Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department – in the House of Commons at 3:32 pm on 9 June 2008.
I rise to make a statement about improving public transport and tackling congestion in Greater Manchester. Before I do so, and in view of the number of my hon. Friends representing Greater Manchester constituencies who are in their places today, I am sure that all here would want to join me in offering condolences to the friends and family of the police officer who tragically died during a training exercise in Manchester today.
The transformation of our great cities and major towns has been one of the remarkable success stories of recent years. Across the country, we have seen new investment, new jobs created and a growing confidence about the future, but our future prosperity is threatened by the growing problem of congestion on our roads. The economic, environmental and social consequences of congestion are unacceptable. That is why the Government have been working with local communities and leaders to meet that challenge.
The Government already provide £2 billion a year in capital support for local transport. On top of that, we set up the transport innovation fund to encourage areas with imaginative local ideas specifically to target congestion. From this financial year, the Government have earmarked at least £200 million a year to support such schemes and invited local bids for the funding. Last July, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority submitted the first business case under the transport innovation fund.
Greater Manchester is one of the fastest growing economies in the UK. It has seen the creation of 45,000 new jobs in the last five years. The Greater Manchester authorities are determined to build on that success and have a clear vision to make it one of Europe's premier city regions. But they have identified congestion as an increasing brake on their ambition and prosperity, putting one in seven future jobs at risk. That could be about 30,000 jobs in 2021. In order to sustain economic growth and prevent any deterioration in their citizens' quality of life, Manchester's authorities have decided that they must take action both to improve local transport links and target road congestion. The proposals they have submitted combine unprecedented investment in public transport in Greater Manchester, followed at a later stage by a congestion charging scheme to reduce traffic on the city's roads.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Regional and Local Transport considered the bid carefully against the published guidance and I am pleased to announce today that the Greater Manchester bid has been granted programme entry. That is a significant step. It means that the Government support the package in principle and commit ourselves to working closely with Greater Manchester as it develops its proposals in the coming months. We have, therefore, provisionally made available £1.5 billion of central Government funding to help to meet the cost of the £2.8 billion package; the remaining amount will be funded by Greater Manchester.
That comprehensive package will deliver to Greater Manchester—and its citizens—a world-class public transport system. The proposals include plans for up to seven extensions—amounting to 22 miles of new routes—to the Metrolink system, including lines to Ashton, the airport and East Didsbury. People will see bus services transformed, with new cross-city bus routes as well as more reliable, frequent and safer services for passengers. The introduction of smartcards will cut queues and costs. There will be major improvements to local rail, including more carriages and seats on busy commuter routes, safer and more comfortable stations and improved passenger information. A network of yellow school buses will be introduced to ferry pupils to school and help to cut car journeys. There will also be investment in new cycle routes and secure cycle parking spaces, as well as improved park and ride facilities for rail and Metrolink.
To ensure that the people of Greater Manchester have real choices over their journeys, the majority of the improvements will be in place before the introduction of the congestion charge in 2013. The charging scheme will operate only in peak times, when congestion is at its worst. Only vehicles crossing the outer or inner ring into the city centre in the morning, and leaving during the evening peak time, will face charges. The peak-hours-only congestion charging scheme is considered critical to the success of the package, maximising the economic benefits, constraining future congestion and providing a local revenue stream to support public transport investment across Greater Manchester.
Studies have shown that the combined package of investment in public transport followed by congestion charging would deliver far more benefits in terms of the city's economic growth and quality of life than either investment or a charging scheme alone. To allow as many people as possible the opportunity to express their views on the proposal, Greater Manchester will now hold a public consultation. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, and after further work has been completed, the next step for Greater Manchester is to submit a bid for conditional approval to my Department. We expect that to happen in the autumn.
The Government are also in discussion with other towns and cities where local leaders believe that combining extra investment in public transport with congestion charging schemes is the right long-term solution for their area. Greater Manchester's proposals demonstrate their determination to develop innovative approaches to tackling congestion for the benefit of the economy and the mobility of people living in the city region.
