An audience of around 100 were treated to some fierce exchanges last night in the Question Time-style showdown, organised by the Manchester Evening News and filmed by our sister TV station Channel M at their base in Urbis.
The debate came just 10 days before leaders of all 10 councils in Greater Manchester decide whether to put forward a bid to the government’s Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) for massive sums of public transport cash. Part of the bid would be a congestion charge scheme that would cost up to £5 a day for people to travel into and out of the city centre at peak times.
Supporters of the plans on the panel included Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester city council, and David Coleman, of the environmental coalition Clean Air Now.
The opponents were Sean Corker, spokesman for Manchester Against Road Tolls, Michelle Wiseman, the Conservatives’ prospective parliamentary candidate for Bury South, and Andrew Simpson, managing director of Peel Holdings. Peel, which owns the Trafford Centre and John Lennon Airport, have suggested the councils should sell-off the publicly-owned Manchester Airport Group (MAG) to fund a revolution in public transport, rather than reverting to a congestion charge.
Representing the business community was Miranda Allan, chairman of Greater Manchester Chamber’s environment and transport committee.
Expansion
Dave Newton, head of planning at the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, began the debate by explaining that the TIF bid would unlock £3billion to complete the planned expansion of the Metrolink light rail system and to pay for hundreds of new buses and trams. That would be made up of £1.2bn in government grant, plus £1.8bn borrowed against the projected profits of the congestion charge scheme over 30 years.
Sir Richard then said 30,000 jobs due to be created in Greater Manchester would be put at risk if nothing was done to tackle jams on Greater Manchester’s roads. Congestion, he said, was a “far greater cost” to the local economy than the scheme being proposed.
“This is not about congestion charging,” he said. “It is about sustainable growth and investment in public transport. The congestion charge is as much about changing behaviour as it is about raising revenue.”
During the course of the debate Sir Richard admitted there were still details to be worked out – such as whether disabled drivers, low-emission vehicles and motorbikes would be exempt. But he warned that unless the bid was submitted those questions would become irrelevant, since the TIF money would go elsewhere.
“This is a competitive process,” he said.
Sir Richard rejected Peel’s suggestion of selling MAG, saying it was “not a long term fix” and claiming the lost money would be the equivalent of a 20 per cent council tax rise. “It can only be sold once,” he said.
Mr Simpson – who denied his company had any interest in buying MAG – countered that congestion charging was supposed to be a one-off measure, too.
He said the councils were planning “a giant experiment” that would set up “the world’s biggest congestion charge scheme, in terms of area”.
He said the proposed rings covered an area 12 times greater than that included in London’s original charging scheme. And he warned that a commitment to pay back a 30-year loan meant the councils were “picking up the dice and hoping for a double six”.
“This will cost people £100 a month and that is the equivalent of an eight per cent pay cut for the average person,” he said. “How can that be good for our region?”
Ms Wiseman described road charging as “another stealth tax” and claimed the people of Greater Manchester had been promised public transport improvements for a decade under Labour.
“It hasn’t happened,” she said. “How then do we know they are going to deliver on this? We will have the stick of the tax without the carrot.”
Ms Allen admitted there was a “split” in the business community over whether to support the plans.
Improvements
“We are hugely in favour of improved public transport, but we do have concerns,” she said. “Are we sure we are going to get these improvements built and running before the charge is in place? Are we sure there are not going to be increases in the charge year-on-year?”
Mr Corker said motorists were already contributing £50bn a year to the British economy and getting only £6bn back. He claimed congestion was “self-regulating”, as people would simply stop driving if the roads got too crowded. And he said buses caused more pollution than cars.
“Why should we have to pay for further improvements when the money should come from central government?” he said. “Congestion cannot be solved by this great sledgehammer of a tax.
“This isn’t about solving congestion. This is about raising money. We are being asked to sign up to a plan with a gun to our heads.”
Mr Coleman said that by agreeing to submit the bid, the councils would not be committing themselves to anything until contracts were signed in 2009.
He said asthma rates among children in Manchester were twice as bad as the national average because of problems with pollution.
“We want clean air,” he said. “More and more public transport is crowded and poor quality. We have to find a way of investing.
“The real gamble is doing nothing.
