James Naish
MP for Rushcliffe · Labour · United Kingdom
“I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of West Bridgford in my constituency, calling for the creation of a new town council. West Bridgford is home to around 40,000 people, making it by far the largest settlement in Rushcliffe, yet unlike almost every other part of the borough it has no town or parish council to represent its…”
“Indeed, an independent survey carried out earlier this year found exceptionally high engagement. The petition I present today therefore reflects that local desire for greater democratic representation and asks the Government to work with Rushcliffe borough council as the process moves forward.”
“I thank the Minister for all the work that he has done, especially on the co-production front, which has been so important to disabled communities. One of my constituents had his PIP disallowed on renewal over a late form. He was reassessed, with no change to his condition, and scored zero points, which was upheld on review.”
“My hon. Friend just mentioned small acts. Last week, three of my constituents, Mike, Fiona and Mary, travelled to Parliament and green-carded me so that they could talk to me about the situation in Gaza.”
“That sounds good, but I would be doing my constituents a disservice if I stood in this place and pretended that the job was done, because just over a week ago, on 29 June, NUH declared a critical incident after the recent extreme heat drove demand across the trust far beyond what its emergency department could safely absorb.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I appreciate being called. Before I begin my speech, I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) mentioned coastal communities.”
The complete record
Every one of 428 lines we hold for James Naish, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“That creates an enforcement gap between legal rights and the ability to exercise them, particularly for vulnerable residents. Fourthly, transparency over utilities has been raised with me by constituents at one of my weekly surgeries. Where residents receive electricity, gas or water via the site owner, it can be difficult to understand billing, fairness and eligibility for support. Residents need clear, enforceable rights to transparent billing, fair pricing and clarity on the Government’s engagement with Ofgem’s work on resale pricing. Finally, there is the 10% sales commission, which has been raised several times today. For residents, that is a direct loss of equity, often at the moment when they need their money most, potentially to move closer to family, move into more suitable accommodation or fund care costs.”
“While preparing for the debate, I was made aware of several threats of eviction for non-payment of pitch fees and charges, some of which have been legitimately contested by residents. More than once, the management of mobile home sites has been described as the wild west. It is clear that stronger protections are needed to prevent unscrupulous practices. Thirdly, the word “enforcement” has already been mentioned. In one case, a constituent of mine was chased for six years by a management company to pay for drain clearance that was not her responsibility. Although rights exist, and local authorities have powers, many residents feel unsupported when issues arise. They may be passed between councils, tribunals and advice services. They may fear repercussions for complaining.”
“I will press on and see where we get to. I will not go into detail about many key issues facing park and mobile home owners—I am sure colleagues will touch on them, as they have already started to—but I want to mention, up front, some key items that are common across all sites. The first is maintenance and site standards. Site residents frequently report poor upkeep, damaged roads, drainage issues and neglected communal areas, despite continuing to pay high fees directly to the site owners. One of my six park home sites has repeatedly raised issues about poor waste disposal, leading to rats on site, and intermittent issues with water and heating quality. Such issues raise fundamental questions about transparency and accountability in how residents’ money is used. Secondly, there is the transparency of pitch fees and charges.”
“I look forward to seeing the moves the Government make over the coming months. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered Government support for park home owners.”
“I thank hon. Members for joining the debate. We have covered the whole country—from the south coast all the way up to parts of northern England and to Northern Ireland, which of course has slightly different legislative foundations—and I am really pleased there has been such strong representation. I thank the Minister for outlining the timeline on the commitment towards the end of the year, and for providing clarity to park home owners. Three things have come up repeatedly: the security that park homes provide, the need for greater transparency and ultimately the word that has been repeated by so many Members, which is “fairness”. With the Minister’s support, I hope we can make progress over this Parliament to ensure that park and mobile home owners have that fairness.”
“It connects local planning to real investment decisions and ensures that the transition happens with people, not to them, while still making the essential shift to cleaner, greener energy eminently deliverable. I therefore commend this Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to . Ordered, That James Naish, Chris Bloore, Maya Ellis, Dr Allison Gardner, Jodie Gosling, Chris Hinchliff, Ms Julie Minns, Perran Moon and Samantha Niblett present the Bill. James Naish accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 438).”
