This is the speech I made to full Council last night proposing the Liberal Democrat motion to stop the government’s plan to close five Post Offices in Bury as part of the national plan to close 2,500. The motion passed unanimously.

“Thank you Mr Mayor.

I am proposing tonight’s motion on Post Office closures.

The programme of closures sets government against local people.

It puts Whitehall bureaucracy on a course against the residents of Bury.

And it sends the message that the future of Post Offices is bleak and unsustainable.

Mr Mayor, this is the biggest Post Office closure programme ever seen.

Ten years ago there were 18,000 Post Offices

Now, one third of them have gone.

In 1999, Bury had 46 Post Offices.

When the doors close for the last time at the Post Offices now threatened, that number will have fallen to 25.

40% of the Post Offices in Bury, gone for good.

They call it modernisation. I call it decimation.

The actions of the government and Royal Mail, Mr Mayor, mark a sustained and relentless attack on a cherished local service.

Something that has defined this country for hundreds of years, destroyed by the government in just ten.

Like limits on habeus corpus and right to trial by jury, the end of Post Offices is another plank of Labour’s legacy.

And I condemn these proposals here tonight.

Because Mr Mayor, these aren’t just buildings closing.

They’re symbols of community, familiarity and unity.

That might sound grandiose, but just ask the man on the street whether I’m over-doing it.

Closing the local one is alright for me. I can drive to the next one to pick up my parcel from eBay.

But to the frail widow next door, the local Post Office is a lifeline.

A Post Office is more than a place to buy stamps.

It’s a place where public service meets the public it serves.

If they take away our Post Office, they rob us of a fundamental interaction with a necessary service, and steal from us a trusted and familiar way of doing the basic things.

They drive us away from comfort and towards hardship.

Why are we sitting here and letting them do this do us?

This is not what this Council is about.

The people of Ainsworth Road are losing their Post Office.

The people of Rochdale Road are losing their Post Office too. The alternative suggested by Royal Mail is for a Post Office with a bus stop over twenty times further away.

The people of Walmersley Road are losing their Post Office, sending people to The Rock, where the queues at busy times already stretch out the door.

Greenmount are losing their Post Office, and Elton their’s.

These aren’t in the middle of nowhere, visited by no-one and providing scant services. Rochdale Road alone serves over 1,000 people a week.

And let us not think that this is just an issue for Bury.

There are many people up and down the country, living outside the Borough, like the Leader of the Council, who face the threat of closures too.

These are busy, thriving Post Offices being closed just because the government says the network can’t pay to keep them.

But the response as proposed makes no sense

Because even if this economic argument held water, which it doesn’t, the government is closing down Post Offices on a geographic rather than an economic basis, picking ones to close not because they should, but because it’s less likely to be obvious if they do.

As the sole shareholder in Royal Mail, it is this government’s job to think again.

The government’s years of disinvestment, idly presiding over a network falling into economic slump mustn’t go unchallenged any longer.

I can accept an argument for closures if it is based on reason, and if the solution proposed is better.

But Mr Mayor I cannot accept the government winding down the network and then closing parts of it just because they’re wound down, and then replacing them with nothing.

And so I say, when there is so much that we can’t do anything about;

When there is hardship and trouble that we cannot stop;

When sometimes the problems our residents face just cannot be solved, should we not seize every chance to make a difference now?

This is one such chance.

We need to tell Government to offer the Post Offices a viable future.

A future as part of a sustainable network of useful community facilities.

Why, for so long, have Post Office services been dismantled, when there is so much more we could be using them for?

Why, with the advent of new technology, is the Post Office not a place where I can access a range of services that means that every Post Office is profitable and serves a purpose?

The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters calls for the development of better banking services in Post Offices. The government says no. We should say yes.

Post carriers say they want to work with Post Offices, ending monopoly and providing choice. The government says no. We should say yes.

We should say that we are for better local services, not closing local services.

We are for progress, not cut-backs.

We are for innovation, not ruination.

And Mr Mayor we are for a Post Office in every community that needs one.

Four million pensioners use a Post Office Card Account for pensions and benefits.

Four million.

Lots of them live in Bury, and in closing Bury’s Post Offices, the government will make it harder for our most vulnerable people to access these services.

Who will be the voice of the elderly and the frail if not us?

We should leave here tonight resolute in our opposition to closures.

