There was not time to ask all the questions that were sent to the front.  The panellists very kindly agreed to answer these in writing.
Below are the questions and answers from Roy Wilkes (RW) and Councillor Andrew Fender (AF). Other answers will be added as they arrive.

1) "I favour the congestion charge and associated TIF bid, but in a PR war opponents will successfully claim that influential promoters will be still using their cars and creating a 2-tier transport system. What personal firm transport pledges will council members, councillors , and business leaders make to consistently use public transport post c/charge, and lead by example. Otherwise the scheme is probably unsellable should a referendum situation arise." 
(RW)  They won’t give any such pledge.  Indeed, a new car park is being planned for the city centre for use by councillors and senior council officials, at huge public expense. Any referendum will almost certainly reject the TIF bid and the congestion charge.  It is important therefore that we start campaigning now for a new and greener alternative. 

(AF)  As I said on the night, I have a bike and a car, but mostly I use public transport and I try to encourage others to make responsible transport choices.

2) To those against the congestion charge- what practical moves do you propose to improve public transport and cycle access in Manchester? 
(RW)  First and foremost we need a publicly owned bus company.  The current system is geared towards maximising profit.  They do this by oversupplying the profitable routes and neglecting the less profitable ones.  Although this is highly lucrative for the shareholders and executives (Stagecoach for example makes over 20% profit on around £70million p.a. turnover) it is certainly not the way to manage a fully integrated user-friendly public transport system. Where would the money come from to set this up?  Central government has the funds, we should demand that in the interest of climate stability, they allocate them to public transport (without any strings.)  Where will the government get the money?  We already know that Alistair Darling intends to relax the ‘golden rule’ on public sector borrowing in response to the impending recession – what better way to invest in the future than by investing in public transport.  All that is needed is for the government to end its obsession with private enterprise and the market, and that will only happen if we can generate mass political pressure. 
Secondly, fares should be reduced to zero, with the service funded from taxation rather than through ticket sales (just as education, health and ‘defence’ are funded through taxation).  As a rough estimate, this would add about £60 p.a. to the average household council tax bill (probably less).  Google ‘Hasselt’ for a practical example of how this can work. 
Thirdly, once these measures are in place, car drivers should be given notice (say 3 years) that the city centre (bordered by Trinity Way, the Mancunian Way and Great Ancoats Street) will be permanently closed to private motor cars (perhaps with an exception for electric disabled vehicles).  We could then transform the city centre into a totally cycle-and-pedestrian-friendly green space.  
Fourthly, as the advantages become apparent, and as the public transport system expands, the ‘car free zone’ should itself be expanded outwards throughout the city.  Drivers would be again be given plenty of notice that this is going to happen. Cllr Fender claimed on Thursday that this is ‘pie in the sky’. It is not.  What is pie in the sky is expecting the TIF to be approved in a referendum.  What is also pie in the sky is expecting the biosphere to survive without radical, profound and urgent changes in the way we run our cities.      

(AF) N/A

3) What happens if the congestion charge (which will be run by a private, for profit company no doubt) doesn't raise sufficient funds to pay off the amount borrowed? 
(RW)  We will repay it out of taxation, as we do with PFI hospitals.  You can be sure that a very high proportion of the funds will be siphoned off as profit at every stage in the process – both directly, to the contractors who will build the gantries and the new tram lines, and indirectly, to the private bus and tram operators who will benefit from the new infrastructure. And don’t forget, the private operators have no intention to reduce fares under this TIF proposal, nor are they under any obligation to do so.

(AF)  The TIF bid negotiations between AGMA/GMPTA/E and DfT/Treasury have been very tough and the outcome is based on a rigorous appraisal of the costs and risks, together with adequate contingency. It is all our interests to ensure that the scheme covers its costs.

4) Should there be concessions for public sector workers in “essential” services as a par of the argument to convince people about congestion charging? 
(RW) However you try to dress it up, people will not be convinced, because the proposal is fundamentally flawed.  It will not end congestion and it will not significantly reduce emissions (both Clean Air Now and Cllr Fender admitted as much on Thursday.)  

(AF) The consultation is being carried out on the basis that low paid workers whose workplace is inside the M60 should be eligible for a discount of up to 20%. If there are sound transport related arguments in favour of extending this concession to other groups of workers, I haven’t heard them yet and they would be best made as responses to the consultation.

