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.

• 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.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Workers in Suffolk Coastal have been let down badly after carrying out their jobs in good faith only to be denied wages that they earned. After multiple failures to be granted the money they earned, employees of the Orwell hotel in Felixstowe were forced to gain employment tribunal judgments confirming that the money is owed to them, yet many are still waiting to be paid. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to engage with me urgently on this case and on the wider failure to ensure that employment tribunal awards are properly enforced?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement, and I give my personal thanks to the Members on both sides of the House who have been advocating very strongly with him, including my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). I also thank the businesses and, in particular, the pubs in my constituency: the Anchor at Walberswick, the Froize Inn, Deben Inns, and many, many more. I welcome today’s announcement, but we can do more and go further, including in the strategy, to look at lowering VAT for hospitality and lowering the alcohol duty, which could perhaps be offset by a higher alcohol duty in supermarkets.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this week, students in year 11 at Felixstowe school were told that they would not be able to continue their studies at the school beyond year 11 because it is not continuing with sixth-form provision. As Members can imagine, this has caused huge worry for parents and students at Felixstowe school. I have written to the Secretary of State about this matter and the worries I have about the withdrawal of sixth-form education from our town. Will the Leader of the House help to ensure that I secure the meeting quickly, as time is clearly of the essence?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year to you and the team, Mr Speaker. I start by thanking the Minister and his Department for working actively with rural colleagues and myself for the last 14 months. In the many conversations that we have had, both face to face and in wider correspondence, we have set out the huge number of issues that are well known to this House, but at the heart of this, and the reason that so many of us are concerned, is the lack of profitability in farming. Baroness Batters’ report will go a huge way towards addressing some of the systemic issues in farming, but does the Minister agree that we also need to tackle supermarkets and unfair practices and to address lots of the long-standing issues, and that the Treasury as a whole needs to continue to engage with rural MPs to make sure that we introduce further reforms to support farming profitability?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This autumn Budget will make a real and material difference to families across the country, including thousands in my constituency. Cutting energy bills by £150, capping rail fares and freezing NHS prescription charges are exactly the measures that my constituents have been asking for. We are giving people the breathing space that they need as the Government continue to invest in long-term solutions to bring down the cost of living for good—in energy, transport, homes and the jobs of the future. The debate about farming inheritance has shone a spotlight on something deeply important, the fragility of farming profitability in Britain today. At the heart of my concern is a simple economic truth: you cannot tax a business that is not profitable. Even in good years, many farmers in my constituency struggle to break even. A typical 200-acre arable family farm, worth about £2 million, makes only about £27,000 in profit. Many family farms in Suffolk Coastal would not recognise even that figure. Farmers are not opposed to reform. They know that for far too long, agricultural property relief has been used as a loophole for the very wealthy to shelter their assets. So yes, closing that loophole is right, but we must do it in a way that protects working family farms, which simply cannot absorb a tax bill that they have no means to pay. Our farming sector is on its knees, worn down by Brexit, spiralling costs, unfair trade deals, and supermarket price wars that leave British farmers squeezed to breaking point. There are farmers in this country on universal credit, and farmers in Suffolk Coastal are doing two or three jobs just to put food on their tables. This is the human reality that APR reform must take into account. I support the spousal concession announced in the Budget, but we must go further. I am calling on the Government to commit themselves to a full review of the impact of these APR changes in 12 to 18 months. That review must look not only at how farms have funded these changes but at the wider impacts on food sustainability, the rural economy, land management and food standards. In the long term we must consider the role of supermarkets, whose combined pre-tax profits exceeded £5 billion last year, while some paid no corporation tax at all. Let me gently suggest that perhaps we have an opportunity to raise revenue here and protect our family farms. I support this Government and I support this Budget, but on APR we must keep listening, keep engaging, and ensure that in closing loopholes we do not inadvertently harm the very communities who feed our country.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things this Labour Government could do is to bring forward a dedicated rural strategy, which would address many of the issues he is referring to and build a stronger, better rural Britain?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On 18 October, the post office in Leiston shut its counter for the final time. Will the Leader of the House do two things: will he join me in urging the Post Office to urgently secure alternative premises, and will he support me in my request to have a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss this vital issue?