Today, as a country, we are faced with an unprecedented growth in people's desire to travel. It is essential that we provide people with greater choice over how and when they travel, cut congestion on our roads and take the right decisions for our quality of life, the environment and the long-term health of our economy. I commend this statement to the House.
I, too, would like to express the Opposition's condolences to the family of the police officer who so tragically died.
The proposals could see Manchester commuters paying £1,200 a year in congestion charges—8 per cent. of the income of someone on a £15,000 wage—when they are already struggling to make ends meet with rocketing fuel prices and multiple tax increases. Will the Secretary of State confirm that today's package would leave council tax payers footing the bill if the proposed transport projects overrun their budget, and that council tax payers also bear the risk if the revenue from the scheme fails to cover the £1.24 billion in borrowing that the Government are asking Manchester to take on? The London experience shows that collection costs can be considerable. With the net profit of the London scheme estimated at just £10 million since its inception, if the charge in Manchester is successful in reducing congestion, that will further reduce revenue and increase financial risk.
Transport improvements in Manchester, including Metrolink extensions, are, of course, welcome, but today's announcements on Metrolink do not make up for 11 years of Labour broken promises on light rail, including pulling the plug on Leeds and Liverpool. Were not improvement schemes in today's package, such as the Bolton rail-bus interchange, already promised by Labour before the TIF bid? What guarantees have people in Manchester that the charge will not be increased excessively in future? Has extending the congestion charge to a third outer ring been ruled out?
Finally but most important, why are the Government pressing ahead with this proposal when three out of 10 local councils oppose it and one is demanding a referendum? Why are they not prepared to offer the whole conurbation of Manchester a referendum on the scheme? The truth is that the Government are telling Manchester, "If you say yes to congestion charging you will receive money to improve transport, but if you say no you will not." That is bullying, pure and simple.
Why is the Secretary of State depriving her own constituents in Bolton, West of a free choice on the issue? Everyone knows that she is not too happy in the Cabinet. Will she back her Government or her constituents on this issue? Her statement was heard in stony silence on both sides of the House. Will it turn out to be the longest resignation letter in history?
The hon. Lady came here today, yet again, with not a single policy proposal to her name— not a single proposal to tackle congestion in our towns and cities. Eighty per cent. of congestion today exists in our towns and cities, and over the next 10 years 80 per cent. of congestion will build up in our towns and cities. When Rod Eddington examined the issue he said that the economy would suffer to the tune of £22 billion if we did nothing, but the hon. Lady's proposal appears to do just that: nothing at all. She has ducked so many difficult issues that she practically walks—
Order. I am always reluctant to interrupt a Secretary of State, but I say again and again that the function of a Secretary of State answering questions on a statement is not to talk about the Opposition's policies but to answer the questions that have been put to him or her.
I am happy to answer the questions that the hon. Lady put to me, Mr. Speaker. If she had presented a list of serious questions and alternative proposals I would certainly have dealt with them, and I will of course deal with the points that she raised. One thing we do know is that if the Conservative party were in power today, the £3 billion that we have on the table for Greater Manchester would not be available to that great city.
The hon. Lady suggested that this deal would somehow be bad for the motorists of Greater Manchester, which represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the package is about. It is about delivering a world-class transport system for a world-class city, and we should celebrate the fact that a strong and effective local leadership in Manchester has produced an innovative package of proposals that will bring real benefits to people's day-to-day journeys. What is more, by committing us to introducing the vast majority of public transport improvements ahead of a congestion charging scheme, the proposals give people real choices in regard to their journeys across the city.
The hon. Lady asked how the financial risk would be borne. In presenting its bid to the Government, Greater Manchester said that it was prepared to accept and manage the risks associated with the deal. She asked what guarantees there were that the congestion charge would not increase in future. We have said that Greater Manchester must be completely transparent about the level of the charge, and that if it changed the terms of the proposals it would have to publish a new scheme order on which the people of Greater Manchester would be consulted.
