James Naish MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  This week, Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust declared a “critical incident” after prolonged extreme heat led to increased demand, with more patients suffering dehydration and heat-related illnesses. As my hon. Friend will know, hot spells often go hand in hand with poor air quality. Does he agree that there is an imperative to address poor air quality, and that that imperative is growing as a result of the changing climate?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Historical Forced Adoption · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s heartfelt and important apology. The Prime Minister may recall that 16 years ago, Gordon Brown publicly apologised to Britain’s child migrants—130,000 young children who were sent overseas, often without their parents’ consent, to Commonwealth countries around the world. Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust, which is based in my constituency, continue to support survivors and campaign for recognition and redress. Following today’s apology, alongside the very important commitments that the Prime Minister has made, will he also consider what more can be done to support the child migrants and to honour the national apology that was made back in 2010?

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  I was proud last year to be part of the Government who finally recognised the state of Palestine. However, the very idea of statehood is illusory when such activities are happening. After four rounds of sanctions, what is being done with international partners to hold individuals to account for forced displacement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), as we know that that constitutes a war crime under international humanitarian law?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for bringing this important urgent question to the Chamber. I welcome the Government’s ambition on British steel, but British Gypsum in my constituency has raised concerns about the short-term impact of tariffs and called for transitional arrangements for steel to avoid unintended consequences in the construction industry. Will the Minister comment on the idea of better, stronger transitional arrangements?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Nottingham Maternity and Neonatal Services · Hansard source

  More

  I put on record my thanks and respect for the resolute campaigning of the Nottingham survivors, especially my constituents, Jack and Sarah Hawkins, who have worked so hard to bring these issues to regional and then national attention. They have made sure that baby Harriet’s death was not in vain. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) who was their MP for many years. As she is a Minister, she will not be speaking in this statement, but she deserves recognition for the steadfast support she gave to them as a family, as well as other families from Nottingham South. I thank Donna Ockenden who, in addition to supporting thousands of families, invested so much time in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire MPs to ensure that we understood the systemic failings that she was working so hard to identify. This is undoubtedly a shameful day for the NHS. Another fearless campaigner from Rushcliffe is Ashley Harper, who has been in touch with me about the maternity and neonatal taskforce and its perceived failure to recognise and support families who have been harmed. She would like to see a family expert for harmed children and a family expert for harmed mothers on the taskforce. I know that these asks have been raised by my brave and hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who has done so much for the Nottingham families, but will the Secretary of State say whether that is something he is actively considering?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may well know that it was only a few years ago that the UK met 40% of its own nitrogen and fertiliser needs. Would he commit to working with the Minister for Industry to look at how we can get our domestic production to grow once again, given that under the Conservative party it disappeared altogether?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Newborn Screening Test · Hansard source

  More

  A couple of my constituents with direct experience of SMA got in touch with me. The thing that they identified as being most difficult about the current arrangements with the in-service evaluation is the lack of detail about how long it will take. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Minister could provide a level of clarity about the length of time that the ISE will run, that might give us the sense that there is forward momentum on this issue?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome confirmation that the Pathways clinical trial will continue with the modified protocols in place; it was an important manifesto commitment for the trans community. Does the Secretary of State agree that it might help to reduce the risk in the long term of vulnerable young people seeking to access drugs online, which is currently happening in my constituency?

• 22 Jun 2026 · East Midlands Railway Collision · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of my constituents in Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, I express my condolences to the family of the deceased driver and to all those involved, and give my thanks to the emergency services. This was particularly poignant, as my officer manager’s 12-year-old nephew, Arthur, was in one of the middle carriages. He sustained injuries, but thankfully he has come out relatively unscathed. May I press the Secretary of State to confirm that those investigating the crash will be resourced appropriately, so they can ensure the investigations are concluded as quickly as possible?

