Green MP urges Government funding for trailblazing flood management project

12 March 2025

Adrian Ramsay, Green MP for Waveney Valley and Green Party Co-Leader, has called a flood management project in his constituency a national trailblazer and urged the Government to maintain its support for the Waveney and Little Ouse Recovery project, in order to protect nature and alleviate the risk of flooding in towns in his constituency.

Adrian Ramsay has written to the Minister of State at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Daniel Zeichner, following a visit by the minister to the area earlier this year. The Waveney Valley MP said Defra support was vital to the success of the project which is run by Suffolk Wildlife Trust working with the Environment Agency, local farmers and landowners. 

Defra’s support for the initial phase of the project, funded through the Landscape Recovery pilot programme, had enabled the Trust and its partners to build a financial model to pay for the delivery of nature-based solutions to the challenges brought about by climate change.

Adrian Ramsay said the cost-benefits of the Waveney and Little Ouse Recovery Project were clear and had huge potential to avert flooding in vulnerable local communities - a growing problem locally.

He said: “The project has the capacity to protect the market towns of Diss and Bungay in my constituency as well as nearby towns such as Beccles and Thetford which are also vulnerable to flooding. The financial savings would be substantial, not to mention the benefit to local residents whose homes were kept safe from flooding.”

He said the project also provided an important template for how private investors could help the UK achieve its net zero and nature recovery targets by supplementing public funding for environmental delivery.

The project is reaching the end of its development phase and Suffolk Wildlife Trust wants an extension of Defra’s support to cover upfront investment and ongoing maintenance costs. It is seeking private investment to match any funds from Defra and hopes that the income from the sale of ecosystem services will pay for the project in the long term. 

Ramsay added: “I hope that Defra will support this and other nature recovery projects by providing adequate funding. I know this project offers good value for money and will also provide many additional benefits for nature restoration and tackling climate change.”

Adrian Ramsay, MP for Waveney Valley calls on the Leader of Suffolk County Council to work in good faith with Suffolk Libraries.

11h of March 2025

Adrian Ramsay, MP for Waveney Valley and Co-Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, calls on the Leader of Suffolk County Council to work in good faith with Suffolk Libraries.

In a letter to Cllr Matthew Hicks - Conservative Leader of Suffolk County Council, Adrian Ramsay MP expressed serious concerns over the future of Suffolk’s library services following Suffolk County Council’s recent announcement to end Suffolk Libraries' contract with the council and bring the service back in-house.

Suffolk Libraries, an independent charity, has successfully operated the county’s library services for the past twelve years, keeping facilities open and expanding their services while nationally there have been nearly a thousand library closures since 2010. (source, source)

In the letter to Cllr Hicks, Adrian said, “Libraries are more than just book-lending spaces; they are vital community hubs." He continued, “Suffolk Libraries has provided award-winning services, including children’s activities and health and wellbeing initiatives, which residents cherish. Any decisions about their future must be made openly and in consultation with the communities that rely on them.”

Adrian highlighted that Suffolk Libraries has demonstrated strong financial governance and value for money while delivering essential services. The letter urges Cllr Hicks to work in good faith with Suffolk Libraries. In closing, he said, “I urge Suffolk County Council to work collaboratively with Suffolk Libraries to ensure this essential service's secure and sustainable future. “

ENDS

Safer Screens Letter

• Alt text

  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

• Alt text

  
  
  Daniel Zeichner MP
  Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs
  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  Seacole Building
  2 Marsham Street
  London
  SW1P 4DF

  Our 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

The 7th Carbon Budget sets out a pathway to save our economy. Now, the Government must step up to show the ambition and leadership this moment demands.

26th of February 2025

Adrian Ramsay MP, Co-Leader of the Green Party, calls on the Government to ensure ambitious climate action isn’t delayed any further – and for polluters to pay the highest price, not the poorest in our communities.

Adrian Ramsay MP said: “Today’s 7th Carbon Budget advice from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) makes clear that a climate safe future is still within our grasp – and that the cost of not reducing climate emissions will be far higher for our economy than the cost of investment net zero. Crucially, we need to see the Government make investment choices that result in households benefiting financially from climate action too – both by ensuring everyone can access renewables and energy efficiency and because they are paying lower bills. The public are clear that they want to see the worst climate polluters pay, and we need to make sure that the costs of climate action never fall on those least able to afford it.

“A thriving green economy is also vital if we are to prevent climate deniers, like Reform, from weaponising the mass destruction of climate chaos. Instead, we must help the most vulnerable and build resilience in communities to adapt to climate breakdown. ”

He continued: “Without an immediate acceleration of climate ambition, our economy, national security and environment are all at serious risk.  That’s why we are disappointed not to see the CCC go even further on measures to reduce energy demand. In the face of impending airport expansion decisions by this Labour government, more ambitious policy is urgently needed to keep the aviation sector in check. Their advice shows strong public support for limiting airport expansion and introducing a frequent flier levy where the small percentage of the population who take the vast majority of the flights have to pay more .

 “The CCC have shown that a positive, fairer, jobs-rich, greener future is possible, and they have set a clear pathway forthe Government to follow. Now, we need the Government to step up, stop the vested interests who are intent on delaying, and show the ambition and leadership this moment demands.”

