---

Light Rail

: I agree that the costs are high. However, I am trying to suggest a way forward in case the Government are not prepared to commit any more public money. I would far rather they treated light rail as they treat road schemes, on which it does not seem to matter how much costs overrun, but if they will not do that, we need some alternatives. The fourth matter to consider is the cost of the public works. At the moment, a promoter has to pay 92.5 per cent. of such costs. For the Manchester Metrolink scheme, that is £45 million. In France the limit is 30 per cent. and in Germany it is zero. Public utilities are expected to bear the cost just as we here expect them to bear the cost of restoring any roads that they dig up. The final change needed is to reduce the time that the Department for Transport takes to approve a scheme. We need a speedier and simpler process with more support from the Department for Transport so that, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) suggested, some of the expenses that authorities currently incur could be saved and used in other areas where the money might be better spent. Everybody wants to see the inexorable rise in road traffic halted. Light rail is popular with the public, and can deliver if the Government have the will to support it. I am in no doubt that many hon. Members want that happen, as we can see from the recent formation of the all-party group on light rail. Now I seek a similar commitment from the Government—or has everything that we have heard recently been just warm words?