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his update on a range of issues from the G7 summit. Could he set out how the Government’s work to de-escalate things in the middle east will help families in Britain and my constituency, specifically when it comes to protecting shipping routes, reducing energy pressures and keeping prices down?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed these issues about Hongkongers and Ukrainians before. We often talk about the Boris wave and the large numbers of immigrants who came to this country. But within those numbers, there were a good half a million people who we wanted to come to this country—who we invited—including Hongkongers, Ukrainians, Afghans and others on humanitarian visas. Does he agree that the language we use and the numbers that we talk about need complete reframing so that we recognise those humanitarian visas, which the vast majority of the British population support?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  On 2 March, I asked the Prime Minister what steps the UK was taking to prepare for targeted stabilisation and humanitarian efforts in Lebanon and Yemen if the Iranian regime changed. While we are all in support of the dismantling of Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, of course, has not changed, but the Israeli Government have none the less stoked regional instability through these wholly disproportionate attacks. Will the Minister therefore condemn the actions being taken by the Israeli forces and reassure my constituents that nothing is off the table when it comes to the UK’s responses to such actions, including sanctions and further arms and trade embargoes?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Community Pharmacies · Hansard source

  More

  I have been fortunate to have a pathfinder within the independent prescribing programme in my constituency. Its data shows that only 5% of patients who use the independent prescribing pathway need to be referred to their GP, so it is exactly as she says: there are huge savings to be made. I must push the Minister, because Community Pharmacy England has said that it is “not persuaded that sufficient investment is being made to enable the full and effective introduction of independent prescribing.” Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister should look at that carefully to make sure that we are getting as much as we can out of community pharmacy?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have had a look at the parliamentary record; Healthwatch has been mentioned over 100 times in the past five years. One key area of focus is its reporting and the insights it provides to Members of Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that whatever replaces Healthwatch must retain that research focus?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Labour Rural Research Group recently did a report on rural poverty, which identified that on average someone living in a rural area is spending £39 more per week on transport costs. That was described as a rural penalty. Would he agree that there is also a coastal penalty, and that ultimately the Government need to abandon their one-size-fits-all approach to running this country and identify the differences between rural, coastal and urban areas?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Local Area Energy Plans · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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).

