Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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

  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.

• 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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Developers Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a levy on energy developers. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. On the Suffolk coast, communities and nature are facing a stack of separate, fast-moving nationally significant infrastructure projects. Those are new generation, multiple offshore wind grid connecters, major transmission reinforcement, multi-purpose interconnectors and Europe’s largest energy project, Sizewell C. As we speak, we have six NSIPs being built or seeking consent in a small, 10-mile radius of my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. Each has been planned separately, but the impacts are felt cumulatively. I find it absurd that our planning system still examines proposals project by project, and developers are not required by law to co-ordinate. My community is expected to host multiple billion-pound schemes simultaneously, without any statutory tools or funding to force or enforce co-ordination between developers. I need to say that, since I have been raising the profile of this problem, Ofgem has been leading co-ordination meetings with those NSIPs, but Ofgem’s role is only to chair those meetings. There is no statutory obligation to make them happen, and they have come about only because of increased pressure about the need for better co-ordination. Some improvements have happened because of those meetings, and that is welcome, but we need to go much further. Co-ordination between NSIPs, when they operate in the same area, should be enshrined in law. That is precisely why I tabled new clause 33 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which would have placed a legal duty on energy developers in the same area to share information, co-ordinate and co-operate on design and construction, and take responsible steps to reduce cumulative impacts. As I have said before, the failure we are experiencing in Suffolk Coastal is because the previous Conservative Government totally vacated the leadership space when it came to our country’s energy and biodiversity planning. Energy developers filled that void. The Conservative Government sat back and allowed developers to take the lead and introduce proposals for totally unsuitable landscapes, all because it was cheaper than developing on brownfield sites. We have been left with a series of unco-ordinated whack-a-mole projects on the Suffolk coast. There is no brownfield-first strategy, no shared corridor strategy, no binding requirement to co-ordinate construction schedules, no mechanism to prevent the same land being dug up twice and no requirement to look at, or assess, the cumulative impact on nature and the environment. It is not just me saying this. The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report, “Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos”, highlighted the need for more strategic co-ordination in environmental impact assessments. It warned of “unnecessary costs and delays” from that “project-by-project approach”. The environmental impacts are assessed separately rather than cumulatively at habitat or seascape scale. In other words, communities in Suffolk Coastal are experiencing a national problem playing out locally, and that is exactly why I am calling for legislation to fix it. The Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), agrees that it is completely crazy when construction is not co-ordinated. He sees the real need to apply that to not just energy companies but utilities digging up roads and pavements for repairs, or maintenance of gas, electricity and water, and construction projects. The Minister for Energy has previously acknowledged, publicly in debates and privately to me in meetings, that he agrees with me. He believes it is a source of deep regret that the previous Government did not do more to properly co-ordinate the huge build-out of new and important infrastructure. He has challenged me before that the statutory co-ordination I am seeking requires investment. That is a fair challenge. My response is a proposal to meet that challenge by setting out my proposed energy infrastructure co-ordination levy. In simple terms, that is a levy payable by energy NSIP applicants, designed to fund cumulative planning, shared mitigation and co-ordinated delivery in host communities. It would apply to all energy NSIPs across generation, transmission and interconnectors. The payment would be triggered in two stages: a small amount when the application is accepted for examination, and the main payment when the development consent order is granted. The levy would be calculated using a hybrid model reflecting real impact drivers: a base rate per gigawatt capacity; a base rate per kilometre of onshore cable; a base rate per substation or converter station; and a cap and a floor to ensure proportionality. That aligns cost with scale and disruption, not simply capital expenditure. Crucially, the funds will be ringfenced locally—that is really important.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Developers Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman; I am sure that the Minister will address that issue, which has long been talked about. I was discussing the incredible profits that the energy developers are making. For me, this issue is about simple fairness: those creating the disruption and generating the return should fund the systems to manage the cumulative impact. More importantly—most importantly, perhaps—what I am suggesting would not lead to higher bills. Proper co-ordination would reduce bills: reduce the duplication, prevent redesign and avoid the need for repeated construction and legal conflict. Proper co-ordination saves money. This is not anti-growth, but smarter and inclusive growth. Suffolk Coastal must not become the unmanaged frontier of energy development. So many in my constituency are pro-net zero, pro-investment and pro-growth, but we are asking the Government to be