Burnham's stealth taxes pay for bus reform. What's next?

Andy Burnham - Mayor of Greater Manchester

THE Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, has announced that elderly people who live in Greater Manchester who are entitled to a concessionary free bus pass, are to be charged an annual  £10 'administrative charge' to pay for the overhaul of the region's bus network and to defend any legal challenges from operators opposing bus reform.

Currently those people who qualify for a free bus and live in Greater Manchester, are entitled to use the bus, tram and train, free of charge within the 'Greater Manchester Rail and Metrolink' without having to pay any admin fee. Transport officials believe that the admin charge which they hope to introduce next January at the earliest, will raise around £1.25m. The plan to introduce the admin charge was given the go-ahead at a recent meeting of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA).

Burnham says that the admin charge is necessary to raise money to overhaul the region's bus network and to create 'parity' with 16-18-year-old's who were recently given free bus passes by the Mayor but have to pay a one-off annual £10 fee. He also says that the admin fee will only have to be paid by those people who want to receive rail and tram access and does not apply to people who only use bus services. 

Unlike people who live in Greater London, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland, who are entitled to a free bus pass when they reach the age of 60, in Greater Manchester, the qualifying age for many people is now 66-years-old. Before 2010, most people in Greater Manchester qualified for a free bus at 60-years-old, but the qualifying age for entitlement was increased incrementally in line with the state retirement age.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester says that the region does not get the level of public transport subsidy that London gets and that if the people of Greater Manchester want the type of public transport they have in London, people will have to pay for it. Already, a two-year market study into bus reform in Greater Manchester has cost the taxpayer an estimated £20m.

One suspects that Burnham's 'administrative charge' is just the thin end of the wedge, a foot-in-the-door, a kind of salami tax, which will lead to further taxes increases to fund services in Greater Manchester. Just how much money Greater Manchester have saved in not providing free bus passes for 60-year-olds, the Mayor doesn't say nor does he seem keen on fighting for the same level of transport subsidy for Greater Manchester that London enjoys. 

Burnham says public will have to pay more for policing & transport!

Trendy Ancoats - Location for £300m housing fund money

Around seventy people turned  out last Thursday night to the 'Question Time - #AskAndy GM' event at the Clarendon College, in Ashton-under-Lyne.  The event was chaired by Hannah Miller, a political reporter from Granada TV. 

The Mayor of Greater Manchester, was there to answer questions from the public. The first question was about public transport in Greater Manchester.  The Mayor has stated his intention to reorganise public transport in Greater Manchester and to make bus travel cheaper, regular, and more convenient, with fewer operators and fares.

Burnham pointed out that there was a an urgent need to change the way buses work in Greater Manchester. There had been 32 million fewer journey's over the last decade and he said that the current bus system was holding us back in Greater Manchester. He told the audience: "We need a London style system...but this can't be provided publicly...as the Act (Bus Services Act 2017) rules this out...We've got to get people using buses."

Although he said it would take the next three to five years to get the bus system that was wanted in Greater Manchester, he also said "I can't use the powers without funding... unless we invest we can't have a London style system...we don't get the subsidy London get." 

When asked by Hannah Miller if it was going to cost people in Greater Manchester more money, he said it would.  Burnham had initially pledged that the free bus passes for 16 to 18-year old's would be self-financing -funded by local education colleges, sponsorship, and the bus companies themselves. Now,  a £9 Mayoral precept, is to be added to council tax bills to pay for the reorganisation of the regions bus network and the free bus passes for young people. Every household in Greater Manchester already pay around £10 for the Mayor and his office. The extra money raised would total between £12m and £13m, all of which, would go on bus services.

A speaker from the floor queried whether people would realistically cease using cars in preference to public transport in Greater Manchester, given that it was inordinately expensive and often inconvenient.  He said he'd recently travelled one-and-a-half miles by bus which had cost him £2.50. Over the Christmas period there had been no buses after 6.00 pm on Christmas Eve, Boxing Day and New Years Eve, and an hourly service on Boxing Day.  He compared this with Transport for London (TfL), that had a standard single fare of £1.50 for every journey and ran a full bus services over the Christmas period.  He said as someone who relied on public transport, he'd had three options over the Christmas period - stop in, rely on Shanks's pony or pay an arm an a leg for a taxi.  He said this wasn't good enough and what was needed with public transport in Greater Manchester, was a radical shake up. 

