Alice Macdonald MP: speeches
4 Jul 2025–3 Jul 2026
How these years work
Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.
Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.
8 published records · newest first.
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?
- 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important subject. When I think of youth unemployment, what immediately comes to mind is the young woman I met on the doorstep during the election campaign who told me how she had been looking for work for a long time and just did not know how she was going to get a job. The hopelessness she felt was clear. Like her, far too many young people were left stuck at home and let down under the previous Government. As we have heard, it was during their last term in power that the number of young people not in education, employment or training shot up, growing by almost 50% between 2021 and 2024. They left a situation for young people where doors appeared to only close and never open. The Government are determined to change that and so am I. From speaking to young people in Norwich, I know that they want that change, too. That is why opportunity has been one of my key priorities since day one, with a focus on opportunity for children and young people. Young people in Norfolk have spoken to me about some of the specific challenges they face—this has been alluded to—such as poor transport infrastructure, so it can be difficult to get to work, and, of course, the challenge of mental health. But we need to better understand why so many young people have been left behind, which is why I welcome the Alan Milburn review, which will do exactly that. The causes of youth inactivity are not simple; we cannot put them down to one single factor. They are complex, they are not one size fits all, and we have to look at the structural causes as well. It is crucial that in that review the voices of young people themselves are heard. I know there has been a call for evidence, but I hope the Minister can expand on how young people in Norwich and across the country can get involved in this consultation. I also want to mention the specific challenges faced by young people with special educational needs and disabilities. There is a theme that parents and young people have raised with me time and again in Norwich North. They felt that too often there was a cliff edge at 16 where young people were at risk of being left without adequate support to continue into education or to find a job that met their needs. There is much we disagree on in this House, as we have heard today, but I hope that we can all agree that we want a country where young people are supported into good jobs, work and employment and are able to fulfil their potential. I welcome the Government’s approach and want to touch on some of the programmes being rolled out so far. There will be 360 youth hubs, and I am pleased that there will be three in Norfolk, including one in Norwich, and thousands more training and workplace opportunities in sectors from construction to health and social care for young people on universal credit, and of course there is the jobs guarantee that means that 18 to 21-year-olds on UC who have been looking for work for more than 18 months will be provided with six months of paid employment. We must also focus on early intervention. This is key. As Youth Futures has identified, key factors that increase the risk of a young person being not in education, employment or training include poor school attendance, low attainment at GCSE and exclusion. That is why the schools White Paper will also be so important, and why it is vital that this is a whole-of-Government approach. I also welcome that the Government are investing in a new preventive tool that will help share data between councils and schools so that we can identify and support young people most at risk. I want to turn to the local. I am working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions jobcentre in Norwich, city college and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) to identify more work that can be done locally on this important agenda. Indeed, we met yesterday to discuss how we can help match young people with employment opportunities locally. I also regularly meet with local employers and apprenticeship providers to hear their perspectives, and there is much good work already under way. Last year, I was pleased to welcome the Minister for Social Security and Disability to visit Mind in Norwich. We learned about its excellent local routes into employment project, which helps people living with mental health conditions to find and keep paid employment that suits their individual needs. We spoke to a young person who had benefited from that support and a local employer who had given that young person a chance but had also felt many benefits. I am pleased that the Minister was looking at this project as it is exactly the kind of thing we should be supporting. I also welcome the Government’s investment in the connect to work scheme in Norfolk, working with Norfolk county council, which will support over 4,000 Norfolk residents facing extra barriers into work. That will benefit many young people. Finally, I visited a local sixth form late last year. One of the many questions I was asked was about how we can equalise the minimum wage, because those present told me that they often felt underpaid and undervalued, and I was pleased to be able to tell them that this Government are listening and that paying young people a decent wage does matter. Just a few days later, we raised the national minimum wage for young people. For any Opposition Members who challenged this—and it felt like they were doing so a little bit—I challenge them to look young people in the eye and tell them why they do not deserve to be paid fairly, why their futures should not be invested in, and why they do not deserve that support. My message to all young people today is that under this Government they will not find false promises or quick solutions that fail to materialise, but they will find a proper plan backed by investment that puts our money where our mouth is and invests in young people’s future.
- 27 Jan 2026 · Rail Infrastructure · Hansard source
More
I welcome the investment the Government have made in rail, including East West Rail, but there are still several projects that would hugely benefit passengers and the local economy in the east. Those include upgrading the Trowse swing bridge near Norwich and, of course, Ely and Haughley junctions. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury meet me and other colleagues from the east of England to discuss how we can advance those key infrastructure projects for the region?
- 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source
More
I welcome the investment for the Norfolk Vanguard project, which will play an enormous role after being awarded over a third of total capacity under these contracts. The Secretary of State has spoken about the benefits for jobs. Can he speak specifically about how we will ensure young people now at school and in college will benefit with apprenticeships and training in these industries?
- 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source
More
The Budget that the Chancellor delivered yesterday set the course for a fairer Britain, founded on a stronger, more resilient economy. It will make a real difference to people in my constituency. It tackles head-on the cost of living crisis, which has had such a terrible impact on so many. The origin of much of the crisis lies with Conservative Members, who oversaw devastating austerity policies, a blundering Brexit and a Liz Truss-sponsored economic crash. In contrast, the Chancellor was clear about her mission to build a stronger, fairer and more secure economy. She was clear that we will not go back to austerity, and that we will not pass the debt burden on to the next generation. Instead, we will tackle the cost of living pressures head-on with targeted and funded interventions to deliver support where it is most needed. The theme of today’s debate is key to that; it is only through economic sustainability and by making fair choices that we can deliver a better Britain. First, I did not hear Conservative Members welcome the choice we made to tackle the cost of living and put more money in people’s pockets. We have cut £150 off the average energy bill. Prescription charges have been frozen, and rail ticket prices have been frozen for the first time in 30 years. My constituents who take the train from Norwich to London on an annual season ticket will save around £600 a year. This Labour Government are bringing down everyday costs for working people. Secondly, I want to talk about the fair choices being made that deliver for children and young people. During Parliament Week last week, I visited Thorpe St Andrew sixth form. There were some excellent questions asked, and many students asked me about jobs, opportunity and making work pay fairly. There were also questions about the minimum wage. I welcome the increase to wages, which was recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. The national minimum wage for workers aged 18 to 20 will go up by 8.5%, and for under-18s and apprentices, it will go up by 6%. Overall, the national living wage will go up by 4.1%. Alongside that, I welcome the investment of £820 million in the youth guarantee, which guarantees anyone out of work or study for more than 18 months a paid job. This Labour Government are delivering a stable economy for the next generation, fair pay, opportunity and lower national debt. Approximately a third of children in Norwich live in poverty. Their chances in life, and whether they go to school with a coat on and a full belly, should not depend on the circumstances of their birth or how many siblings they have. That is why I welcome the decision to abolish the Conservatives’ cruel two-child benefit cap. This move will lift out of poverty 1,900 children in my constituency, 4,000 children across the whole of Norwich and 450,000 children nationally. As many Members have mentioned, we must remember that the majority of children affected by this policy are in families in which one parent works. Removing the cap is not only the right thing to do for our children, but in all our interests, because making children poorer costs us and damages our economy in the long term. I am also proud that we are abolishing the horrendous rape clause. No longer will women be forced to undergo the humiliation of proving that their child was born as a result of rape in order to receive extra support. Children should not pay the price of political choices, and this Labour Government will make sure that they do not. Turning to public services, I welcome the announcement of 250 new NHS neighbourhood health centres; it builds on the 5.2 million extra NHS appointments that we have already delivered. I will work hard to make sure that we get one in Norwich North. Fixing the NHS is one of the biggest priorities for my constituents, and I know that the Government will continue to focus on that. The east of England is a brilliant place to live, work and do business. Indeed, the recent “Opportunity East” report highlighted that our region is a powerhouse of national growth, generating £214 billion in gross value added annually, and receiving nearly £10 billion of private research and development investment each year. There are many excellent businesses there of all shapes and sizes, as well as entrepreneurs and start-ups, including those based at the Norwich research park, so I welcome the measures in the Budget to back entrepreneurs and start-ups. I also welcome the investment that we have already seen in our region. The historic investment in Sizewell C will create jobs and opportunities for the whole region and, indeed, the country. Yesterday, the Chancellor announced billions in flexible funding for seven mayors to invest in their areas. Given that Norfolk and Suffolk is to elect a mayor next year, I urge the Government to continue this approach, and to back local growth and local leaders. As the Chancellor said, the benefits of investment and growth must be felt in every corner of our country. In conclusion, the Budget starkly contrasts with what we saw under the Conservatives, when living standards for many of my constituents in Norwich North fell. The Chancellor has set out a Budget that is about creating a fairer future for everyone, and that builds stability for Britain today, and for Britain’s tomorrow. It is sad that many Conservative Members reject the choices that we have made. We reject austerity, decline and unfairness. We want a future in which workers are paid fairly, people can pay their bills, we take action to end child poverty for good, everyone can see a doctor when they are sick, and we have a strong and sustainable economy for generations to come. That is the future that I have been fighting for since I was elected, and will continue to fight for.
- 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his remarks on the value for money scheme, which I welcome, and to put on the record that I am a member of the local government pension scheme. I did not have an opportunity to do that earlier.
- 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q My question is related to that. Aviva, in your written evidence, you spoke quite a lot about the value for money framework. Could you expand on what you think the benefits and challenges are? You also referred to the Australian regulator’s model, in terms of learning. You have already covered a bit of it, but if there anything you could add on what we could learn from that model about incentivising investments in the right areas, that would be great. Dale Critchley: What we have heard from Australia is that the thing to avoid is regulator-defined targets, which will probably lead to herding, and can lead to schemes avoiding certain investments. For example, in Australia, property includes social housing and commercial property, but there is one benchmark for everything. So pension schemes do not invest in social housing, because they cannot achieve the benchmark through investing in social housing, as the benchmark is common across all property. Those are things to watch out for. The other piece is that if you have set benchmarks, people will look to achieve the benchmark and not exceed it—they do not want to be the white chicken among all the brown chickens. Those are the things to avoid, in terms of the value for money benchmarks.
- 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.
Explore activity by topic or department
Contributions by debate topic
4 Jul 2025–3 Jul 2026. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained.
View as listWhat this shows and doesn't show
Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →