Budget Resolutions

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

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.

Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Torsten Bell]

I think there is more agreement than the hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out, because we all agree that we want to focus not just on cost and charges. I remind everybody that we were discussing the local government pension scheme this morning—

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

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.

[Torsten Bell]

We are now turning to the value for money framework, which relates to defined-contribution schemes. As I said, we are aiming for a full spectrum of value to be considered by the framework.

I do not think I would normally say this, but I am worried that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is lacking a bit of patriotism, because the Australian scheme does not take into account some of the wider metrics, such as customer service, that he is rightly encouraging the scheme to focus on, whereas the intention in the Bill is exactly as he sets out—that we should be taking into account not only those longer-term returns, which are ultimately what we should all care about, but also customer service. I completely endorse his objectives.

The value for money clauses have been drafted in a way that allows the Secretary of State the necessary flexibility to set out in regulations the categories of information for the VFM assessments of the kind that are set out in the amendment, such that we can adapt to changes in the pension landscape and learn from operational experiences, as we are already learning from the experience in Australia. There are things to learn from Australia that have gone well, and there are certainly things to learn from that have gone less well. Although the amendment recognises the importance of assessing value across all the pillars of value, it is vital that we do not restrict the framework by embedding the exact details of the categories of information in the primary legislation.

VFM metrics, benchmarks and the assessment process will be specified through regulations, providing clarity for industry on how to report on and assess value provided by in-scope schemes—which, as I said, are basically at this stage workplace defined contribution schemes. Over time, those will be reviewed to make sure that they continue to reflect market changes and the needs of savers. For those reasons, we believe that the clauses are spot on. I urge the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to withdraw the amendment.

Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Steve Darling]

Q Thank you both for coming. Reflecting on pensions systems around the world, what one silver bullet would you both say would help drive positive change through this Bill and strengthen it if applied to it?

Colin Clarke: That is a good question. Both our companies have recently been on various trips, to Australia, in particular, and there are various references in the Bill impact assessment to measures that are being or have been done there. One of the key learnings is around improving adequacy. In the round, there are lots of measures in the Bill that will help achieve that—for example, the introduction of the value for money test and the potential for better returns. One of the learnings we took away was around Australia’s “Your Future, Your Super” test, how they define value for money and how appropriate it is to set certain benchmarks. What are the risks if you do set those benchmarks, like the risk of investment herding and things like that? I think the value for money framework, if it is done right, has the potential to improve outcomes for members.

Contributions, obviously, is one big thing—I know that is not in the Bill. The Pensions Commission is going to be looking at that for adequacy in the round. I think that the measures around performance and value, and ensuring that the focus shifts away from cost to value, are among the key things that the Bill will seek to deliver.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

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.

[Rebecca Smith]

Q This builds on something that was mentioned in the previous panel by Age UK—that a lot of the education that will need to be done to ensure that people understand what is going on, particularly with the small pots consolidation, could fall on Government, charities or providers. As pension provider representatives, what is your view on how far into the detail the Bill has gone in terms of who is responsible for that? We have seen in other, similar legislation an expectation put on businesses to provide the service, and it is often done at your cost rather than any sort of Government cost. I would be interested to know what you think about that.

Colin Clarke: I think it is right that the Bill, as I understand it, places the responsibility for member education and member communications on the provider, because ultimately the pension provider will be the organisation facilitating these things and making them happen. As was touched on in the previous panel, the availability of Pension Wise and other services like that is valuable, but I think pension providers ourselves have a responsibility to make sure that we deliver the right guidance and support for members.

Dale Critchley: The only thing I would add to that is that, if we start to edge towards guidance, we can come into an issue around marketing. If we sell the benefits of, for example, the default solution, rather than just say, “This is who the default solution is designed for,” and leave it to the customer to join the dots, we may have a better outcome, but it would be marketing, and we cannot do that, because of the privacy and electronic communications regulations. We would need member consent to deliver marketing communications, even though we are trying to help the customer.

Welfare Reform

Alice Macdonald Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I am absolutely sure that Parkinson’s UK will be involved closely in the PIP review.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Two weeks ago, I held an in-person consultation on the welfare reforms. Many of my constituents were deeply concerned about the proposals, so I welcome the changes the Secretary of State has announced for existing claimants. I want to ask about employment support. I welcome the additional support being brought forward. When will we get more detail on how that will be allocated to schemes across the country, and will the people who need it most be involved in the co-production of those schemes, so that they work effectively?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we already have what we are calling a collaboration committee on the pathways-to-work funding to ensure that it really meets the needs of sick and disabled people. As I have said in the House before, it really is about a pathway to work—for some people, just getting out of the house, or getting out of bed, is a huge achievement; for others, it might be about going along to a group, beginning to speak to other people and getting their confidence back. It really is a pathway to success. We will be setting out precise allocations of the pathways-to-work funding in due course, but I want to reassure Members that it will be available in every single part of the country.