“It is estimated that £40 billion could be spent annually on new energy infrastructure between now and 2030. The question is not whether that money should be spent, because it must be spent; the question is: what evidence and voices inform how and where it is spent? The window of opportunity is narrow, because business plans for the next price control period and the regional energy strategic plans will both be finalised by 2028. Getting the local layer right now is therefore essential. That will reduce conflict, prevent delays and limit expensive changes down the line, so I hope the Government will take this matter seriously. This Bill gives communities a genuine stake in where and how energy infrastructure is delivered.”
“I believe that this Bill is the only way to genuinely shift the dial away from “this was done to us” to “I had a say”; away from “nobody cares” to “this project was considered and discussed locally”; and away from “why here?” to “I understand why and how we are playing our part.” I do not pretend that this Bill will satisfy everyone. Some people do not want wind turbines or solar farms full stop, and no amount of process should change that. However, in my experience, local opposition is not normally a fundamental objection to renewable energy. Rather, such opposition is about feeling blindsided and lacking control, and about not having a local narrative about which energy projects have been consented to and why, or an understanding about how those projects can contribute to a better, cleaner, local future.”
“It would not allow local area energy plans to contradict national policy statements, and it would not provide a mechanism for blocking infrastructure that has legitimate need. Rather, it recognises that local area energy plans can help to shape where, how and when infrastructure is delivered locally, and bring communities and elected representatives into a very important and consequential conversation. Handled badly, energy projects become a source of major grievance. Handled well, as has happened in Bassetlaw, they become something else: a story about jobs, investment, agency and, ultimately, consent and control.”
“The Secretary of State would set those targets but communities would help to decide where the infrastructure goes, much like local plans for housing. In so doing, we would spread the load and take people on the journey. Thirdly, the Bill would make data-sharing by distribution network operators mandatory, meaning that constraint data, reinforcement plans, connection queues and capacity forecasts would be provided in standardised formats. Finally, the Bill would give legal weight to local area energy plans. I believe that energy needs and generation should be a material consideration in planning decisions, and considered as formal evidence in network investment cases assessed by Ofgem. Let me be clear about what the Bill would not do.”
“This is not a new idea, as local area energy plans have existed as a methodology since 2018. Dozens of councils have produced them, detailing specific energy system changes, locations and delivery timelines, but they remain voluntary in England. That means the essential transition to green energy is potentially being made without consistent, meaningful local engagement across the country. I do not want to see that. This Bill proposes that we do four things. First, it would place a duty on every local authority in England to prepare, adopt and maintain a local area energy plan. Secondly, critically, it states that these plans must identify sites capable of meeting energy generation targets set for each area.”
“Without that, regional planning will either proceed on assumptions that are subsequently contested or stall while fighting objections to top-down diktats. Even worse, communities with valuable National Grid connections are inundated with projects, some of which are unlikely ever to proceed. I recently hosted a surgery near Ratcliffe-on-Soar, in my Rushcliffe constituency, which hosted a coal-fired power station. One parish councillor told me that he and a small team of volunteers had reviewed over a dozen applications for new grid connections—over a dozen. This level of disorder means host communities cannot see the wood for the trees, and cannot picture how the projects that do go ahead will contribute to a joined-up narrative about local energy generation. I believe that there is an answer: mandatory local area energy plans.”
“Nationally, there is an emerging sense of order: the National Energy System Operator—NESO—is producing regional energy strategic plans for the whole of Great Britain by 2028, which are long overdue; Ofgem is simultaneously mapping the network upgrades needed in every locality; and the clean power 2030 action plan sets out what we need and, for the first time, where we need it. This means that the strategic framework for the energy sector is being strengthened across the board. Yet there is still a gap. NESO’s regional plans need local inputs to be credible, including demand projections, spatial constraints, sequencing preferences, but there is no meaningful or consistent dialogue taking place with local authorities.”
