Don't blame Mr Byers for our national confusion over transport policies

It is time to come to the defence of Stephen Byers, who is being unfairly pilloried for the collapse of the bag of wind which was Labour's transport policy. It was a bag inflated not by him, but by John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister.

It is not Mr Byers' fault that a select committee of MPs should have noticed that the Government's transport policy is "incoherent". Gwyneth Dunwoody, who jointly chairs the committee, is a fiercely independent Old Labour backbencher, which is why the whips so disgracefully tried to keep her off the committee last year. That makes her valuable grit in the oyster of democracy, but it does not make her right. Or, rather, just because the Government's policy is incoherent does not mean that her committee has a coherent alternative.

The committee makes a number of interesting points, noting, for example, that cars are becoming cheaper at a time when the costs of public transport are rising. But it does not say what should be done about it, beyond implying that local road charges should be introduced across the country.

The Government has a coherent enough response to that, which is that it is opposed to it. Ken Livingstone's flawed scheme for London apart, road charging is not going to happen in the next eight years. That is sensible enough, because the technology for a full national road charging scheme is not yet in place and the main effect of small local schemes will simply be to move congestion out of city centres and into the suburbs.

The fundamental problem of transport in this country is that road traffic will increase inexorably as the economy grows. National charging for the busiest roads at the busiest times may help spread the load and allow the whole network to operate more efficiently – at the expense of poorer road users. But halting or reversing the growth in road traffic can only be achieved by radical policies, in the true sense of the word, requiring dramatic dislocation of many people's way of life.

Mr Byers' problem is that halting the growth in road traffic is precisely what Mr Prescott promised in the heady, early days of this Government. In his boyish enthusiasm for his new job, he thought that simply making public transport more attractive would persuade people out of their cars. Now it is up to the Government's Official Fall Guy – Mr Byers – to admit that Mr Prescott was wrong. Even if buses and trains could be made cheaper and capacity increased, the effect on road congestion would be marginal – not least because, if space is freed up on the roads, it will immediately be filled by new car, van and lorry journeys which are currently deterred by traffic jams.

There are many reasons why Mr Byers should be replaced, but he should not go because Mr Prescott failed to force voters to face some of the awkward consequences of their decisions as car drivers.

Ms Dunwoody admitted as much by declaring yesterday: "The sooner we make up our minds about what we want and how to get it, the better it will be for everyone." That is precisely the problem with transport policy. We – that is, the nation collectively – cannot agree on what we want and how to get it, and prefer to blame Government ministers for failing to give us free-flowing roads.

Ultimately, we should look neither to Mr Byers nor to Mr Prescott to answer for our frustrations with transport policy. We need to ask ourselves some searching questions about our modern car-based lifestyles.