Alice Macdonald MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Feb 2026 · Local Power Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the local power plan, which builds on much clean energy investment in Norfolk, including backing for the Vanguard wind project and £17 million for warm homes in Norwich. I urge the Government to keep backing the east of England as a hub for clean energy. Will the Secretary of State outline in a bit more detail how constituents will be made aware of this project, particularly those who will not hear this statement, or hear about it on the radio, so that the communities that would benefit the most are able to maximise the benefits of this funding?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s commitment to tackling the housing crisis that we inherited. I have had many emails from people in Norwich about the need to build much-needed homes but also to protect our natural environment. As he probably knows, Norfolk is home to 10% of England’s chalk streams. He has touched on this, but can he provide reassurances to my constituents, and outline how this new policy will protect vital nature spots, like chalk streams?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  People in Norwich and Norfolk care deeply about their local environment. Last Friday, I met local leaders at a roundtable hosted by Nelsonspirit, a fantastic social impact business, and we discussed sustainability and how to protect our environment. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking local groups, like Nelsonspirit, and will he make time for a debate on local sustainability and environment initiatives and the role of Government in supporting them?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Fertility Treatment (Right to Time Off) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a right to paid time off work for fertility treatment; and for connected purposes. Deciding to start or grow our family should be a time of joy and happiness, and of making plans for the future. Every year in the UK, hundreds of thousands of babies are born under such circumstances, but for some people the path to parenthood is not simple or easy. According to the World Health Organisation, infertility affects one in six people globally. Whether it is due to medical factors, being in a same-sex relationship or considering solo parenthood, there are so many people who desperately want children but cannot without extra medical support. That support comes through the form of fertility treatment. In 2023, 52,400 patients underwent IVF in the UK. These are not statistics; these are our friends, our colleagues and our constituents, and right now, they are not entitled to the support they deserve. Of course, this has an especially big impact on women, given that they are the ones most often undergoing fertility treatment in the form of IVF. Currently, there is no legal right to paid time off to attend fertility appointments. Women have to hope they have an understanding employer or, as I shall come to, take sick leave or annual leave instead. In fact, the Equality Act 2010 code of practice on employment makes a comparison between a woman having fertility treatment and a man having cosmetic dental surgery. How can that be right? Let us be clear: fertility treatment is not a lifestyle choice; it is a necessity for so many people. However, as I have heard from many women, some employers treat fertility treatment as an elective procedure, and do not allow employees time off, as they would in the case of other medical procedures. IVF is not a simple filling or a dental clean-up. A single cycle of IVF typically involves five to seven appointments, often at short notice. The timing is dictated by hormone levels and follicle development, which cannot be predicted. Throughout, someone is pumping their body full of hormones and drugs, which can have an extraordinary physical and emotional toll. Indeed, according to research conducted by Fertility Matters at Work—I pay tribute to it for all its work on this issue—87% of people say that they experience anxiety or depression directly related to their treatment. So many stories have been shared with me and other organisations about the impact of having no legal right to paid time off for fertility treatment. Women have had to use all their annual leave, have faced disciplinary action, and have hidden what they were going through from their employers, and that has had a huge toll on their mental and physical health. At an already stressful time, these people, in particular women, are having to navigate more uncertainty and stress. I am introducing this Bill because of the huge impact that the situation has on many of our constituents. Sarah—I have changed her name for legal reason—paints that story clearly. After pouring her all into her job for five years, she and her husband decided that it was the right time to start a family. After months trying to conceive, she began IVF, and what followed, in her words, “completely blindsided” her—the staggering number of tests, the drop-everything-at-once appointments, and the cocktail of drugs that she would have to inject into her body in her office toilet. Sarah feared disclosing to her employer that she was undergoing fertility treatment, and she was right. She developed complications and had to spend weeks in hospital, which meant she had to tell her employer that she was undergoing IVF. Not long after, her boss suddenly told her that she needed to work abroad. When she explained that she needed to be close to her IVF doctor, she was told that she had to go anyway. An employment lawyer told her that she had no legal grounds to challenge that, and the choice she was left with was to stay or to leave—family or career. It was a choice she should never have had to make. That cannot be right, and the current situation is deeply unfair. The issue has a disproportionate impact on women and contributes to wider equality challenges—for example, to