Burnham replied that London had quality buses compared with Greater Manchester and that it was often cheaper for a group of people to use an Uber taxi, than a get a bus in Greater Manchester. He said that the standard single fare in London of £1.50 applied to all bus journey's even when you changed buses within the hour - "There are gradual improvements taking place", he added. 

What the Mayor omitted to mention is that everyone who resides in Greater London is also entitled to a free bus pass when they reach 60. This also applies if you live in Scotland, Wales or Norther Ireland. Before 2010, residents in Greater Manchester were also entitled to a free bus at 60, but the age was increased incrementally, in line with the state pension age. Some people living in greater Manchester will now have to wait until they are 66-years old to get a free bus pass. Although the Mayor wants to give 16 - 18-year old's a free bus pass, he says that reinstating free bus passes for people aged 60, would not be affordable.

Andy Burnham told the audience that young people are his priority for investment as in his opinion, they have "shouldered the cuts." He said that many children living in the region, have said they feel they have no future when they are asked "Do you have hope for the future?" He pointed out that mental health issues among children are increasing and that a free bus pass would allow young people to access jobs and training. 

A questioner asked about homelessness and if the Mayor did a walkabout in areas other than Manchester. He replied that he had been to Bolton and was confident that figures out next week on rough sleeping, would see a fall in rough sleeping across Greater Manchester. He referred to the 'Bed Every Night Scheme' and said that 901 people had been through the scheme since it was launched last November and 285 had moved to a fixed address from the scheme. He also referred to the 'Night Stop' service that offered a young person a room. The Mayor said that it cost £11,000 to put someone in a bed every night whereas, it cost £20,000 to keep them homeless. 

One speaker referred to a scheme in Croydon where homeowners were being encouraged to offer a room to the homeless. Another speaker, said no one was approaching supermarkets for food that could be donated to food banks that had been designated for landfill. 

In response to a question about the cuts in police numbers, Burnham said: 

"I struggle to understand cuts in police numbers since 2010. The Government isn't increasing our central government grant (80%), of money comes from this. they want us to rely on raising council tax to fund services. I want the Greater Manchester public to pay £24 for policing in greater Manchester."

Ian Hopkins a police officer, told the audience that the police don't investigate street crime anymore because of a lack of officers (the scroats will be pleased to hear this), "We're seeking to recruit 500 special constables, specials are a vital part of policing." He said there was a problem with fireworks in Tameside and that he wanted the sales of fireworks banned to reduce anti-social behaviour. He thought that fireworks should only be sold for licensed events. The Mayor responded by saying that if youths are prosecuted for anti-social behaviour, they should lose their free bus pass as it was a contract with the young and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (G.M.C.A). 

Many residents of Greater Manchester may well wonder why they should have to pay more for policing when you hardly ever see a copper nowadays. Residents in Dukinfield, where there has been a recent spike in house burglaries have complained that the police have failed to investigate many burglaries and thefts in the area. It may well be that the police have other priorities now, such as investigating what is now called "hate crime" or telling pub landlords to take down Cuban flags with images of the revolutionary, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara on them, as happened at one pub in Hyde. The victims of crime, these days, are just given a crime number so they can claim on their insurance.

Andy Burnham told the audience that there had been a radical rewrite of the 'Spatial Framework' and that GMCA had listened to the public. The greenbelt take in Tameside had come down drastically by around 80% - "We've made a switch back to brownfield", he said. When asked how many homes would be affordable homes, the audience were told by Paul, the Mayor's housing expert, that 50,000 would be affordable and 30,000 would be social housing. He pointed out that 92,000 homes had been lost since 1980 due to the right-to-buy legislation and that a lot of council homes that were bought, finished up in the private sector.