Adrian Ramsay MP, backs call for people to consider volunteering with their local Scout group.

25th of February 2025

Adrian Ramsay MP was honoured to present Oliver and Cogan from Beccles Bears Explorer Scouts with Young Leader badges on Saturday, which was Founder's Day for the Scouts., He said:

“As a former Cub Scout, I know how special Founder’s Day is for scouting. It was an honour to present Young Leader badges to Oliver and Cogan from Beccles Bears Explorer Scouts. The experiences in scouting are invaluable to young people —teaching teamwork, resilience, and skills that stay with them for life.”

Adrian was attending an event organised by Waveney Valley scouts aimed at recruiting more volunteers for local Scout groups across the area. He echoed calls for people to consider volunteering with their local Scout groups; 

“If you have free time, I urge you to get involved. Volunteers' work in the scouting movement is vital for the next generation of scouts, whether as trustees, helpers, or Scout leaders. The work of volunteers is essential in keeping these groups running and ensuring young people continue to benefit from the Scouting experience.“

Farming & inheritance tax

3rd of February 2025

If the Government was hoping that the deep concern over its plans for inheritance tax on farmland would go away in the New Year, it was reminded last week that farmers remain as incensed as ever about the changes. About 100 tractors blockaded Oxford city centre when the Environment Secretary was giving a speech at the Oxford Farming Conference.

He was honest enough to admit that the changes were “very unwelcome” (that’s quite the under-statement) and not something that the Government had wanted or intended to do.

I’ve spent some of the past few weeks talking to farmers in my constituency who are very worried about the changes. But what they’ve also told me is that the current tax situation isn’t working for them either. In fact, in many ways, it’s harming ordinary working farmers.

I heard about a 350-acre farm in Suffolk which was bought recently by a merchant banker from London who didn’t even visit the property so clearly had no intention of farming it. In fact, he bought it before it even went on the market, to add to his existing property portfolio and minimise his inheritance tax liabilities.

If this was an unusual or exceptional case, that would be bad enough. But it isn’t. According to one nationwide land agency, non-farmers bought more than half of the farms and estates sold on the open market in England in 2023. The amount of land bought by ordinary farmers was the lowest on record. That is an astonishing state of affairs.

What makes it worse is that the interest of very wealthy outside investors is driving up land prices, which are now at a record high. As one farmer told me, when an ordinary working farmer hopes to expand, the last thing he or she wants is high land prices. Yet that is exactly what they’ve got.

So while farmers have genuine fears that their children will not be able to inherit the family farm and continuing producing food, what’s become clear is that they are already being squeezed out of buying more land. If they can’t expand, they can’t increase food production, affecting our food security. It also makes it harder for them to set aside land for environmental benefits.

The current tax situation is not sustainable. It’s not helping ordinary farmers and it’s depriving the Government of tax revenue which is needed to fund our crumbling public services such as schools, health care and public transport. I want to see it changed so that the very wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, while genuine farmers can carry on doing what they do best – growing and producing food for us all.

But the Government’s plans won’t achieve either of these aims. The reduced inheritance tax rate being proposed will still entice wealthy investors who want to limit their inheritance tax liabilities, while farmers will face huge tax bills when they try to pass on a family farm to the next generation. Many will end up having to sell land to meet the tax liability with an impact on our food security.

This policy has been badly drawn up and thrown together without taking into full consideration what’s been happening in the farming sector, in particular the steep rise in land prices which makes the average-sized family farm worth on paper several million pounds, even though the farmer may be earning barely more than the minimum wage.

There is a clear solution to this. Close the tax loophole to deter investors and, hopefully, bring down land prices but protect genuine farmers by raising the threshold much higher than the proposed £1 million. That’s what the farmers and local National Farmers Union reps I’ve spoken to want to see.

Farming is an absolutely critical industry – vital for our food security, the protection of wildlife and our response to climate change. But if we want to protect it, there must be a fair deal for farmers to include: ensuring the funding pots for environmental land management schemes are adequate and easy to access; tackling the power of the supermarkets and stopping them squeezing the prices that farmers receive; and addressing the existing tax loophole.

The Conservatives and others who want to keep the status quo aren’t acting in the interests of genuine farmers – they are protecting the interests of very wealthy investors. I want to see those with the broadest shoulders like these wealthy investors pay their fair share of tax. I also want to family farms to thrive.

The Chancellor should close this tax loophole while raising the inheritance tax threshold to protect ordinary farms. After a very difficult 2024, it would at least bring some relief to farmers for the year ahead.

Adrian Ramsay MP

Re: Hugh’s Law

• Alt text

  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 ‍

Raw sewage dumped in our rivers by the privatised water companies has rightly become a national scandal.

12th of January 2025

Raw sewage dumped in our rivers by the privatised water companies has rightly become a national scandal.

Shockingly, not a single river in England is in good overall health, according to the Rivers Trust, and only 15 percent are in good ecological health. That is a terrible indictment on the water companies who continue to dump raw sewage into rivers and on to beaches as an increasing rate. Sewage dumping doubled in 2023 compared to the previous year.

(That would be bad enough, but over the years the owners of the privatised water companies have pocketed tens of billions of pounds in dividends and water company executives continue to be paid generous bonuses, even when their company has been fined for dumping sewage.)