do with the gender pay gap and career progression. In the most extreme cases, women are having to choose between a career and a child. The Bill aims to right this wrong. It is straightforward: it would create a statutory right to paid time off for all necessary appointments for employees undergoing fertility treatment. It gives partners a right to time off, too. That is important, because as one person said: “I wanted to be there at the conception of my child.” I do not think that an unreasonable request. The Bill mirrors the existing framework for antenatal care, recognising that fertility treatment is equally deserving of workplace protection. Fundamentally, it raises these questions for the House: do we believe that everyone who wishes to have a child deserves a fair chance of doing so? Will the state support all its citizens who have chosen that path? Do we have a moral duty to level the playing field for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves struggling to get pregnant? This is about fairness. On that point, although the Bill’s scope is limited to employment rights, we must also tackle the postcode lottery of access to NHS-funded IVF cycles, which organisations such as Fertility Action and LGBT Mummies have so powerfully campaigned to address. Fewer than 10% of integrated care boards in England offer the recommended three cycles of IVF, but someone’s chances of having a baby should not depend on where they live. The Bill is in our national interest. As Becky Kearns from Fertility Matters at Work said: “This is also a workforce crisis hiding in plain sight. We’re facing a global fertility decline but failing to support those actively trying to start a family”. Last year, the fertility rate in England and Wales reached an all-time low, falling for the third year in a row to 1.41 children per woman. Just to sustain current population levels, it needs to be 2.1, so we need more people to have babies. We should be helping those who wish to become parents and grow their families, and who will be raising the future workers and taxpayers on whom this country will depend. That is, of course, not the only solution to falling fertility rates, but it would help. Meanwhile, while there is a climate of stigma, in which women are afraid of revealing that they are undergoing treatment, there is a very real cost for British business. Without the right to receive time off, up to 63% of people take sick leave to attend appointments. Because many are concerned about telling their employer, they often take whole days off to hide their appointments, instead of the few hours that they actually require. Recent research published this week estimates that this costs UK employers up to £54 million in unplanned sick leave alone every year, and that is just one example of the cost to businesses. Providing a statutory right to time off not only protects employees, but gives them permission to take that time off openly, and to plan it with their employer, transforming chaos into clarity for everyone. Accessing treatment can be even more challenging for those working in certain circumstances, such as those doing shift work or travelling often. In fact, this right is also smart business, because 86% of employees would be attracted to a role in an organisation that provides fertility support. Many businesses already recognise that this is not only the right thing to do, but in their interests. Businesses such as Centrica, Cadent Gas and Aviva, which has a strong presence in my constituency, have all voluntarily given paid time off to their employees for fertility treatment, but whether someone can attend their fertility appointment should not depend on the luck of the draw, a kind manager or an understanding employer; it should be the norm for everyone. In many other countries, bespoke employment legislation has already been developed. People in South Korea and Malta, for example, are entitled to paid time off for fertility treatment. We have come a long way as a society. For decades, we provided paid time off for antenatal leave, then maternity leave, and soon, thanks to Labour’s Employment Rights Bill, we will have day-one rights for paternity and parental leave, and for bereavement leave after pregnancy loss. We must look at fertility treatment too, because, as I know myself, the pathway to parenthood is not always easy. This Bill would help shift the culture and narrative in workplaces about a topic that has remained taboo for far too long. I know there has been support across the House for this change; I pay tribute to the former Conservative Member Nickie Aiken, who introduced a similar private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament. I also thank the Government, and current and past Ministers, for their engagement with me on this issue, and I know that they are listening. If it is not possible to get a change in the law soon, I would encourage Members to ask businesses in their constituency if they will join others in voluntarily providing paid time off for fertility treatment. Finally, it is deeply fitting that this Bill is presented in Fertility Week—a time to challenge taboos and raise awareness of the devastating physical, emotional and social impacts of fertility problems. How better could this House show that it is alive to these issues and injustices than by giving its support to this Bill? This Bill is about fairness. It is about saying to the thousands of people who undergo fertility treatment every year that we see them, we support them, and they should not have to face it alone. That is morally right, right for our economy and right for our national interest. I commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Alice Macdonald, Andrew Pakes, Daniel Francis, Jess Asato, Kate Osborne, Matt Turmaine, Michael Wheeler, Olivia Blake, Rachel Blake, Sarah Owen, Sarah Russell and Stella Creasy present the Bill. Alice Macdonald accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed (Bill 320).