“In contrast with how we plan housing, through local plans with formal regulation consultations, right now there are no meaningful strategic conversation or consultation about energy infrastructure. Yes, individual projects consult about their impacts, but no strategic oversight or decision making is required by local authorities, which, on energy matters, are overwhelmingly reactive rather than proactive. In my view, that has to change if we are to deliver successfully our clean energy mission. Let me describe more clearly what is happening.”
“I would like it to be, and I believe that it can be, through the universal adoption of local area energy plans. The Government are advancing one of the largest infrastructure programmes that this country has seen in generations. As part of it, tens of billions of pounds are rightly being spent on energy projects to end our dependency on international fossil fuel markets. At the same time, we are rewiring the energy network in response to changes in how we generate, store and distribute power. Ordinary people can now generate energy and sell power back to the grid, meaning that we operate in a radically different energy landscape. Yet we are doing a lot of that without purposefully engaging communities about new infrastructure.”
“I set up a residents’ planning group, which over 18 months demonstrated that Bassetlaw would make a fantastic home for the world’s first prototype fusion energy plant. Nottinghamshire won that multibillion-pound project, and I believe that the types and quality of community engagement were a key reason behind that outcome. I hope that when I speak in this place about the energy sector and community engagement, I do so from a position of knowledge and understanding. It is worth stating that there are excellent examples, across the private and public sectors, of taking communities on a journey from being uninformed to becoming knowledgeable, from being nervous to feeling confident, and from being sceptical to being supportive, as a result of good engagement. Sadly, however, that is not the norm for energy projects.”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on local authorities in England to produce and maintain local area energy plans; to make provision about the content of those plans and limitations on that content; and for connected purposes. I am proud that before coming to this place I worked in the energy sector. At SSE I led large industry change programmes, such as faster switching, and at Northern Powergrid I led the customer engagement workstream for its ED2 business plan. I therefore refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am also proud that, as a councillor, I led bottom-up public engagement on the future of West Burton power station in north Nottinghamshire.”
“And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Rushcliffe, Declares that an assisted dying law should be enacted without further delay, following the House of Commons voting in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in June 2025; and further declares that there is overwhelming public support for law change. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. And the petitioners remain, etc.]”
“They do not want to return to Second and Third Reading debates in future but, like many ordinary people, they would like to see laws change in this place, and they are finding the processes opaque and slow. Their trust in the system is waning. To that end, Hilary, Joe, Robert, Patricia, Eve, Karen and many other constituents who signed this petition asked whether I would formally put their concerns on the parliamentary record, which I am doing. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take such actions as are within its power to facilitate the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.”
“From October 2024 onwards, I did my best to engage fully and properly with the assisted dying debate that took place across England and Wales. I met campaigners on both sides of the debate in my constituency, and did my best to explain my conclusions to constituents at all times. Today I am presenting a petition signed by residents who tracked me down in the pouring rain while I was door-knocking in Keyworth a few weeks ago, such was their commitment to this cause. They wanted me to know that while they respect the need for scrutiny of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, they are concerned about the possibility that the Bill will not become law because the parliamentary Session is likely to end in the coming weeks, before the Bill has returned to this Chamber.”
“Clearly, we are talking about having access to accurate court transcripts. I have been contacted by a couple of constituents who work as registered public service interpreters. They feel that the current system is very patchy and that the quality of interpretation services is not good enough. Indeed, someone can still act as an interpreter in the system without professional or vocational training. Does the hon. Member agree that we must raise standards and ensure that there is a strong supply of level 6 qualified interpreters to support people in getting access to the transcripts we are discussing?”
“I am sorry for intervening on my hon. Friend, but as my constituency neighbour, I am sure she will understand why I do so. Many of her constituents use East Midlands Parkway station in my constituency to get down to London, and we are fortunate to have that direct line, but it is not electrified, which means that it is not the quickest line and it creates pollution. The procurement of the next phase of the midland main line electrification was delayed by the 2024 general election and then the spending review, despite it being worth £400 million in socioeconomic benefits. Will she support me and other colleagues here this evening—I know that another Member will be raising this point later—in urging that that decision be looked at?”
