Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend aware that there does not need to be a certain number of incidents outside a school gate, or indeed on any road, in order for local councils to intervene? It is a myth that we need to bust.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the Labour rural research group, I continually hear about the challenges facing rural communities, including access to education and transport infrastructure. Will the Minister set out the specific steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that rural voices and rural communities are meaningfully represented throughout Government decision making?

• 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.