аЯрЁБс>ўџ ;=ўџџџ:џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС` №П'bjbjц‡ц‡ 7.„э„эџџџџџџЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄИрррр ь ИCьпппТ Ф Ф Ф Ф Ф Ф $/h—шш Єє ппє є ш ЄЄл§ І І І є vЄЄТ І є Т І І ЄЄІ ј №‰№V.мШрj І Т 0CІ † І ЄІ пdC ўІ A Ь чпппш ш œ пппCє є є є ИИИdФИИИИИИЄЄЄЄЄЄџџџџ Manchester Congestion Zone debate – 2nd July 08 11.21 am Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs. Humble. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. I am pleased to make a brief contribution towards it. This is an extremely timely debate, given the surprise announcement last week that the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities will press for a county-wide referendum on this important issue, and the politicking that took place last Friday when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a joined administration on the passenger transport authority, a matter to which I shall return. Like my hon. Friend’s Worsley constituency, my Denton and Reddish constituency is sliced in two by the M60, the proposed outer charging zone. Consequently, many of my constituents have real concerns about the congestion charging proposals. First, let me put on record my firm belief that Greater Manchester’s public transport needs improving. My constituents in both Stockport and Tameside are not well served by public transport. We currently have no Metrolink service, and although bus services along the main roads are fairly frequent, that has been at the expense of a number of services away from those main routes being cut dramatically or even axed, thus penalising pensioners and disabled residents in particular. They have certainly not been well served by the private bus companies operating in my part of Greater Manchester. I lay claim to the most pathetic train service in the entire United Kingdom, which has just one train, once a week, in one direction between Stockport and Stalybridge via Reddish South and Denton stations on Saturday morning. Therefore, I appreciate that the nearly Ѓ3 billion package of funding that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put on the table must be seriously considered. I doubt whether we shall ever again be offered such a sum to put right the many wrongs that collectively form the Greater Manchester transport network. That Ѓ3 billion is needed, and it is needed desperately. The real controversy lies with the Greater Manchester congestion charge element of the proposal, and particularly in communities such as those that I represent which straddle the M60 charging zone. Whether people agree in principle with the notion of congestion charging or not, if the aim really is to tackle unnecessary traffic heading into and choking up the city centre, they can just about accept the logic of a system that identifies the traffic that causes the problem and consequently imposes a charge, but what Greater Manchester proposes is a two-ring system with a Ѓ2 charge for passing the M60 outer ring and Ѓ1 charge for passing the inner ring with a further Ѓ2 charge to return over the M60. Charges would apply only at peak times and in the direction of the congestion. That takes no account of local travel and of allowing communities to operate in a joined-up way, as they have always done. I have absolutely no answer to the young mum who came to my advice bureau recently. She lives in Audenshaw, one of the towns sliced in two by the M60, works in Ashton-under-Lyne, and travels away from the peak traffic flow in the morning and evening, so ordinarily would not be charged, but she has to drop her daughter off at a local private day nursery, which is in her community of Audenshaw and less than quarter of a mile from where she lives. Because it is on the opposite side of the M60, she would be charged Ѓ2 a day under the proposals. When she told me that that will not tackle congestion because she is not causing it, and that it will merely add Ѓ10 a week to her child care bill, I had no answer, and the Greater Manchester scheme has no acceptable answer either. Likewise, the Dane Bank part of Denton is divided from the rest of the town by the M60, an industrial estate and the fringes of the Tame Valley country park. Every year, there is an issue for local parents because the two primary schools, Dane Bank and Denton West End, fill up, and a small number of children from that estate are not allocated places at them. Between one and five children are affected, so the numbers are not large, and they are then allocated whichever other primary school in Denton has surplus places. However, those schools are on the other side of the M60, through the industrial estate and past the open space. There is no public transport linking the two sides effectively, so the only option is for those children to be driven to school. Greater Manchester passenger transport executive’s yellow bus scheme will not help such a small number of children who are dispersed to different schools, so the parents will be charged to return home after dropping their children off at their local school. This is just plain wrong. Finally, the M60 cuts through the most southern part of Denton and Reddish, through the centre of Stockport