the impacts of our changing climate and to adapt to it.
I hope that DEFRA will support this and other nature recovery projects by providing adequate funding, including to cover the setting up of the scheme. I am certain that the project offers good value for money and will also provide many additional benefits and would be grateful if you could confirm Defra’s intention to provide the next phase of funding requested by the project.
Yours,
Adrian Ramsay MP
Member of Parliament for Waveney Valley[1] Measured using Defra Biodiversity Metric v.3.1
Re: Hugh’s Law
-
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by it's never you. https://itsneveryou.com
Sir Stephen Timms
Minister for Social Security and Disability
Department of Work and Pensions
Caxton House
Tothill St
SW1H 9NA
13th January 2025
Re: Hugh’s Law
Dear Minister,
We are writing to you as a group of cross-party MPs to express our support for Ceri and
Frances Menai-Davis, bereaved parents and founders of the charity It’s Never You, and to
request a meeting to discuss the next steps in the campaign for the implementation of
Hugh’s Law. We know that you are already familiar with Hugh’s Law, having previously met
with Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, alongside their MP Chris Hinchliff. Their tireless
advocacy following the tragic loss of their six-year-old son, Hugh, to cancer in 2021, has
shone a light on the immense challenges faced by families caring for critically ill children.
Their story, sadly, is not unique, and their campaign highlights the urgent need for reform in
this area.
Hugh’s Law is a proposal designed to address the gaps in the current system that leave
parents navigating both emotional and financial crises at an already overwhelming time.
Currently, families are met with limited and often delayed support through provisions such
as Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Universal Credit (UC), and unpaid parental leave. These
options are frequently inaccessible or insufficient, creating additional barriers for families
already under significant strain.
Hugh’s Law is straightforward: a time-limited, non-means-tested grant to ensure parents
can focus on their child’s care without facing immediate financial insecurity. By simplifying
the process this proposal would minimise bureaucracy while addressing a clear and urgent
need.
When a child is brought into this world there is a support system in place. Maternity pay
ensures that working parents who must pause working to care for small children around the
clock are not living without any income. Yet, when a child becomes so unwell that they
require long hospital stays, often in isolation, there is no safety net for the first 90 days after
diagnosis. Recent legislative advances, such as the Neonatal Care Act, have demonstrated
the value of prioritising family support during times of critical need, setting a strong
precedent for similar measures.
Jan 2025
We believe Hugh’s law will address the significant gap in the current system and provide
meaningful support to families when they need it most. Hugh’s Law has the potential to
transform the lives of thousands of families across the country and demonstrates a
practical, compassionate approach to tackling a real issue.
Please meet with Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis again, to explore how Hugh’s Law can be
implemented effectively to support these families. We would welcome the opportunity to
discuss this in further detail and work collaboratively on helping parents who have
struggled, are struggling and yet to struggle.
Thank you for considering this important matter
Yours sincerely, Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by it's never you. https://itsneveryou.com
Call for the UK Government to impose sanctions on Israel following the International Court of Justice’s Landmark Advisory Opinion
-
Dear Foreign Secretary,
Re: Call for the UK Government to impose sanctions on Israel following the International Court of Justice’s Landmark Advisory Opinion
We write to urge the UK government to impose sanctions and take other concrete steps to give effect to the landmark Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel’s continuing illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
Findings of the International Court of Justice
The ICJ, the world’s top court, found on 19 July 2024 that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful. It also found that Israel is under an obligation to bring to an end its unlawful presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible and to immediately cease all new settlement activities, amongst numerous other obligations.
The Court also found that all States, including the UK, have obligations to not recognise as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the OPT and to not render any aid or assistance in maintaining this.
Further, amongst the numerous other obligations cited by the ICJ, all State Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.
Obligations on the UK government
Flowing from these, the ICJ found that the UK and all states must take concrete actions including: taking steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the OPT; abstaining from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the OPT which may entrench its unlawful presence there; and abstaining from entering into any treaty relations with Israel in all cases in which it purports to act on behalf of the OPT.
It has now been four months since this landmark ICJ ruling. Since then the situation continues to worsen including with Israel’s intensified attacks on civilians and clear violations of international law occurring in Gaza.
The UK Government has acknowledged the central findings of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion and stated that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible. However, the UK Government is yet to clarify how it intends to respond to this new legal situation and uphold its responsibilities arising from it.
In contrast, the UN General Assembly in September passed a resolution endorsing the ICJ’s opinion and calling on states to comply with their responsibility under international law to enact concrete steps including sanctions to address the ongoing situation.
Sanctions on Israel and other actions
In line with the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion and the obligations on all States, the UK Government should immediately:
Impose travel bans and asset freezes against all individuals and entities involved in maintaining Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT.