• 27 Oct 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the Bacton gas terminal in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), which is on the North sea coast. It already provides up to one third of our nation’s gas supply, and is ideally placed to be a carbon capture and hydrogen hub. The Minister has just talked about jobs; I want those jobs in my area. Will he recognise the vital role that the east of England plays, back Bacton’s plans to ensure its low-carbon future, and help to secure good, local jobs?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Independent Water Commission · Hansard source

  More

  Norfolk is home to many beautiful beaches and rivers but, as in many areas, people are concerned about the state of their waters. The Cow Tower Dippers in Norwich are applying for designated swim status, which would mean that Anglian Water is obliged to monitor the water. That is one specific example, but can the Secretary of State expand on how the reforms will help local groups to hold water companies to account and speed up such processes?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You have all mentioned how essential SAF is to decarbonisation. Could you expand on its environmental impact? When and how will you be able to track the impact of the mechanism on your emissions? How will you directly be able to link it, or SAF more broadly, to any reduction in emissions? Jonathon Counsell: This is very important. Generally, with 2G SAF there is an opportunity to have much lower carbon emissions than with 1G SAF, and that is one of the reasons that it is very attractive. We have a project up in Teesside, Project Speedbird, with LanzaJet and Nova Pangaea, that takes waste biomass, creates bioethanol and converts that into jet fuel; it also creates a co-product that goes into the ground, which is used by farmers to enhance the soil properties. The emissions from that whole life cycle are negative, because you are getting the benefits of the sequestration. That is a good example of the environmental advantages of 2G SAF. When you start linking that with carbon capture technology as well, it can be even better. That is why we are funding it. There will not be enough 1G SAF to meet all our decarb requirements, and 2G is much lower emission. Then you get to 3G SAF, or power to liquid—the ultimate SAF, where you capture CO 2 from the atmosphere and mix it with green hydrogen. That is where we ultimately want to get to, but we accept that that is a bit further away. Generally, 2G SAF is a lot better for the environment than 1G SAF, and that is why it is critical for us. Another thing worth mentioning is that there is also a non-CO 2 environmental impact, typically from contrails—the white lines that you see in the sky. They are believed to have a significant warming disbenefit. Early evidence has shown that using high ratios of SAF reduces the incidence of contrails, so there is a secondary benefit from using SAF. Many more trials need to be done, but that is another environmental plus from SAF. Luke Ervine: In 2023, Virgin Atlantic ran the first ever 100% SAF transatlantic flight, and we did a lot of studies in addition to those on the carbon benefits. We worked with Imperial College and the University of Sheffield, and—to back up Jonathon’s point—the particulate emissions from that SAF were 40% lower than from traditional jet fuel. That has a direct correlation with the number of contrails that it can form. More studies need to be done, as Jonathon says, but there is a very direct correlation between particulate and contrail formation—and SAF provides that benefit. On Jonathon’s point, 2G SAF is better environmentally and sustainably than 1G. The UK Government have done a great job in creating a GHG-based mandate, which will reward lower carbon intensity SAF—and that can be monetised, as well. In producing those 2G SAFs, we can kick-start a very unique pot of SAF that has better environmental attributes and can drive better value for money for us and therefore consumers.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to pick up on the monitoring point. For example, say a consumer feels that they have had to pay a little more for a flight that is more environmentally friendly; how soon would you be able to quantify whether that mechanism had had an effect? In a year’s time, would you be able to say that it has meant that the carbon has been decreased by x amount? Jonathon Counsell: Definitely. All SAF has to be independently assessed for its life cycle emission savings. Before we purchased it, we have to prove that, and as I said, get an independent authority to test the life cycle emissions. We will be able to declare publicly, of any SAF that we use, the independent assessment of its life cycle savings. Lahiru Ranasinghe: If you look at the mechanics of how it works for meeting the mandate, there is a minimum threshold that we set when buying compliant fuel. In this case, compliant fuel is kerosene: fossil-based kerosene blended with SAF. When we pay for the supply, we get the product transfer documents, which have the sustainability criteria associated with that specific batch of SAF. At that point we can very accurately calculate the emissions saving. In terms of planning, we have to set a range, because there is some variation depending on the pathway and the SAF provided. Building on what my colleagues here have said, there is an opportunity for the UK both in home-grown production and up and down the value chain in the development and export of the technology and the financing and trading of SAF in the longer term. We have what is seen as a gold standard for sustainability criteria, especially going to 2G SAF and the conversion of waste into usable fuels, which addresses multiple issues at the same time and is something that we can export to the rest of the world.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Fossil Fuel Advertising and Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  Has my hon. Friend noted the call from the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, for Governments to ban fossil fuel advertising to protect public health and address climate change? Does he feel that, alongside the examples that he cited, that is evidence of increasing momentum towards such a change?