“I just need to reinforce the point that my hon. Friend makes, because the east midlands already receives the lowest level of transport spending per head of any UK region or nation—just 56% of the UK average. Although I do not want to undermine the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), which is extremely important and which I support, would my hon. Friend agree that the east midlands in particular has to be looked at, because places such as his constituency and mine have not had the money they deserve?”
“Indeed, on three key criteria we remain on the wrong side of important UK averages: our median earnings are below the UK average, our unemployment is above the UK average, and our productivity is significantly below the UK average, at just 84.8% in 2023.”
“That points to a national policy failure that the Labour Government must at long last address via a long-term commitment to four things: backing our region across all Whitehall Departments; sustained levels of public investment, to correct historical injustices; further devolution, to empower local communities across our region; and a coherent set of tailored policy interventions that will turn the page on a sustained sense of managed decline for many parts of our region for over 40 years. I hope we will hear those things from the Minister today. Having led a local authority in Nottinghamshire before coming to this place, I know that the east midlands is often forgotten.”
“In short, our region’s potential is obvious to anybody who cares to look, yet despite our having 5.1 million people, 403,000 businesses and a fabulous location in the heart of the UK, today’s debate is likely to repeat messages that I know have been said many times in this place: that the east midlands is under-recognised, under-appreciated and still does not receive its fair share of UK Government investment.”
“We have a range of excellent universities, from Loughborough and Nottingham to Lincoln and Northampton, all of which have produced fantastic start-ups. We are home to major energy projects and developers, such as STEP Fusion, the world-leading fusion energy programme, and great British businesses such as Derby’s Rolls-Royce, which was selected as the preferred bidder to partner with Great British Energy to develop small modular reactors.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered productivity and economic growth in the East Midlands. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I want to start by telling you, as someone from London, about how great the east midlands is. Home to Derbyshire, Leicestershire, most of Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland, we are central to the country’s logistics network, with fantastic facilities such as Magna Park in Lutterworth, Daventry international rail freight terminal and, of course, the UK’s largest freight airport at East Midlands airport. We have deep industrial roots, with space engineering expertise in Leicester, biomedical sciences clusters in Nottingham, and nuclear and rail engineering proficiency in Derby.”
“This work was about trying to distil, from the people who know our region the best, what the most serious barriers to boosting economic growth and productivity are, and about determining what practical steps the Government should take to address them.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right: there are fantastic advanced manufacturing capabilities across the country, including in the east midlands, and the supply chain and the skills chain are key to making them thrive. I will come on to skills in the east midlands in a moment. Ahead of the comprehensive spending review last year, the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands launched an inquiry into regional priorities. We received 34 written submissions and held an oral evidence session here in Westminster, with contributions from local government, business, infrastructure, skills and other sectors.”
“Indeed, there is not one—although I will briefly put on the record the need for junction 24 of the M1 to be upgraded as a strategic priority for our road network.”
“Flooding can sometimes seem like a subject separate from growth and productivity, but in the east midlands, which has the greatest share of properties at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea of any English region, it is very much part of the same conversation. If we want growth, if we want to boost investor confidence, and if we want housing delivery and economic resilience, flood adaptation and mitigation are not optional extras. They must be seen as enablers for economic growth as well as for protecting food and energy security, which our region provides in abundance, especially in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. Together, the recommendations show that the east midlands is not looking for a silver bullet.”
“Fourthly, the inquiry recommended that the east midlands should play a central role in the country’s net zero transition, given its historical role powering millions of homes and businesses across the UK. Linked to that was the call made by more than 30 MPs to finally electrify the midland main line to Sheffield, which has sadly become a byword in our region for slow, uneven and stop-start infrastructure investment into a really important part of the country. Fifthly, the inquiry suggested that the Government should reform how flood resilience funding is targeted so that it reflects social need and repeated risk, rather than underlying land values.”