pro-co-ordination. What we have now is a fragmented planning system and eroding trust in the energy transition that we all support. If we are serious about delivering clean energy power at pace, we must treat host communities as partners, not afterthoughts, in that transition. We must do more to bring communities with us. I am asking two things of the Minister today: first, a meeting with officials to examine this proposal; and secondly, a departmental feasibility study into the merits of an energy infrastructure co-ordination levy and how that could support both growth and nature recovery. The Government have already consulted on mandatory community benefits for low carbon energy infrastructure. The question now is whether we go further—by creating a clear levy model that funds meaningful co-ordination between clustered projects, such as those on the Suffolk coast; that builds local accountability and capacity; and that provides independent oversight, delivering tangible community and environmental mitigation. Communities such as mine are not asking for less ambition. We ask simply for better co-ordination when projects are approved. If we get this issue right, we can deliver the green revolution in a way that communities support, nature benefits from and the country can be proud of.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Storm Goretti · Hansard source

  More

  Suffolk Coastal is in the east of England, but we did not escape the storms by any stretch of the imagination. The coastal erosion at Thorpeness has really sped up and we now have homes facing the worst-case scenario. Indeed, last night a home was demolished, marking four homes that have succumbed to coastal erosion since October. Three have been as a consequence of the rapidly eroding shoreline, sped up by the storm. Will the Minister arrange to meet me to discuss a number of issues, including the coastal erosion assistance grant? The owner of one of the homes, who will not qualify for the grant, may pay £40,000 for the privilege of demolishing their own home. That feels incredibly unfair, and East Suffolk council is working to ensure that does not happen, but will the Minister meet to talk about that and what can be done to support my community and others affected?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to be the first ever Labour MP for Suffolk Coastal, an incredibly rural constituency. Many of our previous MPs were helicoptered in from cities to represent the constituency, so I am even more delighted to be able to stand in this House and say that I am the first ever MP for Suffolk Coastal to have been born and raised there. Back in 2004, when I was 17, the foxhunting debate was playing out. It has been incredibly interesting to hear so many Conservatives talk about Labour MPs not understanding rural issues or the foxhunting debate. I can tell the House that one reason I became a Labour member—let alone a Labour MP—was foxhunting. I remember how furious I was, aged 17, that Conservative Members were so angry about the foxhunting ban but did not care about lifting children out of poverty. I could not comprehend that world. That is what drove me to Labour. Those were my values, having grown up in a rural area. Now, I am incredibly proud to stand here representing a rural seat. I continue to stand on that ticket and I defend the Labour manifesto. We need to separate the issues of conservation and shooting from hunting, as they are separate. I will continue to have those conversations with this Labour Government. Some of—well, all of—the elements in the motion before us are beyond ridiculous, particularly the point about net zero targets and energy infrastructure. If approval is granted, Suffolk Coastal is set to host Sea Link and LionLink. Sizewell C has just been approved, and so many other schemes were approved or proposed not just under the Conservative Government, but under the Conservative-led county council. There are many energy infrastructure issues in my constituency that need to be considered, but they relate to co-ordination and cumulative impact.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. The Prime Minister will know that special educational needs and disabilities provision is in crisis across the country, but it is in particular crisis in Suffolk, where the county council is in special measures for its failings. I am delighted that the Government have listened to one of my asks, which is to have a national conversation about SEND, so that parents, young people and their advocates can have their voices heard. Will the Prime Minister back my calls to ensure that we deliver funding for the former Seckford Education Trust school in Saxmundham, which closed its doors for the last time in 2024?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Last week, Roman Osborne—a 10-year-old from my constituency—hand-delivered a letter to 10 Downing Street to tell the Prime Minister about an accident he had in February outside his primary school at Trimley St Martin, which left him spending three days in hospital and many more months recovering. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign #SaferAtTheGates, and will he call on Tory-led Suffolk county council to do the right thing by re-reviewing the road and putting the right safety measures in place outside Trimley St Martin and the other schools in my constituency?