Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend will be aware that funding for almost all these schemes comes through the new local growth fund, which is being used to finance transport improvements up and down the country, but of course, if he cares to provide me with the details, I am happy to meet him to discuss them.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of East Coast Main Line Ltd’s financial performance.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

My officials regularly meet representatives of East Coast Main Line and Directly Operated Railways to discuss the performance of the franchise. DOR’s financial accounts are published on its website annually. On 24 October, I announced the start of the competition for a new private sector partner for InterCity East Coast and published a prospectus for the East Coast Main Line business, which included an assessment of its financial performance.

[Mrs McGuire]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Will he confirm that while German, Dutch and French railway companies will be allowed to tender for the new franchise, a successful British company that is currently operating the franchise will not be allowed to do so?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I refer the right hon. Lady back to the time when she was a supporting member of the previous Government, when the then Secretary of State said:

“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely…because of our recent experience on rail franchising”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]

Rail franchising has led to the biggest growth in rail usage in this country that we have ever seen—up from 750 million to 1.5 billion passenger journeys. I want that improvement to continue, and that is why huge investment is going into the east coast main line.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government have no plans to fund the reduction or abolition of tolls on the Mersey tunnels. Tolls on the new Mersey gateway bridge will be set by the Mersey gateway crossings board, an independent subsidiary of Halton borough council set up to manage the scheme. My hon. Friend knows that the indicative and maximum toll levels were agreed as part of the public inquiry, and were set out under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

T3. A couple of days ago, Carlos Tevez, the Manchester City striker, admitted to not having a valid UK driving licence. It was said that the theory test would be difficult for him as it is conducted in English. Given that many people who are legitimately and legally in the UK need to drive after the 12-month grace period, does the Department offer the theory test in other languages? If not, why not, given that in the interests of road safety it is more important that people are encouraged to take the test, rather than have them worry about whether their written English skills are up to scratch?

[Stephen Hammond]

I can confirm that the test is offered in more languages in this country than it is in any other in Europe. I am, however, consulting on whether to reduce the number, because it is clear that a key aspect of road safety is involved: if people cannot understand the test in English, they might not be able to understand the road signs.

Rail Freight Traffic

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sandra Osborne]

Yes, and some of the companies are not in a position to do that, even if they wanted to.

In 2012, 1,196 people are directly employed in open-cast mining in Scotland and 704 in east Ayrshire, which has the greatest number of coal sites in Scotland and the highest number employed in the industry. It produces more coal than any other area in Scotland and that is worth some £9.4 million to the local community. Following the decline of the deep mining sector and the devastation that followed, decline has set in and has been difficult to shift. The area has had consistently higher than average unemployment rates, population decline and trends of low economic activity and a high percentage of jobs in the public and retail sectors and areas of high relative deprivation. I am sure that the Minister gets the picture, but, if not, he is welcome to come to see for himself. The bottom line is that under no circumstances can we afford to lose the relatively secure, well-paid, private sector employment and input to the local community that the open-cast mines bring.

The consultation includes a range of suggested charge increases, but an increase of £4.50 a tonne is forecast. The consultation states that coal producers could absorb that increase in track charges, but no evidence base is presented to support the assertion and it appears to be just an arbitrary statement. Furthermore, the consultation proposes that the coal and the nuclear industries be singled out to be burdened with the increased track charges. A cynical view would be that the ORR sees those industries as a captive market without the ability to revert to road transport.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there has been an element of price stability in rail freight charges and that organisations and companies, such as Fergusson Group—one of the major suppliers of coal—in my constituency could not have factored in the massive price hike suggested in the consultation?

[Sandra Osborne]

Yes. The regulator has a duty to ensure that companies can anticipate what the price regime will be, so that they can plan.

Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that coal production in the UK was 17.9 million tonnes in 2011, and Scotland contributed 33% of that, as a part of supplying the UK’s coal-fed electricity generation needs. There are concerns that the consultation proposals are contrary to certain Government policies and, if implemented, could pose a serious threat to not only the coal industry, but the rail freight industry and, in particular, the viability of Scottish coal mines, as I said. Only a few minutes ago, the Freight Transport Association contacted me with its concerns about the potentially devastating impact on rail freight in Scotland.