“Secondly, the APPG inquiry recommended that we pilot enhanced local employment hubs across the east midlands, devolving skills, careers and business support in a way that genuinely reflects local labour markets. One of the strongest themes in the evidence received by the inquiry was frustration with the fragmentation of the skills system. There are too many pots of money, too many separate agencies, too much inconsistency and too little flexibility, all of which hamper growth and productivity. Thirdly, the inquiry recommended that we should expand women’s health hubs across the region, given the relatively poor life expectancy of women in too many parts of the east midlands. All genders and all age groups must contribute to closing the east midlands growth and productivity gaps, and targeted interventions will be required to realise that.”
“I place on the record my thanks to everyone who contributed to it. I believe its conclusions were fair and grounded, and we will make sure that the Minister receives a copy of the report. The inquiry came to five primary conclusions. First, unsurprisingly, it suggested that the Government need actively to rebalance public investment, especially in transport, so that it better reflects housing and employment growth potential and delivery. I wholeheartedly welcome the Treasury’s Green Book being updated, but that in itself will not correct historical imbalances that must be addressed if we want places like the east midlands to maximise their potential. There is a genuine need for overcorrection.”
“We are clearly taking our growth responsibilities seriously locally, yet despite that housing growth, transport spend per head in the region has fallen to just 54% of the UK average. That is not just slightly below, but 54% of the average—the lowest level of any UK region or nation. Rail funding per head is just over 40% of the UK average, and only around a third of the level seen in the west midlands. The gaps have not emerged overnight: they are the product of choices over many years, under Governments of different colours, and they have had real consequences, shaping whether businesses grow, whether local labour markets function properly and whether people—my constituents—can access high-quality job opportunities. In short, inadequate investment has suppressed our region’s true potential. That is why the APPG inquiry was conducted.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have already mentioned the need for greater devolution. Of course, in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire we are seeing the dividends of that under Claire Ward, but I appreciate that Leicestershire still has some way to go to get the equivalent devolution. I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s call. Before I share the recommendations of the APPG inquiry, I should say that I hope the Minister recognises that the inquiry’s very existence shows that we are serious about growth as a region. What is more, over the past 25 years we have delivered 35,000 more homes than our counterparts in the west midlands, even though the west midlands has a population that is about 20% larger.”
“The Government must commit, first, to back our region across all Whitehall Departments, working together; secondly, to sustained levels of public investment to address the historical inadequacies I have talked about; thirdly, to further devolving and empowering local communities across our region, giving them more powers; and fourthly, to creating a coherent set of tailored policy interventions, which will turn the page on 40 years of perceived managed decline. These four things cannot come a day too soon for the east midlands. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions, followed by the Minister’s response.”
“I refuse to accept that, and I am sure that many colleagues present refuse to accept it as well. The east midlands is a region of makers, exporters, innovators and workers. We are home to strategic industries, nationally significant infrastructure and major universities. We have delivered homes, created jobs, powered the country for generations and shown ambition. What we need now is for the Government to match our potential and ambition with commitment and action. I will repeat the four things I mentioned earlier.”
“Thirdly, will she confirm what steps the Government are taking to ensure that investment decisions are better aligned with the scale of housing and employment growth that is already being delivered in our region? Fourthly, is she willing to take seriously, along with other Departments, the APPG’s recommendations on the need for tailored local employment hubs and women’s health hubs? Finally, will the Minister give the House some reassurances that the east midlands will not be told once again that its time will come? Too many people in my constituency of Rushcliffe, and across our region, have heard that before, and have sadly formed the view that the east midlands is important, but not important enough—that it is valued in theory, but not in practice.”
“The question is whether our regional and national policy frameworks are agile enough and, more pertinently, fair enough to support those growth prospects. I do not believe they are. That is why we are here on our region’s behalf once again to call for a fairer settlement and a serious attempt to remove the structural blockers that are holding us back. We need the Government, who were overwhelmingly backed by voters across the region, to look at how poorly the east midlands is currently treated and to finally act to address that. I hope the Minister will address a few points directly. First, does she accept that the east midlands has for too long received a persistently unfair share of transport and infrastructure investment? Secondly, does she accept that that acts as a material drag on our local economy?”