town centre, so the charge zone will dissect the north and south of the borough through the economic heart of the town. It will not allow Stockport to function properly as a community. If the GMPTE and AGMA cannot devise a scheme to honour and respect local communities, they will never get a yes vote in the referendum. Those are the issues that I am taking up on behalf of my constituents, and I have further meetings planned with officials from the PTE to discuss those concerns. Let us face it, last week it seemed that the inner charging zone was not set in concrete, with public consultation proposed on the final boundaries, but no similar announcement was made about the outer zone. It seems that for us the scheme is set in stone, at least for the time being, but AGMA and the PTE will have to budge and respect local communities if they want the scheme to proceed. Finally, I welcome the decision to have a referendum. It was always going to be difficult for AGMA when Bolton announced that it was having a local poll, with the three opposing councils, Stockport, Trafford and Bury, and perhaps Oldham, also suggesting one. We cannot have half of Greater Manchester—five of the 10 boroughs—having a say in a poll, but not the other half. Everyone in Greater Manchester should have their say on such an important issue, and AGMA is correct—although I believe that it has deferred a formal decision—to suggest a county-wide referendum. Let us have a good and proper debate about the county’s transport needs and of our individual parts of it alongside the pros and cons of the congestion charge proposal. That leads me to the GMPTA. It is absolutely crazy that its new Conservative chair, deputy leader of Trafford council and well-known anti-transport innovation fund campaigner, has agreed to share power with the Lib Dem group on the PTA, as long as he remains neutral on TIF. That requirement was set down by the Lib Dems, who are all over the place on this issue. Stockport is firmly against, Rochdale is evangelically for, and Oldham—I am not sure whether this is true to form—is not sure. I like and respect Councillor Colledge, the new chair. I have met him on a number of occasions, including last week when he was in Westminster with a GMPTA delegation to lobby MPs about light rail. I wish him well in his new post, but how can the chair of the PTA remain neutral on a scheme to which its own PTE is co-signatory, which PTE officers are helping to draw up and which will be subject to a referendum on which the PTA, with him as chair, will presumably ask for a yes vote, and Trafford council, with him as deputy leader, will call for a no vote? Whatever happens in the referendum, I shall encourage my constituents to have their say and to make their voices heard. Until then, I will keep raising the issues of fairness and social cohesion with AGMA and the passenger transport executive, because the communities I represent—particularly those affected by the charge zone, such as Audenshaw, Denton and north and central Stockport—deserve answers and a resolution to their very real concerns. %':G " # З И ё ђ r#s##ž#ђ&ѓ&\']'›'œ''ѕцѕплблблблблблблблблУлh r…CJOJQJ^JaJh r…OJQJ^Jh r… h r…5\h r…h r…5CJH*\aJh r…5CJ\aJ01:/ Й Љ § VуюДоР!Ћ#л%›'œ''эооббббббббббббббШЦ 7$8$H$gd r… ЄdЄd7$8$H$gd r…$ЄdЄd7$8$H$gd r…$$ЄdЄd7$8$H$a$gd r…'§50P:p r…Аа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %ААаАа а†œ@@ёџ@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@ђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRi@ѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (k@єџС(No List.џџџџ01:/ЙЉ§Vу юДоРЋл›œŸ˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€РЋл›œŸ{‰0\юЂy‰0€y‰0€ŒгХРгy‰0€y‰0@Ё'''№8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№џџћr2ќDќr2ќ|n§r2М{nўr2||nџr2Фsns2ќ{ns2Dsns2Фrns2sns2„sns2|{ns2Ћs2„rns2rn s2„qn s2Фqn s2Dqn s2qn s2Фpns2„pns2Dpns2pns2„ons2Фons2DonIIшш(:ККrrwппѓѓ?i§Фl..6SŸ     OOюю1HРРv}}хх§§ErЪr99<\Ÿ  =*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceType€=*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags €PlaceName€B*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€8*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€ XШЯйпЯж}†D M d m ќЩб+4Ÿ/  Ÿ31œŸŸх r…џ@€//ј s//@@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial5& ‡za€џTahoma"qˆ№аhзЧfмЧfЗц9Зц9й#№ ДД24d2ƒ№HX)№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџ r…2џџ/Manchester Congestion Zone debate  2nd July 08The Houses of ParliamentThe Houses of Parliamentўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Р˜ам , P\ | ˆ ” ЈАИф0Manchester Congestion Zone debate – 2nd July 08The Houses of Parliament Normal.dotThe Houses of Parliament1Microsoft Office Word@^аВ@ZFš-мШ@ИM.мШЗцўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0, hp˜ Ј АИРШ а фHouses Of Parliament9и 0Manchester Congestion Zone debate – 2nd July 08 Title ўџџџўџџџ!"#$%&'()ўџџџ+,-./01ўџџџ3456789ўџџџ§џџџ<ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF№‰№V.мШ>€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ1Tableџџџџ WordDocumentџџџџ7.SummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ*DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџ2CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq