The National Emergency Briefing on Climate and Nature: what the experts said

By Maggie Hall

What do leading scientists, economists, military leaders and public health experts believe are the greatest risks facing the UK over the coming decades? Maggie reports on the National Emergency Briefing on the Climate and Nature Crisis, held at Westminster Hall, London, in November 2025, bringing together the key messages from ten expert speakers. Maggie is a former Chair of Brighton Humanists.

This report summarises presentations from ten experts covering climate science, carbon budgets, biodiversity, tipping points, food security, health, economics, national security and energy policy. Together they argue that climate change should be treated as a national emergency requiring both rapid emissions reductions and major investment in adaptation and resilience.

As I write this report, the thermometer beside me reads 30°C. Schools are closing because they cannot guarantee the safety of children and staff in such extreme heat. Public transport is disrupted, and there have already been reports of deaths and injuries linked to drowning, wildfires, people becoming trapped in vehicles, and heat exhaustion. Yet there are still those who question whether climate change constitutes a genuine emergency, who argue that such weather extremes are simply part of natural variability, or who believe that the UK cannot afford to pursue net zero emissions.

On 27 November last year, in Westminster Hall, London, ten of the UK's leading experts on climate change briefed an invited audience of more than 1,200 politicians and leaders from business, culture, faith, sport and the media on the latest implications for health, food security, national security and the economy. The briefing was chaired by Professor Mike Berners-Lee, with an introduction by Chris Packham.

Each speaker is a leading expert in their field who has devoted their career to studying the impacts of climate change. Yet despite decades of warnings from scientists and other specialists, relatively little has been done by those in power either to mitigate these risks or to prepare for them. The National Emergency Briefing was therefore convened to present the latest evidence and to strengthen the call for the Government to hold a televised national emergency briefing – described by the organisers as the essential first step towards the Second World War-scale response they believe is now required.

The main points from the presentations are summarised below.

Weather extremes: Professor Hayley Fowler (Newcastle University)

Professor Fowler presented some alarming statistics regarding the effects of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which loads the atmosphere with high levels of moisture, driving warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers, fuelling wildfires and floods. UK winter rainfall has increased by 10 per cent since 1980 because of the greenhouse gases we're putting into the atmosphere – an increase equivalent to three million Olympic-sized swimming pools. Heatwaves in Europe are intensifying faster than anywhere else in the world, and much faster than climate models predict. The devastating floods seen in recent years in continental Europe, including those in Germany and Belgium in 2021 and Central Europe in 2024, could also occur in the UK. The intense storm systems responsible for these events can produce up to two thirds of a year's rainfall in just a couple of days. Over London, that would mean around 35 cm of rain falling across a large area. A flood of this magnitude would cause a national crisis, with recovery taking years.

Photo on left by Wes Warren; photo on right by Issy Bailey both images from Unsplash

Professor Fowler emphasised that until we stop burning fossil fuels, extreme weather will continue to worsen. However, cutting emissions alone is not enough. We must also adapt to protect people, communities and livelihoods. She highlighted the following priorities:

• upgrading flood defences, drainage and early-warning systems to cope with more intense rainfall.

• retrofitting homes to withstand extreme heat and cold – which also cuts energy bills, reduces emissions, and improves health, especially for people in low quality housing.

• planting trees and building flood-absorbing parks – which also cools cities, cleans the air and gives people green spaces that boost wellbeing and biodiversity.

• stress-testing critical infrastructure so it keeps going during extreme events.

• addressing the gaps identified by the UK Climate Change Committee: weak governance, unclear responsibilities, and insufficient funding.

Climate: Professor Kevin Anderson (Universities of Manchester and Uppsala)

Professor Anderson explained that human civilisation has flourished under a relatively stable climate, with atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), measured in parts per million (ppm), remaining within a narrow range. Since the 1850s, however, greenhouse gas emissions have risen sharply, increasing average global temperatures by around 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. He warned that, by the end of the century, warming could reach 3°C or even 4°C, posing a serious risk of societal and systemic collapse.