“On Friday, I was part of a conversation about the potential impact of the Trent sports quarter on Rushcliffe, and Nottingham Forest’s expanded City Ground proposal. The fact that we have only three crossings across the Trent came up several times, so I absolutely support my hon. Friend in that call for a fourth crossing. Rather than a silver bullet, the east midlands needs a serious, joined-up approach to growth because infrastructure, skills, health, clean energy and climate resilience—the five points that I just raised—are not separate conversations. They all need serious consideration to determine whether our region can fulfil its potential in powering the national economy. Let me be clear: the east midlands does not lack growth prospects. On the contrary, it is full of them—I know colleagues will make the case for their local areas.”
“Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) was absolutely right to talk about the importance of leading with public sector investment—not relying on the private sector, but moving forward with the public sector. That is what I hope our Government will be doing, and I believe they are seeking to do that, but we must put our foot on the accelerator when it comes to the east midlands because we are starting a long way behind other regions of the country. I am sure we will continue to work across the House to promote the east midlands. With that in mind, I will invite all Members to room W2 at 11 o’clock so that we can quickly reconstitute the APPG for the east midlands and continue this work over the next 12 months. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered productivity and economic growth in the East Midlands.”
“The truth is, however, that the east midlands is building back from years of under-investment. My constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), mentioned the need for flooding investment and better local government funding. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about the fragmentation of strategic and industrial leadership. Many Members mentioned the lack of rail connections, which are so important for boosting our economy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) talked about the need for reliable public transport. I know she, and all of us here, will be seeking to work closely with our relevant local authorities and strategic leadership to make sure that is delivered for our constituents. My hon.”
“I thank you, Dr Huq, and all Members for their contributions. It came as no surprise to me that this was effectively a debate of two halves. On the one hand, we heard about the positives. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about the east midlands having the largest port in the country. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) reminded us of that fantastic football result in 2015-16, which is probably still the east midlands’ greatest achievement. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) talked about the Government’s commitment to nuclear and engineering capability. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) talked about an industrial presence, and it was good to hear about jobs returning to his area.”
“Nottingham Rugby is based in my constituency. It plays in what was formerly known as the Championship and is now known as the Champ. The reality is that funding for the Championship, which is the second tier of rugby in England, has fallen sharply in recent years and my local club is genuinely struggling to stay afloat. The hon. Gentleman has talked about women’s rugby being largely semi-professional rather than professional. The truth is that the same is true in the second tier of men’s rugby as well. Does he agree that that raises genuine questions about the viability of rugby? And if he does, would he also agree that it would be wise for Ministers to genuinely look at how long the game can survive?”
“I want to put on the record that Nottingham Rugby took out a £900,000 covid-19 loan. Before the pandemic, it was receiving somewhere between £500,000 and £750,000 a year in a grant from the RFU, but that is now down to around £150,000, so that £900,000 covid-19 loan is simply not payable. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that covid-19 loans are now a real problem for those smaller clubs, and are becoming a burden that probably will not be payable?”
“I will support the Government tonight, because it is clear that decisive action is needed to tackle the backlog that so many Members have described, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are genuinely confident about the package of reforms that they are presenting, it would be fair and proportionate to add a review clause or the equivalent to ensure that we are clear about whether we actually need some of these measure?”
“On that point, my local authority is currently sitting on £50 million of developer funds that it was paid, but those funds are not being spent in the local community because there is not the total money needed to invest in health, infrastructure, schools and other things. Does the hon. Member agree that that is something we must look at, to make sure that money set aside for development is spent with urgency in our communities?”
“I am based on the outskirts of Nottingham, and already this year we have had three critical incidents at Queen’s medical centre, which is the main hospital in the city. They have all been based around A&E, and they were all the exact situation that the hon. Member describes. A&E has capacity for 350 patients, but it has routinely been seeing over 500. Does he agree that, in addition to the pressures he describes, there is a reputational risk to the NHS when such incidents are being declared because of physical capacity issues?”