And then tomorrow morning we should start work, like Essex County Council has done, to think of new ways for Post Offices to work.

Of using the Post Office as a hub for community services provided in venues as diverse as sports clubs and local shops.

A community wide solution, so that the services go on even if the buildings themselves are taken from us.

Making use of the resilience and resourcefulness of this great Borough to make change for the better.

And let us not say that a small group of determined people cannot take on the forces of power and win.

Not only must we do just that, but we should do so in the knowledge that nothing else has ever changed the mind of government.

The people of Bury should expect nothing less.

And like they expect more from us, I expect more from national government.

Their job is to lead and to innovate. To think of new ways and new solutions.

It is not to manage a decline, but to reverse it.

Because where once we had a postal service to rival any in the world, now there’s no second delivery, no Sunday delivery, and soon no Post Office at the end of your street.

I have yet to meet a single person in this Borough in favour of Post Office closures, and yet the government continues with its charade of consultation.

Believe me Mr Mayor. As someone trying to eke out a few quid from the road maintenance budget of this Council, I know that there’s only so many times you can ask a question before it becomes obvious that the answer is going to be no.

The government keep asking us on this one, but they don’t seem to hear us tell them no.

Their consultation should be called off now Mr Mayor, along with the plans for closures.

And our MPs should be forthright in their opposition to these plans. They are at Westminster to do our bidding.

It’s no use Ivan Lewis lamenting in the papers how he fears the government is out of touch, if he stands back and watches it ignore the pleas of the people by closing half the post offices in his constituency.

Mr Lewis let every person in Bury down when he failed to vote against these government plans in Parliament.

Instead he went to the papers and said “Residents who use these post offices will be concerned,” and that bit of stirring oratory was as underwhelming as his complete lack of condemnation for these closure plans.

Where’s his passionate defence of local services? And where’s David Chaytor’s? He too didn’t vote against the closures when the people of Bury cried out for him to do so.

These men we sent to Parliament could go some way to fulfilling their promise to the people of Bury, by signing Early Day Motion 1584 calling for extra support for Post Offices and our elderly with the renewal of the Post Office Card Account.

I ask them to do that.

Mr Mayor, we do not relish, nor do we enjoy a confrontation with government.

We do not suspect, nor do we believe that this government sets out to damage communities.

But our paths are diverging where they should come together.

And let the mark of this Council’s service to Bury be that when we saw the low road taken, we stood up proud and forced the government to turn back.

And even though this Council’s leading group may have shamefully voted tonight to take away the rights of the people to come to our door and question us, they should show that their respect for local people hasn’t dwindled entirely, and join us in calling for a halt to these closures.

Mr Mayor, us Councillors are a fortunate bunch of people.

We have influence and a little bit of power. And as people who spend our free time leafleting, we know more about the value of the postal service than most.

And on this of all topics, our voice can be heard that little bit louder because of this room we meet in, and the faith shown in us by those who put us here.

So come on. Let’s use every drop of our energies and all the power of our office and stop these Post Office closures, starting now, starting here.

Too many have gone already, let us start building the future of the Post Office in Bury right now.

Mr Mayor, it is with a determined heart that I propose this motion.”

The speech below was to second the Lib Dem amendment to last night’s Budget motion. The Lib Dem amendment ensured £350,000 of extra funding for Children’s and Environmental services whilst keeping the Council Tax rise at 3.4%. Cllr Pickstone’s speech dealt with the Children’s element of the proposal, and mine with the Environmental side.

“Mr Mayor, once again this Council comes together to set a budget.  It’s an important thing that we do.  It should not be treated with disrespect. 

My colleague Cllr Pickstone has made it very clear that although the proposed budget has some positive elements, having studied it the one emotion that affects me more than anything else is that of frustration.

Mr Mayor, every year we ask the people of this Borough to put up with less, and to pay more for it.

 

Even tonight, a Labour amendment that purports to do the reverse has, I think, been unmasked as the lie that it is.

 

In proposing their deeply irresponsible amendment, Bury Labour stoop to the type of playground politics I suspected was beneath even them.

 

Their populist, petty, and preposterous proposals play politics with the future of this Borough at the expense of the neediest.

 

It’s not what any of us were sent here to do.

 

Money for disabled adults – Gone.

 

Money for vulnerable children – Gone.

 

Our reserves – Gone.

 

Common sense gone too. And in its place, gimmickry and cheap headlines.