The way the water companies have been regulated since they were privatised 35 years ago has not worked. The regulator, Ofwat, has been far too weak in dealing with the companies’ failings and the Environment Agency hasn’t done an effective job in policing pollution spills.

You would expect that a company which pollutes a river should be made to clean it up. But even that doesn’t happen. Sometimes the reasons for this are understandable. Agricultural run-off from fertilised fields is a major cause of pollution but it’s not always obvious where that pollution is coming from.

That’s not the case with sewage which causes worse pollution than agricultural run-off with a bigger impact on plants, animals and microbes. And it’s usually obvious who or what is responsible for it so it’s easy to point the finger. But too often water companies get away with it because it’s actually legal for them to dump raw sewage into our rivers when it rains heavily, and treated sewage at other times, even if it’s harmful to the ecosystem it flows into. Sewage was dumped into the River Waveney on 389 occasions in 2021, much of it quite legally.

There isn’t even one organisation responsible for overseeing all river pollution incidents and restoration projects, partly because of the diverse causes.

All this brings us to the important question of who should be responsible for cleaning up our polluted rivers when so much of the pollution is either difficult to trace or is there “legally”.

The Environment Agency has belatedly begun to get a grip of this, spurred by understandable public anger over the state of our rivers and beaches. Anglian Water has committed to spend £50 million on tackling sewage spills. But local groups aren’t waiting around for Anglian to act – they are taking matters into their own hands to clean up their local river. And they want the fines imposed on water companies to help fund this.

There is an £11 million Water Restoration Fund, set up by the previous government to pay for the clean-up and protection of our rivers. The money for it came from the fines imposed on water companies for serious sewage spills over the course of a year. Just three water companies were fined £168 million last year for polluting our waterways, so this amounts to small change. Given the state of our rivers, not surprisingly there were masses of applications for grants from the fund.

But payouts got held up by the general election last July so all those who applied for money are still waiting to hear if they will receive any. The River Waveney Trust is one of them. It put in a bid for a £144,000 grant, alongside the Broads Trust, to help clean up the river and fund a citizen science water quality testing programme.

Its director, Martha Meek, says water company fines should be spent cleaning up the rivers and waterways they relate to, so the water company is seen to be picking up the costs of the pollution it caused. I couldn’t agree with her more.

The long wait for news on payouts from the Water Restoration Fund is increasing suspicion that the money won’t go to local organisations like the River Waveney Trust – it will disappear into general Treasury coffers instead. As one of the MPs scrutinising the Water (Special Measures) Bill, I’m pushing the Government for a commitment that this money will go where it’s intended, and for the law to be tightened up when it comes to water companies fouling our rivers.

The money in the Water Restoration Fund was ear-marked for good reason, to reinforce the principle that the polluter should pay to clean-up the pollution they caused. There are hundreds of local groups on standby waiting to hear if they will get the funding they need to start work. I hope the Chancellor listens, so the money starts to flow soon.

Farming, Nature & Flood Control

5th of January 2025

There have been so many mis-steps by this Labour government in its first few months in office that it’s hard to know where to start. But the latest came in last month’s budget over its approach to farms.  

The issue that’s grabbed most of the headlines is the change in inheritance tax rules which could impact family-owned farms which want to pass on the farm to the next generation. The Government needs to find a way to differentiate family farms from large estates bought to avoid tax and reconsider the £1 million threshold. Many family farms are worth much more than that, even though the farmer’s income is often very low. 

What’s had less attention is the worrying freeze in the subsidy paid to farmers to encourage biodiversity on their land, amounting to a real-terms cut. This will make it much harder to achieve the switch to nature-friendly farming which is so vital to reverse the decline in wildlife, clean up our rivers and make farming more resilient to climate change. 

The Government has its own legally binding targets on improving nature, a recognition of the fact that we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Yet when it comes to the crunch, the budget for achieving that is going down in real terms.  

It is not only deeply short-sighted. It shows ministers just don’t understand the severity of the climate and nature crises. Both will have, and are already having, a major impact on the food we grow and our food security. 

Let’s take the nature crisis first. Anyone who’s been walking or driving through the countryside over the years will have noticed the drastic decline in insect life. Insect numbers are down almost 60 percent in the past 20 years so we’re seeing fewer moths, flies, bees and butterflies. All of these are important pollinators for crops as well as our gardens.  

Then there’s the state of our rivers. Only 14 percent of rivers in England are in good ecological health, none of them are in good overall health. This is partly down to water companies dumping sewage in the rivers. But, especially in areas like Waveney Valley, it is also a result of agricultural run-off from fertilisers or animal waste. 

The chemicals from fertilisers and waste from slurry create algal blooms, disrupting ecosystems in the water and leading to “dead zones” for animals and plants, effectively killing the river.  

The Government is reviewing the way water companies are regulated to try to curb their pollution of waterways and this is welcome and long overdue. But the review is largely ignoring waste from farms which accounts for 40 percent of water pollution, according to Defra. All the more reason for the Government to increase the funding available for nature-friendly farming to the levels the nature charities are saying is needed. 

The health of our rivers is vital both to nature and our own health and wellbeing. It needs to be made a priority.  