“There has been a lot of anger tonight. If we don’t go ahead, then image in five years we are discussing [this] and congestion is getting worse, we have still not got Metrolink and the buses are still inadequate. That would be something to get angry about.”
What do you think? Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
here is the EXACT question put the people of Edinburgh
"Voters will be asked to vote 'Yes' in favour or 'No' against to the question:-
"The leaflet enclosed with this ballot paper gives information on the Council's transport proposals for Edinburgh. The Council's 'preferred' strategy includes congestion charging and increased transport investment funded by it. Do you support the Council's 'preferred' strategy?"
It did include public transport improvments.
"Mr Coleman said that by agreeing to submit the bid, the councils would not be committing themselves to anything until contracts were signed in 2009"
Big flaw with that idea.
This below is the Local Transport Bill part 2
Its doing the rounds at parliment now.
www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/localtransportbill/draftltbill
Note the introduction of the traffic commisioners.
These are unelected people who are placed in councils to ensure what the government wants happens. They have control over the elected representitives and can force road pricing onto a council who do not want it.
So by 2009 the decision could we be out of the councils hands, and in the hands of the goverment.
Sir Richard, or his replacment would not be able to stop it.
Also on Page 56, clause 73
The requirement for consultation has been removed.
So no debates, no referndums
We have all seen the figures Richard, the airport is certainly not making money for the people of Manchester.
MCC you are letting the people of Manchester down by giving in to the Labour blackmail TIF. Labour shoul dbe investing in PT anyway so getting money from them as a loan is simply hurting us. We elected you, we are telling you not to do this, so do your job and do not submit a proposal for TIF.
I will break my self imposed silence for just to one post.
A big thanks to Guardian Media Group for the event last night, it was heated at time, but I think a very professional job was done.
So well done to Andy Crane, Paul Horrocks, Jess Dunsdon, all the panelists, each and every member of the Channel M and Urbis staff and all those that attended to the event that made it worthwhile.
Going forward, I hope that the GMG will ensure that it will strive to give as balanced reporting on this important subject as possible, a hard job, some of the recent reports - specifically on Channel M have been quite unbalanced.
Looking forward to the next few weeks, and keep up the good work GMG. I'll be back to post my thoughts in August, once the dust has settled on any decision that AGMA have made.
I've no strong feelings on the proposed Congestion Charge, but have a look at the Association of British Drivers' website before you jump on their bandwagon. Bit creepy, I thought. They're anti- everything and anything - political correctness, speed cameras, don't believe global warming etc, etc. Also have links to anti-government groups like the Taxpayers Alliance, and fringe right-wing lobby groups. But they do like old people and tea ( hurrah!) . Opinionated or just swivel-eyed nutters ? You decide...
So was there a 'show of hands' and if so what was the tally?
As spokesman of MART, were Seans comments the official line of the group? - i.e. the argument of self-regulation I find to be quite weak, since it just means we all travel in misery all the time. I would have thought the raft of alternative improvements advocated by Simon Blackburn to be more sensible and a stronger position. That assumes, of course, that this report includes all of Seans comments.
The pro arguments are all the same - improved public transport. But that is never going to happen as the companies that run the buses and metrolink will take the money and line their own pockets. Why should they continue to invest their own money when the government will do it for them?
Give us a referendum NOW!!
I attended the Congestion Charge Debate held this evening at Urbis and can assure the citizens of Greater Manchester - BIG BROTHER is alive and well and residing in Manchester Town Hall in the shape of Richard Leese. It is his way or no way ¿ he is refusing to allow a referendum on the grounds that ¿the people of Manchester would not understand the question¿. His arrogance is utterly breathtaking. He is of the opinion that the question cannot be phrased correctly to allow you to decide. Strong opinions were voiced by the audience both for and against the proposals so how dare Mr Leese insult our intelligence by insinuating we cannot make up our own minds.
Congestion Charging is another form of stealth tax that will affect every person in Greater Manchester whether they drive or not. The imposition of this is the equivalent to an 8% Wage Reduction and this does not take into account the anticipated price rises that will be passed on to us by businesses because of their extra costs. They have not given any thought to the less well off, the disabled, the sick or pensioners who still have to go about their business and cannot depend on unreliable unsafe and dirty public transport. For those who consider this will help to improve the environment, can I point out that £1.9billion of the £3billion bid is actually a LOAN which will be repaid by US and our children over the next 30/40 years. These repayments will come from money raised from the proposed congestion charge therefore cars will always have to remain on the road as they form an integral part of the plan otherwise where else will the repayments come from ¿ maybe by increase in your Council Tax.