Coal is a significant and essential component to electricity generation in the UK. It regularly contributes more than 50% of the electricity produced on a winter day and, quite commonly, 40% on a summer day. Against that background, requirements are also imposed by the large plant combustion directive, the industrial emissions directive and electricity market reform. Notwithstanding that, the key electricity market reform drivers are security of supply, affordability of electricity and decarbonisation.

The proposed increase in track charges will threaten the security of indigenous coal production if we accept that the result of such charges will be to shrink the coal market by 5% to 10%, as identified in the consultation. That would damage the secure industry base of coal-generated electricity capacity, which has been consistent at 40% to 50% of the total generation. Given the much longer haul from the mines in Scotland to the English power stations, the adverse consequences of the track charges will be disproportionately felt in Scotland compared with elsewhere in the UK.

On the affordability of electricity, the consultation assumes that the Scottish coal producers will absorb the increased costs. As previously stated, there is no evidence base for such an assumption, and the coal industry is currently under financial pressure. The additional costs will threaten mine viability, given the inevitable switch to gas by generators, and that will impact on price and the security of supply.

In the conclusion to the report “The impact of changes in access charges on the demand for coal”, the ORR consultants acknowledge the threat to Scottish-produced coal by the long-term impact of increased track charges on the development of future open-cast mines in Scotland. However, those concerns do not appear to have made it to the conclusions of the main consultation report. I can only assume that they believe that the Scottish coal industry and more than 1,000 Scottish jobs are expendable. What form of consultation was carried out by NERA—the ORR consultants—to allow the suggestion that the Scottish coal producers can bear the cost of any changes? The fact is that they cannot and will not absorb those extra costs.

The ORR charging regime could detrimentally affect employment and investment in Scotland’s mining sector and typically in economically deprived areas. Have the Scottish Government and relevant local authorities engaged with ORR to assess the potential effect, and will mitigation plans be drawn up should the proposals be implemented?

Would a 10% reduction—the reduction proposed by ORR for freight traffic—in passenger traffic be considered an acceptable result of increased track charges? If not, has ORR discriminated against the coal industry on the basis that it seems to be content to see a decline in real freight traffic?

Assuming a 5% to 10% reduction in UK coal production, there will be a requirement to increase the amount of coal that is imported, which will increase the carbon footprint in transport and probably increase carbon emissions. The transfer of environmental and social impacts overseas is of concern to the UK Government. The report “Securing the future—UK Government sustainable development strategy” states that environmental policy should encompass impacts outside the UK. It says that

“there would be little value in reducing environmental impacts within the UK if the result were merely to displace those impacts overseas.”

Those impacts would include the transport of raw materials into the UK. It is important that the UK makes the most of its indigenous coal assets and recognises that, apart from the important security of supply issue, a domestic minerals industry is the most sustainable way to supply the market.

In the market analysis section of the consultation, there is an acknowledgement that there could be a substantial reduction—up to 25%—in the demand for rail-hauled coal because

“there is scope for reductions in length of haul”.

As coal can only be mined where it exists, it appears to be a clear policy of the ORR to direct electricity generators to import coal via ports to achieve the shorter haul on rail that it alludes to in its analysis, rather than take indigenous UK coal. Owing to the substantially longer haul distances for Scottish mined coal to the English power stations, the track charge proposal can only be seen as a direct attack on the Scottish coal mines.

Furthermore, generators sourcing their coal from overseas will not be able to pass on any increased track charges to international coal producers. Despite all the crocodile tears that we have heard in the past couple of weeks, the only way in which those extra costs can be recovered is through increasing the price of electricity to the consumer. If there is a need substantially to increase coal imports, there is concern over whether there is enough rail-served deep port capacity to cope with the increase.

Carbon capture and storage projects are due to start in 2014. The proposed increase in track charges could seriously damage the prospects of such projects before they start. That would threaten the ability of the UK to build up its indigenous capacity and to be self-sufficient with respect to energy supply. We all know that carbon capture and storage is the way forward for the coal industry in the longer term.