He argued that the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C is now widely regarded as out of reach, with virtually no climate scientists believing it remains achievable. To limit warming to 2°C, he said, global greenhouse gas emissions would need to fall by around 8% every year – more than the largest annual reduction seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on the UK's fair share of the remaining global carbon budget for limiting warming to 2°C – estimated at around 2.0 to 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – Professor Anderson estimated that we have only about seven years' worth of emissions left at current levels. This would require emissions to fall by around 13% each year. He also noted that the biosphere is becoming less effective at absorbing the carbon dioxide we emit. This means a greater proportion remains in the atmosphere, making it even harder to limit future warming.

He acknowledged that the UK is the first major economy to have reduced its domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 50% since 1990. However, he pointed out that this figure excludes international aviation and shipping, as well as the emissions embodied in imports and exports. When these are taken into account, the reduction is closer to 20%. He concluded that the UK's current plans for reaching net zero would consume around three times our fair share of the remaining global carbon budget if warming is to be limited to 1.5°C.

Professor Anderson emphasised that the technologies needed to make rapid progress already exist. The priority should be large-scale home retrofitting, zero-carbon new housing, expanded public transport, widespread electric vehicle charging, zero-carbon electricity generation, and the electrification of heating and transport – all deployed on a wartime footing, comparable to a modern-day Marshall Plan. By contrast, he argued that aviation cannot be decarbonised within any realistic 1.5–2°C timescale and will therefore require substantial reductions in flying. He was equally sceptical of what he described as “delay tactics”, including gas or bioenergy with carbon capture and blue hydrogen. Carbon capture, he noted, has been promised for more than 30 years but still captures less than 0.03% of fossil fuel emissions. Ultimately, he argued, high-income societies will need to reduce their discretionary emissions, replacing a model of private excess with one of private sufficiency and public luxury – living more modestly as individuals while investing far more in high-quality public services and amenities.

Photo by Greg Bulla on Unsplash

Nature: Professor Nathalie Seddon (University of Oxford)

Professor Seddon explained that when we destroy nature, we expose ourselves to escalating risks, including floods, wildfires, heatwaves, food insecurity and economic instability. Conversely, she argued, protecting and restoring nature can build resilience, create jobs, and strengthen the foundations of a safe, happy and prosperous society. She noted that the UK ranks in the bottom 10 per cent of countries worldwide on the Biodiversity Intactness Index. Only about half of the UK's biodiversity remains, monitored wildlife populations have declined by around 19 per cent since the 1970s, and one in six species is now at risk of extinction.

She highlighted the poor state of many of the UK's natural ecosystems. Only 14 per cent of rivers in England are in good ecological health under the Water Framework Regulations. Just seven per cent of our woodlands are considered healthy, while only three per cent of our land and eight per cent of our waters are effectively protected for nature.

Professor Seddon also noted that the Government is currently off track on almost every target set under the Environment Act 2021. More than five million properties in England are already at risk of flooding from rivers, surface water or the sea, while soil degradation costs England and Wales around £1 billion each year. She pointed out that pollinators contribute more than half a billion pounds annually to UK agriculture, yet pesticides and habitat loss continue to drive their decline. She also drew attention to the growing health impacts of climate change, noting that nearly 3,000 people in England died from heat-related causes in 2022 – more than were killed in road traffic accidents.

Professor Seddon concluded by outlining a number of practical measures to help restore nature and build a more resilient society:

• Treat nature as critical infrastructure and recognise that the economy is embedded within the natural environment.

• Stop public and private finance flowing into activities that damage nature, such as pollution, soil degradation and habitat destruction.

• Instead, reward nature restoration. Restoring wetlands, peatlands and hedgerows can reduce flood risk, improve water quality, create jobs and store carbon.

• Redirect finance towards what really matters. The Bank of England should stress-test nature-related risks, just as it does climate-related risks.

• Build on the UK's position as a global leader in natural capital accounting.

• Cultivate a culture of care. National security begins in our communities, with nature woven back into our daily lives.

Tipping Points: Professor Tim Lenton (University of Exeter)

Professor Lenton illustrated the idea of a tipping point with the simple example of leaning too far back on a chair. A small additional movement can suddenly make the difference between regaining your balance and falling over. Similar tipping points, he explained, occur in many complex systems. There is growing evidence that the Earth's climate is approaching several such thresholds, risking a cascade in which one damaging change triggers another until the system moves beyond our control.