Andy Burnham, said that £300 million of the 'housing fund' given to the GMCA by Chancellor George Osborne, had been spent on providing housing in Manchester City Centre. It will be clear to anybody who takes a tram journey through trendy Ancoats, in Manchester, where all the money went. The area is now a sprawling mass of high rise flats and mill conversions occupied typically, by 18 to 30-year old in-migrant Yuppies and Hipster's. Unfortunately, most of the benefits of this regeneration failed to spill over into the surrounding areas of Manchester, which are considered to be, some of the poorest parts of the country. 

Councillor Quinn on the Carillion connection

 'Changing Dynamic[s]' in building trade!
NV Editor: The story below shows an interview last September between the leader of Tameside Council / chairman of Greater Manchester Pension Fund, and the Construction News journalist Charlie Schouten, in which Councillor Quinn argued for closer association between 'London-based businesses.....they like talking to people like us; they see an opportunity here,' and people like him.  And then tellingly he adds:  
'If they [companies like Carillion] can come into partnership with us, it de-risks it for them.'

******

LAST September Kieran Quinn, who died on Xmas Day, gave an interview to Construction News in which he related his ideas on the strategies of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund [GMPF] to the journalist Charles Schouten over lunch in the 19th century Midland Hotel. 

A former postal worker Mr Quinn, who holds down the job as GMPF chair with other tasks including the executive leader of Tameside Council and a place on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the scheme sums up his ambitions to make the fund a much more active player in not just in the local economy, but nationally, too.

Part of that, he said, is the shift in relationships between funders and contractors.

'We’ve started to have much more of a conversation with contractors because we want to take more direct holdings in projects,' he says.

'It also means that the relationship between contractor and funder becomes much more powerful.'

The GMPF fund, chaired last September by Quinn represents all 10 local authorities in the Greater Manchester area, has assets of over £21bn and includes more than 500 employers and over 350,000 members.   It was one of the key funders behind One St Peter’s Square after investing £10m in the scheme, which was completed by Carillion in 2014.  The scheme is typical of the office developments that have made Manchester so successful, not to mention so attractive to investors – although Mr Quinn declined to reveal what the fund’s return on the development is.

CONSTRUCTION NEWS: 
25 September, 2017 By Charlie Schouten

As Construction News sits down to talk to Mr Quinn in Manchester’s grand 19^th century Midland Hotel, the venue seems slightly out-of-kilter with our discussion, particularly as the GMPF has helped to fund some of the projects in the last decade that have made the city one of the UK’s fastest growing.

The fund, which represents all 10 local authorities in the region, has assets of over £21bn and includes more than 500 employers and over 350,000 members

The Farmer Review – Modernise or Die – published roughly a year ago, argued for radical changes in the construction industry.

Among the most controversial of these – and one that has since been rejected by the government – was the introduction of a client charge to help fund areas like innovation and skills.

The idea that clients should help take the lead on areas such as training, innovation and skills alongside main contractors is hardly a new one, but the calls for closer collaboration are continuing; perhaps a reflection of the relatively slow progress being made.

But what if collaboration and best practise could start at an even earlier stage?

That’s precisely the argument that Kieran Quinn, chair of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, is trying to make.

Funders and financers typically take a back seat in projects; particularly when it comes to conversations with main contractors.

But as Mr Quinn argues – should that now be ripe for a change?

Changing the dynamic

As the journalist Charles Schouten of Construction News sat down, last September, to talk to Mr Quinn in Manchester’s grand 19^th century Midland Hotel, he writes that the venue seems slightly out-of-kilter with our discussion, particularly as the GMPF has helped to fund some of the projects in the last decade that have made the city one of the UK’s fastest growing.

The fund, which represents all 10 local authorities in the region, has assets of over £21bn and includes more than 500 employers and over 350,000 members.

It was one of the key funders behind One St Peter’s Square (pictured, below) after investing £10m in the scheme, which was completed by Carillion in 2014. The scheme is typical of the office developments that have made Manchester so successful, not to mention so attractive to investors – although Mr Quinn declines to reveal what the fund’s return on the development is.