 

And all for party political gain and a desperate clinging to seats in this chamber.

 

They should be ashamed. 

Mr Mayor, the people of Bury must not be fooled.

This is serious business and should not be treated this way.

 

Mr Mayor, Labour claim to have provided an easy answer. But there is no easy answer because, as Cllr Pickstone has said, every year the government ask us to provide more, but to do it with less.

 

Call it efficiency if you like. I am all for efficient public services.

 

But we aren’t some out of control organisation. It’s not like we’re The Home Office…

 

The axe that is being wielded tonight isn’t because there’s money wasted all over the place.

 

We are an efficient organisation.

 

The Audit Commission say that we’re performing well in every measure of how we use our resources.

 

Mr Mayor, the reason we’re setting a budget that has to make cuts is because the government’s settlement for the people of Bury is unfair, unrealistic, and woefully inadequate.

 

Three quarters of our money comes from central government, and once again they haven’t given us enough.

 

I think it’s worth repeating that the Borough of Bury is 15% worse off in real terms now than it was when Labour came to power in 1997.

 

15% worse off.

 

This is a disgrace, during a period when Council Tax has more or less doubled and services have been cut year on year.

 

Others have plenty Mr Mayor, whilst the people of this Borough have anything but.

 

The government chooses what it spends its money on, and once again I find myself standing here and saying that they haven’t chosen to spend it on us.

 

And this year Mr Mayor we have been hampered by political game-playing of the worst kind, from those falsely using the issue of congestion charging to push for an elected Mayor in a referendum that is as irresponsibly based as it is worryingly short sighted.

 

As Cllr Redstone remarked earlier, a six figure sum has been put aside to pay for the Mayoral referendum and the Mayoral election which may follow.

 

That’s before we start paying for the Mayoralty itself, which will be another six figures every single year.

 

The people calling for this referendum should know that mixing the issue with congestion charging means that their actions are dishonest, disingenuous and damaging.

 

They should know that the money put aside for this vote, forced through on the most flimsy and dubious of grounds, means that there will be less money for the children of this Borough, less money for vulnerable adults, and less money for our environment.

 

They should reflect on what they’ve done.

 

Mr Mayor, our amendment this evening seeks to ensure that the environment of this Borough remains as clean, green and safe as is possible.

 

I’m sure my inbox is no different to each and every one of the Members in the Chamber tonight.

 

The people of this Borough want cleaner streets, green space and safe places for their families.

 

And the Liberal Democrat group will ensure that as much as possible is done to give them what they want.

 

Mr Mayor, our proposals tonight are to invest in parks in this Borough to ensure that every community has a well-managed place of peace and greenery to enjoy.

 

In my ward, St Mary’s Park is a shining example of all that this Council does well.

 

It is an oasis which should be treasured, and when it is full of families and children and joggers and games of football it really is a sight to see.  A triumphant beacon lighting up lives and showing the glorious things we can achieve together.

 

It makes my heart sing Mr Mayor, and we want the same all over Bury, and we propose money be allocated for more Green Flag Parks so that the Council’s ambition of having twelve is realised.

 

We also want our streets cleaner.

 

Too often the lives of local people are blighted by the simple things.

 

Things that can be remedied with nothing more than a bit of money and effort.

 

Street cleaning is one of them.

 

I’ve led a relatively sheltered life Mr Mayor, and have never seen the aftermath of an explosion in a fast food wrapping factory.

 

But my sister is well travelled, and she tells me that the front gardens of my neighbours and me on a Saturday morning is a fairly similar sight.

 

It’s like a shrine to the God of Kebabs.

 

But it’s no good Mr Mayor, and we want rid of it. Which is why we propose more street cleaning including Saturday morning cleaning of streets in our commercial centres.

 

Too often it is too long between cleans, especially when weekend litter accumulates and it becomes difficult to tell where the bins end and the gardens begin.

 

We are proposing the funding to try and stop that.

 

And our streets need to stay clean Mr Mayor, which is why we are proposing further funding for enforcement of dog fouling, and increased investment for our dog wardens to work more efficiently.

 

Enforcement Mr Mayor. Not just of dogs, but litter, fly-tipping and so on, is vital to keeping Bury clean and green.

 

Mr Mayor, this Council faces difficult choices.

 

Desperately let down by the Labour government again, and facing local difficulties of its own with the Mayoral referendum, we have to face the people of this Borough and explain why they are, once more, paying more and getting less.