I had the chance to visit a couple of our local rivers recently, in the company of the Little Ouse Headwaters Project and the River Waveney Trust, both brilliant charities which are working to improve the health of the rivers and see how they can be better managed for the benefit of wildlife, people and the climate.  

That brings us to the climate crisis. The last 18 months have been the wettest since records began in 1836 – a pattern which is likely to become the new normal with climate change. Although England has escaped the devastating floods which have hit Spain and other parts of Europe this autumn, many local communities have been affected by flooding in the last year and the frequency and severity is only likely to grow. 

So flood management, especially in an area like East Anglia, has never been more important.   

Gone are the days when engineers sought to channel rainfall as fast as possible into rivers. That just led to the rivers becoming overwhelmed and flooding areas further downstream. 

The aim now is to hold back the water, using natural techniques like installing “leaky” dams to release water slowly, planting trees, digging ponds to store floodwater and protecting floodplains. 

In Gissing, the River Waveney Trust and Norfolk Rivers Trust worked with the local community, landowners and the parish council to create a natural flood management scheme to make the land more flood resilient. They deployed low-cost solutions such as leaky dams, tree planting and using an adjacent meadow to temporarily store water so that heavy rainfall wouldn’t rush into the river and overwhelm it.  

Eight named storms later, including Storm Babet in October last year, and no homes have been flooded in Gissing showing that natural flood management works.  

The Little Ouse Headwaters Project is working to create a continuous corridor of wildlife habitat along the headwaters of the river, including restoring natural river features, all with flood management in mind. 

Both are great projects but run on a shoestring, often with a large reliance on volunteers. Funding is always a challenge, making it difficult to scale up the work they’re doing which is vital if we’re to successfully manage flood risk and let nature recover.  

I will continue to press the Government to invest properly in the nature-based solutions that are needed to support farming, restore biodiversity, capture carbon and manage floods. 

Farming and IHT

20th of December 2024

In the last few weeks I’ve had many conversations with farmers in my constituency about the very difficult year they had last year and their concerns for the future. 

As many of us will remember, 2024 was extraordinarily wet, even though East Anglia thankfully escaped the worst of it. Nationwide, 2024 was the second worst harvest on record. On top of that, farmers have faced rising costs which, combined with the injustice of supermarkets squeezing margins evermore, makes it very difficult to make a living. 

Then came the October Budget and the proposal to close a tax loophole which exempted farmland and businesses from inheritance tax. The Chancellor is proposing a threshold of £1 million on business and agricultural assets - anything more than that would be subject to inheritance tax of 20 percent. Cue mass protests by farmers at Westminster and a growing tide of concern and anger in farming communities. 

This issue has been quickly politicised with opposition parties lining up to attack the Government. There’s no surprise there. Looking for a weakness in the Government’s position is what opposition parties do. It’s part of how our democracy works. But it’s not enough for opposition parties to simply defend the current situation and offer no alternative – as the Conservatives are doing. 

Because what’s become clear to me in my conversations with local farmers is that, while the Government’s proposed changes are deeply flawed, the status quo is not working either. More and more farmland is being bought by wealthy investors to avoid inheritance tax, driving up prices and denying ordinary farmers the chance to expand their farms. And these investors often have no interest in farming. 

I spoke to one farmer who told me about a 350-acre farm in Suffolk which had been bought by a wealthy London banker who didn’t even visit the property. In fact, he bought it before it even went on the market. In another case, a farmer who was hoping to expand his farm and had set aside the money to buy some neighbouring land saw that land sold for 60 percent above the asking price – again bought by someone taking advantage of tax rules. It’s no wonder that land prices are rising by an average of 14 percent every year. 

One nationwide land agency found that non-farmers bought more than half of the farms and estates sold on the open market in England in 2023. The amount of land bought by ordinary farmers was the lowest on record.  

This is not good for farmers or for our food security. It’s clear to me that this tax loophole has to be addressed in order to save family farms and the livelihoods of ordinary working farmers.  

But the way the Government has framed this policy is going to end up protecting the investors while harming the farmers. The reduced inheritance tax rate will still entice wealthy investors who want to minimise their inheritance tax liabilities, even if they can’t avoid them altogether. But farmers will face huge tax bills when they try to pass on a family farm to the next generation. 

The rise in land values isn’t only pricing out many ordinary farmers. It is also driving up the paper value of their farms, pushing many of them way above the £1 million threshold proposed by the Chancellor. An average-sized farm of 300 acres could easily be worth £3 million and that’s just for the land. Then there are the buildings, the farm equipment and the livestock on the farm. 

Yet many farmers are earning barely more than the minimum wage, despite working very long hours. 

There is a clear solution to this. Close the tax loophole to deter investors and, hopefully, bring down land prices but protect genuine farmers by raising the threshold much higher than the proposed £1 million. That’s what the farmers and local National Farmers Union reps I’ve spoken to want to see. 

Farming is an absolutely critical industry – vital for our food security, the protection of wildlife and our response to climate change. But if we want to protect it, there must be a fair deal for farmers to include: ensuring the funding pots for environmental land management schemes are adequate and easy to access; tackling the power of the supermarkets and stopping them squeezing the prices that farmers receive; and addressing the existing tax loophole. This loophole is clearly creating major problems for ordinary working farmers and costing the Treasury millions in lost tax revenue. That money is urgently needed for public services like the NHS, education and public transport – and nature friendly farming schemes.  