It is clear from the ORR-commissioned reports that a distance-related charge creates significant market distortion. How is that acceptable in competition terms? The Scottish industry has invested tens of millions over recent years. How could this fundamental change in charging policy by the ORR have been reasonably anticipated, and hence the risk of stranded investments avoided?

Has the ORR constructed an economic impact assessment on how the increase in charge would affect the Scottish mining industry, and how will such a charge affect the rural communities in my constitueny? We have already been thrown to the wolves once before.

The coal industry is heavily dependent on a healthy rail freight sector, and any potential threat to it is also a direct threat to the coal industry. The Rail Freight Group issued its initial response to the consultation in a letter to the chief executive of the ORR on 28 May 2012. I note the RFG’s comment about how the ORR chose to balance its duties and whether undue weight was given to the duty to have regard to the funds available to the Secretary of State, perhaps at the expense of the duty to promote the use of the railway for rail traffic, and the duty to enable companies to plan their businesses with reasonable assurance. That concern seems to be backed up with the apparent acceptance by the ORR within the consultation document that a 10% drop in coal-rail traffic as a result of increased track charges is acceptable, without any analysis of the potential impact on the rail freight industry or on the coal industry as an end user.

In a letter to me on 1 October, the Minister stated:

“the Government wishes to facilitate the continuing development of a competitive, efficient and dynamic private sector rail freight industry. We are committed to ensuring that policies and regulations should work to this end and should not create unnecessary transactional costs or other obstacles to the achievement of these objectives and future growth. In an industry where planning and operational decision-making are increasingly devolved, we would wish ORR to have regard to the importance of sustaining efficient and commercially predictable network-wide freight operations when they take decisions about access rights and charging structure.”

Although that may not have been the unequivocal response that I would have liked, it did raise my hopes that the Minister understood what the impact of these proposals would be if they were put into practice.

All my comments show that the consultation has been blinkered. It has not considered the wider strategic effect if the suggested track charges are implemented. The proposed track charge increase appears arbitrary and not supported by any evidence base, as is the comment that the coal industry would be able to absorb such costs. That leads on to the unacceptable conclusion that there will be a reduction of 5% to 10% in coal transport by rail, which is an odd position for the ORR to support, bearing in mind that it has a duty to promote rail use.

If those charges are implemented, they will affect the viability of the UK coal industry, especially in Scotland, with the resultant increase in imports and carbon footprint and loss of employment. The practical effect of the proposals is a direct attack on the coal industry in Scotland and the likely withholding of further investment in the industry. The proposal would also seem to be contrary to other Government policies of indigenous energy generation, security and affordability of supply, employment and sustainable development.

I hope that the Government will agree that the most appropriate way forward is the maintenance of the status quo in respect of the current charging regime. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I apologise again for my slightly difficult throat.

Dangerous Driving

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns about the lack of current road traffic measures to address the incidence of fatalities and serious injuries caused by foreign drivers driving on the wrong side of the road in the UK. The UK, as we all know, is one of the few remaining areas within the EU and internationally whose drivers drive on the left-hand side of the road. The sparse statistics available on such road traffic accidents would suggest that more attention needs to be paid to such tragic accidents and that steps need to be taken to reduce or even prevent them.

On 11 September 2010, Andrew Alexander McLean, a 22-year-old, was returning home from his work in the Scottish borders when a car driven by a French driver approached him on the wrong side of the road at the crest of a hill. Andrew saw the oncoming vehicle and steered for the verge, but, sadly, as the French driver was on the wrong side of the road he too steered for the verge straight into Andrew, who was killed instantly. Although, as we can imagine, this is still a very sensitive matter for Andrew’s family, they have asked me to raise the matter through this debate in the hope that it will be given more prominence.

The French driver, a 23-year-old schoolteacher, was driving in the UK for the first time in his left-hand drive Peugeot 307 when the accident happened, and the subsequent court case in Selkirk heard that the accident was caused

“by a moment’s inattention resulting from the accused’s inexperience of driving in the UK”.