The hon. Lady accused the Government of bullying the people of Greater Manchester. The people of Greater Manchester have said that they want a world-class public transport system. They have also said, incidentally, that they want a world-class bus system, which is an integral part of the proposals. The hon. Lady represents a party that voted against the Local Transport Bill, for which Conservative councillors have been campaigning throughout Greater Manchester.
I am disappointed by the hon. Lady's response, but I am afraid it comes as no surprise. It bears all the hallmarks of today's Conservative party. Conservative Members are clear about what they are against, but silent on what they think should be done. They have nothing to say and nothing to do, and they stand for nothing.
Notwith- standing the curmudgeonly response that my right hon. Friend received from the Opposition, there will be enormous enthusiasm for the proposals on the Labour Benches and in parts of Greater Manchester, because public transport in Manchester simply is not adequate. Does she agree with the claim that if Greater Manchester does not deal positively with congestion over the next 10 years, we will lose about 30,000 jobs? That is a lot of people who would be put out of work if we were to fail to act in the way my right hon. Friend has outlined.
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Greater Manchester itself has said that dealing with congestion is not an option, and that as congestion increases it will choke off growth in the city. It estimates that, by 2021, 30,000 jobs could be at risk. The argument is fundamentally an economic one: if Greater Manchester is to continue to grow, and to become the world-class city it aspires to be, it needs to tackle congestion by introducing a congestion charge and, equally importantly, by investing in public transport.
May I add my condolences to those expressed by the Secretary of State in respect of the police officer who has died? May I also thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice of the statement—although in the light of your welcome statement just now, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to ask the right hon. Lady how three national newspapers were able to report this story on Friday? How were they able to get information about this announcement, which has been made to the House only this afternoon?
The Secretary of State will know that the Liberal Democrats support in principle the use of market mechanisms to achieve environmental ends, and that we therefore support congestion charging and road pricing. Does she accept, however, that as motorists will be worse off as a consequence of this congestion charge scheme, it is important to front-load public transport improvements across Greater Manchester so that the benefits for those using public transport and those using private motor vehicles are clear? More specifically, will she also accept that although the proposed scheme might work for the city centre and parts of Greater Manchester, it will not work for other parts, as the benefits will not be evenly spread? For example, in Hazel Grove and Cheadle the charge will be payable but there will be minimal improvements in public transport, and Stockport will be cut in half and people will be required to pay to cross from one side of Stockport to the other. Will she, therefore, look at the detail of the scheme to ensure that the benefits of congestion charging are rolled out across the whole area?
Will the Secretary of State also explain the role of consultation and assure the House that it will not be the phoney consultation we saw on Heathrow, but that instead it will genuinely involve local people and local people will decide what happens with the Government proposals, rather than any other mechanism? Will she explain, too, how the views of local councils will be taken into account, given that at least three oppose the proposals?
Finally, does the Secretary of State not think that it is a little inconsistent for Members of this House to say that they are green, that they believe in market mechanisms and that they want localism, and then to try to rubbish comprehensively a scheme that at least partially meets those objectives, as the Conservatives have done today?
I welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's contribution. The remarks he makes in this Chamber are always worth hearing. He makes a number of important points. The first of them is that it is important to invest in public transport before any congestion charge comes on stream. We have committed, together with Greater Manchester, that the vast majority of the public transport investment will be in place by 2013, when it intends to turn on the congestion charge. He makes a point about how the benefits—or otherwise—of the scheme will be spread across Greater Manchester. I have talked to the Greater Manchester economists who did the work underpinning this scheme, and they estimate that the economic benefits will be spread not only across the city of Manchester, but right across the whole of the city region—indeed, some of the outer boroughs will benefit most from the increase in the availability of labour to become employed in different sectors and jobs in future.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the consultation. The method of consultation will be for Greater Manchester authorities to determine and take forward, but they have committed to an intensive period of public information followed by a 12-week consultation period, during which they will gain the views of people throughout each district in Greater Manchester and of business. They have set themselves the test of public acceptability, both in terms of residents and business support.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the number of councils who need to support the proposal. It is good that there should be local devolution on these matters, and AGMA—the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities—has set its own rules that seven out of 10 local councils will need to support the bid for it to re-submit its scheme for conditional approval.