The Conservatives and others who want to preserve the status quo aren’t acting in the interests of genuine farmers – they are protecting the interests of very wealthy investors. I want to see a huge investment in our public services, funded by taxing those with the broadest shoulders like these wealthy investors. I also want to family farms to thrive. 

The Chancellor can do both by closing this tax loophole and raising the inheritance tax threshold to protect ordinary farms. It would be positive way to start the new year.  

I wish you all a hopeful and peaceful 2025.  

Call it a reset, call it a “plan for change”, the Prime Minister’s administration was in desperate need of a relaunch

6th of December 2025

Call it a reset, call it a “plan for change”, the Prime Minister’s administration was in desperate need of a relaunch. Labour have had a shaky first few months, peppered with mis-steps from the ending of the winter fuel allowance to a budget which penalises small businesses and employers and won’t deliver improved living standards for people. 

So now we have the Government’s new priorities from housing to NHS waiting lists to early years education. The ambition for Britain to be a clean energy superpower squeezes on to the list but, disappointingly, the ambition has been weakened to 95% clean power by 2030 – the same target set by the previous Conservative government. 

What’s more disappointing is the silence on how we should be adapting to the impacts of climate breakdown which are affecting our communities now.  

Even if we manage to limit global heating to 1.5C, and that looks more and more unlikely as emissions continue to grow and global efforts to decarbonise falter, significant changes to the climate and our weather systems are baked in. That means the UK faces more frequent severe flooding and more summer heatwaves.  

We were all shocked this autumn by the images from Spain as the Valencia region was hit by devastating floods which destroyed homes, bridges, roads and cost hundreds of lives. The cost to the Spanish economy is huge. The Valencia region has asked for over 30 billion Euros in relief and the insurance costs are expected to run to several billion more.   

Are we so confident that similar catastrophic flooding couldn’t happen here in the UK? The storms which hit parts of England and Wales this autumn were nothing like as severe as those in Spain yet they still led to hundreds of homes in the Midlands and South being flooded, exposing the total inadequacy of our flood defences. More than half the population say they’re not equipped to deal with flooding and the damage it would cause to their home. 

The need to adapt to a different, more unstable climate shouldn’t come as a surprise to Government. Its own advisers, the Climate Change Committee, issued a review of the National Adaptation Programme earlier this year and it was scathing. 

The UK is falling far short of what’s needed. The adaptation plans lack the pace and ambition to address the climate risks which are happening now. Fewer than half of the short-term actions needed to address the most urgent risks are in progress. There is no vision and the current approach isn’t working.  

So while I welcome the Government’s ambition to make the UK a clean energy super-power to reduce our carbon emissions, ministers aren’t addressing the need to adapt and build up resilience now. And in some respects, we’re moving backwards. 

Take the ambition for more house building. We urgently need more homes, especially more affordable homes and homes built for social rent. But building on floodplains not only condemns future owners to the misery of likely flooding, it also stops the land absorbing and holding back floodwater as nature intended.  

Allowing floodplains to do their job isn’t the only nature-based solution that is being overlooked. We need to un-do the damage of previous generations and re-plant hedgerows and trees, rewind rivers and create ponds to hold back floodwaters. Nature is our ally in adapting to a changed climate: we shouldn’t ignore it. 

Flooding is not the only risk to people’s livelihoods and the economy. So is extreme heat. We have already seen temperatures of above 40C in the UK which scientists say have happened only because of climate change. Our infrastructure needs to be resilient to these extreme temperatures so railways don’t buckle and people don’t bake in their homes. Retrofitting homes isn’t only about insulation to keep people warm in winter. It’s also about methods to keep them cool in summer. Over half of homes are at risk of over-heating which gives a sense of the scale of the challenge. On this, the Government has nothing to say. 

Nor should we ignore the impact extreme temperatures have on our food security. The Climate Change Committee warned five years ago that more frequent weather extremes would damage crops and livestock, making food prices more volatile. Biodiversity loss could have an even greater impact, leaving crops more vulnerable to pests and pathogens.  

So yes, Prime Minister, your Government needed a reset. But you’ve missed a critical mission – a national adaptation plan to safeguard our food security, better prepare the country for a future of more extreme weather and put nature at the heart of our response to climate change. 

Call for the UK Government to impose sanctions on Israel following the International Court of Justice’s Landmark Advisory Opinion

• Alt text

  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.

Tackling dental deserts

A shocking story on the BBC News website this month revealed that a Norwich dental practice which has 200 spaces for new NHS patients received over 16,000 applications in just one day. 

I say it was shocking but, in truth, it was not surprising. East Anglia is an NHS dental desert, the worst dental desert in the country, where 99.7 percent of people are unable to find an NHS dentist. Official figures show that for new patients, NHS dentistry has effectively ceased to exist. 

Around one in five patients suffer in pain. There are even reports of people resorting to pulling out their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist and cannot afford to pay for a private one. 

It sounds Dickensian. Yet we are living in the 21st century.  