Richard Leese tried valiantly to defend this congestion tax admitting it was there to raise revenue but contradicted himself by saying it was there to change behaviour. If it changed behaviour it wouldn't raise the revenue. The only way to deal with congestion is to reduce the need for commuting by encouraging more people to work from home, if only part of the time. This would free up road space making existing public transport more efficient, reduce pollution and lead to a better quality of life all round. Certainly for firms that adopt this practice workers become more productive, less stressed and less office space would be needed.
Of course this doesn't fit in with Gordon Brown's old labour policy of tax and waste. It's a pity Greater Manchester has been chosen to suffer, have we been so bad?
on and on and on - whatever is debated they will just go ahead anyway so why waste time. As for the asthma theory, get away, I live in an inncer city area, firstly educate the parents about smoking at home in contained areas where their kids play.
The figures do not add up as pointed out by another speaker at this evening¿s forum. Questions have been asked but information is being suppressed or is completely made up, for example the leaflet commissioned by GMPTE at a cost of £500,000 based on fictional case studies. This money should have been pumped back in to improve current transport problems. Real people are greatly concerned therefore why weren¿t their cases studied? The powers that be do not want our communities to become too interested in the proposals and hope to slide them through un-noticed, but the future outcome is too important too ignore No-one has any confidence in public transport which has been catastrophically mismanaged and neglected by successive governments and GMPTE. They should be made to answer why such decline has been allowed to happen. The money pumped into road narrowing and traffic calming measures is astronomical, all of which has contributed to traffic congestion. On returning from the meeting at around 9.00pm I was absolutely staggered to see so many people waiting aimlessly at bus stops in the vain hope that some form of transport would appear ¿ not exactly a late hour.
People of Greater Manchester, that is Ashton, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford and residents of Wigan, these congestion charges affect you. Do not let them progress these plans any further without you having your say. The decision whether to bid or not will be taken by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities on 27th July 2007. Demand your right to a referendum by contacting your local Councillors and MP¿s. Do it now before it is too late.
If this is really about congestion and not about a) making more money out of tax payers b) easing the way for the wealthier drivers (who due to their income have no qualms whatsoever paying the high parking charges imposed by meters and carparks in the city centre which are a bit much for your average working man/woman on 15-23k a year) thus literally "decorating" the city centre with shiny, new expensive vehicles which in turn makes the centre more attractive to international business visitors, leading to c) the council continuing their pursuit of bending over backwards for corporate interest at the expense of the average working men/women (whose endeavour and personality is what made this city so great and culturally appealing in the first place; If the congestion charge is about reducing congestion and not all these other things -then why don't they set up a scheme to encourage motorists to convert their cars to LPG? Then, why don't they encourage more filling stations to install LPG pumps? I drive an LPG car and I love the savings I make on fuel charges, especially when I know I'm helping the enviroment too. Indeed this argument could be applied nationally, which is why I can't help but be cynical about the whole scheme. Councillor Leese talks about jeopardising a potential 30,000 new jobs; But what kind of jobs? More 15-23k a year jobs? The kind of jobs that only really equip you to pay your bills and transport charges. This argument needs to look at the detail as political arguments always gloss over the details with braod strokes and it isn't until it's too late that the ground level day to day implications of their policies for your average man and woman are noticed - and those that notice them are always the ones who aren't listened to yet have to pay and then suffer.
Agree with the comment mentioned in the story that Manchester have been promised funding to improve public transport for the last 10 year and got nothing back!!! The government are prepared to pump god knows how much into London (when they already have a world class system!) and nothing to us yet charge us!! Me thinks the congestion is a way to take yet more money out of the average persons pockets to pay for rising immigration costs, stupid wars and probably the Olympic games!!
I attended last night, I thought it was great. I must thank Peel Holdings MD for his support. Did anyone notice that the only applause for Sir Richard was from his 20 or so council employees sat in the far right corner? They probably affected the evenings final vote. I must say, nobody is pro congestion and anti environment, we just dont agree with the way this CC is being done.