The accused’s defence lawyer claimed there were no aggravating factors in the build-up to the accident such as speeding or lack of rest. He momentarily suffered a lapse in concentration and responded by acting instinctively, moving to the right-hand side of the road, which was the right side for him but was sadly the wrong side of the road in Scotland. Even given those mitigating circumstances, Andrew’s family feels that the court’s sentence was lenient, although I appreciate that that is not an issue for tonight’s discussion.

Such accidents are a tragedy for the victim and in many cases the perpetrator. Often forgotten are the families of the victim, and I was initially alerted to this case by Andrew’s grandmother, Mrs Billett, who is a constituent living in Stirling. I have been specifically asked to highlight the case by Andrew’s family, including his father, as they wish to see the Government take steps to investigate ways to prevent foreign drivers from driving on the wrong side of the road.

I want to put a series of points to the Minister, perhaps with a view to investigating such road deaths and helping to reduce their number. I am aware, as he will be, that the Scottish Government have some devolved responsibility for road issues, such as accidents on Scottish roads, and I understand that they have published a policy framework, “Go Safe on Scotland’s Roads it’s Everyone’s Responsibility”, which covers the period up to 2020. Chapter 7 of that document refers to a Scottish Government report of 2001, stating that although

“tourist activity does not significantly boost road accident numbers in the rural… areas of Scotland”

such accidents do occur and most often

“involved driving on the wrong side, turning, and crossing the centre line”,

while 20% of collisions caused by cross-border drivers occurred when the driver was on the wrong side of the road.

As far as I can ascertain, the policy of the Scottish Government in relation to foreign drivers on Scottish roads is the publication of a tourist information guide for foreign drivers, which includes a “keep left” sticker available in four languages. I am not sure whether a similar minimum warning is given at ports in other parts of the UK. In certain areas, there are warning signs to “keep left”.

An issue allied to the circumstances surrounding Andrew’s death is the number of foreign truck drivers involved in road accidents in the UK. A press report of February 2012 suggested that one in every 31 motorway accidents in the UK was the fault of lorry drivers from abroad. It was also alleged that on the M25 the figure could be as high as one accident in three. While that might not be directly the result of foreign truck drivers driving on the wrong side of the road, I believe that there is little information held by the Department for Transport either to rebut or to substantiate such assertions.

I recently met the Association of British Insurers, which produced a report, “European Drivers: Crossing Borders Safely”, in November 2007. The report stated that drivers from elsewhere in Europe were involved in more than 18,000 recorded accidents in the UK. In 2005, UK drivers caused more than 5,000 reported collisions on continental European roads. The ABI believes that the UK Government are underestimating the risks that cross-border drivers pose and that they

“should establish an accurate and consistent picture of crossborder driving in the UK, in order to measure the risk that this represents and therefore take proportionate action”.

In addition, the ABI proposes a series of easy measures that could be implemented in the interim.

In November 2011, in a written parliamentary question to the Department for Transport, I asked:

“how many fatal vehicle accidents have occurred where a visitor to the UK driving on the wrong side of the road was a contributory factor in the last 10 years.”

The Minister kindly provided me with a written response, which detailed in a table the

“reported fatal road accidents which had ‘inexperience of driving on the left’ as a contributory factor, in Great Britain for the period 2005-10. However, it is not known how many drivers involved in such accidents were visitors to Great Britain, or if they were driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident.”

The table for that five-year period stated that there had been 55 such fatal accidents—a figure that I suspect grossly underestimates the scale of the problem if full reporting were in place and non-fatal serious accident statistics were included.

However, the Minister also advised that while

“contributory factors to road accidents has been collected since 1 January 2005”

such contributory factors

“are reported only for injury road accidents where a police officer attended the scene and reported at least one contributory factor. These factors are largely subjective, reflecting the attending officer’s opinion at the time of reporting. It is recognised that subsequent enquires could lead to the reporting officer changing his/her opinion.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 892W.]