5) How much of the government grant will be spent on the mechanisms of collecting the congestion charge/ It is a large proportion, is it not? 
So is it the case that the majority of the public transport improvements must be paid by a (shrinking) number of motorists on the roads? 
If we spent the same money in a more constructive way (e.g. Follow Roy's suggestions) could we not give motorists a more attractive reason to get out of their cars? 
(RW) At least £300m will be wasted on building the infrastructure to collect the charge – followed by an undisclosed (but doubtless very high) annual expenditure on administering it.  This is a scandalous waste of public money.
The reliance on motorists to fund public transport improvements is self defeating.  We want to get people out of cars AND massively improve public transport.  Under this TIF scheme we can’t do both.

(AF) The proportion of the capital grant to be spent on the congestion charging scheme infrastructure is 12.5% of the total. This is not a ‘large’ proportion. The bulk of the costs of Roy’s alternative (free fares) would be year on year revenue funding.

6) As I understand it, our options as a city will be either to accept the TIF bid and go for it, or to reject it. We do not have the option to reject the Congestion Charge element but accept £1.5bn. Isn't that the case? 
(RW) Yes it is correct, under the current proposal.   But what we don’t have to do is meekly accept the government’s take it or leave it approach. We could put up a fight.  There is no law of nature that says you can only improve public transport if you impose a congestion charge.  It is a political decision, and political decisions can be changed.  How do we change them?  By waging a political struggle, by mobilising large numbers of people in a mass movement of protest.  That is what we now need to do.  Come to the inaugural meeting of the Campaign for Free Public Transport at 7.15pm on Thursday 25^th September in the Friends Meeting House.  For more information, email roywilkes59@talktalk.net   

(AF)  There is no option to ‘reject the Congestion Charge element but accept the £1.5bn’. As has been said a number of times, the congestion charge element is an integral part of the TIF bid. Without it the TIF bid collapses back to the conventional (and much smaller) funding mechanisms.

And why shouldn't car drivers wanting to drive in at peak hours in 2013 when public transports options have improved so much have to pay to pollute? 
(RW) Surely the most important thing is to stop the emissions, not to allow people to ‘pay to pollute.’ Cars are not only a means of transport, they are above all expressions of individual status.  Rich people in particular will continue to use cars instead of buses or trams because to do so confers status.  The only equitable way around this dilemma is to ban their use completely – initially in the city centre and then in other areas.  Because otherwise we are saying that it’s ok for the rich to cause climate catastrophe as long as they pay to do so, and I don’t think it is ok. 

(AF)    If you mean attaching goods or freight wagons to passenger trains, this simply wouldn’t work. It would be very complicated to operate and slow things down so much as to make the trains very unattractive. If you mean running more freight trains, this should be possible overnight when the railways are less busy. However, decisions to run freight trains and send goods by barge on the canals are commercial, not ones which local authorities have much influence over.

7) Why aren't the trains used to transport goods, also the canals? 
(RW) The main reason is profit.  Roads are maintained entirely at the public expense, railways less so.  Expenditure on roads has always been described as ‘public investment’, that on railways as ‘subsidy’.  Motor manufacturers, road haulage companies and oil companies want to keep it that way, and they lobby hard to maintain this status quo.   
Before WW2 lorries were restricted to a maximum radius of 50 miles (basically to and from railway stations.)  We need to reintroduce similar regulations now.  Of course, this will necessitate shifting resources from road building and maintenance into (preferably publicly owned) railways.   And by expanding train, bus, coach (and indeed canal) services, we could provide alternative employment for those currently employed in road haulage. 

To Rob Adlard

A) What evidence do you have that the money raised after 30 years will go to Central Govn? 

B) Tory Think tank the Adam Smith Institute is in favour of road pricing. Aren't you just using this to have a cheap shot at Labour? 

C) Without the congestion charge 'element' of the TIF how exactly do Manchester Conservatives propose we should fund green transport, assuming they're not in favour of doing it via general taxation? 

To Andrew Fender

A) Given that the metrolink expansion has already been delayed due to rising costs, and given that the cost of building materials are constantly increasing due to industrialisation in the developing world, how certain are the council that when work begins they will be able to fully fund the current plans?

(AF) No-one could guarantee that the current plans will be capable of being fully funded in all circumstances. However, the capability and capacity of GMPTE is being increased to ensure that organisationally it will be capable of delivering such a major investment programme on time and to budget. The DfT has indicated that they will require evidence of this before the next stage in the approval process.