I know from my parliamentary email inbox that this is a high priority for my constituents. So when I had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister directly about it, I asked him when the Government would start the critical negotiations to reform the dental contract, which is at the heart of the problem. Dentists are not being paid appropriately for the work they do, so too many of them are quitting the NHS and treating only private patients. 

I’m glad that Sir Keir Starmer acknowledged that we face a crisis and one the Government is determined to put right. I’m glad too that the Prime Minister said the Government would work on a cross-party basis to address the issue. But he wouldn’t commit to starting negotiations before the end of this year and patients are tired of waiting. 

The health minister is promising a rescue plan to restore NHS dentistry with 700,000 additional urgent appointments in areas of the country most in need “as soon as possible”. Those appointments can’t come soon enough. 

If access to NHS dentistry was the only problem facing health care, it would be bad enough. But it isn’t. There is a critical lack of hospital services in the constituency with some people living 20 miles or more from their nearest big hospital. There is also a lack of post-operative care following eye surgeries such as cataracts which is having an knock-on effect on local A&E services. 

Soon after being elected in July, I met with the Hartismere Hospital League of Friends to talk about how the hospital might provide a wider range of services for local residents so people didn’t have to travel to Norwich, Bury St Edmunds or Ipswich for treatment. 

As you will now, the hospital closed to in-patients in 2006 but, thanks to a campaign by local residents, it was kept open as a health and care centre for treatments like podiatry, physiotherapy, mental health care and rheumatology.   

If its facilities were upgraded, it could provide so much more.  Installing an X-ray machine would make a huge difference to local residents in both Norfolk and Suffolk. 

As well as dentistry and hospital services, there is a third area vital to healthcare where our area is badly served. We don’t have enough pharmacies. In the last year, nearly six pharmacies a week have shut their doors. One of them was a Boots pharmacy which closed in Bungay earlier this year. Others are reducing their hours. The loss of pharmacies has an outsized impact on rural areas where there is often no nearby alternative.  

The NHS Norfolk and Waveney integrated care board, which covers most of Waveney Valley, said it had seen the highest number of hours lost per pharmacy.  

So while I welcome the Health Secretary’s promise to turn the NHS into “a neighbourhood health service”, shifting care from hospitals to the community, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.  

There is a huge amount of catching-up to do and it was alarming to see the Government back itself into a corner over its fiscal rules which just seemed to promise an extension of the austerity which has caused such damage to our public services over the past 14 years. 

So at the Budget at the end of this month, I hope the Chancellor will look at all options for increasing funding to the NHS, including being willing to call on the very richest in society to pay a little more in tax, in a way that could enable us to get the funding across all NHS services – dentistry, hospital care, GP surgeries and pharmacies – that is needed to keep pace with demand.  

Assisted Dying

1st of November 2024

Of all the issues constituents have raised with me over the past few weeks, none has generated as much correspondence as the bill on assisted dying. Like many other MPs, I received hundreds of letters and emails, many of them telling powerful and moving stories about caring for loved ones in the last months of their life.  

I recognised the weight of responsibility in considering people’s experiences and looking at the evidence ahead of a vote that all parties treated as a matter of individual judgement and conscience for MPs. 

I and my parliamentary colleagues also heard received an extraordinary level of guidance and evidence from medical professionals, advocacy groups and faith leaders.  

So when I sat through the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – to give it its correct title – I was aware of the very deep-felt emotions behind this issue. And I saw the House of Commons at its best with serious, considered debate conducted with a huge amount of respect for the views put forward. The speeches were honest and heartfelt, with none of the grandstanding or point-scoring which often mars parliamentary debates. Everyone there, whether on the floor of the chamber or in the public gallery, recognised that we were deciding on an issue which could profoundly impact our society. 

When the vote was finally declared, there was silence in the chamber with none of the usual cheering from the winning side. I think we all realised the gravity of what we had decided. 

I was one of the 330 MPs who voted in favour. I was minded to do so before the debate and while I listened carefully to the arguments of those who opposed the Bill, they didn’t change my mind. I believed, and still believe, that those facing the pain and inevitability of an acute and terminal illness should have the choice to avoid a terrible and slow decline. This is about shortening death not ending life – and giving people choice in their final weeks. 

There were and are very valid ethical questions raised by the Bill’s opponents. How can we ensure that no one becomes vulnerable to coercion? Can we come up with a clear legal framework that upholds a physician’s unwavering principle of ‘do no harm’? How can we prevent the measures around assisted dying expanding beyond the intended scope? Are the safeguards put in place robust enough to ensure an individual’s choice is both voluntary and informed? 

The Bill does include wide-ranging safeguards such as strict eligibility criteria so that only terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of six months or less can ask for assistance; a reflection period after the request is made; multiple healthcare professionals must confirm that the individual is making the choice freely; it must be confirmed by a High Court judge. These safeguards are essential to protect the individual from coercion from family, caregivers or healthcare providers but we need to have confidence that the NHS and judges have the capacity to play their part in this.  

Although the vote on 29th November was a major milestone, it does not mean the Bill will automatically become law. There are months of scrutiny in committee to come where the Bill will be poured over line by line by MPs and, unusually, by outside experts too. It will have to pass through several stages in the House of Commons before going to the House of Lords where there will be further scrutiny. 

