Examination of Witnesses (Questions 305
- 319)
MONDAY 14 MARCH 2005
SIR HOWARD
BERNSTEIN, COUNCILLOR
ROGER JONES,
MR CHRISTOPHER
J MULLIGAN, LORD
SMITH OF
LEIGH AND
COUNCILLOR RICHARD
LEESE CBE
Q305 Chairman: Good afternoon to
you gentlemen. You are most warmly welcome here this afternoon.
Would you be kind enough to identify yourselves, starting on my
left.
Lord Smith of Leigh: Good afternoon.
I am Peter Smith. I am Leader of Wigan, but I am here in my role
as Chairman of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities.
Councillor Leese: My name is Richard
Leese. I am the Leader of Manchester City Council, but I am here
in my role as Deputy Chairman of the Association of Greater Manchester
Authorities.
Sir Howard Bernstein: My name
is Howard Bernstein. I am the Chief Executive of Manchester and,
also, Clerk to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority.
Mr Jones: My name is Roger Jones.
I am Chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority.
Mr Mulligan: My name is Chris
Mulligan. I am Director General of the Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Executive.
Chairman: Gentlemen, we have a little
bit of housework before we commence our Committee. Members having
an interest to declare?
Ian Lucas: I am a member of Amicus.
Miss McIntosh: I am doing a placement
with the Industry and Parliament Trust for Network Rail and I
have shares in FirstGroup.
Chairman: I am a member of ASLEF.
Mrs Ellman: I am a member of the Transport
and General Workers' Union.
Mr Stringer: I am a member of Amicus
and an ex-member of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Authority and Manchester City Council.
Q306 Chairman: Gentlemen, do you
have something you wish to say to open the batting or may we go
straight to the questions? I should point out to you that the
acoustics in this room are difficult, so you will have to speak
up because your words are being recorded but not projected.
Lord Smith of Leigh: Chairman,
if it is possible I would like to make an opening statement on
behalf of my colleagues. First of all, we are delighted to be
here and we thank you for giving us the opportunity to supplement
the written submission we have made already. We welcome the Committee's
timely review into light rail. We think it is a very significant
issue for us in Greater Manchester and there is the support of
all the 10 local authorities who are willing to pay 25% of the
costs of the Metrolink Scheme. Greater Manchester has enjoyed
comparative economic success over the past few years and Metrolink
is a key factor in that success. However, there are parts of Greater
Manchester that have not benefited from the success and we believe
Metrolink would provide the connectivity to regenerate these areas.
We thought, when we met the Minister for Transport in February
2004, we had reached certain shared conclusions: namely Metrolink
was crucial to the economic fortunes of the region; the cost increases
were significant. In the main, these were attributable to the
significant changes in the perception of the private sector to
risk as well as delays in taking decisions. The £520 million
cap agreed in December 2002 was not sustainable with the progression
of the Metrolink expansion of at least two lines, and it was undesirable
to change procurement policy. The Minister indicated to us that
he would consult with the Secretary of State and come back to
us. Several months later, about 20 minutes before the announcement
on 20 July, we learned that Metrolink was to be cancelled or,
in DfT speak, "not to be proceeded with." We have worked
hard to reposition Metrolink in the Government's list of key priorities
and we now have the full support of senior Ministers that Metrolink
must happen. Chairman, we see your inquiry as a major opportunity
to set the record straight, to highlight the importance of light
rail as a contribution to economic change as part of an integrated
transport strategy and the importance of making early decisions
to ensure new jobs and investment are not slowed down or completely
lost.
Q307 Chairman: Mr Smith, that is
helpful. I hope we will be able to examine some of those aspects
in the questions we want to ask you. Can I begin by saying we
would like to know why you thought light rail met your transport
needs?
Mr Jones: In terms of light rail,
all of us have been impressed with the success of the system since
it came in about 12 years ago. What is more important to us is
not what we think, it is what the public think and the public
are massively in support of light rail because it has done everything
we expected it to do. It has not just provided an efficient transport
system for the public, but, also, it has got people, for the first
time, I think, out of their cars and actually onto public transport.
That has been absolutely phenomenal in Greater Manchester. So,
when we had this hiccup from the Minister in recent months, the
public have backed our campaign to the hilt because they know
how successful it is and how successful it will be once it is
expanded. We are more than happy with the current system as it
is, but obviously we need to expand it right across the conurbation,
which is what we would like to do.
Q308 Chairman: What was the most
important reason, the regeneration benefit or how much the transport
needs of the corridors concerned took precedent?
Councillor Leese: I think it is
combination of both of those with an equal balance. The work which
is being done on the proposed corridors for the Metrolink expansion
shows that in terms of the number of people that can be carried
in comparison with other public transport or other alternatives
is significantly greater, perhaps as much as 35% greater. Journey
times are significantly smaller and, in particular, modal transfer—people
getting out of their cars onto public transport—is very
much greater. I think the transport argument is a very strong
one. At the same time, the economic analysis indicates that—I
will give one example—the growth in GVA for the conurbation
would be around £1.4 billion per year by the time the whole
of the network is built out. Again, that is double the impact
of any other possible alternative. At a more immediate sort of
level, Peter Smith referred to parts of the conurbation missing
out, which includes parts like Oldham and Rochdale where the economic
performance is not as good as the rest of the conurbation. Things
like their Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder are absolutely postulated
on light rail being delivered to those particular areas. It is
a real impact in terms of not just regeneration but, also, neighbourhood
renewal.
Q309 Chairman: Did you do any work
on buses before the Department asked you?
Mr Mulligan: We have always looked
at the alternatives available to us. Working in the transport
field, one sees there are various roles for various forms of transport:
heavy rail is very good at medium and long term trips; intermediate
trips, which Metrolink tends to cater for, are five to seven miles;
buses, the average distance travelled is about two and a half
miles. Nobody underestimates the importance of bus to passenger
transport in Greater Manchester, about 85% of trips are taken
by bus. What Metrolink does is give a speedy, reliable, quick
access to the city centre for the large numbers of people it needs
to carry.
Q310 Chairman: Did you make it clear
that you had looked at the bus alternative in your region?
Mr Mulligan: We were required
to do so, Chairman, because of the social cost benefit analysis
on a number of occasions.
Q311 Chairman: What was the effect
when the Department asked you to investigate bus options in terms
of time lost and expense?
Mr Mulligan: We were quite willing
to do that because one would not come forward with a proposal,
such as light rail, with all the benefits which Councillor Leese
and Lord Smith of Leigh have described, without having examined
the benefits and costs of the alternatives and, indeed, if it
is a requirement of the evaluation of the scheme. In all cases
since 2000, we have been able to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the Department's economists and civil servants that the scheme
is much better value for money in their own terms than bus.
Q312 Chairman: What about FirstGroup's
new bus? They say it has got the advantages of the tram, it can
be used with bus priority measures and it ought to be more efficient.
Would the availability of such a vehicle change your view?
Mr Mulligan: I do not wish to
deprecate FirstGroup's bus, it has yet to prove itself in use.
Also, I think it suffers from the handicap of all street-borne
trouble of traffic lights, congestion and so on, whereas a segregated
tramway is rather better.
Q313 Mrs Ellman: If deregulation
was dropped, do you think then buses would run as effectively
as Metrolink?
Mr Jones: We have campaigned on
this regulation issue for a number of years now. We are absolutely
clear that all the major cities outside London are at a massive
disadvantage when it comes to the way buses operate. In Greater
Manchester, at the last count I had there were 44 bus operators
operating within the county. You have got two that dominate the
market that never compete against one another and we have no regulatory
powers whatsoever, as you know, to sort out the frequencies of
the buses, the fares, the timetables and so on, so we are really
in a mess when it comes to trying to make some sense of the bus.
The public cannot understand what is happening, they cannot understand
how a passenger transport authority does not have some kind of
power, which they have in London and the fact that we have been
left with this situation. What do we intend to do about it? Hopefully
we then moved on to the quality contract argument, which I am
sure you have heard before, but it just does not happen. The operators
have said, more than once, they will boycott such a system if
a system comes in. We do not feel the current Government are answering
our point on regulation, which is crucial.
Q314 Chairman: Mr Jones, I have to
say, frankly companies manage to accept it quite well when they
find themselves operating under it, like they do in the London
system.
Councillor Leese: I think an analysis
would show that whilst re-regulation would mean the operation
of a properly integrated public transport system would be a lot
easier to do—indeed, I think we could only do it if there
was regulation—I do not think regulation on its own would
change in any way the comparisons in performance terms between
buses as against light rail in those particular transport corridors.
Whatever you do, there is only a limited capacity on the roads
in those corridors and buses can only carry so many people. Even
with regulation, you would still have a massive shortfall in the
performance of buses against light rail.
Q315 Mrs Ellman: The Department say
they will only fund light rail if there is a properly integrated
transport service with it. Are you saying you are not able to
produce that under the current system? How close to it can you
get?
Councillor Leese: First of all,
our LTP one, that was accepted as a Centre of Excellence for Integrated
Transport, so we would say the Metrolink proposals were already
built within—to the extent which we can—a proper integrated
transport strategy. Some of the things you need to do, like integrated
ticketing, integrated timetabling and a measure of price stability
in terms of fares, can only be done if you have a fully regulated
system. Integration can go a fair way along the track—if
I can use that phrase—but only a certain way along the track
without that regulation.
Q316 Mrs Ellman: Would you say the
Government has gone cool on light rail systems?
Mr Jones: I am absolutely convinced
of that. Although Ministers said that is not the situation, it
seems to us that decisions were taken in the Department for Transport,
maybe because of lack of resources, but they seemed to have made
a decision that light rail has got to be put on the backburner.
Certainly that is my impression in all the meetings we have had
over the last 12 months or so. Although that is denied by Ministers,
I am convinced that is the situation.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My short
answer would be, yes. I think the real question is why, why do
we think it is happening like that? Is it the question that they
do not believe light rail can deliver the transport solution—we
think Metrolink proved that it can, it is part of a system—or
is it because there are problems over affordability which I think
are a different set of issues.
Q317 Chairman: What conclusion did
you reach? You have posed the question, which of those two do
you think is the answer?
Lord Smith of Leigh: I think I
would tend towards the second of those.
Q318 Mrs Ellman: Would you say the
current appraisal system gives a proper evaluation of your scheme?
Councillor Leese: No.
Q319 Mrs Ellman: How should it be
changed?
Councillor Leese: For a proper
evaluation of any scheme, as well as looking at the benefit cost
analysis which is currently carried out which is done almost purely
in transport terms, it does have to go beyond that and look at
the competitiveness agenda, the social inclusion agenda and the
regeneration agenda. There are some signs that evaluation is moving
in that direction, but that has not been applied in any proper
way to our proposals in the past. It grossly undervalues the contribution
Metrolink would make to the Greater Manchester conurbation.
| 