He referred to the Global Tipping Points Report 2025, which suggests that global warming is likely to exceed 1.5°C around 2030. The report also concludes that the world's coral reef ecosystems have already passed a tipping point, threatening the livelihoods of around half a billion people. He also warned that, as global warming rises beyond 1.5°C, the Amazon rainforest could itself be pushed past a tipping point. Such a collapse would be catastrophic for nature, releasing vast amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere and reducing the cloud cover that helps cool the region.

Professor Lenton explained that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a vast system of ocean currents that carries warm surface water from the tropics to the North Atlantic, returning cold, deep water southwards. It plays a crucial role in regulating the Earth's climate and is one reason why Europe enjoys a relatively mild climate. However, he warned that the AMOC is weakening and, in some of the most advanced climate models, could reach a tipping point. If this were to happen, some models suggest that London could experience average winter temperatures of around –20°C for three months of the year, while Edinburgh could see –30°C for more than five months. Summers, however, would still be hotter than today because the world as a whole would be around 2°C warmer.

Professor Lenton warned that such a scenario would make growing many crops in the UK extremely difficult, while reduced winter rainfall would leave insufficient water to sustain the south-east of England through increasingly hot summers. If global warming approaches 2°C, he argued, the risk of crossing this tipping point becomes greater than the odds of Russian roulette – rising to around a 50 per cent chance in a 3°C warmer world. The risks increase with every additional fraction of a degree of warming.

In conclusion, he argued that we must:

• Do everything in our power to limit how far global warming exceeds 1.5°C, requiring what he described as a “radical acceleration of action towards zero emissions”.

• Promote positive tipping points in transport and home heating – two sectors that account for a large share of global emissions.

• Phase out fossil fuel technologies and accelerate the adoption of clean alternatives through clear government mandates.

• Recognise the vital role of civil society in creating positive tipping points that can accelerate the transition to a low-carbon future.

Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash

Food security: Professor Paul Behrens (University of Oxford)

Professor Behrens warned that increasing pressure on global food supplies, driven by climate change and the loss of nature, will affect every family and every constituency in the country. When food systems fail, he argued, empty supermarket shelves, long queues for food, public protests and civil unrest can quickly follow.

Before the current period of human-induced climate change, a major global maize harvest failure might have been expected about once every 16 years. At 1.5°C of warming, this is projected to increase to around once every three years. At 2°C of warming, such failures could occur every other year. Overall, projections suggest that by the end of the century the world could lose around one third of the land currently suitable for food production.

The UK is not immune. Britain has experienced three of its five worst cereal harvests on record during this decade. Animal agriculture occupies around 85 per cent of the UK's agricultural land, while the country imports between 40 and 50 per cent of its food, much of it from regions already severely affected by climate change.

Professor Behrens noted that around one third of the food price inflation seen in 2023 was driven by extreme weather events. He warned that when families can no longer afford to feed their children, food insecurity can lead to public protests and civil unrest. He suggested that the risk of civil unrest driven by food supply crises could be around 40 per cent within the next decade, rising to as much as 80 per cent within 50 years. Yet, he argued, our agricultural policies barely acknowledge these risks.

He argued that our food system is undermining the very foundations of food security. It is a major source of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions, drives habitat loss, pollutes our air and water, depletes freshwater resources, contributes to antimicrobial resistance, and creates conditions in which new pandemics can emerge.

He called for a “great food transformation” based on four pillars: shifting to more plant-rich diets, reducing food waste, improving food production, and increasing climate resilience. Sustainable, healthy diets, he argued, can still include meat and dairy – just much less of them. As an illustration, he suggested something like a red meat burger once every two weeks, a chicken breast once a week, around a quarter of a pint of dairy each day, and perhaps a little cheese.

Professor Behrens argued that we need to:

• Implement the recommendations of the National Food Strategy.

• Encourage more plant-rich diets, which could reduce agricultural emissions by around 60 per cent, free up an area of land almost the size of Scotland, and deliver a wide range of other benefits.

• Use some of this land to grow more food in the UK and some to restore nature.