There are MPs who have admitted they voted for the Bill even though they had serious doubts about it, in the hope that their doubts can be addressed during this scrutiny and amendment process. 

The debate around assisted dying has also highlighted the urgent need to improve palliative and social care in our country. We must ensure that all individuals facing a terminal illness have access to the highest standard of care so they don’t feel forced into a decision because of inadequate care and support. Since the assisted dying debate I have asked questions in the Chamber on support for the palliative care sector and I will continue to press for this and social care to get the support and focus they need. 

We have taken a momentous step as a nation. We are not the first to do so. Several countries in Europe, parts of Australia, the US and Canada have all legalised assisted dying. If the parliamentary process over the months ahead is conducted with the same care, seriousness and humanity as the debate in the House of Commons, I think we can achieve a compassionate outcome which delivers choice to terminally ill people over how their life comes to an end. 

Unmarked communal graves for stillborn babies

• Alt text

  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.

Rachel Reeves’ Budget ignored this one reality about Britain

30th of October 2024

There was a lot of talk ahead of this Budget about it being the most significant financial statement for decades, a Budget that would set the course of our country for years to come. 

After 14 years of underfunding which has left our public services in crisis, we needed a vision. What we got was a patchwork of promises, some of them positive but barely delivering on the long-term change that people voted for in July.  

Indeed, after a rush of spending over the next year, the increase in funding slows to a crawl. A growth in real terms spending on public services of 1.5% a year after next year will barely touch the sides when you consider the need after 14 years during which public services have been brought to their knees.   

This doesn’t feel like a plan for long-term transformation to build the economy of the future. 

Don’t get me wrong: there was much to welcome. It was right that money is set aside to compensate the victims of the infected blood scandal and the Post Office horizon scandal. It was right too that the Chancellor changed the self-imposed fiscal rules to allow more borrowing to invest in our economy.  

But this was a Budget which too often gave with one hand and took away with the other. While there is welcome and substantial investment in the NHS, mainly for diagnostic services, it comes in the wake of the withdrawal of winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners which will leave them colder and sicker. The money in the Budget for social care will barely touch the sides – hardly an example of joined-up thinking. 

The funding for schools is also welcome and a recognition of the dangerous state of many school buildings, which were constructed with dangerous concrete. I was also pleased to see the Chancellor recognise the huge un-met need of families with SEND children with a £1 billion increase in funding.  

But let’s not forget that this Government also chose not to lift the two-child benefit cap which condemns 300,000 children to living in poverty.  

The minimum wage is going up but raising employers’ national insurance and lowering the threshold at which they have to pay it places a huge burden on small and medium-sized businesses who form the backbone of our economy and provide more than 16 million jobs. The rise in bus fares will also make it more expensive for the worst-off to get to work. 

Then there is the vital green transition to a thriving, sustainable economy. In the past seven Conservative budgets, the word “climate” was mentioned barely at all and then only in passing. Rachel Reeves continued that shameful tradition. The climate and nature crises have been virtually ignored – despite the huge impact they will have on our economy in the coming years.  

Worse, the money to deal with some of the biggest impacts of climate breakdown – flooding – is to be reviewed and quite possibly cut, along with the budget for farming. As an MP for a rural constituency which is regularly affected by flooding, this is deeply worrying. 

Rachel Reeves also showed political cowardice by following previous Conservative chancellors in freezing the fuel duty raise. This is not only costing the public purse £3 billion a year, it has also increased our carbon emissions by seven percent over the past 15 years.   

The Chancellor is planning to spend a lot of money, particularly in the coming year, and our public services desperately need it.  

But she has ignored the reality of where the wealth lies in Britain. The wealthiest 10 percent of the population own around half of all wealth, much of which is taxed at a much lower rate than the income of ordinary working people. The Chancellor seems to run scared of all the talk about millionaires and billionaires leaving the country, rather than looking to them to pay their fair share of tax so everyone can benefit from improved public services.  

Yes, capital gains tax is going up but there is still a yawning gap between income from work and income from wealth. The rise in employers’ national insurance contributions means the money to fund the increase in public spending is coming from taxes on work, not wealth.   

Rachel Reeves said there would be no return to austerity and “people must feel that”. Based on her plans, I’m not sure they will.  

100 days as an MP

18 of October 2024

It’s hard to believe it’s been 100 days since I was elected as an MP, the first-ever MP for the new constituency of Waveney Valley. The first 100 days of any job is a good time to reflect both on what’s been achieved so far and the many tasks ahead. 

So what have been my first impressions as a new MP?  

I don’t think anyone can visit the Houses of Parliament without feeling the weight of history and a sense of awe at the grandeur of the Palace of Westminster, despite all the scaffolding surrounding it.  

Navigating around the building and getting to grips with the many arcane ways of doing business here is quite a challenge and I was very grateful to be allocated a “buddy” by the parliamentary authorities. It was my buddy’s job to show me where everything was, make sure I didn’t get lost (easy to do in the many labyrinths of the Palace of Westminster), explain some of the parliamentary processes, how I could table an urgent question, or add my name to an early day motion or apply for an adjournment debate.  

