Homepage  |   E-mail this article  |   Print

---

Up for debate: Andrew Simpson (left), Crain's Editor Steve Brauner (centre) and Sir Richard Leese

Video

Watch the videos of Sir Richard Leese and Andrew Simpson. Crain's thanks UKFast for their help in preparation of this video.

---

Advertisement

1:00 am, December 17, 2007
Business and politics plot a collision course on c-charge

City council leader and Peel Holdings managing director debate the region's hottest issue at Crain's

Crain's Manchester Business invited Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, and Andrew Simpson, managing director of Peel Holdings, into our office for a head-to-head debate on congestion charging, arguably the biggest single issue facing Manchester businesses. Sparks flew. Here's the highlights:

SIR RICHARD LEESE:

The projected growth in Manchester's economy over the next 12 years is over 200,000 jobs, largely replacing jobs lost from the past 30 years, but unless we tackle congestion, we estimate we would lose 30,000 of these. There is a whole body of evidence to suggest that the best way of managing traffic is to put a charge on it.

ANDREW SIMPSON:

But we're guinea-pigging the scheme. When I do business and I want to try something new, I don't bet the shop, I do things in a small and manageable way. What Greater Manchester is proposing is the world's largest scheme and one from which there is no way back. You are talking about borrowing £2bn over 30 years, and if it doesn't work, you can't get out of it. We can create 180,000 jobs with no risk attached to the regional economy — isn't that better?

RL: There is a risk attached. If we do nothing, our research suggests that the number of people within one hour's travel time to the regional centre will drop by 40 per cent. That clearly makes any business operating in that area less attractive. You talk about it being a great experiment, but it has already been done, on a significant scale, in Stockholm. This is a scheme almost directly comparable with Greater Manchester — cordon-based, peak-time only, using the same technology. Their payback period is about four years and it has had no impact on car-dependent industries.

AS: Why not show us some research? You are asking people to make a leap of faith, but so far you have given no reason for business people to buy into the scheme and no evidence that research into traffic flows has been done.

RL: Some of our information is commercially sensitive and so can't be released.

AS: Why is it commercially sensitive? Unless you are scared of what it is saying and you have put assumptions in there that are not correct. You are making assumptions when it suits you about future road use and making an assertion that there will be a tipping point where congestion will become a problem in the next five years ...

RL: ... What we said is that we expect the tipping point, where congestion starts to depress economic growth, to be early in the next decade, so it's not precise, but we want to address growth in congestion before it happens.

AS: Your last consultation with the business community was a sham. What guarantees are there that the next time will see proper consultation with business people?

RL: It was one of the biggest public information exercises that has ever taken place in the conurbation.

AS: Most major employers I speak to weren't consulted at all. You consulted hand-picked organisations, many of which are highly dependent upon city centre, such as developers who can't go against the council as they need planning permission from you.

RL: Are you saying that Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry are beholden to the city council? They represent around 25 per cent of businesses in the city.

AS: And they didn't like the scheme.

RL: So why, when businesses were surveyed in a systematic and statistically sound way, did 60 per cent say we should be putting a bid in?

AS: In your own survey, only 41 per cent agreed with the proposal, that's hardly business in favour. There isn't a single survey that supports this proposal. You still can't accept that you have put forward a bad scheme. Why is doing nothing “not an option” as it says on your publicity?

RL: Do you seriously think doing nothing is an option?

AS: In terms of congestion charging, yes.

RL: But in terms of transport infrastructure in Greater Manchester?

AS: Most of the train and Metrolink track and infrastructure you show for the future is already in place. Your publicity is misleading.

RL: But it's the difference between a network and half a network, with all elements operating coherently.

AS: The last independent Review Commission you put together was carefully hand-selected. Chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport (Professor Richard Bay); the chairman of Marketing Manchester (Nick Johnson); the chairman of Manchester Enterprises (Peter Heginbotham); the chairman of MIDAS (Michael Ogelsby); Manchester Airports Group, owned by Manchester City Council; Manchester Business School (Professor John Arnold). This is a very hand-selected group and is no way a representative group of business people in this region.

RL: You are attacking the integrity and credibility of that group, in roles they take for the Manchester business sector for free. Are you suggesting they don't approach a task like that with utter integrity?

AS: I'm not attacking their integrity but it was a hand-picked group. It's almost a laughing stock among businesses I speak to. There are no cross-region, significant large employers and it damages your credibility.

RL: Show me a list of the people that agree with you. Tell me who they are.

AS: That will become evident soon.

RL: City centre developers need to raise finance, get tenants, and need a thriving economy. Explain to me why that sector above any other would seek to take action that would undermine their businesses?

AS: Because the most valuable piece of their business is planning permission. Without it, you don't have a business. And neither would we.

RL: Are you seriously suggesting that we have gone round the property development industry and coerced them into supporting our bid by saying we wouldn't give them planning permission any more?

AS: I just think the potential for conflicts of interest are all too evident.

SEE OUR VIEW, PAGE 8

COMMENTS? sbinns@crain.com