Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2026 · Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this incredibly important debate. I also thank hon. Members for their powerful and thoughtful contributions. I am very aware that many did not get the time to make the contributions that they would have liked to make. In the interests of time, I will not be taking interventions, but I am more than happy for Members to write to me after the debate and I will get back to them in writing. I will start by addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley about the status of the assessment and the material behind it, and I know that issue has been raised by a number of Members from across the House. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), outlined in some detail to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley in a session of the Environmental Audit Committee in July, it is standard and given practice that the Government do not comment on speculation about different drafts or versions. That position has not changed as I stand here today, nor will it likely change tomorrow. With that in mind, it is far more important that I focus my response on the critical themes raised in the debate. Publishing the assessment was clearly vital, so that Parliament, the public and our international partners can see its core findings. Those findings are clear: biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation pose a real risk to security, resilience and prosperity. We cannot, and this Government will not, shy away from the real challenges that creates. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and this Government are the first to lead this country with both a Climate Minister and a Nature Minister. That reflects how seriously this Government take climate change and nature security. I have long said that net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin when it comes to tackling climate change. The assessment highlights the critical role that nature plays in our ability to tackle the climate crisis. Of course, we cannot fight this greatest challenge alone, and many hon. Members raised that point. Climate change and nature do not abide by rules or borders. Working to implement the advice raised through the assessment requires leadership at home and abroad, working with our international partners to strengthen food security, biosecurity, global supply chain resilience and international co-operation. As many hon. Members highlighted, the findings of the assessment are stark. Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity. That is not an environmental issue alone; it is a systemic risk to the UK’s resilience and long-term security, as many hon. Members articulated. The UK’s food security and economic resilience depend on healthy ecosystems at home and overseas. Nearly 40% of our food is imported, and for as long as we continue to enjoy bananas, rice, kiwis and avocados, we will never realistically be able to rely on domestic food production alone. That means we are at heightened risk of environmental pressures overseas disrupting our supply chains, increasing prices and reducing resilience in the UK. That is not an isolated finding. The World Economic Forum’s “Global Risks Report 2026” identified extreme weather as the most severe global risk over the next decade, with environmental risks accounting for five of the 10 highest-ranked long-term risks. The nature security assessment suggests that domestic nature-related risk could reduce UK GDP by around 6% by the 2030s, with a further 6% reduction arising from international risks transmitted through global supply chains in some scenarios. The conclusion of our assessment is extraordinarily clear and should leave no one in any doubt: nature security is national security, and nature stability is global stability. Responsible Governments identify emerging risks early, strengthen preparedness and build resilience before shocks occur. This Government are determined to rise to that responsibility. Other political parties may tell people simply to sit back and enjoy a rapidly changing climate, as we heard over the summer from Reform. However, we will not give up on tackling these threats head-on or put our head in the sand, as others in Opposition sadly seem determined to do. It is important to stress that the assessment is neither a forecast nor a prediction. It is a forward-looking assessment designed to help the Government to plan for potential shocks, such as disruption to food systems, supply chains and economic stability, that are credible enough to warrant preparation. Its purpose is to help us to anticipate those risks, test our resilience and take appropriate action. That is exactly what the assessment does: it looks around corners rather than relying on the rear-view mirror. It is worth stressing that, via the assessment, the UK is doing something important that other countries are not. By creating, publishing and debating the assessment, we are a global frontrunner in discussing nature security. Our assessment is the first published national security assessment of its kind in the world. After we published it, the UK’s presentations at the OECD resulted in several global partners using our approach to understand and consider how ecosystem-related risks affect their own resilience and national security. Later this month, the Foreign Secretary will bring Foreign Ministers together at the United Nations to discuss how to respond to climate and nature security threats. The assessment will provide an important evidence base for those conversations. I recognise that this is a critical juncture for nature. We will continue to use upcoming international opportunities to make the case that protecting nature and tackling climate change must go hand in hand, because healthy ecosystems underpin resilience, security and prosperity. Turning to this Government’s response, we have launched the first ever taskforce on the national security and resilience risks of a changing climate and nature loss, bringing together leading security, military and academic experts to help us to identify and prioritise risks, strengthen cross-Government co-ordination and turn evidence into practical action. The taskforce, launched in June this year, provides independent challenge and recommendations to ensure that climate and nature risks are considered more systemically across national security and resilience planning. Separately, we have commissioned a three-year nature security research and development programme to improve indicators, early warning capability and analytical tools. That will help the Government to identify emerging risks earlier, stress-test resilience and take preventive action before disruption escalates. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke about the importance of the food sector to national security and the functioning of the UK, which the Government have recognised by designating it as critical national infrastructure. DEFRA works closely with the Cabinet Office and other Government Departments to strengthen preparedness and resilience across the food system and supply chains. We are also investing more than £2.7 billion a year in farming and nature recovery, supporting resilient domestic food production, healthier soils, pollinators and nature-friendly farming. The nature security assessment makes it clear that severe ecosystem degradation can contribute to the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases. We are acting to bring down the risks that that poses, strengthening resilience to those risks through the UK biological security strategy, enhanced disease surveillance and a one-health approach that recognises the links between environmental, animal and human health. That improves our ability to identify, assess and respond to emerging biological threats. This Government are also addressing nature-related risks at source through the international climate finance programme. Climate markets and green finance were mentioned by several hon. Members during the debate. The UK’s international climate finance strategy places nature at its core, investing in the protection and restoration of forests, oceans, freshwater and other critical ecosystems that support global stability. It was mentioned right at the beginning, but I am delighted to confirm that today the Government have announced that they intend to invest £400 million in the Tropical Forest Forever facility. The TFFF represents a critical evolution in forest finance, providing long-term support for tropical forest protection. I am sure hon. Members recognise that investing in forests is one of the most effective ways to tackle the climate and nature crisis and to support UK growth and security. As hon. Members across the House have acknowledged, the nature security assessment has made it clear that nature loss can impact food security, water security, economic resilience and national security. We are taking those findings seriously. There is no single Department that can address them alone, and that is why we are working across Government to ensure a co-ordinated response. These are global challenges, but they are being felt close to home. The recent wildfire at Dunwich Heath in Suffolk was in my constituency, and it was a stark reminder to me that the environmental risks are no longer distant or abstract, and that we must build resilience here in the UK as well as overseas. We have restored nearly 23,000 hectares of peatland since 2020 to store carbon. I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) recently to look at the work that the UK is doing to restore and invest in our peatlands. That work plays a vital role not just in managing and restoring nature but in helping to tackle the threat of wildfires. Such work, which is in addition to supporting farmers through nature-friendly farming schemes and delivering our environmental improvement plans, means we are taking practical action at home alongside our international efforts abroad. I again thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley for securing this important debate and the continued interest of the House in this agenda. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published in January 2026.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Roads in my constituency, including the B1125, are becoming rat runs because of the increase in traffic on the A12. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need a full multi-agency approach to ensure better road safety? Does she also agree that Suffolk county council and Suffolk Highways should convene a meeting with me to discuss how we can deliver better, safer roads?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past six weeks, I have had 430 pieces of casework about uncollected bins in my constituency—I am sure that every one of those constituents can tell the former Member for Clacton how infuriating and unsuccessful it is to shout at a bin for six weeks. Does the Leader of the House agree that there is no more essential service for a council to get right than bins and waste collection? Constituents are right to expect better. At the very least, they should expect better updates and communications on what is going wrong and when it will get better.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. The Secretary of State will know that there is no legal duty for energy developers to co-ordinate when they are developing in the same area or place, or at the same time. In Suffolk Coastal, Europe’s largest energy project is being developed right now, alongside four other nationally significant energy infrastructure projects. Will the Government consider giving Ofgem more power to enforce co-ordination, so that people, communities and the environment do not suffer needlessly when developers are building projects that will drive forward this country’s net zero ambitions?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Flood Insurance: Reform of Flood Re · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for her work. She has rightly observed that people are more likely to be at risk of flooding because of climate change, and that also brings with it a greater risk from coastal erosion. As she will know, my constituency lost 11 homes over the winter because of coastal erosion, which is set to put even more homes at risk over the years and decades ahead. In our report, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended the extension of Flood Re to Coastal Re. Will the Minister comment on that recommendation, and commit herself to looking at it further?