This is an ambitious proposal that deserves the support of the whole House.
At the heart of this scheme is the requirement for local authority support. What mechanisms are there to ensure that that support is maintained, and what absolute commitment will there be to the improvements offered actually being delivered?
Again, the form of the local consultation is for Greater Manchester, although the Government would have to satisfy themselves that consultation had indeed taken place. However, AGMA has set itself four tests, and an important one is that both the public and business ought to think that this scheme should go ahead, so that there is public acceptability for the proposals. It will be having exhibitions in each part of the city, across the city and in the boroughs surrounding the centre of Manchester, and I understand that it will conduct polls at the beginning and the end of the consultation period. It has to satisfy itself that these proposals pass that test before saying again to Government that it would like conditional approval to be considered.
Our prosperity is threatened not just by congestion but by excessive taxation, and in this instance we are looking at an absurdly complex charging system with two charging zones, no resident discount and the possibility of having to pay the charge more than once in a given day. Before this is imposed—without wide public support—I would like the Secretary of State to give an absolute guarantee that there will be not just consultation in this House but a vote if an extension is proposed to a third zone, which would be devastating for my constituents and hers.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is a sophisticated scheme. In fact, one of its great merits is that it does not charge people throughout the day, as in London, for travelling in and out of the scheme. It is a peak-hours-only scheme, using a tag and beacon system. When people enter the zone, they will have to pay once and there is no prospect of their having to pay twice for entering the scheme. Clearly, they have to enter the scheme, and if they return during the peak hour, they will be charged a top-up fee. It is because the scheme covers peak hours that it will reduce the amount of traffic during the peak times, and it will alter the choices that people make between using the car in the peak times, driving outside those times or using public transport. It is an inherent virtue of the scheme that it can charge people for driving at the most congested period of the day, rather than for using the roads per se.
May I add my condolences to those expressed earlier? In the past year or so, we have had some grievous losses in Greater Manchester—from police officers in the ranks, to the very senior ranks. Our thoughts are with the family of that officer.
I thank my right hon. Friend for this announcement. For a decade, those of us living on the western side of Greater Manchester have been under-resourced in the extreme when it comes to public transport infrastructure. Her announcement today is welcome to me, my right hon. Friend Andy Burnham and my hon. Friend Mr. Turner, particularly in the light of the campaign for more than a decade for a new station at Golborne. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport facilitate a meeting between now and the autumn involving the transport authority, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and I, Network Rail and the rail franchise, to ensure that in the autumn we can agree the option for the construction of a new station in Golborne? That would be the first in this area since the Beeching axe took it away in the first place.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend welcomes the ambition and reach of these proposals; I know how long and hard he and my right hon. Friend Andy Burnham have been campaigning for Golborne station to be reopened. It is right that that is now on the table for consideration as part of these proposals, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for rail has met them to discuss the merits of that proposal. I am very happy to facilitate any further meetings that may be required.
The Secretary of State referred to the residents of the great city of Manchester and Greater Manchester. She made no reference whatsoever to the areas immediately outside Greater Manchester. Perhaps as many as 2,000 of my constituents need to go into Greater Manchester each day for their work. There is little or no public transport to take people from the villages surrounding Macclesfield to the station, where there is inadequate transport anyway. The railway has not the capacity to take additional people, and there is little proper road transport—that is, buses and coaches. Is the Secretary of State not aware that this is going to place huge additional costs on my constituents, and does she not think that she should have made some reference to those who will be affected outside Greater Manchester and the city of Manchester?