It would appear, therefore, that full statistics are not available for foreign drivers driving on the wrong side of the road and being involved in fatal or serious accidents.

Since his tragic death, Andrew McLean’s family have been campaigning for Government measures that would reduce or prevent similar fatalities in the future. They have spent considerable time researching possible options, and they have advised me that some devices could be fitted to foreign cars being driven on UK roads. One such device, Lanesafe, is produced by a Scottish company, although I understand that other types of equipment are available. The manufacturers of Lanesafe have suggested that annually 8 million vehicles travel between the UK and Europe and vice versa, and more than 80% of drivers admit to momentarily, at some point, driving on the wrong side of the road. I am not sure whether those figures can be substantiated, but if they are accurate, I would contend that this subject requires much greater consideration by the Minister and his Department.

Andrew’s father strongly believes that devices such as Lanesafe, which would alert drivers when they are driving on the wrong side of the road, ought to be made compulsory for all foreign drivers. He is also totally convinced that, if such a device had been fitted to the car that caused his son’s death, his son would be alive today. Despite all the representations that he and the family have made, they feel frustrated that they cannot get anyone in the Government to listen to their suggestions on the implementation, fitting, checking and policing of the devices that he has identified. I am therefore delighted to have had the opportunity to discuss them this evening. Andrew’s family realise that his death is but one of numerous accidents involving young drivers, and they are keen to ensure that the wider issue is given greater prominence. The family have been energetic fundraisers for Brake, the national road safety charity.

I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a problem involving foreign drivers driving on the wrong side of UK roads. Without accurate and up-to-date statistics, the Government cannot say with certainty that the problem is not serious. I ask him to begin the process of ascertaining the facts, so that we can make a judgment on what action is needed. Andrew Alexander McLean’s family have made the case for action, and in Andrew’s memory as well as that of others killed and seriously injured on our roads by drivers driving on the wrong side of the road, I trust that the Government will look seriously at the options available. I certainly hope that they take into account the fact that, both in Europe and in the UK, many young people now drive cars that are not fitted to drive on the “right” side of the road in that country.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he will give some comfort to Andrew McLean’s family by assuring me that he will consider anything that will enhance safety on our roads, not least for our young people.

Cost of Living

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for some time and he knows that the last Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), were absolutely committed to pursuing the green deal. That is why the pilots started under our Government. That is why the measure was in our manifesto. I think the record speaks for itself. The fact that, on one occasion, we did not support an amendment tabled by the Conservatives is proof, and the result was that the green deal was going ahead. The pilots were under way, it was in our manifesto, and had we won the last election—sadly, we did not—it would be in a better state today. The green deal was meant to be up and running by this October, and the secondary legislation should have been laid in March. With just over a week until the House rises, we will not see anything until the middle of June at this rate.

There are question marks over whether the energy companies even have the technology in place to bill people correctly. No green deal assessors have been trained, because the courses have not even started yet. Most importantly of all the public, the people who are meant to be taking up the green deal, have absolutely no idea what the interest rate will be or how much it will cost them.

So desperate are Ministers to prop up the policy that they are now considering whether to force it on people who find that their boiler breaks down. Imagine—a family whose boiler breaks down on Christmas eve could have to wait for the council to come round to do a full audit of the property’s energy efficiency, and then have to agree to take out other measures, before they get their heating and hot water turned back on. That is the type of policy that the Government are proposing, and it just shows how out of touch they are.

The truth is, even when times are tough and money is in short supply there are still things that a Government can do to help families and businesses. I know that the Government are short of ideas. At one of my speeches earlier this year, no fewer than 18 civil servants were on the attendance list, including five from the Department of Energy and Climate Change alone. If the Secretary of State is in the market for good ideas for his energy Bill, here are two that I offer him.