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I feel the hon. Member’s pain, and I share many of his frustrations in the arguments that I am laying out today. If our communities are hosting vital infrastructure, they should feel the benefit. I was talking about Amanda, who runs the Refill shop in Leiston. Her business is struggling and she needs support today. These businesses could flourish once construction is complete. Neither Amanda nor Tom is asking for extra money; they are just asking that the generous £250 million already committed by Sizewell C for community investment be made accessible to businesses that are genuinely feeling the impact right now. Millions of pounds from Sizewell C’s fund has already reached citizens advice, Home-Start Suffolk and local schools and sports clubs. That is great, as it is genuine, lasting community benefit. But businesses are also asking for support to survive. We need to hear that cry for help. Do the Government agree that National Grid’s £2.1 million for Sea Link meets the standards set by their own March 2025 guidance? If not, what action will follow? Will the Government ask Ofgem to review the fund’s adequacy before consent is granted? Will they back communities asking for a community-owned fund, as the guidance’s own principles support? Will they look at the impact of Europe’s largest energy construction project on businesses in my constituency, and what can be done to support those who are struggling because of it? Villages and market towns in my constituency are breaking under the strain of these projects—they are flashing red on the dashboard. We are asking for help, and for the Government to step in where unintended consequences risk affecting the legacy of projects such as Sizewell C. My constituents want to be equal partners around the table, and they deserve to be treated as such. I urge the Government to enforce the framework they have built, and to make clear that communities like Suffolk Coastal should not accept less than they are owed, nor pay the price for the UK’s energy goals.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. We need to make sure that we compensate for the impact, especially when projects are built out. I will come to that later in my speech. The National Grid’s Sea Link energy transmission project, a 138-kilometre interconnector between Pegwell bay in Kent and Suffolk Coastal, has a proposed community fund of £2.1 million, split between Kent and Suffolk. Let me break that down: that is roughly 0.1% of Sea Link’s total project budget. For a project that cuts through some of the most important nature sites in our country, in a county proud of nature-based tourism, 0.1% is not an investment strategy; it is a rounding error. It might meet the letter of the guidance, but it falls far short on delivering for our communities. The guidance is explicit that funds should deliver lasting benefits. I want a community-owned energy fund that is locally owned, locally governed and delivers permanent accountable benefit.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  It will not surprise you, Ms Vaz, that I agree with every point that my hon. Friend just made. She and I have spoken about this at length. I was about to say that under the current Sea Link plans—the £2.1 million rounding error of investment—my community is likely to have to bid for £20,000 funding pots. We can barely get a spade in the ground for a playground for £20,000. We want access to bigger sums that can deliver real ambition from these projects in the long term, where and when we need it. It is worth noting that under National Grid’s plans, training opportunities sit inside the community fund and are counted against the total. That is plainly wrong. Local jobs should be a contractual commitment built into the design project, not a line inside a community fund. The guidance states that community funds are not in addition to benefits such as local employment; I gently suggest that some developers have not read the guidance. I have raised many times the fact that there is no legal duty on nationally significant infrastructure projects to co-ordinate, even when building in the same area at the same time and impacting the same community. The Minister has heard me talk about this at length. My community is expected to host multiple billion-pound schemes simultaneously without statutory tools to enforce co-ordination. Ofgem now chairs co-ordination meetings, which is welcome, but it can only convene, and there is no obligation to attend and no powers to compel change. Co-ordination by good will is not co-ordination, and there is not even a requirement for community funds to be co-ordinated. In my constituency, we will likely see Sea Link and LionLink running separate investment programmes while co-locating on adjacent land. My constituents are therefore asking for three things: better management of the cumulative impact on businesses and communities; to be properly compensated when disruption causes real harm in real time; and genuine ambition to protect and nurture nature in how projects are designed and delivered. That brings me to my second and most important question, as I set out at the beginning. The Theberton Lion in Theberton has lost around £35,000 in trade this year because of road construction for Sizewell C. The landlord, Tom, sees the benefits that Sizewell C will eventually bring, but his business needs help now. Road closures, continual roadworks outside his pub and poor signage have all had a very real effect. The community investment fund is generous, and Sizewell C’s investment fund is held up nationally as what good community investment should look like, but it is not being used to support businesses that are struggling with the real impacts of construction today. Similarly, the Refill shop in Leiston tells the same story. Amanda runs the shop and, just like Tom, is not against Sizewell C, but her business is struggling today because of the construction works disruption. The support on offer does not reach her, because the strategy has not been designed to help businesses to manage the day-to-day impact.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the contribution of nationally significant energy infrastructure projects to communities. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for having secured the debate, and I welcome colleagues across the House who will want to contribute. With this debate I seek to ask two simple questions. First, what contribution should nationally significant energy infrastructure projects make to the communities that host them? Secondly, how should communities be supported when they face disruption from significant energy projects? As the MP for Suffolk Coastal, a constituency that shoulders more of the burden than perhaps any other part of the country, I am well placed to ask those questions on behalf of my constituents. It is often said that up to 30% of Britain’s future energy will be generated in or transmitted through Suffolk Coastal, if planning permission is approved. We will host multiple significant infrastructure projects within a 10-mile radius, including LionLink at Walberswick; Sea Link near Aldeburgh; Sizewell C, which is Europe’s largest energy project, in Leiston; and converter stations at Friston and Saxmundham. All those projects sit in or cut through nationally important landscapes: sites of special scientific interest, the Suffolk heritage coast and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reserves, all served by B roads and country lanes and all arriving at once, without any co-ordination, and some projects without any serious community benefit. I have raised this issue many times in the House, and the Minister has heard about it in much detail, both in this Chamber and one to one. He will be glad to know that I am here not to repeat many of those points but to set out new challenges and alternatives. I remind him, though, that my constituents are not opposed to clean energy—many are proud that Suffolk will be leading the charge against climate change in our drive towards green energy and away from fossil fuels—but they are taking on enormous disruption. Suffolk Coastal’s dashboard is now flashing red, and we are asking for more help. Businesses, people, community and nature are all asking for more help. The community investment programme should be the main opportunity to provide it, but we need better leadership. I ask Government to do what the previous Government failed to do: to provide leadership, which will sometimes mean challenging developers and telling them that my community and this country deserve better. I want to set out what the Government have done, and I do not want my case to be mistaken for opposition to their policy. In March 2025, the Government published the “Community funds for transmission infrastructure” guidance, which included £200,000 per kilometre of overhead line, £530,000 per substation or converter station, and bill discounts of up to £250 a year for 10 years for nearby households.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I do appreciate that argument, and I have toyed with saying this publicly, for good reason. Of course that is true, but in my constituency I also have lots of people who are off grid and are reliant on heating oil. With a lot of this infrastructure being built and hosted in my community, many people will not feel the benefit if they are reliant on other forms of energy. Until we understand that, we will not get to the heart of the frustrations that people living in Suffolk Coastal and other rural areas feel about this upgrade.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. The projects that we are discussing should deliver that as part of their long-term investment, and many of those things do not need to sit within the community investment programme itself. The guidance also included an obligation for the transmission owners, National Grid and ScottishPower Renewables, to run grant programmes, ranging from £10,000 grassroots grants up to £500,000 strategic grants. Importantly, the guidance rests on five key principles, including lasting legacy and transparent outcomes. If the developers depart from the guidance, they must explain why. It is a serious framework and the Government deserve credit for it. But the rates are recommended rates, not diktats. They should be the minimum, not the maximum. In Suffolk Coastal, we are seeing the minimum rather than the maximum far too often.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. It is not just about identity; we also cannot be reliant on food imports if we are going to be food secure as a nation.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  Over the next 20 years we are set to see a 30% reduction in water availability for farms and producers across the country, much of which will affect Suffolk Coastal. I was glad to see that the road map talks about applying lessons from water management pilot schemes to help farmers to manage those water challenges. I want to flag the managed aquifer recharge trial in Suffolk Coastal, which has recharged for irrigation 20,000 cubic metres while complying with stringent Environment Agency conditions. I know that the Minister responsible for water and flooding is keen to visit my constituency to learn more about the scheme. I hope that the Department will look at these examples as an opportunity that could help to deliver water ambitions as set out in this very welcome farming road map.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State just praised the previous Government’s role in rolling out renewables, but what they did not do is seek to co-ordinate energy projects, in particular nationally significant infrastructure projects. In Suffolk Coastal, that is a huge issue, and one that I have raised at length and continually with the Minister. Will the Secretary of State meet me to talk about what we can do to seek better co-ordination, including introducing an energy levy to enforce co-ordination?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Preparedness for National Emergencies · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate. I want to put a proposal to the Minister for a national resilience strategy to sit alongside our national industrial strategy, not in competition with it but in parallel as a strategic, essential partner. That new national resilience strategy should look at the key elements that our communities and nation cannot afford to function without: first, food, water and waste; secondly, health emergency services; thirdly, construction, housing, transport and logistics; fourthly, energy production and transmission; then, education and local resilience networks; finally, defence and military technology. Each pillar of that strategy should have an individual programme to make sure that we are able to grow those industries and act individually without being reliant on imports. For food, we are reliant on imports of fertiliser, for instance. Making sure that we can adopt the strategy used for the renationalisation of British Steel in our critical industries will be hugely important for national resilience.