• Learn from initiatives such as New York hospitals, where making plant-rich meals the default has been associated with greater patient satisfaction, better health outcomes and lower costs.

• Reduce our reliance on food imports. Professor Behrens argued that a shift towards plant-rich diets could enable the UK to become largely self-sufficient in many major crops while feeding far more people per hectare.

Health: Professor Hugh Montgomery (University College London)

Professor of medicine Hugh Montgomery described climate change as “the greatest threat to human health of the 21st century”. Speaking personally, he said he was scared – not only about his own future, but even more for that of his son. “And you should be too,” he added.

The Lancet Countdown monitors 20 indicators of the health impacts of climate change. Its 2025 report recorded new highs in 12 of these indicators, including those relating to respiratory health and communicable diseases. (The Lancet Countdown is an international research collaboration that tracks the links between climate change and public health.)

Professor Montgomery warned that if global warming reached 3°C or more by 2050, the consequences could be catastrophic, with some estimates suggesting more than four billion deaths. He argued that climate change would also undermine public health through its wider effects – including economic disruption, food shortages and migration – placing enormous pressure on health services.

Photo by Vladimir Fedotov on Unsplash

He argued that, if current trends continue, climate change will eventually undermine our ability to fund a modern health service. He noted that climate-related losses from extreme weather events are already estimated at around US$10,000 every second worldwide. He also referred to a recent warning from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries that the global economy could shrink by as much as 50 per cent by 2070.

Professor Montgomery quoted from The 2024 State of the Climate Report: Perilous Times on Planet Earth, an international assessment published in the journal BioScience: “We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster.” It continues: “Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperilled. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt.”

In conclusion, he argued that we need to:

• Reduce particulate air pollution by encouraging active travel, such as walking and cycling, improving respiratory health while increasing physical activity.

• Move towards more plant-based diets, reducing the risks of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke. He argued that adopting recommended dietary guidelines would lead to longer, healthier lives, lower greenhouse gas emissions and substantial financial savings.

• Tackle obesity. Professor Montgomery suggested that addressing obesity could save the UK around £126 billion a year.

Economics: Angela Francis (Director of Policy Solutions at WWF-UK)

Angela Francis argued that every industrial and agricultural revolution has involved new technologies replacing old ones, bringing profound social change and major gains in innovation and productivity. She suggested that two main factors are holding back the transition to a greener economy: market rules that fail to reward sustainable behaviour, and the reluctance of established industries to make way for new technologies.

She argued that market failures create perverse incentives. Companies that measure and report their carbon emissions or invest in sustainability often face higher costs and short-term reductions in profits, while competitors that do neither face few, if any, financial penalties.

Drawing a parallel with the tobacco industry, she suggested that some companies continue to put profit before progress by funding lobbying and public relations campaigns designed to create doubt and delay change.

Francis argued that inflation would have been significantly lower if the UK's electricity system had been decarbonised before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It could have been reduced further if food production had been less dependent on fossil fuel-based fertilisers, whose prices rose dramatically during the same period. Earlier adoption of heat pumps, she suggested, would also have helped shield households from rising energy costs and further reduced inflationary pressures.

She argued that the costs of failing to act far outweigh the costs of achieving net zero. She rejected claims that “we can't afford net zero”, noting that the Climate Change Committee estimates its Balanced Pathway would cost around £4 billion a year – about 0.2 per cent of GDP – with economic benefits beginning to outweigh the costs from around 2041. She concluded that it is the Government's role to change the rules where markets are failing to deliver the right outcomes.

In conclusion, she argued that we need to:

• Align incentives so that standards, taxes, subsidies and public procurement all support businesses investing in low-carbon innovation. Companies that reduce emissions, restore soils, protect forests, use resources more efficiently and minimise waste should be rewarded.

• Encourage fossil fuel and large agricultural companies to diversify and adopt more sustainable business models.

• Value the independent voices of academics and civil society in helping to inform public debate.

• Support people in retraining for new industries, enabling them to move into more productive and sustainable jobs.

• Recognise that most investment in the transition to net zero – estimated at between 40 and 90 per cent – is expected to come from the private sector, with the public contribution supported through mechanisms such as national investment banks and asset-backed lending.

