---

Light Rail

I thank the House for agreeing to debate light rail. The subject is certainly timely, given yesterday's Government statement, which effectively killed off the Liverpool and the south Hampshire light rail schemes. Although it is not what I originally envisaged, the debate might more appropriately be entitled ““What future for light rail in the UK?””. As I am the Member for Rochdale, my constituency has in it the Oldham-Rochdale loop line, which is included in the Manchester Metrolink phase 3 scheme. I seek an assurance from the Minister that that scheme will not be next for the chop. Since the Transport Committee reported earlier this year we have seen several light rail schemes picked off and dropped—those in Leeds, Merseyside and south Hampshire. Outside London, only the Manchester Metrolink and the Edinburgh scheme—the latter is funded differently—remain on the table. No doubt many hon. Members will want to comment on that. How different that is from the 10-year transport plan of 2000, which envisaged 100 per cent. growth in the number of people using light rail, with Government support for 25 new schemes. Since then, we have seen the abandonment of the Department for Transport's 2002 growth target, the 2004 National Audit Office report on light rail, and the White Papers on rail and transport policy. The Government used the National Audit Office report selectively in order to justify retreating from giving approval to new light rail schemes, as yesterday's announcement demonstrates. The prime reason cited in all cases is cost. The Secretary of State for Transport has repeatedly said that tram schemes cannot be funded at any cost. Why does the Department not apply the same logic to other transport schemes? The Hampshire and Liverpool light rail schemes are scrapped because of cost overruns of 26 per cent. and 40 per cent, yet I understand that trunk road schemes are now averaging a 53 per cent. cost overrun, and local authority approved schemes have an average 42 per cent. cost overrun. For example, the Kiln Lane link in Epsom showed a 76 per cent. increase on its 2001 approved cost, and the costs of the Rugby western bypass increased by 32 per cent.