 

This amendment tries to make things better in the services people care most about. Our streets, our parks, and the many benefits improvements to these and the wider environment will bring.

 

And I am delighted to second the amendment.”

 

  

Here is the speech I made proposing the congestion charge amendment at the meeting of Bury Council last night. There were a few last minute amendments made in the chamber, and I said a bit afterwards too to close the debate, but this is more or less it:

“Mr Mayor, in proposing this amendment I would like to tell Council  about an experience I had at Watford Gap service station on the M1  in early October.  

I was driving to an engagement party when my car began making the  types of spluttering noises one would normally associate with the early days of steam.   

I pulled into the service station and waited, with nothing but a  Ginster’s Pasty for company. The AA man came, and despite him  being a very nice man he was no use at all, and I had to scrap my car  and get a new one.   

The only good thing to come out of the whole mess was that I got a  refund on my tax disc, which still had more or less a whole year to  run.   

And Council will be delighted to hear that, should we all end up  paying a congestion charge each and every day to travel into Greater  Manchester’s District Centres, should our cars have the same  troubles, we too will be entitled to such a refund.  

Because this congestion charge isn’t replacing my tax disc.

It isn’t  replacing fuel duty. In fact it isn’t replacing anything.  

It’s an extra charge which will force poor people out of their cars.  

Simple as that.  

It limits choice. It is hugely regressive. And it is a damning indictment of the nannying, money-grabbing worst side of our government.   

We shouldn’t be bidding for anything which signs us up to it. 

Mr Mayor, this country is in dire need of public transport investment.  

We have been promised an integrated transport system for decades.  

We don’t have one yet.  

In Greater Manchester we have a Metrolink system so dirty, dangerous and unreliable that half the time I may as well ride to  work on a wing and a prayer as on a tram. It’d be cheaper, that’s for sure.  

We have buses that serve some communities well, and others not at all.

An 85 year old lady in my ward has to walk a mile and a half to  get a bus because the route past her house doesn’t make enough  money to continue. That’s just not on in my book. 

The north of our Borough is woefully served. Woefully served Mr  Mayor.  

This is unacceptable after ten years and more of a government which claims to champion public transport.  

We need investment in our public transport system, and we need it  now.  

Never has it been more important to get people out of their cars.  

For the sake of pollution, for the sake of congestion, and for the sake of our communities, we need people using sustainable public transport. People using a first rate public transport system. 

And people should pay for it, Mr Mayor. There’s no such thing as a  free lunch. And God knows there’s no such thing as a free Pasty at Watford Gap. 

But People do pay for it. You pay for it Mr Mayor, so do I, and so  does everybody up there in the public gallery. Whether we use it or not.  

Through the taxes we pay every time we get paid, every time we purchase anything, and every time we fill our cars and tax our cars and buy our cars. 

This government now wants us to pay for it again though. Through congestion charging. 

“You’ll get the transport you need,” they say “but only if you pay upto a fiver a day to drive into Manchester. We won’t pay for it ourselves.  We think other things are more important.” 

Well Mr Mayor, I don’t think that’s right.  And I’d like to know the opinions of the people in this room, in this Borough and in Greater Manchester.  

And we should get them to tell us by holding a county wide referendum of every household. 

I don’t think the government’s attitude is right because it’s an additional tax. Because it’s an unfair tax, and because it’s an unwise tax. 

It’s an additional tax because it replaces nothing.  

We’ll still be paying £1 a litre at the pumps.  

We’ll still be paying hundreds to tax our cars.  

And now we’ll be forced to pay a fiver to drive where we want. 

It’s an unfair tax because poor people will suffer the most.  

If I earned ten thousand pounds a week, a fiver a day isn’t going to stop me doing anything.

But if I earned ten thousand pounds a year, it might stop me doing everything.  

Mr Mayor, poorer people have poorer choices, and this deprives them  of yet another.  

And it’s an unwise tax.  

Unwise because it is presented under the guise of being good for the  environment and good for the economy.  I think it’s neither.

It’ll just create bitterness, and bad feeling towards good causes.  

Businesses won’t like it because Greater Manchester will be a big city with a big tax.

Workers won’t want to move here,  and businesses will want to leave. 

And people won’t like leaving their cars at home because they’re being dragged wallet-first towards public transport, not shown the  light through world class public transport. 