• Accelerate the transition. She cited research from the Oxford Martin School suggesting that a rapid transition would save around US$12 trillion compared with remaining dependent on fossil fuels, and more than twice as much as a slower transition.

• Recognise that the estimated cost of the UK's transition to net zero is now around 73 per cent lower than was projected just five years ago.

National Security: Lieutenant General Richard Nugee (Defence Safety and Environmental Committee)

The Ministry of Defence now has a team dedicated to climate security, examining the environmental impacts of defence, improving the energy resilience of the armed forces, and helping them adapt to a rapidly changing climate. General Nugee explained that the Chief of the Defence Staff is incorporating climate change into national security planning, with NATO and many other countries taking a similar approach because the nature of the threat is evolving more quickly than expected.

The Strategic Defence Review calls for a “whole of society” approach to national resilience. Likewise, NATO's Article 3 emphasises the need for each member state to be able to withstand and recover from all kinds of shocks, whether military, environmental or other national emergencies.

General Nugee described climate change as a “threat multiplier” – one that intensifies existing risks, creates new ones and increases global instability. He argued that climate-related shocks can undermine livelihoods and create conditions in which extremist groups can recruit more easily. He cited Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS in Iraq as examples.

Competition for water, food and land is increasing. General Nugee pointed to growing tensions over water resources between Egypt and Ethiopia, as well as potential flashpoints involving Pakistan, India and China. As the old saying goes, “There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.”

He said that his greatest concern was not any single crisis, but the way multiple crises could cascade together. Food insecurity, health emergencies, infrastructure failures, migration, energy shortages and extreme weather could all occur simultaneously, gradually eroding public trust if governments were unable to respond effectively. He warned that government institutions risk becoming overwhelmed rather than merely stretched, raising the prospect of parts of the state becoming increasingly difficult to govern.

Climate-related pressures are also forcing people to move within countries and across international borders, placing additional strain on receiving communities, increasing instability, and contributing to wider political tensions.

Photo by Pierre Jarry on Unsplash

The climate crisis is also reshaping strategic and military competition. As Arctic sea ice retreats at around four times the global average rate, Russia and Western nations increasingly disagree over access to shipping routes and natural resources, creating the potential for future conflict.

General Nugee warned that the UK's infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather. In 2019, following torrential rainfall, the Royal Air Force had to deploy Chinook helicopters to help stabilise the damaged Toddbrook Reservoir dam. Four years later, the collapse of two dams during catastrophic flooding in Libya illustrated the potentially devastating consequences when critical infrastructure fails.

General Nugee argued that addressing climate change is not only an environmental imperative but also a vital part of strengthening the UK's national security and resilience. In particular, he highlighted the following priorities:

• Increase energy independence through renewable energy and decentralised electricity generation. A more distributed grid is less dependent on imported oil and gas and less vulnerable to attack, since it cannot be disabled by a single strike.

• Reject the idea that responding to Russian aggression and tackling climate change are competing priorities. As General Nugee put it: “Some are using the threat from Russia to say, ‘Let's not worry about climate change now – or not at all.’ But that's a false choice. Tackling climate is central to our national resilience today. It's part of today's security threats, not tomorrow's.”

• Apply a fundamental military principle: face the threat that is in front of you, not the threat you wish existed. General Nugee urged policymakers to apply that same realism to climate change.

Energy Transition: Tessa Khan (Executive Director at Uplift – a UK organisation campaigning for a fair transition away from fossil fuels)

Tessa Khan argued that the sharp rise in energy bills has been a major driver of inflation and the cost-of-living pressures facing households and businesses. She suggested that this poses a significant political challenge to the energy transition. However, she maintained that the evidence shows an energy system powered predominantly by renewable energy would be both more affordable and more economically secure.

Photo by Nicholas Doherty on Unsplash

Khan argued that around half of the UK's recessions since 1970 have been triggered by fossil fuel price shocks. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Government spent around £64 billion helping households and businesses cope with soaring wholesale gas prices – more than the UK's annual defence budget that year.