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for park home owners. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I want to acknowledge the turnout, which is pretty impressive, given that we were voting so late last night. I hope it demonstrates to the Minister how passionate people are about this topic. I am proud to represent six park home sites. In Rushcliffe, as in many constituencies represented here, mobile home sites can be found everywhere. They can be found on the edge of more urban areas, such as the Bassingfield Lane, Carlight Gardens and Greenacres sites near West Bridgford; in smaller village or town settings, such as Radcliffe Park in Radcliffe-on-Trent; and in idyllic rural settings, such as the Tollerton Park site near Tollerton village, or the Langar Woods site near Langar. As those who can count will realise, those are all six park home sites in my constituency.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Alec. I will press on, but the hon. Member is absolutely right and has touched on some issues that I will talk about. I congratulate him on ensuring his residents got their money back. Most concerning, and often alluded to by MPs, is the imbalance of power. A park home resident may own the home they live in, but they are not in control of the land beneath or around it, and they often have a very limited say in related decisions. When the same person or entity controls the site, the pitch, the rules, the maintenance, potentially the utilities, and the conditions under which the home is sold, it is understandable that residents feel exposed. That can and must change. It needs only relatively minor adjustments to legislation. I trust that the Minister and his team will prioritise that in the next parliamentary Session, given the tangible difference that can be made to the lives of 160,000 people up and down the country.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  I trust that the Minister and his team will do exactly that. This is not just about the 10% sales commission; there are broader issues impacting park home residents. I will come on to those matters shortly. Let me say two important things. First, mobile homes can be a very good housing option. They typically offer people a smaller, more manageable home in an attractive, close-knit community. The quality of mobile homes has improved considerably over recent years; the sites are often now home to a diverse mix of individuals and families, just like any other location. Secondly, and critically, for most people park homes are not a second home or a luxury purchase; they are their only home. They therefore represent security, independence and a lifetime of savings, just like the bricks-and-mortar properties that most of us inhabit. That is precisely why protections for mobile home owners matter. We are talking about 160,000 ordinary people living ordinary lives in 100,000 increasingly ordinary properties, but they are underpinned by out-of-date legislation and perceptions. Rightly, the Government are looking at major commonhold, leasehold and fleecehold reforms to end the feudal leasehold system and the injustice of unfair maintenance costs, but as part of those wider changes, park and mobile home owners must not be forgotten. I hope that today’s debate will make sure that they are not. On mobile homes, MPs from parties of all colours have talked over the years about mis-selling, poor maintenance, weak enforcement, opaque utility charges, disputes over pitch fees, sale blocking and the 10% commission charge when a home is sold. Most concerningly, MPs have often alluded to the imbalance of power between mobile home residents and site owners.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will talk later about the different reasons that have been given for the 10% commission, which demonstrate in and of themselves that nobody is sure what it is for. It is a hangover from a past era.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. The charge is poorly understood, insufficiently transparent and increasingly disproportionate, as the value of park homes has risen. In 1983, a park home sold for £12,000 would have generated a commission of £1,200, about 14% of an average salary at the time. In 2026, a park home sold for £160,000 would generate a commission of £16,000, about 42% of the current average salary. The commission is still 10%, but the cash value has grown substantially. I recognise that site owners argue that the commission forms part of their business model and helps to support investment in sites. However, there are already routes for that to be done transparently. For example, under the framework in the Mobile Homes Act 2013, improvements to a park can be reflected in pitch fee reviews, which involve a proper process and residents being consulted. What residents primarily object to is effectively being charged twice by site owners: once through pitch fees and other charges, and again through a 10% deduction from the value of their home when they sell. The inequity is reflected in the ever-changing justifications for the commission. Depending on who people speak to, it has been linked to road maintenance costs, the offsetting of pitch fees, the maintenance of site viability and/or the modernisation of infrastructure. No wonder residents are sceptical about how and where the proceeds are spent. This debate is ultimately about fairness. It is about whether residents can enjoy the home that they have bought on the terms on which they bought it. It is about whether people can understand their bills, challenge unfair charges and sell their homes freely. It is about whether the law is meaningful in practice, not just on paper, and whether a 10% commission charge introduced decades ago remains fair and proportionate today. I hope that the Minister will respond to several points. First, will the Government consider stronger protections at the point of sale, so that buyers are clear about the legal status of a site and their ongoing obligations before they purchase? Secondly, will Ministers review whether local authorities have the resources, expertise and duties needed to consistently enforce site standards? Thirdly, will the Government work with Ofgem to ensure transparent and fair utility charging for residents who receive energy or other utilities through site owners? Finally, will the Minister confirm today that, following the call for evidence, the Government are prepared to consider real reform to the current commission arrangements? Park or mobile home residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for basic fairness, transparency and security in the homes that they have bought. Many have worked hard their whole life, invested their savings and chosen park home living because they believed that it would suit them and offer peace of mind. Like all of us, they deserve a fair system that protects them when things go wrong. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response to Members across the House.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, and I will talk about that in a moment. There has been cross-party consensus on the need to make changes, but it will fall to this Government to make them. I am pleased that in advance of this debate, we saw that move from the Government, and I trust that there will be proper, meaningful change in due course.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I am sure that we will talk a lot about the 10% sales commission, but the hon. Member is right to raise it early on. I am pleased that the Minister leading on the reforms is here. I am sure that he will be listening closely to what Members have to say today. Wherever they are located, mobile home sites are great places to live. They are radically different from the stereotypes of so-called trailer parks from the 1970s and ’80s. Among other things, they offer independence, security and supportive communities. Over the past 21 months, I have been fortunate to work with people from all six Rushcliffe sites on issues related to living in a mobile home. When I applied for this debate, I told the Backbench Business Committee that one thing I have tried to do as a Member of Parliament is to find a couple of policy areas in which small changes can make a big difference to a large number of people. I believe that park or mobile homes are one of those areas. An estimated 160,000 people live in mobile homes in England alone. In effect, that is two whole constituencies of people, or the equivalent of the population of Northampton, Norwich or Reading. However, because of the geographical dispersion of mobile home sites around the country and the lack of critical mass—on average there are fewer than 100 residents per site—mobile home residents are talked about only sporadically. When they are talked about, warm words are rarely followed by action. I am determined that this Parliament will change that for good. To that end, I welcome the fact that in March this Government opened a call for evidence, which closes on Friday 29 May, on the 10% commission charge on park home sales. That is a significant step forward. I hope that today’s debate will ensure that the voices of park and mobile home residents are amplified and heard clearly by Ministers and civil servants as that work continues.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Park Home Owners · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consultation is being run for a reason. I encourage anyone watching the debate or emailing their MPs about it to go further and engage with the consultation, because I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to review those responses.