---

Light Rail

Trams were once used extensively in the UK, and at the peak there were 300 systems, but by the modern age the number reduced and eventually only the one in Blackpool survived. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on bringing this matter to the attention of the Chamber, and I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. Seven new systems have opened in England since 1980, with an average of 138 million passenger journeys being made each year on approximately 235 km of track. However, there has been a degree of pathos about this debate—frustrated hopes, faded dreams, disillusioned communities and disappointed representatives—because there is doubt about the Government's commitment to light railways, and about their understanding of how such systems can play a vital part in regenerating communities. We heard about that from hon. Members from all parties. The six new systems outside London are the Tyne and Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield's Supertram, Midland Metro, Croydon Tramlink and the Nottingham Express Transit. In April 1991, the Select Committee on Transport pointed to six main advantages of light rail: it reduces traffic congestion, has positive environmental impacts, conserves energy, assists urban regeneration, generally provides a high-quality service, is often conducive to better access for disabled people, and has a prestige value for a host city. Light rail schemes should be encouraged where they will be of particular benefit—that is, in busy city centres. The great advantage of light rail is, as the Transport Committee said, that"““it can increase the number of people coming into a””" city"““centre without increasing congestion.””" According to the Committee, light rail and tram systems could carry more than 3,000 passengers per hour in vehicles containing up to 350 people. Trams are more environmentally friendly than buses and cars and they are safer, as well. There are also regeneration benefits. The docklands light railway and Manchester Metrolink have boosted the prestige of their cities and are attractive to visitors. The experience of the Nottingham Express Transit in its first year of operation, with 8.5 million passenger journeys above target and a £23,000 operating profit, shows the potential of good light rail schemes. The Nottingham scheme has applied to the Government to be able to construct an additional line. No doubt the Minister will give us some information on that application when he winds up. The main barriers to light rail schemes are affordability, and the potential of the system to integrate with the rest of the local transport network. The only reservation that I have about tramways is the question of their beauty. I wonder why, in the modern age, we cannot build more beautiful things. One thinks of the Routemaster bus and trains from ages past. Why can we not make trams look better? We should not strip life of all its elegance and style, should we, Mr. O'Hara? I offer this small caveat in relation to my general support for these schemes. Cost is the most significant factor discouraging further development of light rail, but as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) said, when cost comparisons are measured in terms of passenger journeys, they are more positive than might generally be suggested. The emphasis is often on the construction cost—the infrastructural up-front capital cost—but when one takes into account costs over time, which the hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned, those considerations can be seen in a different light. More could be done to overcome that barrier. For example, there are no Government grants available to develop innovative, energy-saving light railway technologies, because that tends to cost less than £5 million, which is the qualifying threshold for a scheme to receive financial support. There are other issues that the Government must address, and I hope that the Minister will touch on them: the poor financial performance of some existing light railway systems, which is discouraging interest in future schemes, and how the Government can assist in respect of that; local authority funding for schemes; the issue of time, and uncertainty over the granting of powers to local authorities; and insufficient in-house expertise. Above all, as the Public Accounts Committee recommended in March:"““The Department should develop a strategy for the development of light rail as part of an integrated transport network. The Department has maintained an arm's length approach to the development of light rail, leaving local authorities to decide whether light rail was appropriate for their areas, and not prioritising in value for money terms which schemes should be allocated funds and built. It should take a more active role in the development of light rail by, for example, indicating the types of urban areas where it would be most receptive to local authorities' proposals.””" As a Transport Committee report this year stated:"““The Department has failed to give a strategic lead in the development of light rail.””" In 2000, Labour pledged to double light rail use in England by 2010, measured by the number of passenger journeys. In 2000–01 there were 124 million journeys, and in 2003–04 there were 147 million journeys—an increase of 18.5 per cent. It seems unlikely that the Government will achieve their target. Since 1997, only one new system has commenced outside London—the Nottingham Express Transit Scheme. I know that scheme well. As the Minister is aware, like the Sunderland extension to the Tyne and Wear Metro and other lines that have opened since 1997, the Nottingham scheme was a proposal whose funding and planning were inherited from the Conservative Government. Only yesterday we learned from the Government that they have cancelled funding for two light rail schemes—Merseytram and the south Hampshire rapid transit scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) made a strong and bold case for that scheme; he is a great champion for local people in that respect, as in many others. The Government have now spent £284 million developing rail projects that have come to nothing. That was revealed by a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I will mention each of those schemes, because they have been repeatedly defended in this Chamber by the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) and for Manchester, Blackley, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. The following sums were spent on them: £199 million on Manchester Metrolink phase 3; £36 million on Merseytram; £39 million on the Leeds supertram; and £10 million on the south Hampshire rapid transit scheme. All that money was invested in schemes that will not now go ahead; hence the pathos, disappointment and disillusionment that I described earlier. I have several questions for the Minister. Does the extension to the Nottingham Express Transit have Government approval? If so, when will we know? Will local authorities be entitled to money from the transport innovation fund for light rail schemes if they are not accompanied by road charging proposals? There was something about that in the national press yesterday; the Government's enthusiasm for congestion charging is clear. I make no point about that, except to ask how it would be integrated with applications for light rail schemes. What guarantees can the Government give that light rail remains a priority, and that they will meet their target of passenger numbers doubling by 2010? What proportion of the transport innovation fund does the Minister envisage offering to light rail schemes, given the other priorities that the Government have announced? What is the Government's response to the recent urban task force report? It argued:"““the root of the problem is that decisions on urban transport are taken piecemeal, in apparent isolation from their impact on regeneration; indeed, there appears to be next to no evaluation of the broad regeneration benefits that investments would help bring about.””" There are competing public priorities, which often obscure the holistic benefits of this kind of innovation. The Government need to engage in joined-up thinking; the only thing that is joined-up at present is the traffic on congested roads. They have created a debilitating culture of encouraging schemes into the development and planning stage and putting in taxpayers' money, then pulling the plug before construction begins. The Minister needs to make it clear where the Government stand on future projects, and how committed they are to light rail. I described the pathos that has characterised this debate; the Minister now has an opportunity to prove that neither he, his Department nor the Government are pathetic.