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Journey times will be 20 per cent. shorter for those travelling in and out of Greater Manchester, and there will be more reliability and less traffic. There will also be more capacity on rail services, including on the busiest routes, so that people have a real option for travelling in and out of Greater Manchester. The single most important benefit to the residents of Greater Manchester and those who live beyond its boundaries is that Manchester will have the opportunity to continue to grow and to compete on the international stage in a way that it has not been able to do until now.
The investment in public transport in Greater Manchester is much needed and very welcome, but a special tax that will be paid only by people in Manchester and that could take up to £2,500 off their annual income is very much opposed by people in Manchester. Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the consultation process the scheme's opponents should be given the same ability to distribute literature as those proposing it, to ensure that the consultation is fair and balanced?
I commend my hon. Friend's long involvement in championing Manchester's cause, but I do not think that anyone has accused the opponents of the congestion charge and public investment scheme in Greater Manchester of being silent—indeed, they have made their voices heard in several respects. If he casts his mind back to when the initial proposals were being considered and Greater Manchester residents and businesses were asked whether a bid should be submitted to Government, he will well recall that the majority of residents agreed not only with the principle of a bid being submitted, but with the proposals themselves.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that many of us are much attracted by her announcement today and believe it to be one of the things that we must, in principle, do if we are to deal with climate change? We had better get this scheme absolutely right, because this is something that we will have to do all over the country. I was surprised, therefore, that she did not use the words "climate change" in her statement. Will she tell me how many tonnes of CO2 emissions will be saved by these decisions?
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his far-sightedness and on not being seduced by the short-term political opportunism of his Front-Bench team. He rightly refers to climate change; indeed, my statement referred to the environment. The only CO2 emission calculations that I am aware of were those produced by the Greater Manchester authorities, which estimated that about 6 per cent. of all CO2 emissions could be saved by the scheme.
I welcome today's statement, but with some reservations. For example, I am clear from what happened this morning that my constituents are not yet sufficiently aware of why we need such a proposal. We were waiting for a train that did not turn up, but my constituents did not understand that the necessary investment in the rail industry had not been made and that this proposal will help. My plea to the Secretary of State is to let the passenger transport authority do the campaigning to convince people. My hon. Friend Graham Stringer and others will campaign against the proposal, but the role of Government should be to give genuine information to my constituents and to everybody else so that they can make a reasoned decision. Will the Secretary of State give that commitment?
Indeed, and today's statement is part of that process. It is important that not only are arguments made for the Government's policy but people are given clear, unambiguous advice about what the proposals are. Today, I have set out in some detail, as have the Greater Manchester authorities, the specific proposals for each borough. I know that not only will each borough benefit from more rail capacity, but bus services will be transformed. Yellow buses are being introduced, as are guided busways between Leigh and Manchester, and between Bolton, Farnworth, Kearsley and Manchester. People need to see the details of the proposals to be able to make up their own mind, but I am certain that, in the long run, they will be convinced.
If these proposals are as attractive as the Secretary of State suggests, surely the best way to indicate the level of local support would be to put the proposals to local people in a Greater Manchester-wide referendum. That way, she could sell the proposals, Graham Stringer and others could oppose them, and the Government, if they are right, could demonstrate that the public are behind them on this. If the Government are wrong, a costly mistake would be avoided.
The Greater Manchester authorities could choose to do that if they wished. Their judgment is that the proposals will be welcomed by local people and businesses. Indeed, my local borough is considering holding a poll of the sort that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I believe in devolution and these measures should be considered and determined locally.
The announcement today is welcome and somewhat overdue. This level of investment in what the Secretary of State has called a world-class city is entirely appropriate for Britain's second city. It will certainly be welcomed in my constituency, Droylsden and other areas throughout Greater Manchester, as will the completion of Metrolink. I am pleased to hear that that will be implemented before the congestion charge is introduced, because that is crucial. While there is a need to tackle congestion through road charging, does my right hon. Friend agree that the scaremongering and misinformation put out by the Conservatives, especially in the recent local election campaign, will make the process of consultation so much more difficult?
