As central government spending falls, transport minister Norman Baker tells Joshua Chambers that if Whitehall gives local councils and businesses enough space and freedom, they’ll pick up the baton on green transport.
“I’m quite clear on the direction of travel,” says junior transport minister Norman Baker – seemingly with no pun intended. “The coalition agreement talks very clearly about encouraging cycling and walking; it talks about the importance of greener transport and reducing carbon. That’s all in there; have you seen it?” Before I can answer, Baker leaps out of his armchair and moves to a shelving unit next to his desk. He rummages through a pile of papers, but the document has disappeared; he returns flushed but empty-handed.
Yet while the coalition agreement provides the direction for the department’s journey, it’s the spending review on 20 October that will determine the fuel – and, having helped write the plans for both 25 and 40 per cent cuts, Baker already knows how either option would hit his own field: that of ‘alternative forms of travel’, including cycling, buses and videoconferencing.
However, Baker is keen to avoid setting out detailed policies and reforms until he’s seen the spending review figures and discussed them with his colleagues. “I don’t think it’s sensible to rush into these things,” he says. “What I want to do is make sure that we’ve got the full understanding of where the [coalition] parties are coming from and – once we’ve had the spending review – what we can do with the money.”
Spending power
One thing Baker is clear on is his desire to simplify the distribution of funding for local transport schemes. “One of the things the previous government did which we don’t like is having huge numbers of pots of money to bid for – £10m here, £5m there – for different rural transport grants, ‘kickstart’ bus schemes, and so forth,” he says. “The consequence is that councils are spending a huge amount of time form-filling without a very good chance of getting anything out of the pot at the end; and even if they do, it’s quite a small pot.”
In part, this simplification is designed to reduce bureaucracy and make the system more efficient, but it will also give councils more control over how they prioritise and fund local transport schemes. “We want to move away from the previous government’s prescriptive, micromanagement style to something more akin to our philosophy of letting councillors get on with what they want to do,” says the minister.
Of course, this gives the department less power to influence councils and ensure they pursue a green agenda. But Baker leaps – this time only metaphorically – to their defence: “I don’t think that local councils, even if they’re given a lot more power, will suddenly go round saying: ‘Whoopee, we’ve got all this power: let’s build a 15-lane motorway!’ They aren’t going to do that, are they? I think local councillors want to do some of these green things. They’ve got the same objectives.”
Not the be-all-and-end-all
In order to give councils greater freedom, the DfT will need to be proactive in Whitehall. “The Department for Transport is not the be-all-and-end-all,” says Baker. “We’re working with other departments to achieve our ends; no department can operate sensibly in a silo, so we have to talk to colleagues across government.”
In particular, Baker is working with the department for Communities and Local Government to ensure that, once a transport scheme has been approved for use by one council, each council wishing to follow its lead won’t require DfT sign-off. Citing a proposed scheme in Northamptonshire which mirrors one already in place in Kent, he says: “I’ve been astonished at some of the stuff coming across my desk here, asking me to sign off on things which, in my view, are really nothing to do with the Department for Transport. Once we’ve established a principle, once a scheme is up and working somewhere satisfactorily, why are we involved? We want to get rid of that level of bureaucracy.”
Baker’s moves towards cross-departmental collaboration may also have a financial motive. He has “been in touch with [public health minister] Anne Milton at the Department for Health, because there’s a very clear linkage – proven with quite good empirical evidence – to show the value of investing in cycling in terms of health, obesity and so on.”
He is coy on whether he means that the Department of Health should invest more in these schemes, but that appears to be his intention: “The Department of Health has historically funded some work on cycling, but we have to see where there are common objectives across government and try to exploit that and make the best use of the money available,” he says. His leverage in the area is increased by his seat on the public health subcommittee.
A civilising influence
Talk of government funding is perhaps somewhat beside the point, however; Baker acknowledges that Whitehall funding for local transport is set to fall. In his view, in future such schemes will be initiated and run by councils and commercial organisations rather than conceived and controlled from Whitehall.
When money is tight, why would councils prioritise non-conventional transport projects? Well, major infrastructure projects may be beyond local authorities, but councils can introduce walking and cycling schemes to “civilise” town centres. “If you civilise a town centre you get people moving round from A to B more quickly, then you start opening up towns more,” he says. “Then you have a town centre which isn’t choking with car fumes; where people aren’t forced off narrow pavements; where they’re able to browse and shop – and that’s good for the local economy.”
Baker also sees local cycling schemes as a good investment for private businesses – particularly train companies. “Say you have a business appointment a mile from Norwich station,” he says. “At the moment, people don’t know how to get a mile beyond the station, so they drive all the way. If you could guarantee that a bike would be available for you at Norwich station, you might take the train up there and cycle the last mile.”
Don’t travel
The DfT is not retreating from all of its traditional work, says Baker; it is still pursuing many major projects. “Crossrail, we have said, is going ahead,” he says. The same is true of high-speed rail, and the department is committed to electrifying England’s railways “as a concept” – although nothing tangible has yet been announced. The DfT has also pledged to fund electric car infrastructure, and subsidise the purchase of such vehicles by waiving some taxes.
Meanwhile, Baker is pursuing other methods of reducing carbon emissions – by reducing the need to travel altogether. Flexible working is his solution, and he wants Whitehall to lead the way: hosting teleconferences rather than face-to-face meetings, for example, and allowing staff to work from home.
He is at his most animated when discussing these initiatives: “A mum who wants to be in full-time work can drop the kids at school, go into the office for four or five hours, pick them up and do another couple of hours at home,” he says. “That sort of flexibility, that work-life balance, is enhanced by home-working.”
Taking a step back
With coffers already stretched, Baker’s message – that if the state steps back a little from funding local transport, councils and businesses will take up the slack – will sound appealing to the Treasury. Councils and the private sector, however, may be left wondering exactly where these opportunities lie. And while Baker is obviously very committed to liberating councils, other people within the DfT may be less convinced: a few days after our interview, the Daily Telegraph reported that the department is to limit councils’ freedom to introduce levies on company car parking spaces.
As we walk outside for the photography, I wonder how much ministerial life has changed Baker’s own behaviour. He’s known as a powerful campaigner; his dogged questioning prompted the second resignation of Peter Mandelson. “You used to be an independent-minded MP,” I say at the start of a question, and he interjects: “I am an independent-minded MP.” Independence of mind can be a disadvantage for someone on the front line of defending government policy. But the dogged questioner has turned answerer, and he has the coalition agreement as a comfort and his guide. At least, he would do – if only he could find it.