SUPPORTERS and opponents of the Greater Manchester congestion charge slugged it out to a standstill in a highly-charged debate last night.
 
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?