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Road Safety (Schools) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about road safety measures near schools; and for connected purposes. Every parent knows that heart-stopping moment when they watch their child cross the road and just pray that drivers are paying attention. For too many families in my constituency, that silent prayer takes place daily, as they drop off their children at school and pick them up at the end of the day. Road traffic accidents are, tragically, the leading cause of death for children in the UK, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimates that every single month 1,200 children are injured in traffic accidents that happen within 500 metres of the school gates. Those two statistics hit me hard when I first heard them, and I can imagine that they hit Members from across the House just as hard. I was first told by the parents about their worries over their children’s safety when dropping them off and collecting them after school, then by the schools, and finally by the children themselves. When I looked at the data, it was telling me the same story: 14% of child fatalities occur during the morning school run between 7 and 9 o’clock, and 23% happen after school between 3 and 5 o’clock. In February this year, 10-year-old Roman Osborne was hit by a van when leaving his primary school at pick-up, in Trimley St Martin. The driver was not speeding or driving recklessly; in fact, witnesses told me that he was travelling at about 20 mph. Luckily, Roman recovered, but the impact was so severe that he spent three days in hospital with a broken hip and many more months recovering. His parents told me that if he had not landed on his rucksack, which shielded him from a far more serious injury and potential head trauma, the outcome would have been tragic. Roman’s story reminds us that improving road safety around our schools is not simply about reducing speeds to 20 mph, though I dread to imagine how much worse it could have been if the driver had been going at 30 mph, 40 mph or faster. In truth, road safety is about making the environment around schools far safer, and by any means necessary. That means proper crossings, clear road markings, enforcing parking restrictions, visible signage and, yes, the presence of school-crossing patrols—our much-loved lollipop men and women. What frustrates me most is that many of those options are available to councils, but only if they choose to implement them. Following Roman’s accident, Suffolk county council told me that the road had been assessed, but that it did not meet the criteria for additional safety measures. Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not need me to tell you that that is not good enough. When a child is injured outside their own school, how can any system say that the criteria to make that road safer have not been met? It should not be at the discretion of any council to turn a blind eye. Bucklesham primary school in my constituency—those from the school are watching in the Gallery—knows this challenge all too well. The school sits on the junction of a 60 mph and a 30 mph road. It is an isolated rural school, with no footpaths or homes around it, and parents have no choice but to drive to school each and every day, while navigating awful conditions in the process. Parents and staff have been pleading for improvements for two decades. They have gathered petitions, met councillors, written letters and still, after 20 years, no permanent safety measures have been put in place. I presented a petition to the House in September with over 300 signatures, to highlight the road safety issues outside Bucklesham primary school. These stories and the many others I have heard since being elected are exactly why I have been campaigning relentlessly to improve road safety around our schools. I have taken that campaign to No. 10 Downing Street, and today I bring it formally to Parliament through this ten-minute rule Bill. The purpose of this Bill is simple: to make it a requirement, not an option, for local authorities to take proactive steps to improve safety around schools where there is evidence of potential risk. This Bill would place a duty on councils to work directly with schools and communities to assess road conditions, listen to local concerns and identify practical solutions. Those measures will of course differ from place to place, because a rural lane in Suffolk looks very different from an urban street in Manchester, but the principle must remain the same that every child, no matter where they live in this country, deserves to travel safely to school. As my Bill sets out, a package of local solutions might include more double yellow lines and enforced parking restrictions; improved signage and road markings; dedicated school crossings; more lollipop men and women; and reduced-speed zones during drop-off and pick-up hours. In short, schools should not have to campaign for safer roads, and neither should their pleas fall on deaf ears. They should be able to expect safer roads. Our children should be able to travel to and from school each day without fearing the roads outside their schools. Suffolk has one of the poorest road safety records of any rural county in England. Over the past 20 years, across Suffolk there have been 597 fatalities and 7,000 people have been seriously injured—7,500 lives lost or changed forever. In Suffolk Coastal alone, more than 1,000 people have been either killed or seriously injured on our roads. Tragically, 17 of them were children. These are our children on our roads, and this is our responsibility. The evidence shows that we can prevent many of these tragedies. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has found strong evidence that 20 mph speed limits and zones reduce casualties and fatalities. After Wales introduced a default 20 mph national speed limit on restricted roads, casualties fell by 24% between April and June last year compared with the same period the year before. Parents know this instinctively. Surveys show that 36% of parents feel that roads are too busy for their children to walk to school, and 43% say traffic is too fast even when there is a 20 mph limit. According to Brake, the road safety charity that I have worked with on my campaign and on this Bill, 78% of parents want a 20 mph limit near homes and schools and 85% want the Government to do more to make local roads safer. Yet the frameworks guiding local road safety decisions mean that too many councils are able to ignore local concerns, even when tragedy strikes. My Bill would end that absurdity and end the crisis at our school gates. It would also make transparency a duty: councils would be required to publish annual statements outlining what safety reviews have been conducted, what measures have been implemented and how they are working with schools and our communities to improve standards. The Government are due to publish a new road safety strategy early next year, the first in a decade. I welcome