---

Light Rail

I shall confine my remarks to Merseytram line 1 and lines 2 and 3, which would have followed had it gone ahead. The line has been in the making for the past five or more years, with strong support from Liverpool city council—in principle, at any rate—and huge support from Knowsley metropolitan borough council. A enormous amount of work, most of it imaginative, went in from Merseytravel, the passenger transport authority for Merseyside. After a great deal of work, we were told yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister that the scheme would not get Government approval. It is important to get the context right. Line 1, which would have had a profound effect on my constituency, was routed in a particular way for particular reasons. Of the 20 most deprived electoral wards in England, 11 are in Merseyside and Merseytram line 1 would have run along six of those. As a result of that deprivation, Merseyside has qualified for European Union objective 1 status since 1994 and 81 per cent. of the people in the catchment area of Merseytram line 1 live within the objective 1 area. It was deliberately sited along that route for that reason. In figures published in July 2004, unemployment in Liverpool and Knowsley were, respectively, 96 per cent. and 59 per cent. above the average for the north-west. There is a clear need for the tram to make employment and education much more accessible for people in some of the poorest areas on Merseyside. Access to health and shopping facilities would also be a benefit. It is not just me saying that. The inspector at the public inquiry that was held last year recorded in his report:"““Line 1 would have a very significant impact in socio-economic terms, greatly enhancing the prospects, networks and life chances of people living in areas of extremely high social and economic deprivation.””" He also said:"““especially for the majority of Line 1 corridor residents who are without a car, the presence of the tram would significantly improve access to jobs, opening access to the additional 12,000 city centre jobs which are an Objective One target and improving access to 55,000 jobs overall.””" Line 1 would have had a huge impact on the local economy, especially in some of the poorest areas of Merseyside. The route would have hugely enhanced Kirkby in my constituency. Indeed, line 2, which would have terminated in your constituency, Mr. O'Hara, would have had a similar effect, and line 3 would have had a huge effect on south Liverpool. Where are we now? I find the whole thing bitterly disappointing and I am perplexed by the way in which the Government have dealt with the main local authorities and Merseytravel. Back in June, when the Government started to get cold feet about the scheme, we had meetings with the Minister. There were also many discussions between the local authorities and Merseytravel. He set certain conditions, which were fair. With the benefit of hindsight, I understand why he did so. The principal condition was that the local authorities would agree to fund any cost overruns, and a lot of work was done on that. However, I take slight issue with something that the Minister said in an interview on Radio Merseyside yesterday, at which I was also present. He said that no due diligence work had been carried out since June, but that is simply not true. Investec was commissioned by the local authorities to carry out that work and it came up with a figure that it felt reasonably represented the likely quantum of any cost overrun.