................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
STEPHEN BYERS INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE: 13.12.98
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, unless this is going to
be seen as a sort of PR stunt, which obviously you wouldn't want because you
want it to be seen as rigorous and all the rest of it, you are going to have to
have some kind of penalties and sanctions aren't you, are they going to exist?
STEPHEN BYERS: In a sense they will. First of all
these targets will be made public and there's going to be actually nearer five
hundred than three hundred...
HUMPHRYS: That's a lot.
BYERS: It is a lot, there are a lot of targets,
three hundred or so performance targets, over a hundred and fifty efficiency
targets. The public will know, they are going to be published later this week
and ministers will be accountable for delivering on those targets.
HUMPHRYS: So, to take one target at random, car
crime - we know about that because you want to cut it by thirty per cent over
five years - if it doesn't come down Jack Straw's got to resign?
BYERS: Well Jack Straw I am confident will be
able to meet that target, they've already got a very good programme underway
involving the car manufacturers, involving a little bit of extra money which we
are providing from the Comprehensive Spending Review, but you are right, each
public service agreement will have a named minister who is responsible for
delivering and achieving those targets, they may not have to resign but they
will have to explain why they haven't been able to meet their targets. But I
am confident that although the targets are challenging, they are ambitious,
they will be met.
HUMPHRYS: So, if Jack Straw is not going to have
to resign - and I suppose as you say - that is moderately unlikely - something
is going to have to happen, this sanction has to take some form doesn't it.
Now if you are going, for instance, and I understand this is one of the
thoughts you have, to cut the funding that that particular operation or
department or whatever gets the following year, or the year after that or
whenever, it is going to make it less likely, isn't it, that in future they
will be able to meet the target?
BYERS: Well you are assuming that these targets
are not going to be met.
HUMPHRYS: Well let's make that assumption for the
moment because you can't be absolutely certain that they can can you? In the
perfect world, of course, all five hundred targets will but unfortunately we
don't have a perfect world.
BYERS: That's true, we don't have a perfect
world. We've got to help those departments meet those targets within the extra
money that we have been able to provide for them through the Comprehensive
Spending Review, billions extra going into schools, billions extra going into
our Health Service and the public rightly is going to say what extra are we
getting for this additional funding and what we're able to say in the Public
Service Agreements is you will be able to see these particular improvements.
So we want to help those Departments achieve those targets. If they fail for
some reason, then we will need to take that into account when we look at the
next Comprehensive Spending Review which we'll begin looking at in about the
year 2000.
HUMPHRYS: Take it into account, in other words
with a view to giving them a bit less the next time around.
BYERS: Well there's no doubt the outcome will
inform our decisions, What we will want to do though is obviously provide
resources for achievable targets.
HUMPHRYS: But you've already given then that extra
money, as you say, in some cases, you've given the extra money, so having got
this extra money in their pockets, let's take, I don't know, Liverpool Police,
Manchester Police whatever you like, they try and cut car crime in line with
this target that you've set, and they fail, next year they get a bit less money
because they have failed - they have a problem.
BYERS: Well, no, that's not the way it's going
to work. The Comprehensive Spending Review period takes us through to..
HUMPHRYS: Well the year after, yes okay...make it
two or three years' time..
BYERS: To April 2000 then the thirty per cent
cut in car crime is actually to be achieved within five years - so there is a
period by which you can lead up to achieving the target that we have set and
that's why they are realistic, they are not sort of pie in the sky targets,
they are challenging....
HUMPHRYS: They're meaningless then...
BYERS: Well no, they are challenging and they
are realistic. They can be achieved and we believe that by putting in place the
correct measures then the targets will be achieved.
HUMPHRYS: But if they are not, you've still not
quite dealt with that. You've said: yes, we will take another look at their
funding, the only implication of that that can be drawn is that they will get
less money and my point is that if that is the approach you take, you're going
to make it more rather than less easy for them to meet the targets.
BYERS: No, the approach we're adopting is one
which is radically different. You know the old way was to throw money at a
problem and keep your fingers crossed and hope the problem would go away and
that doesn't always work. What we are doing here is providing additional
resources to achieve specific targets which will be stated later this week and
what we are saying is that if a department fails to meet those targets, then
it's only right and proper that government will look seriously at their ability
to deliver on the next range of targets that we will want to introduce some
time after 2002.