My hon. Friend is right. For instance, a scare story was put out by the Opposition that the congestion charge zone would be extended to boroughs outside the inner and outer ring, but that is complete nonsense. It is important that people are provided with the facts and are able to make an informed decision based on those facts.
Bearing in mind that Trinity Street station in my constituency has needed serious investment for several decades now, that the Bolton-Manchester rail corridor is one of the most congested in the country, and that extensions of Metrolink will not benefit Bolton, how can Bolton's three Members of Parliament convince their commuting constituents that this scheme will be of benefit to them also?
I shall certainly be arguing the case in Bolton that there should be a state-of-the-art interchange linking both the rail services at Bolton with bus services; a new, high-quality bus route linking Bolton, Farnworth, Kearsley and Manchester with a 10-minute frequency for much of the day, segregated for a large part from other traffic; and more trains holding more people, so that people can travel in and out of the city centre in less crowded conditions. When those improvements are combined with a real upgrade in the quality of buses provided and a new yellow bus service for children travelling to school, commuters in Bolton will be convinced that an extremely good deal is on the table.
I have grave concerns about the proposed imposition of congestion charging, because it would be very difficult for my constituents to switch to public transport, given how things stand. We have had severe cutbacks in our bus services, and my right hon. Friend has even visited a station that I have campaigned to have improved. We will not benefit from an extension of Metrolink either. So the position is dire—I have campaigned a lot on it—and it will not improve quickly. My constituents will be concerned to ensure that they have a proper say, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me an assurance today that everyone who wants to do so can have a say on these proposals.
Certainly. Indeed, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit just as others across Greater Manchester will from improved buses and greater rail capacity. Stations such as the one I visited are likely to be refurbished as a result of the announcement today. Some 42 stations across the area will benefit from a significant programme of refurbishments, including regular real-time information services about train arrivals, as well as better quality facilities for passengers.
My hon. Friend is right that her constituents need to have a say. Greater Manchester has promised a consultation that will be carried out independently, and the results will be submitted to the Government for consideration as part of the process.
I welcome the proposed investment in a new bus interchange station in my constituency, extra carriages for overcrowded commuter trains, new buses and perhaps, in the future, the Metrolink. May I ask my right hon. Friend for more details about the consultation process and the information to be provided, particularly in relation to road pricing, as my constituents will want to know more about the effect on very local journeys? As she will be aware, the outer ring cuts through my constituency, separating the north from the south.
Greater Manchester will want to satisfy itself that people will still be able to travel to work freely and that that journey will be improved for the vast majority of people in the future, both for motorists as a result of reduced traffic on the roads, which will lead to shorter journeys and more reliable travel times, and for those who choose to travel on the roads outside peak hours or on the new bus and rail services. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of a good consultation process. I understand that the Greater Manchester authorities will provide information to every household across Greater Manchester, although these are questions for them. There will be exhibitions where people will be able to come to find out more about the proposals, and views will be gathered so that they can be submitted to the Government.
The economic success of the UK has led Greater Manchester, and the city of Manchester in particular, to become a huge success. It is important that the city of Manchester is not choked on its own success and that the benefits are spread throughout the borough. That is why I welcome the infrastructure provided by the improvements to Wigan Wallgate and Wigan North Western stations and the additional and better rail links. Will my right hon. Friend announce at some stage in the future that there will be further improvements to the road infrastructure, which is equally vital to boroughs such as Wigan as the rail network improvements?
I understand my hon. Friend's concern as a former chair of the highways in Wigan for a number of years, as I have just been informed by my colleague on the Front Bench. It is absolutely right that we have to maintain the infrastructure in roads. The Government are providing more than £2 billion of capital support to local areas across the country, but in the future Greater Manchester, too, will want to consider how to keep those roads properly maintained to ensure that motorists have the reliable journeys that they are promised in this bid.