First, let us put all those who are over 75 on the cheapest tariff. We know that the elderly are the most vulnerable to the cold weather, the least able to access the best online deals and the most likely to pay over the odds for their energy. In the Secretary of State’s own constituency, if we put all those over 75 on the cheapest deal it would help nearly 8,000 pensioners. It would help more than 8,000 in my constituency. Across the country, it could save as many as 4 million pensioners as much as £200 a year on their energy bills, not through spending more money but by getting our energy firms to show greater responsibility to their most vulnerable customers. However, I am afraid this do-nothing Government stand idly by, content to leave Britain’s pensioners paying more than they need to.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend also accept that given the number of people who self-disconnect because of the higher charges on key cards, it would be valuable for energy companies to consider how there could be a lower tariff for families who are under pressure? Those families have to take the decision themselves not to continue to heat their homes.

[Caroline Flint]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. There are a number of areas in which more could be done to make energy companies more responsible, but we hear nothing from the Government about issues such as people on prepayment meters or key cards.

We are talking not about a social tariff but about people over 75 missing out on a deal that they could get if they looked online. For all sorts of reasons, they do not necessarily use online systems as much as others do. Putting them all on the cheapest tariff would be a simple way of making the energy companies step up to their responsibility, and it would get those people the deal that they deserve. They should be able to do that, but every time I have mentioned it in the House I have been knocked back by the Government, who think it would be a measure just for rich over-75s. It would not. It is about justice and tackling the way in which energy companies run their customer services, which are not working in the interests of customers. I would have thought the Secretary of State, as a former Consumer Minister, would understand that a little better.

The second idea among many that we have is that we should consider the position of small businesses. We believe that some straightforward, practical steps can be taken to help relieve the pressure on them and give our economy a shot in the arm. First, we should put an end to unfair contracts and the practice of rolling small businesses on to more expensive tariffs without their consent. Secondly, we should stop small businesses being subject to six years of crippling back-billing for mistakes made not by them but by their energy supplier. We do not allow that to happen to households, and we should not allow it to happen to small businesses either. Thirdly, we should ensure that the energy companies act responsibly towards small firms that have fallen into difficulty with their bills. Just as they have to take all factors into account when a family find themselves in trouble, so should we ask them to come up with sensible and realistic repayment plans for small businesses.

There we go—two ideas: helping the over-75s to get the tariff they deserve, which through no fault of their own they cannot get because it requires online technology, and helping small businesses with some of the ways in which energy companies are exploiting them. We are accused of not having ideas, but there are a few for which I hope we can get Government support. We are trying to think practically about ways to rein in the energy companies and make them more accountable to their customer base, whether it is households or businesses.

What is the biggest drag on people’s living standards? The scandal of millions of people being unemployed, and a Government who have no vision and strategy for putting them back to work. I was at the Yorkshire Post environment awards last week and met businesses at the cutting edge of innovation. I saw that Britain is not short of the skills or technology to lead the world to a new low-carbon economy. However, the Government are short of the political vision to do so, and today we learn that even the Foreign Secretary, a fellow Yorkshire MP, told businesses just last weekend to work harder. He does not believe the Government are doing enough to support Britain’s green businesses.

As I have argued many times, the transition to a low-carbon economy has the potential to be a major source of wealth and employment for this country, both for young people looking to get their first job and for older workers looking to put their skills to use in new industries. However, Britain is falling behind. When Labour left office, the UK was ranked third in the world for investment in green business; today we are seventh. Investment levels are still billions short of where they were in 2009, and jobs and industries that should be coming to this country are now going overseas.

Let us look at solar energy. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle—he has his fingerprints all over these projects—took a knife to the solar industry and had the audacity to claim that more people would get solar power and more people would be employed in the solar industry as a result. Today we see that because of his cuts and his strategy, solar installations have fallen by 90% and 6,000 people have lost their jobs, with yet more cuts on the way. In the end, whether it is solar or any other type of clean energy, businesses will not invest, build factories and create jobs until the Government end the dithering, stop shifting the goalposts and get behind the industries of the future.

We have an electricity market reform Bill that does not reform the electricity market, a Queen’s Speech that does nothing to help families with the cost of living and a Government who, I am afraid, are too much on the side of the big energy companies and not enough on the side of hard-pressed households. I am aware that a number of the Secretary of State’s colleagues, led by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), have put forward an alternative Queen’s Speech on energy. The Prime Minister has to decide whether he is going to run with the Vulcans or stick with the huskies.