HUMPHRYS: Then it becomes more difficult with the
next range doesn't it, or either that or you say well they couldn't meet the
target last time so we'll reduce the target next time which means that the
whole purpose..the whole thing has been pointless.
BYERS: Well it hasn't because what we will be
able to do and I'm confident that this will happen, is that over the two or
three year period of the Comprehensive Spending Review, we will see a change of
climate, a whole change of culture within Whitehall and within the agencies
that have to deliver who will recognise that the public want something for
something. If there's extra taxpayer's money going into a service then the
public want to see improvements, raising of standards and the quality of
service actually being advanced.
HUMPHRYS: The reason that people might be a little
bit sceptical about all this and think perhaps it's a bit of a public relations
exercise is that some of the targets, perhaps not all, but certainly some of
the targets you've chosen here, are pretty easy ones that probably would have
been meet anyway. I mean let's take car crime, you've corrected me you said
it's five years during which this thirty per drop has to happen. Well over the
last three years it's already dropped by thirty per cent - better technology,
companies making cars that can't be broken into and all that sort of thing.
It's going to make that a very easy target to achieve isn't it? It would be
very odd if it didn't continue that downward.
BYERS: Some would argue that because there's
been that advance over the last few years, it actually becomes increasingly
difficult..
HUMPHRYS: No, because relatively recently the
technology has reached this pitch.
BYERS: Well technology is there, so to then
say..
HUMPHRYS: And it's getting better all the time.
BYERS: A further thirty per cent reduction I
think would be welcomed by car owners.
HUMPHRYS: Certainly it would be welcome. But the
point I am making is that it's probably going to happen anyway.
BYERS: I don't think that's the case. I think
when people can see the range of targets, three hundred and fifty performance
targets, they will be able to identify them and say actually these are our
priorities. Let's think of another target which we haven't published so far
but we'll be publishing later this week. We're going to say that by 2002,
fifty per cent of sixteen year olds should get five good GCSEs. That's a
challenging target but with David Blunkett's strategy for raising standards in
our schools, we're confident that we will be able to achieve that, making a
radical difference in career opportunities for young people and that's a very
good example. A challenging target, an ambitious target but one with the extra
money that we are providing, we believe can be achieved.
HUMPHRYS: But again we come to that problem that
if you fail, if he fails to do that you can't very well say, well you know
we're going to cut spending on education on those particular schools as a
result of that failure, can you. It just doesn't make sense.
BYERS: No, but the important thing to remember
here, with the comprehensive spending review process, we're talking about
additional resources. And when we look again in 2000/2001 at reordering our
priorities we've got to be able to identify what we want to get for public
money and that's the big change that we're seeing here. It's not the old way of
looking at things, it's actually saying this is public money, the public,
because we value public services, have to see what they are going to be getting
in return.
HUMPHRYS: But the odd thing here is, isn't it, for
a government that's supposed to believe in devolving power down and all the
rest of it, that we've here got the man in Whitehall, or the woman in Whitehall
saying we know best, we will tell you what the priorities are and if I was a
policeman in Merseyside, or Liverpool or Manchester and you said to me you've
got to cut car crime by X or Y, I might well say: well hang on a minute I'm
much more concerned for the time being, with kids taking Ecstasy or little
fourteen year old shooting up with heroin or something, that's the priority I
want. And if car crime goes up a little bit, well so be it. I'm sorry about
that but nonetheless that's my priority and I'm a seasoned old cop and I know
about these things.
BYERS: And that's one of the reasons why we're
having three hundred and fifty performance targets.
HUMPHRYS: So there's going to be a target for
everything.
BYERS: We're covering a whole range of public
services and there will be for example a cross-cutting public service
agreement..
HUMPHRYS: It's not a question of priorities then
is it, because if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.
BYERS: Well no, what we're saying is these key
areas, whether it be drug abuse, whether it be raising standards in our
schools, reducing crime, improving the service for our..in our hospitals, these
are all the priorities that people are concerned about.
HUMPHRYS: They're all key areas.
BYERS: Of course they are, which is why we need
three hundred and fifty performance targets so people can see exactly what they
are going to be getting in return for the extra public money.