that, and many of the families and schools I speak to welcome it too, but that strategy must put road safety around our schools at the very top of the list. This Bill would make that possible by setting clear expectations for local authorities and giving schools a voice in shaping the solutions they need. The answer is painfully simple: we know what makes our roads safer—the measures are well understood and so often inexpensive—but we lack urgency and accountability. We should not accept that parents and schools have been campaigning for 20 years to make drop-off and pick-up safer, yet still have their school hugging a 60 mph road. We should not accept that a child is hit by a van and the road is assessed, yet it still fails to meet self-determined thresholds for intervention. We should never forget that it is in our gift to reduce the leading cause of death among children in this country, simply by improving road safety around our schools. This is not about politics. I am sure that every Member of this House has stood at a school gate and seen cars speeding too fast and too close, and I am sure every Member has heard the same plea from parents. Roman told me that all he wants is a pedestrian crossing at his school gate. This Bill would seek to give Roman that and to give every school the power to bring forward safety enhancements for their own school. This is a modest Bill, but it is practical, and most importantly it would save lives and help to tackle the biggest cause of death among children. With this Bill, we have the chance to make sure that campaigning is no longer necessary, because safety should be guaranteed by design, duty and law. Question put and agreed to. Ordered , That Jenny Riddell-Carpenter, Sarah Coombes, Terry Jermy, Ben Goldsborough, Sarah Dyke, Maya Ellis, Amanda Hack, Mr Richard Quigley, Samantha Niblett, Alison Hume, Steve Witherden and Jodie Gosling present the Bill. Jenny Riddell-Carpenter accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November , and to be printed (Bill 327).

• 16 Sept 2025 · Road Safety Near Primary Schools in Suffolk Coastal · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition about road safety around primary schools in Suffolk Coastal. There is growing concern about speeding and dangerous driving that puts children, parents and staff at serious risk. Many schools also lack basic measures, such as 20 mph zones, pedestrian crossings and safe walking routes. In fact, I have one school that has a 60 mph road along the outside of it. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure Suffolk County Council prioritises the safety of children by developing and publishing a tailored Road Safety Action Plan for every primary school in the Suffolk Coastal constituency. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the Suffolk Coastal constituency, Declares that there is growing concern about the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving near primary schools across the constituency, which puts the safety of children, parents, and school staff at serious risk. This petition further declares that many schools lack adequate road safety measures such as 20mph zones, pedestrian crossings, speed enforcement, and safe walking routes. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure Suffolk County Council prioritises the safety of children by developing and publishing a tailored Road Safety Action Plan for every primary school in the Suffolk Coastal constituency. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003114]

• 16 Sept 2025 · Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects: Suffolk Coast · Hansard source

  More

  I know that my hon. Friend has been passionate about this since his arrival in this place last year. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point, but yes, I do agree; in fact, I will come on to some of those themes later. There is an opportunity to set up an overarching body to ensure that the many competing schemes, whether already consented, within the development consent order process or in the pipeline, are properly co-ordinated. The body could be departmental or independent from the Government, but it would operate under the direction of the Secretary of State. Although the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consulted on the concept of a future systems operator for electricity, that does not go far enough or quickly enough. There needs to be oversight of the cumulative impact of all NSIP schemes in an area. The failings that arise in the absence of such oversight are evident in many areas of my constituency, but are perhaps best highlighted by the case of Boden Farms. Boden Farms was subject to compulsory purchase of land to accommodate Sizewell C’s development phase, and work has begun on a new relief road on the farm’s former land. The farmer has been told by National Grid Ventures that it, too, will need to access his land in order to lay cables for LionLink. It cannot tell him where, when or if it will be made subject to a compulsory purchase order, but it can tell him that in a year or maybe two it will be digging up the very same land that is being worked on right now by Sizewell C, including, most likely, parts of the new relief road that is being built as we speak. I am very concerned by reports that the only plans LionLink has ever received for the link road are the ones the landowner provided himself. Surely, that cannot be right, but it is not a one-off; this story is repeated across my constituency, in every parish where lines are being laid or work is being planned. That is in no one’s interest—not the community’s, not nature’s and not even the developer’s—so I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to co-ordinate their work. Farmers from Woodbridge to Leiston, and parishes from Friston to Walberswick and Yoxford to Peasenhall, all ask the same thing: why are these projects popping up with no co-ordination, and why is there no legal requirement for them to work together? It is our communities and our environment that have to endure the cumulative impact of all this. Developers are also failing to put proper mitigations in place or to listen to the concerns of local