To advocate cutting support for clean energy, and instead dash for gas when wholesale gas prices are the single biggest factor in driving up people’s bills, is madness. There is an alternative—Labour’s fair deal on energy. It would put the public first, protect the most vulnerable and deliver a competitive energy market with fair prices for all. I commend the amendment to the House.

Coastguard Service

Anne McGuire Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I hope that the Minister will indeed respond on the issues that I am raising about the Transport Committee, because they are important. We learned lessons from the 2003-04 inquiry, and we must learn lessons now. I am greatly in favour of the inquiry, and I wrote to the Chair of the Select Committee asking for such an inquiry. Perhaps the hon. Lady and the Minister will confirm that they are willing to wait until they have received the inquiry’s report and the Government’s response before making any decisions. That would be a positive way forward and I hope the Minister will comment on it. It would be not a way out for the Government, but a way forward for the coastguards, which is why we are all here today.

A debate needs the input of local coastguards. I agree with the Minister that coastguards, certainly in my area, have not been restricted in speaking their minds and saying what they think of the proposals. That is to his credit and that of the MCA. On top of the consultation, I have encouraged coastguards to write in, but that does not deter me from believing that these flawed proposals should be put to one side, so that we can have a proper debate, including on the Select Committee’s findings.

I make no apology for referring to local knowledge, as many hon. Members have done. It is essential, and as an ex-seafarer who worked on the coast for some 10 years and was also foreign-going, I know that our coastguard services provide some of the safest coastlines and seas in the world. I am proud of what they do, and I want it to continue and improve. Local knowledge is vital to initial responses, to knowing locations and, in north Wales, to the pronunciation of such locations.

During the first debate, I had a brief opportunity to speak—I say that to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth—and the Minister gave a written response to one of my questions, although it was not adequate. I will provide evidence of why it was not adequate. He said that pronunciation of place names would be sorted out by a new geographic information system, which would include phonetic spellings. I will give an example—empirical evidence—of where that has failed. I am raising the matter to help him.

The incident occurred during the coastguards’ dispute. The MCA said that the circumstances were exceptional, but it highlights the fact that people outside who do not have local knowledge might make errors, which might cost time, and perhaps lives.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

The problem is not just phonetics or pronunciation. In Wales and in Scotland—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is here—there are different languages, which are used to describe the areas where people fish and that tankers run through. Knowledge of the geography of an area is important, but so is understanding the basis of the language.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the issue of language. I wish to refer to the Welsh language and phonetics in relation to place names.

My first example is, fortunately, an empty canoe that was drifting of Morfa Nefyn in Gwynedd, which the coastguard had to spell phonetically as “mor fen evon” and which he wrote down as Morefen Effon. I shall give the Hansard reporters the correct pronunciations because I would not expect them to have that local knowledge, but the serious issue is that outside people would not be able to local Morfa Nefyn. A holidaymaker had failed to look after their canoe, which drifted off, but if the incident had been serious, and if someone had fallen out of it, they might have been lost for ever. I am making a serious point. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the information, but the proposals would not have been adequate in such a situation and no team could have been tasked for that one.

In another incident at Cemaes in my constituency, in the north of Anglesey, a casualty had fallen down a 20-foot cliff. Like many parts of Wales and of the United Kingdom, we have some great coastal walks. According to the incident log, it took 13 minutes to make a decision, and the Holyhead coastguard was given the task when there was an initial response team located at Cemaes itself. That added to the time taken to respond. Following the request being made by the initial response team and Cemaes being paged, a staggering 48 minutes had passed since the initial call was made.

The terrain was so bad that a helicopter had to be scrambled for safe evacuation, and the irony is that the 22 Squadron search-and-rescue helicopter was just down the road on Anglesey. If there had been local knowledge, the scramble would have happened instantly and the victim’s injuries would have been less serious. My point about time factors is important. When RAF Valley was tasked to go to the incident, it was 68 minutes later.