But for former postal worker Mr Quinn, who juggles his role as GMPF chair with others including the executive leader of Tameside Council and a place on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, the scheme sums up his ambitions to make the fund a much more active player in not just the local economy, but nationally, too.

Part of that, he says, is changing the relationship between funders and contractors.

'We’ve started to have much more of a conversation with contractors because we want to take more direct holdings in projects,' he says.

“It also means that the relationship between contractor and funder becomes much more powerful.”

He uses the Airport City scheme – in which GMPF holds a 10 per cent stake alongside Manchester Airports Group and construction partners Carillion and Chinese firm BCEGI – as an example of the more traditional one-step-removed relationship between funders/contractors.

In that instance, he says, the fund has had “few direct conversations” with either Carillion or BCEGI due to its small holding in the project.

But that is now changing, and the new view is one of Mr Quinn’s fundamental aims for the pension fund.

'Our expectation now is to have a much more direct relationship with the contractor, or whoever is managing, overseeing and delivering the project,' he says.

'That’s not normally how pension funds would take things forward, but we’re now starting to change that; for example on two of our schemes, we have someone on the board, so we’re starting to change the dynamic.'

Fair contracts, fair payment

He adds that part of that approach is getting involved at a much earlier stage – so not just by having an influence over project funding, but also its tender documents.

“Pension funds like to have a stake when a project is completed, but they prefer not to have a stake when something is still in the ground. Again, we want to change that,” he says.

It’s not much of a surprise that social value and fair payment are two of Mr Quinn’s areas of interest here – after all, he has been active in the Communications Workers’ Union for more than 30 years. But he wants to make it a core part of the pension fund’s activities on future projects.

'A lot of councils have been focusing on social value for a while; as a pension fund we make significant investments, so why do we not say, as part of that relationship with contractors, that we expect the same sort of social value?' he says.

The fund is already putting this into practise, starting with One St Peter’s.

“As part of our discussions around One St Peter’s Square, we put social value [in the tender]; the number of apprentices, the number of local businesses, the geographic links to the centre,” he explains.

'All the things that you think would be commonplace in a council tender are now becoming commonplace in the pensions world, and we’re at the forefront of that.'

When CN points out that it’s not always easy to keep a lid on main contractors’ and subcontractors’ payment terms, he agrees that there is 'no magic wand', but argues that fair payment has to start at the top.

'It starts with strong auditing of our contracts,' he says.

'We shouldn’t hide away because ‘that’s just how [main contractors] work’; a lot of these financial mechanisms are a way to abuse the system.'

Part of this approach has now led to the fund exploring 28-day payment terms for all its projects, although Mr Quinn again admits that it may prove difficult to enforce – making the issue of contract auditing “all the more fundamental'.

'We know that we’ll sign [28-day payment] as part of our contract, but [main contractors] will subcontract out parts of the project and that’s where [those payment terms] start to get filtered out.

'Conversations on fair payment are absolutely relevant and we’re prepared to have them; it’s also exactly the right thing for the pension fund to get involved with.'

Again, he admits it may be 'beyond the reach and authority of a pension fund' to stop poor payment practices – that, he argues, should start at the very top with central government – but ensuring it is stamped out from any GMPF contract is his first step.

So what about the GMPF’s future pipeline?

On this, Mr Quinn gets straight to the point:  'There’s no conversation we’re not prepared to have'.

The fund has already restarted its stalled office scheme in the centre of Manchester, which it is aiming to get underway in 2019.

The GMPF is now looking to form a joint venture with a developer to bring forward the 55,025 sq ft Island Site development on John Dalton Street in Manchester city centre, after having purchased the three buildings on the site – Ridgefield, Old Colony House and Grange House – for an undisclosed sum in 2011.

He says that this scheme will be on a similar scale to One St Peter’s Square once complete, giving the city a major new landmark office development in the process.

On top of that, the Fund is 'actively seeking' more similar projects to invest in, particularly in Manchester, with more and more firms casting their eyes north for office space and investment.

'I’m having a lot of conversations with plenty of London-based businesses that want to come to Greater Manchester because they like talking to people like us; they see an opportunity here,' says Mr Quinn.

'If they can come into partnership with us, it de-risks it for them.'

And Mr Quinn doesn’t want to just limit the fund’s activities to the commercial world; its ambitions stretch into both infrastructure and housing.

For infrastructure investments, Mr Quinn again wants the fund to take a more active role, particularly with a £500m war chest to play with.

It has partnered with other institutions, including the London Pension Fund Authority (LPFA), to back a number of schemes. These include rail schemes in Norfolk, and large-scale wind farm project in Strathclyde where it is a 45 per cent equity holder, in a joint venture with the LPFA.

Alongside the LPFA, the GMPF has taken a £150m stake in SSE’s Clyde windfarm, which is one of the largest onshore ones in Europe.

Mr Quinn says that this high-profile investment is exactly what the GMPF should be aiming for.

'The UK pension world doesn’t need to play second fiddle to Canadian funds; we should have the ambition and drive ourselves to have direct conversations on investment,' he argues.

While he says infrastructure can be a 'marmite' subject for funds –  'either you love it and want it as an active part of your portfolio; or you hate it and don’t want anything to do with it, because it’s too complex, too costly, and the returns are unclear' – it forms a core part of GMPF’s ambitions.

That could even stretch to one of the largest infrastructure projects in the country: the TransPennine Tunnel.

Investing in infrastructure

Sealing the business case and getting the tunnel under way is one of Mr Quinn’s key ambitions, particularly with one of the proposed routes for the £6bn tunnel passing through his home territory of Tameside.

'You’re looking at linking six to eight million people together, so if anything, the argument for the tunnel has been under-played,' he says.

'If we’re really talking about releasing the potential of the North, and creating a link between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and beyond, then the tunnel has to play a part.

'Every economic assessment I’ve seen – admittedly drafts and guesstimates – have said that the economic benefits that will be released from that connectivity are huge, so we’ll continue to press its case.'

It’s here that Mr Quinn outlines the scale of GMPF’s ambition: 'if the circumstances were right, we could be an equity holder in the tunnel', he says.

'Even if we commit £500m, that’s under 1 per cent of our holdings – it’s not as if we’re raiding the piggy bank to get those funds.

'We’re keeping it well within the normal risk parameters of a pension fund, but it gives us a brand new opportunity to do things much more large scale, and much more direct.'

And while he admits investing in the tunnel in the near future might be unlikely, it shows that shifts in the way pension funds work is one of the changes that contractors will need to be aware – and take advantage of – when opportunities arise.

For Mr Quinn, it’s about not only helping Greater Manchester grow, but grow in the right way.

'One of my pleasures of acting as GMPF chairman is using workers’ money to invest in the city they work in,' he says, 'and there will be plenty more investment to come'

******

Mr Evan Pritchard's Yellow Brick Road Approach

Britain's Yellow Brick Road to Socialism

FOR a more detailed look at the CPB {Communist Party of Britain), it's history, theory and policies, please take a look at the official party programme, "Britain's (Yellow) Brick Road to Socialism".  Evan Pritchard the loyal party member that he is, has written the curiously brave comment below on the post entitled  'Tameside, the costs add up as receivers move in' about the local scandal involving Carillion 'aggresive accounting', and Tameside MBC, dated Sunday, 28 January 2018.

 

Evan [Pritchard} said...

Your reference to Kieran Quinn shows what a bunch of lowlifes you really are.
Beneath contempt.

Tuesday, 30 January 2018 at 14:51:00 GMT 

EVAN Pritchard is a brave and honourable man, as Mark Antony said of Brutus in Shakespeare's play.  Evan is not only the President of the Manchester Unite Community Branch, but he distributes the Communist Party newspaper the Morning Star.  Both noble tasks require the mobilisation of all his consummate skills and abilities.

Both tasks are a thankless jobs!