residents, which is having a real impact. Farmers have told me of issues engaging with energy developers when they have raised objections to cables being buried to a depth of less than 1.8 metres on their land, in breach of electrical safety guidance, leaving them unable to use the land for arable farming. Energy developers have been unwilling to engage, which means that land risks being taken out of arable food production permanently. In laying any cables on active agricultural land, developers should guarantee that arable farmland will be safeguarded for future farming use, and I tabled another amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to lay cables to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres. The depth of cables is an issue not just for farmers, but for offshore shipping. Members will appreciate that I have shipping lanes off the coast of my constituency, and the Harwich Haven Authority has told me that it is concerned that energy developers must do more to engage with it to ensure that cables are buried at a sufficient depth that projects do not compromise navigational safety. The Sunk area around Harwich Haven is a vital and highly complex shipping zone. Any offshore developments must be planned with strict adherence to safety requirements. The UK has let developers lead the conversation and the strategy. We have ended up with a mismatch of proposals, in the wrong place, with no co-ordination and no desire to think of better alternatives. Other countries are stealing a march. Holistic network design criteria are adopted and adhered to in North sea countries including Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. As a result, they choose brownfield sites at the outset for their energy infrastructure hubs and, in doing so, manage to avoid adverse impacts on communities and ecologies. Places such as Zeebrugge and Rotterdam industrial zones are chosen for building substations, with space to build future projects, including hydrogen storage. Those projects are co-ordinated in order to minimise needless damage, maximise efficiencies and move at pace. For the same reasons, energy developers in the UK should be required to pursue as a first option brownfield hubs where multiple projects can co-exist without any adverse impact on nature. We need to create a legal duty for developers working in the same area to exchange information, seek opportunities for shared infrastructure, reduce cumulative impact and align timelines. A framework of co-ordination, co-design, community benefit and compensation would mean that communities, town and parish councils and the Government could see the whole picture, not just the smallest of fragments. So many of my constituents are devastated by the cumulative impact that these energy projects within a 10-mile radius are having on nature, and no one organisation has ever looked at it. We can get this right. If we do, we can deliver on our climate ambitions and protect nature at the same time, but it will require greater leadership, oversight and scrutiny, and greater emphasis on making sure that we co-ordinate, plan and implement a clean, green energy revolution that is strategic and not just whack-a-mole. It must be rooted in knowing the land and the geography, and not in the whims of the developer. Getting this right now will mean better protections for our natural environment, better safeguards for our local communities and a lasting legacy for the next generation.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Educational Attainment of Boys · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) not just for securing this debate, but for his excellent speech at the outset. It was so good that he inspired the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) to cross the Floor—very briefly. As the Member for Suffolk Coastal, I have heard from parents, teachers and community leaders about their growing concerns on this very topic of the educational outcomes of boys, particularly those from disadvantaged and rural backgrounds. We have already heard a lot about the data, and it is stark. Nationally, boys are consistently underperforming girls at every stage from early years through to GCSEs and beyond. In 2023, just 60% of boys met the expected standard in reading, writing and maths at key stage 2 compared with 70% of girls, and we know boys are less likely to achieve a grade 5 or above in English and maths GCSE. The issue is about not just attainment, but engagement. Boys are far more likely to be excluded and more likely to be labelled as disruptive. They are less likely to enjoy school or feel that it meets their needs. That is especially true in rural areas such as mine where transport, funding and access to support services all create additional barriers. In Suffolk Coastal, we have seen at first hand the effects of these systemic issues. Parents in Leiston and Felixstowe tell me they are worried that their sons are being written off far too early. We know that children with complex needs or SEND issues, especially autism and ADHD, face even more barriers to getting on in school. With an overstretched educational system and EHCP delays, for children battling SEND the barriers are continuing to stack up. We need to rethink how we engage boys—not through blame or stereotyping, but through recognising diversity of needs and learning styles. This means early intervention with more speech and language support in the early years, and the new Best Start family hubs programme could be a real game changer in places such as Suffolk Coastal by providing the right level of support. We also need to have a truly broad and balanced curriculum, and parity of esteem for arts and sports with vocational learning is at the heart of that. We need to make sure that school is genuinely a place for children, and boys specifically, to thrive, not feel as though they are a round peg being forced into a square hole. In closing, if we are serious about improving boys’ attainment, we need a system that supports their potential and is built around them. We need to back schools, families and communities with the resources they need to close that gap. This is not just for boys, but for society as a whole.