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. Fertiliser prices are spiralling, and it is not just down to the war in the middle east; it is also because of the choices of the previous Conservative Government, who allowed the UK’s last ammonia plant, based in Billingham, to close in 2023. They failed to see it as a nationally critical site for the UK’s food production, and now we are more reliant on volatile imports. If we do not tackle this head-on, higher fertiliser costs will mean higher food prices in the UK. What are the Government doing to support British farmers, and does the Prime Minister agree that all options for bringing down the cost of fertiliser should be on the table, including securing British home-made ammonia once again?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. One of the biggest housing challenges in many of my villages and market towns—for instance, Orford, Aldeburgh and even larger towns such as Felixstowe— is the selling off of housing stock by social housing providers who do not replace it locally. Considering how to tackle the issue is critical, and, as was stated in a recent report by the Labour rural research group, expanding the use of rural exception sites must be part of the solution. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to do that in order to deliver affordable housing?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Coastal Erosion · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to present the sixth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Erosion of trust: the impact of coastal erosion on communities”. I will start by talking about not policy or funding, but people and their stories—stories that our report rightly sought to share. Ten weeks ago, I told the House that we had lost four homes to coastal erosion in the village of Thorpeness in my constituency. It is with great sadness that I tell the House today that the number has now risen to 11. That is 11 family homes lost to the sea this winter. We have a 90-year-old who is displaced, with no home to go to. We have an 88-year-old who lost her family home, which was full of memories—all now gone. Too many have lost the only home that they owned, and so many of them are now relying on the generosity of friends, quite simply because no other help is available. Of course, this is not just about Thorpeness. This story is repeated across the country. The sea does not stop for these homes. Happisburgh, Hemsby, the East Riding, the Isle of Wight—all those places and more are losing land and properties to the sea. The realities of climate change and rising sea levels mean that we can no longer ignore this crisis. The Environment Agency predicts that within 80 years, more than 10,000 properties could be destroyed by or lost to the sea, along with 180 km of road. This report is the first output from our inquiry on climate and weather resilience. We heard from local authorities, scientists, community groups and residents living with the daily reality of coastal change, and the message was consistent: coastal erosion is not just an environmental issue, but a housing issue, a public health issue, a mental health issue, an economic issue and, above all, a human issue. People spoke about grief. They told us that this is not just about the loss, but the years leading up to it. They told us about anxiety, isolation and the strain on families and communities. They told us about a sense of injustice—a sense that they are bearing the cost of a problem that they did not create, and that systems that do not properly support them. We also heard about trauma tourism; people are flocking to visit erosion sites and demolished homes, filming the belongings that were left behind, and sharing those stories online. It is difficult to overstate how distressing that is for those going through that loss. This report makes it crystal clear that the human impact must be properly recognised in policy and funding decisions. Crucially, communities must be part of those decisions. For too long, they have been talked about; it is time that they were talked with. We also found that the system is failing people from the very start—from the moment they buy their home. Coastal erosion is not consistently disclosed in property transactions, despite the fact that the data exists and is publicly available. Madam Deputy Speaker, if my home were about to fall into the sea, I could sell it to you legally today, with no duty to tell you about the risks. That cannot be right, and it certainly should not be legal. Our report therefore recommends that coastal erosion be treated as material information in conveyancing. As for insurance, there is simply no equivalent to Flood Re for coastal erosion. That leaves families exposed and unsupported. If we can make schemes like Flood Re work —which it does—we should be exploring how we can do the same for properties facing erosion risk. At present, the coastal erosion assistance grant provides £6,000 towards demolition costs for homes that need demolishing because of the coastal erosion threat. That amount has not increased since 2010, and demolition now costs around £35,000, and often more. This winter in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal, the cost reached as high as £50,000. On top of that, eligibility for the fund is restricted to those who bought their home before 2009. In Thorpeness, residents who bought after that date face the prospect of paying for the privilege of demolishing their own home. The council stepped in, because it could see that that was plainly wrong, but that cut-off is arbitrary, out of date and unfair. The Committee’s report makes it clear that this fund must be reviewed. I welcome the Government’s recent funding announcement for coastal communities. It is a step in the right direction, but short-term funding is not the same as a long-term plan. There is no national strategy for what happens when people lose their homes; families are often left to navigate this alone, or have to rely on already-stretched local housing systems and are forced away from jobs, schools and support networks. We have seen pilots that show what can be achieved, such as the coastal transition accelerator programme; however, those programmes are time-limited. We cannot keep piloting solutions without ever embedding them. Our report calls for a long-term national strategy for relocation and financial support, one that builds on what we already know and gives communities certainty about their future. We also need to stop creating future problems through the planning system. Shoreline management plans provide a long-term view of coastal change, but they are not consistently used in local planning decisions, meaning that development is still being approved in areas that we know may not be protected in the future. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair on future residents, so we are recommending that those plans be properly embedded into the planning system. Finally, we must address how we fund coastal protection and how we value our coastline. Too often, the system does not capture the true value of coastal communities—their economies, their heritage, their role in our national infrastructure, and the real human cost when things go wrong. In Suffolk Coastal, our coastline is our economic powerhouse, driving energy, tourism, and of course our port. However, we do not place economic capital on it, or value it sufficiently. Underlying all of this is a simple question that people ask me time and again: “Why does support so often fail to reach us?” Our Committee’s report sets out practical, achievable steps to change that—to recognise the human cost, fix what is not working, and put in place a more joined-up, longer-term plan. Coastal communities deserve more than sympathy; they deserve action, support and long-term funding. The Committee has listened; we have pulled together our report, and we are now asking the Government to do the same. I commend this report to the House.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Coastal Erosion · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. I am sure he will be aware that the shoreline management plans dictate what level of investment and defences are appropriate for an area, be it managed realignment or managed retreat, but we must always ensure that we look at better options within each of those categories and put the right adaptations in place. In my area, the reinvestment in shingle has been incredibly useful, but we can adapt technologies and options for future programmes as well.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Coastal Erosion · Hansard source

  More

  We explicitly talk about planning in our report. It is a key issue; when we are building new homes and new communities, we must take coastal erosion into account. Recommendation 37 makes that exact point. It is critical that people buying homes in the future in places where we know there is risk now should be protected, and we should not be building in those places.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Coastal Erosion · Hansard source

  More

  My district council, East Suffolk council, has worked incredibly closely with the hon. Member’s council on bringing forward measures and on cross-learnings. When we have talked about Thorpeness in my local area, we have discussed lots of learnings from his constituency. The impact of coastal erosion on those communities—the financial impact and the mental health impact—cannot be overstated. As our report makes clear, we do not value our coast enough; we do not understand the value it creates for our communities, financially and over the longer term.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Coastal Erosion · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right that our report highlights the significant strain that coastal erosion places on communities, and the impact that has on their mental health. I will read with interest the report from the last Session and see what its recommendations are, because I have no doubt that there are a huge number of parallels between the two reports.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Government for acting so swiftly—the previous Government took 200 days to act when we faced a similar crisis after the start of the Ukrainian war. I want to ask a couple of questions. First, can the Minister confirm that LPG is included in the package? Many of my constituents are on LPG, not just heating oil. Secondly, will he set out how the package will help those who are financially vulnerable and also medically vulnerable, including disabled constituents, many of whom are at greatest risk and have shared concerns that they have to have their heating on 24 hours a day?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Developers Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his well-timed intervention; I have that heard said before and was just coming to that issue. I suspect that the Minister may have similar concerns. As the hon. Member points out, there may be concerns that a levy would increase consumer bills. That grates on me given that the National Grid reported an adjusted operating profit of £2.29 billion for the six months ending 30 September last year. Let us be clear. This is not about asking bill payers to shoulder more of the burden; it is about asking developers, when they are developing multibillion-pound investments and returning substantial profits, to absorb a proportionate cost and ensure co-ordination.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Developers Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, but I agree that the whack-a-mole strategy, which I have talked about, needs far better strategic oversight. A dedicated energy co-ordination fund for affected host areas would be established and delivered through a locally accountable team. That is important, because all too often developers are headquartered elsewhere; they do not live in the areas with the repeated traffic disruption and the cumulative land take. Local institutions— the local council, for instance—must have the capacity to co-ordinate what developers currently are not required to. The fund would support four priorities: shared modelling and evidence; design co-ordination, such as corridor planning and joint construction scheduling; strategic mitigation for nature, such as landscape-scale habitat restoration and long-term management funding; and the community impact reduction—stronger traffic enforcement and transparent liaison, for example. Alongside that, there should be a statutory co-ordination board, independently chaired, that could set binding co-ordination objectives that applicants would have to respond to in their DCO documentation. Some may argue that the existing DCO obligations already address that issue; I tell Members explicitly that they do not. There is no statutory requirement for co-ordination between NSIPs.