I, too, welcome the £3 billion investment in public transport in Greater Manchester, which is much needed. Will the Secretary of State allay my fears that communities such as Denton and Audenshaw might become divided towns? What pressure can be put on the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities to ensure that those communities that straddle the M60 charge zone can continue properly to function as single communities?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is essential that as a result of the proposals, social inclusion is not only maintained but improved and that communities do not become divided but are brought together. The bid offers local people the opportunity to make the case to the GMPTA about what improvements are needed to make that happen. Buses might need to be more frequent or more reliable, or the prices might need to be kept down. The local discount scheme might need to be designed in a particular way. The yellow bus service might need to take into account the fact that some parents live on one side of the boundary while the school is on the other side. The £2.8 billion package is sufficient for that.
I welcome today's announcement, because the improvements to local bus services and to Metrolink will be of enormous benefit to my constituents, who have waited far too long. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on confronting the difficult issue of congestion charging, on not running away from it and on not conceding to those who want to put their heads in the sand and hope that congestion will go away, because it will not? Does she agree that a lot of fine tuning needs to be done during the further consultation period? Will she look in particular at the questions of exemptions for public service workers and residence permits for those within the zone? In particular, will she consider differential charging according to the emissions rating of the vehicle, so that those who run the most fuel-efficient vehicles will pay less in the congestion charging scheme?
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is important that the Government back ambitious plans proposed by local authorities that are prepared to take the measures necessary not just to tackle congestion in the future, but to have a beneficial impact on the environment and, indeed, on the quality of life in those areas. An important part of the plans will be how any discount scheme operates. Greater Manchester has advised the Government that it intends to offer discounts, probably aimed at low-income groups, but the specific design of exemptions, or indeed how the charging scheme operates, is still in the process of being worked up. It is one of the points that it will wish to test through the consultation process.
This is obviously a great opportunity for Manchester, and I suspect that what is being proposed will be a model for what will happen in many of our great cities over the years to come, but given some of the feedback that we have had about the scheme, can my right hon. Friend confirm that all the councils that are members of the transport innovation fund partnership are volunteers, that there are no pressed men and that the scheme was designed by people in Manchester for people in Manchester?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Greater Manchester's leaders have come forward, on behalf of the citizens and businesses in Greater Manchester, with ambitious proposals to transform their local economy and to make Manchester a world-class city. It is right that the Government back those leaders who come up with ambitious plans to support future prosperity, to tackle climate change and to improve the quality of life, and it is important that the Government back that with hard cash.
As a Leeds Member, I sincerely welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and wish Manchester well in this enterprise. Many of my constituents work in Manchester, and they cross the Pennines every day to do so. My concern is to ensure that, if increasing numbers of commuters use the trans-Pennine route, they have better services. At the moment, there are certain deficiencies on that route and, as she will know, there is enormous congestion on the M62 which also needs to be addressed.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we are continuing to invest in the capacity of rail services. As he well knows, we have the fastest growing railway in Europe. As part of the TIF bid, extra capacity will be made available not just for the growing number of people whom we as a Government expect to use the railway over the next five or 10 years, but to support people who want to move out of their cars and start taking the train instead. Indeed, the busiest rail services in and out of Manchester have the most gain.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. My only disappointment is that Manchester, not Sheffield, will get the package, although I accept that I am in a fairly small minority of people in Sheffield with that point of view at present. If we in Sheffield and, indeed, other cities come to the view that a package of congestion charging and public transport improvements is the only realistic way forward to a transport strategy for the future, will she back cities that come forward at a later stage as enthusiastically as she is backing Manchester? In the meantime, will she encourage all cities to develop some sort of strategy to tackle congestion, as that is currently not being done by all cities?
Certainly, and that is the reason why we have set up a small pump-priming fund to enable towns and cities to develop proposals to tackle congestion in the future. Of course, if Sheffield and, indeed, other cities across the United Kingdom want to propose ambitious plans to do so, we will consider them on their merits. Indeed, if £200 million a year appeared not to be adequate, we would reassess the size of the pot to ensure that it was generous enough to fund the right sort of proposals.