We should all admire those who seek to promote unpopular causes, even where we disagree with the sentiments as in this case.  Nay, we ought to especially admire Evan Pritchard, when he is bold enough to protest about the 'lowlifes' on Northern Voices and by extension at Tameside TUC, when they have the audacity to challenge Kieran Quinn, the recently dead leader of Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council; who also happened to be the Chair of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund and a position of  Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

Like Brutus in Shakespeare's play, the local Labour Party's noble Kieran Quinn, has been praised by all and sundry. special  praise came from the Tameside Chief Executive, Steven Pleasant, who said that 'The book of condolences [for Kieran] includes the signatures of a former Prime Minister, an Olympic gold medallist and members of the local pigeon-fancying club.'

High praise indeed truly he was one of the Great and the Good!

Yet, the man from the Morning Star, Evan Pritchard, has heroically gone and belittled those of us who are critically challenging the odd partnership of Tamside MBC and Kieran Quinn, who had been tenaciously promoting Carillion with its 'aggressive accounting' techniques and even turned a blind eye to the blacklisting of local electricians like Steve Acheson, who lives in Denton.

Mr. Pritchard's comment makes an eloquent defence of the dead Tameside Councillor Quinn's right to be left alone, despite his very cosy relationship with the blacklising company Carillion.   Would Evan have been as keen to support Ian Kerr who dropped dead in similar circumstances, yet before he left this world he admitted to keeping an illegal data base with over 3,000 names on it?  What about Joe Stalin?  I've just seen the black comedy film 'The Death of Stalin', who died of a sudden stroke, would it have been wrong of us to criticise his crimes out of some kind of sensitive to his daughter's feeling?

None of this is intended to compare Evan Pitchard to Stalin.  Evan Pritchard does have Stalin's strong stomach or sense of humour.   No what is implied by Evan Pitchard's comment is that he is prepared to overlook or keep quiet about Kieran Quinn's partnership with Carillion, and that objectively suggests he approves of the PFI deals done, the partnerships created by Tameside Council, and by extension employment practises like the blacklist which the company was engaged in.  In the current climate that is a brave position for someone in the trade union movement to embrace.

******

'Affordable Homes' in Rochdale & Beyond?

6,374 - 33 = 6,341

by Andrew Wastling  

______________________________________________________

TODAY's report from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), Joint Greater Manchester Combined Authority & AGMA Executive Board Scrutiny Pool , Social Housing , (Councillor Richard Farnell, Portfolio Lead, Planning & Housing & Eamonn Boylan, Portfolio Lead Chief Executive for Planning & Housing, 7 April 2017), reveals that  just  164 so-called 'affordable homes' were secured through Section 106 agreements with developers.  Only 20% of these, or in actual numbers , 33 homes were for so called 'affordable rent' - itself more expensive than 'social rent'.

This same report (1). adds that:

'By contrast, there remain low levels of new affordable homes being delivered through the planning system via s.106 agreements, where the challenge of scheme viability makes it difficult for authorities to secure affordable homes in a G[reater] M[anchester] market context.  The latest figures from CLG show just 164 affordable homes secured in 2015/16, 80% of which are for affordable home ownership or shared ownership. That total is a significant increase on previous years, so it may be that this is the start of an upward trend, though it is too early to be confident.'

Readers can draw their own conclusions on claims that these figures represent  'a significant increase on previous years', I am sure!

The report goes on to confirm that  Rochdale has  a total of 6,374 households on the housing waiting list.  Additionally of Rochdale's dwelling stock in 2015 only 21,370 was non Private Sector whilst we had over three times , or 70,070 , dwellings in the Private Sector -  numbers which tell their own story simply by themselves.

file:///C:/Users/awast/Downloads/08_Scrutiny_social_housing_April_2017.pdf

Isn't building homes for those in desperate housing need a much more constructive solution to Britain's severe housing crisis than criminalising and fining the homeless as Rochdale Council seem intent on doing with their draconian PSPO - Public Space Protection Order ?

These figures also beg the obvious question of is it really wise to consider  'some options of demolition'  of College Bank flats, when we clearly already have such considerable unmet housing need already in our town ?

Finally I'm just wondering how many, if any at all, of these 33 'affordable homes' were actually built here in Rochdale to meet our growing local housing need or to house the 6,374 households on our waiting lists?