Sounds like the decision has been made no matter what the people think!
I was at the great debate. I entered with an open mind about the congestion chare. On the other hand I doubted that spending money on high profile public transport infrastructure like the tram extension would result in a real improvement to passengers. The problems we face are to do with the multiple contractors not delivering a high standard of service. Why will this be different after we spend £3 billion?
During the debate I was intrigued by references to a reorganisation of public transport to make a more integratated system. Perhaps this could work after all - I'd like to hear more.
On the other hand, the congestion charge struck me as a lunatic idea. The government will introduce road charging anyway, so why spend borrowed money setting up a system in Manchester that might be rendered obsolete in a few years? Until there is a national system, Manchester's will just drive investment to other regional centres. 30 years from now we could be paying for a system that was used for only the first 3 or 4. Furthermore, what are the chances that the projected income from congestion charge will be stable for 30 years against a backdrop of increasing scarcity of oil? This is too big a risk.
Sir Richard Leese made a compelling case that without the investment in public transport Manchester's growth will be limited. Unfortunately, his proposed solution to fund this looks too risky. If he is right about the future, we need to find the money elsewhere., In fact we will need to find it elsewhere if the bid goes forward but fails - this is the logic of Sir Richard's "we can't afford to do nothing" argument. There is a solution; we should sell the airport now while we can realise a good price, and use the money to improve our transport infrastructure. This will achieve the end without committing us to a 30 year repayment schedule that leaves us vulnerable to changes in transport habits.
To my mind, Sir Richard can't have it both ways. If the public transport investment is as vital as he says, if our bid fails we must sell the airport to fund it. If he isn't prepared to sell the airport to fund the infrastructure, his dire predictions of the future lose credibility.
There were some quite entertatingly ill-thought out arguments. My favourite was the one that decreased congestion would lead to fewer pedestrian casualties, as if you were more likely to be hit by a car in a traffic jam than by a car motoring by at 40 mph!
Who in their right mind would trust the government or council?
It¿s a stealth tax.
Jamie, you asked about gaining greater control of the bus networks. For info, this is the bill that is aiming to do that:
www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/localtransportbill/
cheers
Did Motorcycles get mentioned?
Curious to know how they are proposing to charge this inefficient congestion causing mode of transport.
Yes there was a show of hands chris.
about 55 to 45 in favour of the charge.
The council types plainly in favor.
Only 2 MART members
The main body of the audince.
and about 11 to 12 environmentalist is front of me who all voted in favour.
They are the ones who tipped the balance.
The question was
"Is the congestion charge a price worth paying for the improved public transport"
Leese has always contradicted himself.He cannot keep to his word.He thinks he is the only right person and everyone else is wrong.Since he got his knighthood it has gone to his head.Bring back Stringer at least he spoke some sense.I was there and leese jusr will not listen to anyone but himself.He loves his own voice.
Sir Richard Leese is for ever saying that the Edinburgh referendum on the congestion charge was just a Yes/No vote on whether to have the congestion charge, nothing else, he has repeated this several times, so it can not be applied to the Greater Manchester scheme as it is too complex for a Yes or No question.
Here is the EXACT question that was put to the people of Edinburgh.
"The leaflet enclosed with this ballot paper gives information on the Council's transport proposals for Edinburgh. The Council's 'preferred' strategy includes congestion charging and increased transport investment funded by it. Do you support the Council's 'preferred' strategy?"
Yes or No?
Well well well, they were offered public transport improvements too.
Either
A- Sir Richard is mistaken.
B- He is telling porkies to us so we don?t demand referendum.
Now we know the Scots were offered public transport improvements in their referendum question, we should demand the same.
Chipper, CIty center
Sir Richard Leese did not provide much detail on this
Other than they were still working it out.
I myself would have say they still intend to charge motorbikes, but at a reduced level.
I do not see why we should have to pay to fund this £3 billion programme out of our own pockets. If the Government, backed by the Opposition can find £76 BILLION for Trident then surely it can find £3 billion, a drop in the ocean by comparison, for transport. Trident is a waste of money. Spending £76 billion instead on transport for the whole of the North West and the UK would deliver far more benefits. There is no need to sell off the Airport or force us to put our hands in our pockets if The Government and the Treasury realised that transport is far more important to the nation than a white elephant defence system.