TRADE Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) Worcester parliamentary candidate Pete McNally answers five key questions.

- How do we solve Worcester’s congestion problems?

Due to house building in the county, congestion will worsen if nothing is done.

We need to get rail stations between Droitwich and Worcester and Malvern and Worcester so the option of not travelling by car is realistic.

Cycling must be made a safe option with cycle lanes kept free from traffic and linked to each other.

Bus services must be regular, reliable and cheap, in particular to cater for the elderly, disabled and others suffering social isolation.

Employers should offer flexible start and finish times and help to organise car share schemes so there are less vehicles on the roads.

What is your biggest concern for Worcester?

My biggest concern is that Worcester is becoming a low wage, low skill economy in line with the rest of the UK.

I would press for a £10 per hour minimum wage so that workers can live on their pay without claiming in-work benefits.

It is estimated that UK retail workers alone claim £11 billion per year in benefits to make up their income.

This is a subsidy to low-paying employers.

Is the answer to Worcestershire Royal Hospital’s challenges an upgrade of A&E?

An upgrade could only be a temporary measure. It is quite clear the hospital is too small.

What is obvious is that the way the NHS is run currently is unfit for purpose. There is little public input and little forward planning.

There is no effective forum in which the users of the NHS and those who work in it can have their views and concerns expressed.

I think the NHS trade unions and patients’ groups along with the wider community must have a decisive role in plans for the future of the NHS.

Is it worth campaigning over Worcester’s Northern Link Road?

It seems that even if a Northern Link Road were built it would not be for years.

We need to change the way people move about but involve them in that process.

I’m sceptical about the idea that the answer to traffic problems is another road. How many times has this worked?

We also face major problems in maintaining the existing road network to a reasonable standard; this is more important to me.

Is there – and should there be – an alternative to the South Worcestershire De - velopment Plan (SWDP)?

As people who have experienced the so-called planning system at first-hand recently will know, you can object to a development but the developer will win because they have the money and the profit incentive to win and the government has changed planning laws in favour of development.

The SWDP has not led to planning of development but to a profit-driven free-for-all without reference to employment, transport or infrastructure.

An alternative to this failure to take account of local views and provide affordable homes must be found.