Part of Prayers – in the House of Commons at 12:44 pm on 15 November 1991.
Mr Terry Dicks
, Hayes and Harlington
12:44,
15 November 1991
It is almost impossible to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Perhaps he should consider applying for the job as manager of the England football team, who at the moment is cornered between two stools. He does not know whether to opt for style or to wellie the ball up field. We know that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has style and does not wellie. It is a great pleasure to follow him in this debate.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West in some respects about the citizens charter. It is essential to lay down exactly what we would like to happen in public services. He said that things would not happen, but I believe that they will although it will take some time. The parameters and approaches in the charter will be effective.
I am a great believer in considering rights and responsibilities side by side. They are two sides of the same coin. Too often we hear, especially from Opposition Members, about rights for these people and rights for those people, but they rarely speak about the responsibility that accompanies those rights. The public have a right and it is the responsibility of public services to respond to that right. The charter begins to follow that course in a definite manner.
The charter refers to standards of service and the choice within and between services. It aims to open up to public scrutiny what is happening in local authorities and other public areas. It refers also to value-for-money tests.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury because I missed the beginning of his speech. I was talking about the citizens charter on television in relation to British Rail. I am appalled at the service that BR provides. It is one of the most inefficient services and its nearest rival is London Regional Transport.
I want to clarify a point that I made in an Intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris). Over the past 12 years, £12 billion of Government funding has been allocated to British Rail. It has received an additional £1·5 billion this year and £2 billion is laid aside for next year. It seems to be small-minded for Bob Reid to carp about investment when his organisation has had that kind of money to play with. His predecessor with the same name appeared before the Select Committee on Transport a couple of years ago and claimed that money was not a major issue in relation to improving the rail service.
Reference has been made to time-keeping and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the 92 per cent. objective. It is nonsense to say that a train arrives on time if it is less than 10 minutes late. Either a train arrives on time or it is late. If I do not arrive at the Door of the Chamber before 2.25 pm on a day when there is Government business, I am too late to attend Prayers. I cannot turn to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to Mr. Speaker, and say, "Please, I was three minutes late, but technically that's on time." You would laugh at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and rightly so. I cannot see how we can speak in those terms and make a meaningful contribution to what the commuter and traveller expects.
I hope that I can begin to rival the hon. Member for Newham, North-West when I refer to rolling stock. Perhaps the Opposition Whip will excuse me if I refer to the 158 train and an issue that is close to his heart and his area. I have redubbed the 158 train the 175. It was ordered by British Rail through British Rail Engineering Ltd. when it was still nationalised. That 18-month contract was delivered last October 18 months late with 175 faults. For example, the brakes did not work when it snowed. The two carriages that were linked together came unstuck when the train moved. The main shaft beneath the train came apart. A pump fell off and was found at 4.30 am on the Forth bridge. The toilets did not work and the seats wore out almost as soon as one sat on them. The tables in the carriages worked loose and allowed coffee to sink in because they were made of the wrong material.
I expect that a little deal will be done between ScotRail and BREL to smooth things over and fudge the issue of compensation. As a member of the Transport Select Committee, I promise the House that I will not allow that to happen. That is the kind of nonsense that is going on. As a result of those stupid arrangements and that chaos, commuters in Scotland are suffering. Had it not been for the efficiency of ScotRail's maintenance team in Scotland, passengers would have had no trains to ride on. The commuter is suffering from the incompetence of those ordering the equipment and the people building it and we must do something about it. Perhaps, in a small way, the citizens charter has a role in achieving that end. When one speaks to the railway people they play it down and say, "Those are just teething problems". But it was a hands, arms and lungs job. It was a transplant job.
I remind the hon. Member for Newham, North-West of the point that I made earlier. For the three years from 1987 to 1989, London Transport underspent its capital allocation by £120 million. When I raised that with Mr. Newton recently in the Select Committee, he said, "Don't let's talk about the past." But in his beautiful multicoloured brochure, which cost a fortune to produce, he complained about lack of investment and said that it was the Government's fault that the underground service was not running properly. He deliberately ommitted the fact that he had underspent.
I do not have to tell the House about docklands light rail. It is one of the most inefficient operations that it has been my misfortune, or the misfortune of any London Member, to know about. If ever there was an area which needed an efficient transport system, it was docklands, especially with the City airport nearby. Yet the service has been abysmal from start to finish. Mr. Newton and his team have the audacity to complain about the Government's rightly deciding that London Transport is no longer competent to operate the service and taking the service away from it. In doing that, the Government have jumped ahead of the citizens charter. On behalf of the citizens, they have recognised a mistake and rectified it.
The Deputy speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in the absence of the Speaker.
The deputy speaker's formal title is Chairman of Ways and Means, one of whose functions is to preside over the House of Commons when it is in a Committee of the Whole House.
The deputy speaker also presides over the Budget.
An intervention is when the MP making a speech is interrupted by another MP and asked to 'give way' to allow the other MP to intervene on the speech to ask a question or comment on what has just been said.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
The Speaker is an MP who has been elected to act as Chairman during debates in the House of Commons. He or she is responsible for ensuring that the rules laid down by the House for the carrying out of its business are observed. It is the Speaker who calls MPs to speak, and maintains order in the House. He or she acts as the House's representative in its relations with outside bodies and the other elements of Parliament such as the Lords and the Monarch. The Speaker is also responsible for protecting the interests of minorities in the House. He or she must ensure that the holders of an opinion, however unpopular, are allowed to put across their view without undue obstruction. It is also the Speaker who reprimands, on behalf of the House, an MP brought to the Bar of the House. In the case of disobedience the Speaker can 'name' an MP which results in their suspension from the House for a period. The Speaker must be impartial in all matters. He or she is elected by MPs in the House of Commons but then ceases to be involved in party politics. All sides in the House rely on the Speaker's disinterest. Even after retirement a former Speaker will not take part in political issues. Taking on the office means losing close contact with old colleagues and keeping apart from all groups and interests, even avoiding using the House of Commons dining rooms or bars. The Speaker continues as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituent's letters and problems. By tradition other candidates from the major parties do not contest the Speaker's seat at a General Election. The Speakership dates back to 1377 when Sir Thomas Hungerford was appointed to the role. The title Speaker comes from the fact that the Speaker was the official spokesman of the House of Commons to the Monarch. In the early years of the office, several Speakers suffered violent deaths when they presented unwelcome news to the King. Further information can be obtained from factsheet M2 on the UK Parliament website.
