HEATED exchanges fuelled the MEN's congestion charge debate as leaders of the two camps made a last-ditch bid for victory.

The four panellists, two from each side, clashed with each other - and nearly 100 invited readers - during the two-hour showdown last night.

The debate came as the first ballot packs began dropping on doorsteps ahead of an all-postal referendum that will decide whether Greater Manchester introduces the charge in return for billions of pounds to invest in public transport. On the 'yes' side of the divide, Sir Richard Leese - leader of Manchester council - said the choice was between a 'revolution' in trams, buses and trains, or 'absolutely nothing'.

'Opportunity'

And Lis Phelan, chair of the official 'yes' campaign, urged people to 'grab the opportunity' of better transport, a better environment, less congestion and 10,000 new jobs. From the 'no' camp, Manchester Blackley MP Graham Stringer warned the charge would be a 'millstone around the economy's neck' that would take 'a third of a century' to repay.

And Susan Williams, leader of Trafford council, described it as an 'absolutely horrendous and grossly unfair' tax that would hit low-paid people the hardest. Greater Manchester's 10 councils are bidding for more than £2.75bn from the government's Transport Innovation Fund, including £318m to set up the peak-hour, weekday only congestion charge.

Results

Some £1.2bn would be in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge. A total of 1,940,885 ballot packs have been sent out across Greater Manchester, with voting in the referendum closing on December 11. The results are due the following day. But with the greatest volume of votes expected to be posted back in the next few days, last night's debate - televised live on Channel M - has been seen by both sides as crucial.

Benefits

Sir Richard opened the debate by listing a string of benefits that a 'yes' vote would bring. He said the total number of buses would increase by 10 per cent, with new orbital and cross-city routes, and more express services. He added there would be more than 100 extra school buses, an extension of the Metrolink system, more trams and new carriages on trains.

And he said the most controversial part of the package - the charge - would 'make sure the roads are clear at the busiest times'. "And what do we get for a no?" he asked. "If we get a no, then we get absolutely nothing." Sir Richard said comparisons with London - where traffic has now returned to pre-congestion-charge levels - were misleading.

'Flawed'

"The London scheme was very much a flawed scheme," he said. "There are a number of cities, like Milan and Rome, with congestion charge schemes that do not suffer. These proposals will not only not harm any part of the economy, but they will bring positive benefits. Congestion does not come for free." Sir Richard also confirmed that council workers would not be allowed to claim the charge back from the town hall. But he said employers would have five years before the charge was introduced, in 2013, to change working practices and hours if they wanted to avoid the charge altogether.

Mr Stringer - Sir Richard's predecessor as council leader - said the reason other cities such as Leeds and Birmingham didn't want 'anything to do' with congestion charging was that it would harm rather than help the economy. He said people in his constituency who relied on public transport had been 'exploited' by bus companies and a deregulated system. There would nothing in the bid, he said, that would guarantee the bus companies would provide particular services at particular times.

'Tax'

 "This is not borrowing, this is a new tax in a very, very uncertain future," he said. "The most fundamental change we can make to public transport is to regulate the buses. These are bus companies that have failed to take my constituents to hospitals, which have doubled the price of fares and make twice the level of profit as they do in London. I'm in favour of public transport but this offer from the council on public transport is very poor."

Mr Stringer said the TIF bid would not bring the environmental benefits people wanted, with drivers travelling further to avoid the charge. He said he did not trust the assumptions behind the scheme, adding: "It seems to me the models in terms of the economy are crackers. If you're in doubt about the outcome, vote no because you will be stuck with it for a third of a century if you get it wrong."

'Dream'

Ms Phelan said Greater Manchester had 'never been a place that has sat on its hands'. She said: "Until now, the dream of overhauling our entire public transport system has been just that - a dream. Now we are one vote away from having 90 per cent of our population just five minutes' walk away from a bus running every 20 minutes during the day. Have you any idea what difference that would make to the 30 per cent of people in Greater Manchester who don't have a car?

"We are one vote away from creating 10,000 jobs, many of them in our struggling construction industry. We are one vote away from revitalising our town centres. So we have to ask why people in the 'no' campaign are shouting 'no' so loudly. The only explanation can be that they are somehow dressing up blind self-interest as Greater Manchester's interests.

'Self-interest'

"We must not allow the social and economic future of this region to be sacrificed for the self-interest of a few." Ms Phelan said the jobs that would be created - including 6,000 in construction and 3,000 in operational roles - would benefit areas of high unemployment across the region. And she said Greater Manchester, which already had 'the slowest peak-time journey times in the UK', need to see 'behavioural change', with more people using public transport.

Ms Williams said the charge was 'a very inefficient way to raise funds for public transport'. Asked for an alternative, she said the government should hand over more money without the 'stick' of congestion-charging. "Give us the money, don't charge us," she said. Ms Williams claimed people on low wages would be 'really hammered' by the charge. "The fundamental basis of this loan is wrong," she added.

Angry

The audience played their part in a debate that was at times angry, but never boring. David Telford labelled the charge a 'time bomb' and accused Sir Richard of making a U-turn, saying he had once said it would be an 'economic disaster' for the area. Sir Richard replied: "What I said was I wouldn't support the introduction of a congestion charge if it would damage any part of the Greater Manchester economy. I go forward on the basis that with the benefit of independent advice I'm satisfied these proposals will not only not harm any part of the economy, they will give a positive benefit. Congestion does not come for free."

Haulier

Mike Lyons, finance director of a Trafford Park-based haulier, said 60 per cent of employees in his area travelled to work from outside the M60. He said many of the workers would not enjoy new public transport links, but would still be hit by the charge. Sir Richard replied that Trafford Park would not face the full charge until extra transport improvements were put in place. Roy Wilkes, of the new Manchester Campaign for Free Public Transport, said an alternative scheme would be to subsidise free bus travel across the conurbation.

He used the example of Hasselt in Belgium, which had adopted such plans and 'eliminated' congestion. But Sir Richard claimed such plans would be 'impractical', particularly in a region the size of Greater Manchester. Tommy Walsh, chair of the Manchester Pensioners group, said the pledged bus improvements would benefit both old people and young families, adding: "This yes campaign promises me low level access on all buses and that's why I'm voting yes."

LINKS:

Vote No: MEN's Robert Ridley

Vote Yes: MEN's Maria McGeoghan