The annual statement is of course a welcome step, but it serves a very different purpose from the briefing being proposed.

First, it was delivered in the House of Commons and received relatively little public attention. Unlike the Covid briefings, it was not broadcast as a major national event, and so made little impact in the media - and will therefore have reached only a tiny proportion of the population.

Second, the statement is primarily a report on government policies, programmes and progress. While these may be welcome, this is not the same as a comprehensive assessment of the risks facing the UK.

There is little discussion of the wider societal implications of climate and nature breakdown, including food security, insurance, infrastructure resilience, economic stability, migration pressures, national security and community preparedness. These are the issues that help people understand how this mounting crisis could affect their own lives.

Similarly, while nature is mentioned, the focus was largely on government initiatives rather than on the risks arising from nature loss itself. There was limited discussion of declining biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, soil health, pollinators, or the critical role healthy ecosystems play in supporting food production, flood resilience and economic wellbeing.

Far from replacing the need for a national briefing, the statement strengthens the case for one. It recognises that climate and nature risks deserve serious national attention. The Parliamentary Call simply argues that this information should be communicated directly to the public through a nationally televised briefing led by independent experts.