I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Of course, Bury would have representation and would be able to make its case. The difference would be, first, that its electorate would be excluded. Secondly, whereas Bury currently has a veto—it can say no—it could in future be oppressed by a majority of nine to one. Such oppression could happen in other ways. At some time in the future the political complexion might mean that the inner authorities are in a minority compared with the outer authorities—that has not happened for a long time, but it has happened—and I would not want Manchester or Salford oppressed in that way.
What is behind these proposals is the fact that the Government are keen to try out congestion charging in Manchester—again, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire touched on this issue. The chairperson of the passenger transport authority has referred to the pressure put on it as the Government blackmailing it into having a congestion charging scheme, and I just want to say two or three things about that long debate, which it is part of this discussion, although not the main part. The reason why that is happening is that Manchester wanted to extend its tram system. We have got £500 million towards a £1.5 billion tram scheme and the Government have said, ““If you want the extra £1 billion and, incidentally, some more for buses and trains, you will, in practice, have to have a congestion charge.””
I do not think that that is fair when one looks at the investment that is being made in London. The case for investing in the tram and train systems in Greater Manchester stands on its own, and a separate case would have to be made for introducing a congestion charge. Surprisingly, the figures produced by the urban traffic control unit in Manchester show that congestion in 11 of the 14 centres of Greater Manchester has fallen since 2001. I suspect that that is mainly because of the opening of the M60. The number of journeys into that area has also fallen, and the Government statistics on speed in those areas show that, with some exceptions, traffic is speeding up.
So congestion is not getting worse. In fact, the Government have agreed with Greater Manchester authorities in a public service agreement that congestion will not increase by 2012 and, on that basis, have agreed to invest in a new traffic-light system. In the foreseeable future, there is no prediction that congestion will increase, and the Government's figures—I am grateful to Ministers for written answers on the issue—assume that the price of oil will fall to $50 a barrel. That is highly unlikely to happen, so the case for congestion charging in Greater Manchester has not been made.
Congestion charging is not an experiment that can be introduced and then removed. It is an investment for 30 years, and on the basis of what we know about traffic, the case has not been made. However, we do need investment in public transport.
Local Transport Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Graham Stringer
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 26 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Transport Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
474 c240-1 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:57:45 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_458552
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_458552
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_458552