Households also paid an estimated £60 billion more for gas, electricity and transport fuel. According to the UN Fuel Poverty Coalition, more than 12 million UK households now struggle to pay their energy bills. More than 80 per cent of UK homes are heated by gas, leaving millions of households exposed to volatile fossil fuel prices. Khan argued that this dependence has contributed to an intolerable financial burden for many people.

Khan argued that the UK needs to accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more resilient energy system and she highlighted the following priorities:

• Shift to an energy system powered by renewable sources such as wind and solar, whose fuel is free, rather than remaining dependent on oil and gas prices set by global markets and producer nations.

• Accelerate the transition. The cost of offshore wind has fallen by more than 50 per cent over the past decade, solar by more than 70 per cent, and battery storage by more than 80 per cent.

• Expand the use of electric vehicles. Renewable electricity is far more efficient than fossil fuels: a typical petrol car converts only about a quarter of the energy in its fuel into motion, with most of the rest lost as heat.

• Improve the UK's poorly insulated housing by investing in insulation, upgrading the electricity grid and supporting the wider adoption of heat pumps.

• Reform energy bills so that consumers benefit from the lower cost of renewable electricity.

• Break the link between gas and electricity prices, including by bringing gas-fired power stations under public control.

• Invest in the Government's ambition to create almost one million clean energy jobs, recognising that employment in the oil and gas sector has already halved.

Khan concluded that history shows such transitions are achievable. The move from coal to gas involved retrofitting or replacing more than 30 million appliances, building extensive new transmission networks and reconstructing regional gas distribution. She argued that another major energy transition is now needed – one that is fair to the workers and communities most affected.

Closing Remarks: Professor Mike Berners-Lee (Lancaster University)

Earlier in the session, Professor Mike Berners-Lee quoted the human rights campaigner James Baldwin: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” In his closing remarks, he argued that the situation is not yet hopeless, but that we have little room left for delay. As the briefing had shown, he said, it is hardly surprising that climate change is now having such profound impacts after 30 Conferences of the Parties (COPs) have failed even to reduce the rate at which fossil fuel emissions are entering the atmosphere. He also noted that, despite the presence of around 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP29, the words “fossil fuels” were omitted from the final agreement. “Our response couldn't be more inadequate,” he concluded.

Yet Professor Berners-Lee ended on a note of cautious optimism. By confronting these issues honestly, he argued, we are taking the first step towards addressing them together. Speaking on behalf of the panel, he said that, first, “we want a reset of the national conversation” to establish the evidence and the scale of the challenge. He argued that the UK needed leadership on the scale seen during the Second World War, together with emergency legislation, investment and job creation. None of this, he said, would be possible without a major programme of public information and engagement.

He asked those attending to sign an open letter calling for a televised national climate briefing, addressed to the Prime Minister, the public service broadcasters and Ofcom. He also encouraged people to show the Public Emergency Briefing film within their communities, organise local screenings and engage with political leaders.

Professor Berners-Lee said that, by working together, the UK could help lead the global response alongside other proactive countries. “This situation is not hopeless”, he said, “but hope is a discipline”. It requires human endeavour to make it a reality. He ended by urging people to have the courage to act, and to imagine looking back in 20 years' time knowing they had done the right thing.

Endnote

A full documentary of the briefing was released in March, setting out the risks facing the nation – and the credible, positive responses available – in a clear and accessible format designed for community screenings across the UK. These screenings enable MPs and other decision-makers to see the same evidence, on the record, as those who attended the Westminster briefing.

Communities across the UK and beyond have responded enthusiastically to the call to organise local screenings. At the time of writing, around 900 screenings are shown on the map, with more being added every day. They are usually followed by discussion groups, giving people the opportunity to reflect on what they have seen and share their responses. Many have been attended by local councillors and MPs. I encourage all our readers to attend a screening. If there isn't one near you, why not organise one? The NEB website provides plenty of information and practical guidance.

These expert briefings make it unmistakably clear that we are facing a critical emergency. Whether or not readers agree with every proposal put forward, the evidence presented deserves serious attention. We have already missed many opportunities to respond. Let us not miss another.

References and further information

Chris Packham’s introduction

Film trailer

Screening map

How to host a screening

The videos of the full briefings in Westminster Hall are available here

Parliamentary Call for a Televised Emergency Briefing