Ban trade with illegal settlements - in so doing, the UK should also support and utilise the UN database of businesses involved in the OPT.
Suspend arms transfers to Israel including licenses for the export of F-35 components that go indirectly to Israel as well as any other equipment that might be used to carry out serious violations of international humanitarian law and/or are used to entrench Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT.
Revoke the 2030 Roadmap, which seeks to deepen UK-Israeli economic, trade and security ties.
The Government should also undertake a comprehensive and thorough review of all of its current and pending trade relations, including the UK-Israel trade agreement, and its security, military, and diplomatic relations with Israel. This would be to ensure that it does not - directly or indirectly - entrench Israel’s unlawful presence in the OPT or otherwise provide aid or assistance in maintaining the unlawful situation created by the continued presence of Israel in the OPT or any of the other violations committed by Israel in the OPT.
The UK Government has repeatedly stated that it is committed to international law. Acting in support of the ICJ Advisory Opinion would be a critical step in demonstrating that commitment. It would also show that the UK Government is striving to do all it can to support the victims of Israel’s repeated violations of international law, and that it is not only speaking about a peaceful and negotiated two-state solution but taking concrete steps to promote this.
Unmarked communal graves for stillborn babies
-
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by Sarah Gibson MP.
Dear Secretary of State,
Unmarked communal graves for stillborn babies
We, the undersigned Members of Parliament from across the House, write to express our deep concern at the revelation that an estimated 89,000 stillborn babies were buried in unmarked communal graves across the United Kingdom up until the late 1980s. In many cases, bereaved parents were neither informed of their child’s burial location nor given the opportunity to participate in or consent to the arrangements.
This has caused lasting distress to families who were denied the chance to grieve, commemorate their loss, or visit a place of remembrance. Since the Baby Loss Debate on 13 October 2025, it has become even clearer that this historic practice has affected families in every part of the country. You have previously agreed to meet with these families, and we would urge you to honour that promise without delay.
This historic practice represents a failure to treat stillbirth with the dignity and compassion it deserves. The Government should now ensure that all available burial records are preserved and made accessible to bereaved families, in order to help them trace their children’s resting places wherever possible. It should also promote national recognition of the impact this practice has had on parents and communities, and make it easier for families and local authorities to mark and memorialise the sites of historic communal graves.
We believe this issue transcends party politics and speaks to our shared values of compassion, respect and humanity. We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Ramsay MP co-signed this cross-party letter initiated by Sarah Gibson MP.
We write as cross-party parliamentarians to ask that you implement changes to the tax system to fairly tax extreme wealth to raise funds for public benefit.
-
The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer
October 2024
Dear Chancellor of the Exchequer,
We write as cross-party parliamentarians to ask that you implement changes to the tax system to fairly tax extreme wealth to raise funds for public benefit.
This government has rightly acknowledged that the previous administration left the UK’s economy and public services in disarray. Austerity has plagued our constituencies and communities for over a decade, leaving vital services under-resourced and unable to adapt to emerging crises.
But there is no visible end to this crisis of underfunding. Analysis suggests that current spending plans and fiscal rules will likely lead to £18 billion of cuts to unprotected departments by 2029. In addition, through efforts to plug the financial shortfall left by the previous government, this government has already made executive decisions that place the burden of economic hardship on the most vulnerable.
We cannot afford to continue on this trajectory and, crucially, we do not need to.
In recent years, billionaire wealth has soared, increasing by almost £150 billion between 2020 and 2022. Despite this, revenue from wealth taxes has remained stagnant at around 3.4% of the UK’s GDP, proportionately only one percent higher than rates in 1965. This stands in contrast to other trends in the tax system, meaning that the richest are relatively under-taxed. This is deeply unfair and immoral: in an age of climate and economic crises, where public funds are desperately needed, it is necessary that we redress this imbalance.
The transformative potential of taxes on extreme wealth is clear, and appetite for them is growing. Governments around the world - including Norway, Italy and Brazil - are considering fiscal measures to fairly tax the super-rich. As one of the most unequal economies in the G7, the UK should follow suit.
In the upcoming Budget, we call on you to include the following changes:
Introduce an annual tax on extreme wealth. Fairly taxing extreme wealth is supported by three quarters of Britons and would generate a large stream of revenue. A wealth tax of 2% on assets over £10 million, for instance, would raise £24 billion per year.
Equalise capital gains and income tax rates. This would raise £16.7 billion per year and would rectify unfairness in the tax system, where working people are subject to proportionately higher rates of tax.
We urge you to take the bold decisions necessary to deliver the public funding that the UK desperately needs. As the first Budget of a new government, this is a key opportunity to lay the foundations for a fairer, more sustainable, and thriving economy for all.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Co-Signed this cross-party letter initiated by Green New Deal Rising.