That’s not the way to benefit the environment or the economy. 

We should say no to the congestion charge Mr Mayor. 

No to this government forcing poor people to pay to get to work.  

No to being tracked by cameras.  

No to tags in our cars.  

No to public transport investment on the never never.  

No to the TIF bid if this is what it means. 

This TIF bid isn’t about a Transport Innovation Fund.  It’s about a Transport Injustice Fund. 

It is simply unjust to ask poor people to pay hundreds of pounds extra every year to drive into work when there is simply not a suitable alternative. 

We should not stand for such injustice. 

How can we be entrusted to serve the people if we consign the poorest to paying more to get what is rightfully their’s?  

Innovative governments persuade by example, convince by  investment, and win arguments by building a brighter future.  

Simple taxation is not innovation. 

Mr Mayor I know what rejecting congestion charging may mean.  

It may mean saying goodbye to the investment in public transport that  we need.  

But it shouldn’t mean that.  

It should send a message.

A message to government that we will not stand for their bullying.  

That we have been elected by local people to stand up for what they want – a quality public transport system paid for through the taxes we have already paid, sustained through more users and leading to  improvements all round. 

We shouldn’t take no for an answer from government.  They owe it to the people of this Borough and this county to give us  what we need.  

We need to send them a message that we want quality public transport corridors in Bury.

That we want the north of this Borough to be properly served.  

And that we want Bury to be part of a region with a world class public  transport system. 

Let’s send them that message Mr Mayor, by rejecting congestion charging, listening to the views of every house in Greater  Manchester, and then telling the government loud and clear what it is  that the people want. 

Mr Mayor, I have pleasure in proposing this amendment.” 

My colleague, and the leader of the Lib Dem Group on Bury Council, Cllr Tim Pickstone, seconded the amendment,  giving the Council two examples where major public transport investment was made without the need for a congestion charge (Crossrail in London and the Edinburgh Tram System). He also noted how the decision that Bury were making might actually shape the future by enabling the people of Greater Manchester to have their say in a public referendum.

Rick

Last night was my debut speech to Council, proposing an amendment which called upon the government to extend the concessionary travel scheme and give free bus travel to school children, as well as to extend the yellow school bus scheme to every school in England. Below is a transcript of my speech, minus a few last minute amendments scribbled as the debate went on…

In proposing this amendment Mr Mayor, I would like to tell Council the story of Arthur Pennington, a resident of my ward who is 82 years old.  

Arthur visits his family in Burnley fairly often, and he likes to take the bus.  

He gets the X43 which goes from Manchester, through Prestwich and out northwards into Lancashire.  

And at the moment, Arthur travels for free. 

Except that, when the bus gets to the border of the Borough of Bury, Arthur has to get off, watch the bus drive away in the direction he wants to go, and wait for the next one to come so he can pay to be taken the rest of the way. 

The bus companies aren’t allowed to take him any further than the border, even though they’re going in the same direction.  

Some nice drivers let him get off and then straight back on again. But lots don’t. 

Now, I don’t think there’s anyone in this room tonight who doesn’t think that’s ridiculous. 

Arthur doesn’t begrudge paying.  

He objects to the silly situation of getting free local transport, then having to wait in the cold at a bus-stop far away because a very sensible policy has been implemented in a not very sensible way. 

But now, because of the government, his problem will go away.  

And I think we should thank them for that.  

Now Arthur, and every other over-60 in the country, can travel far and wide for free on buses.  It’s a marvellous idea, for lots of reasons.

And Arthur’s happy. 

But contrast Arthur with the many local people in my ward who have to go to school every day.  

They don’t travel for free.  

They pay 70p every time they board a bus. 

70p up from 50p last year, and up and up and up in recent years.

Trebling since I was at school in the 1990s. 

70p every time they board a bus. And for some of them that’s four times a day.  Two to get to school, and two to get back.  

That’s £2.80 a day, or £560 to get to school and back every school day for a year.  

So, a family with two secondary school aged children are paying well over £1,000 a year just to send their children to school.  

The same money as a summer holiday.  

The same money as a family day out at a museum or country house every weekend for a year. 

Much more than the cost of a school uniform. 

More than the cost of school dinners. 

The government should do something about that. 

And we’re calling on the government to give to our young people free travel, just as it is giving our old people. 

Mr Mayor, Councillors on all sides of this chamber agree that the 70p fare is too high.  

I know this because I was recently lucky to be chosen to take part in the presciently titled competition “I’m a Councillor, Get Me Out Of Here,” and was grilled by the youngsters of this Borough.  

And so were five of my colleagues here tonight. And we were all asked about the 70p fare. 

Councillor Connelly said “I think that people under 16 should travel free on the bus.”

Councillor Cresswell said “I would like to see free transport for all young students.” 

I agree with them both. And I said so in the competition. And the young people of the Borough will doubtless be cheered by the tri-partisan show of unity which we can display on this issue.  

Well Mr Mayor, us Councillors can’t get out of here now, so will they join me in asking the government to give us what we all want? 

Young people have no choice.  

They have no access to private transport of their own to rival the buses.  

They have no income, so have to rely on their parents. 

And obviously, the parents hit the hardest are the ones who have the least. Our young people need to get to school, and they need to do so on the bus.  S

o we shouldn’t be charging them £560 a year to do it. 

But it’s about more than getting to and from school. 

It’s about opening up social and leisure and cultural opportunities for young people to enjoy on public transport. 

It’s about providing added opportunity without added financial burden.  

It’s about instilling in our young people a lifelong appreciation for public transport as a sensible alternative to the car. The cleanest, greenest, safest choice.  

And the only way to get them to do this is by getting more of them on the buses for free from now.  

Of course it would cost money. I know that. 

I may have been elected at the last election, but I didn’t come down in the last shower. 

It’s about priorities.  

It’s about making the choice and teaching our children that public transport is the best way to travel.  

And choosing that we should spend the money where it needs to be spent. 

Because where there is a need, that money should be found.  

And there is a need. And that money should be found. 

It has been found in London. There, 385,000 young people of school age benefit from free travel. And the poorest benefit the most. 

385,000 young people. 

That’s nearly twice the population of our entire Borough. 

Think of the difference that makes.  

In London they made efficiencies with smart cards. Just the type of smart cards that will soon be appearing on buses here.  

And the buses made more money, because more adults were using them too, bucking the national trend.  Because if your children can travel for free, it’s cheaper for the family to take the bus than the car.  

And as the economy grows, more people use buses in our new quality bus corridors to get places. More passengers, more fares, more money for improvements. 

This is what happened in London, and it can happen here too.  And 80% of the people of London backed the move to introduce the scheme when they were asked by MORI. 

The people want the scheme. The children benefit from the scheme. The government should widen the scheme. 

And the government should extend the current yellow bus scheme to every secondary school in England. Because Mr Mayor, 

Yellow buses cut truancy.  Yellow buses cut traffic. And yellow buses save lives. 

In America over half of all school children take a yellow bus to school. In the UK, the figure is less than 10% 

Yellow buses cut truancy because children have a sense of belonging. Their own bus, in their own neighbourhood, with their own seat. 

Each day the same bus, the same driver, the extension of the school community to a place where too often there is bullying, over-crowding, and unreliability. 

Yellow buses cut traffic because parents are more likely to send the children to school on a designated school bus than on a regular bus. And the school-run accounts for 20% of all traffic on the roads. 

And yellow buses save lives because this extra traffic accounts for 40 deaths and 900 serious injuries each and every year. 

Yellow buses work.  

In Hebden Bridge, a single yellow bus has cut 25,000 journeys a year by car in the area.

Think of the impact on pollution, on traffic, and the future health of the children on that bus. 

We should extend the buses across the country.   

We should call upon the government to find the money to get our children to school in a way that is fair, green and safe. 

We should call upon the government to roll out a policy which manages to be good for education, health and the environment all at the same time. 

Because we can make a real difference and that’s what we were sent here to do. 

Mr Mayor. I don’t have children. In fact it’s not very many years since I was one.  

Nor am I an old person. Although there are times in this place tpwards the end of meetings when I feel very much like one.

But I listen to the old people of my ward, and I listen to the children.  

The old people are delighted that they can move around for free. And the children are sad that they can’t.  

We have an opportunity to foster a generation of children who see public transport as a first option, not a forced second choice taken up through necessity. 

We have an opportunity to make life that little bit easier for poor families. 

We have the chance to cut traffic, cut accidents, and cut pollution. 

And all it takes is the will to see it done.  

So let’s show the government that we have that will.

And let’s see it done. 

Mr Mayor, I have pleasure in moving this amendment.