Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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

  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.

• 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.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Tourism: Major Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  Suffolk Coastal is proud to be the tourism capital of Suffolk, but we also wear the badge of hosting possibly the highest number of nationally significant infrastructure projects within a small, 10-mile radius. Suffolk Coastal is home to Aldeburgh, Southwold, Woodbridge and Saxmundham, and every day I speak to businesses and constituents about the impact of the lack of co-ordination of these NSIPs in a very small geography. Investing in energy infrastructure and tourism do not need to be in conflict. Is the Minister having conversations with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about how we can better co-ordinate? If she is not, will she?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Tourism: Major Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  5. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of providing additional funding to support tourism in areas affected by major energy infrastructure projects.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the coordination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for energy on the Suffolk coast. Suffolk Coastal is central to the UK’s energy ambitions. It is often said that up to 30% of Britain’s future energy is expected to be generated in, or transmitted through, my constituency. Suffolk Coastal is home to nationally and internationally important landscapes, including national landscapes, sites of special scientific interest, the Suffolk heritage coast and wetlands that form part of the east Atlantic flyway migratory bird route. Those are not simply scenic features; they underpin local economies and nature-based tourism, and they are vital to national commitments to biodiversity and environmental protection. As the Minister will be aware, the nationally significant infrastructure projects that I will refer to are being delivered within a small, 10-mile radius, and sit in the heart of those national landscapes, including in nature reserves run by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and on important national sites. They stretch from LionLink in Walberswick, which is just south of Southwold, down to Sea Link in Aldeburgh, then next door to Sizewell C, which is Europe’s largest energy project, and link into proposed converter stations in Friston and Saxmundham. Some of those projects have consent while others are going through the process as we speak. What is remarkable—it is the point of the debate—is the lack of co-ordination between the plans. No attempt has been made to plan for the cumulative impact of the projects or to consider how better to co-ordinate them. In fact, in March 2024, National Grid published details showing that it has no intention to co-ordinate LionLink, led by National Grid Ventures, with the more advanced Sea Link project, led by National Grid Electricity Transmission.

• 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.