When I arrived at Parliament on July 8th, four days after the election, I was one of hundreds of new MPs all trying to find somewhere to work, get connected to the IT system and get to grips with the role. All this without a group of staff as the recruitment process could only start once the election was over.  

And all the while, the constituency casework in the constituency has continued to pour in. In fact, it started within moments of my election being announced – that is the level of need left by years of Conservative-led austerity and under-funding of public services. Many of the issues raised are ones that I was hearing about on the doorstep during the campaign – issues like the number of children with special educational needs or disabilities who don’t have school places or the lack of vital NHS services like dentistry. 

I’ve had the opportunity to raise some of these issues in Parliament already. I spoke in a debate on healthcare provision in the East of England last month, pointing out that East Anglia is the Sahara desert of dental services. It is shocking and completely unacceptable that in the 21st century people are reduced to pulling out their own teeth because they cannot access NHS dental care. The dental contract is clearly broken and needs urgent reform. 

When the Government has such a huge majority, I know it will be difficult to force a change in government policy. Even a few Labour rebels will not be sufficient to block a bad law. 

But it is does create one advantage for smaller opposition parties like the Greens. Parliamentary protocol demands that the Speaker switches between government and opposition benches in debates and when the government benches are so crowded, those of us on the opposition side have a much greater chance of being selected to speak and I have more opportunity to put Waveney Valley’s voice directly to ministers and raise issues in the House of Commons chamber which might otherwise not be heard. 

It was though luck rather than numbers which saw my name come up in the draw to ask a question of the Prime Minister within three weeks of being elected. I wanted to know what steps Keir Starmer would be taking to reverse the catastrophic depletion of nature in Britain. It was an opportunity for him to show leadership on this vital issue to our common future. Needless to say, he didn’t answer and just chose to score a political point. The collegiality which I saw during the first few days of this Parliament didn’t last long. 

It is the privilege of my life to serve as the first MP for Waveney Valley. I hope constituents will bear with me as I build a team so I can deliver the best possible service as your MP.  

I promised in my election leaflets that I would be Waveney Valley’s voice at Westminster, nor Westminster’s voice in Waveney Valley. That is my aim over the next four or five years of this Parliament. 

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.

• Alt text

  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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

The crisis in SEND provision in East Anglia

In my constituency surgeries, I meet people who are often at the end of their tether and have reached out to me because they don’t know where else to turn.

Many of their stories are heart-rending and some of the most powerful, and most frequent, are the ones from parents who have children with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND). When they turn to the “system” for help, they often find they’re on their own.

Let me tell you about one parent. Her young child has what’s known as an EHCP, a document which sets out the educational, health and care plan the child needs because of their disabilities or a long-term illness. Her child couldn’t go to a mainstream primary school after leaving nursery but there were no places available at special needs schools. After a long period at home, the family were told there wouldn’t be a place until 2025.

Her son desperately missed being with other children and his mum had had to give up work for care for him. The lack of a special school place put enormous stress on other members of the family. Trying to navigate the system was bad enough, she said, but even worse was the “not knowing” and feeling that when she reached out for support, there was almost none there.

Even an educational psychologist who is used to navigating the relevant systems told me she struggled to get a place for her child in a suitable school and when one was offered, it was many miles from her home in a rural village.

It’s common for families to wait two years or more for an assessment of their child’s needs, whatever their age even though, by law, the process is supposed to take no more than 20 weeks. And specialist services can only be accessed once the child has been assessed and issued with that all-important EHCP which can take another year.

While the family are waiting, over-stretched teachers are struggling to support a child who has complex needs but they can’t get specialist services to help them because there isn’t yet an EHCP.

Families who are struggling are at the sharp end of this crisis. And the need is rocketing. Many of my fellow Norfolk and Suffolk MPs tell me they’re also seeing a huge caseload of SEND cases. Along with many of them, I spoke in a debate at Westminster last week about SEND provision in the East of England.  And that was the eleventh debate on SEND education in Parliament just this year. That is how critical this issue has become.

I know from my discussions with Suffolk County Council leaders that they are worried about the sharp increase in cases involving children with special needs and disabilities. They’ve gone up by over 60 percent in the last two years, putting huge pressure on resources.

Norfolk County Council is spending nearly £50 million a year taking pupils with special educational needs to school, inside and outside the county. That’s not money for their education, it’s just for getting the children to school, often travelling quite long distances.

An Ofsted report late last year into Suffolk’s SEND provision said children got “lost in the system and (fell) through the cracks.” That’s certainly been the experience of some of my constituents. Six months after that Ofsted report, and despite Suffolk saying they’d find the money to turn around the service, parents were still saying the Council wasn’t acting on their concerns or dealing with their complaints.

The head of Suffolk’s SEND services highlight that they need more staff to help it improve, particularly more education psychologists who can assess a child’s needs. Speeding up the assessment process is vital.

But we also need more places for special needs children in our area, either in specialist schools or units within mainstream schools. And the system needs to be streamlined so parents find it much easier to navigate.

The Government is promising extra funding for special education, with about £13 million going to local authorities in the East of England. I hope there will be funding too for better access to mental health and other support, whether that’s for speech and language delay or ADHD.

Parents should have confidence that government and local authorities are there for them and able to provide the services their children need. They don’t feel that at the moment, and that has to change.

Adrian Ramsay MP