HUMPHRYS: But it's you that is setting these
targets, that's the point that I'm trying to make. It's the people in the
Treasury or the people in Whitehall who are setting these targets and national
targets don't work. I mean if you take the NHS and you'll have an awful lot of
targets in the NHS won't you.
BYERS: There's a fair number.
HUMPHRYS: For sure. Absolutely. Greg Dyke, who
drew up at your request, at the government's request, had another look at the
Patients' Charter just this week, I interviewed him on Wednesday I think it
was. Now, he said that the old Patients' Charter did not work because, and I
quote from his report: 'it imposed national processed targets on what are
fundamentally local organisations'. That is what you are doing now across a
great swathe of areas of activity.
BYERS: What we are saying is that there is a
responsibility on the part of the government in providing public money to
identity what the public can expect to get in return for that money.
HUMPHRYS: You know..
BYERS: Well we don't know John.
HUMPHRYS: You do. You know we don't want to wait
for hospital beds and we don't want our kids to be..
BYERS: That's fine but we know that..I mean
your assumption seems to be that people are content with the public services
they at the moment.
HUMPHRYS: No, of course not, they say of course we
want better. I said that right at the very start - we want better services.
BYERS: And so do we, so what we're doing is
we're providing extra resources and we're challenging the hospitals and the
schools to meet those targets, we will do it with them, we're providing the
resources and by doing that, so that people know the priorities and yes we take
responsibility..
HUMPHRYS: If they disagree with priorities. If
they say - you're wrong about..I mean in the case of Greg Dyke now and the NHS.
If they say to you, the head teachers or whoever it happens to be, say actually
we think that target is a load of old nonsense, it should be something quite
different. Are you prepared to say, well alright, then we'll get rid of that
one, or have another look at it.
BYERS: No, these targets will be in place..
HUMPHRYS: Well exactly, it's top down then isn't
it. The man in Whitehall knows best.
BYERS: We'll be judged on whether or not these
targets are the people's priorities or not. We happen to feel they are, nothing
to stop a headteacher adding to them if they want to, but these are targets
which are key, which are important and which we intend to deliver upon.
HUMPHRYS: So Greg Dyke for instance got it wrong
then didn't he, when he reached that conclusion about the Patients' Charter.
BYERS: Well I'm not going to criticise Greg
Dyke but I think there are..
HUMPHRYS: You have by implication.
BYERS: ...there are some issues in his report
which I don't think the government is endorsing and a number of them may well
conflict with government policy, but I think we will see with public service
agreements there is a way forward to lay down targets that we expect to be
achieved, it doesn't stop people locally developing their own initiatives but
they can complement the priorities which have been set by government
HUMPHRYS: But yours is..yours are immovable so
when somebody like..and afterall I use Greg Dyke as an example but there are
lots of other people who make very similar points aren't there, that you cannot
have national targets and impose them on local organisations. You are saying to
that: you can, we're doing it because we know best. That's it isn't it.
BYERS: There is a responsibility of government
to reflect the priorities of people as far as public services are..
HUMPHRYS: How do you know what those priorities
are?
BYERS: Well, I think..
HUMPHRYS: ..unless you ask the local
organisations.
BYERS: John, let's be serious. We know..
HUMPHRYS: I'm being entirely serious.
BYERS: We know that parents want their eleven
year olds to be good in literacy and numeracy. We know they want their sixteen
year olds to get good examination passes and those are all going to be..
HUMPHRYS: ..and we've always known all of that.
BYERS: But no-one's ever specified what we
should be seeking to achieve and as a result there's been a sort of poverty of
ambition as far as Britain is concerned in high level public services and we
want to chanage that by having ambitious targets which we believe can be meet.
HUMPHRYS: ...but you don't...
BYERS: We believe it is the responsibility of
government. If we don't give a lead then I'm afraid the local agencies will be
struggling to know the direction in which they should be going.
HUMPHRYS: But you don't change anything by
saying..I mean I would like to say - when I go out in the street, at the end of
this programme I'm going to see everyone driving around in Rolls Royce and that
is my target and everyone's terribly rich and happy and healthy and all the
rest of it. It's not going to happen because I set that target. This is the
point that I'm trying to make here. You seem to think that by setting a target
you have achieved something. You haven't. We already know that we want more of
our children to pass GCSEs and to have shorter waiting lists and all the rest
of it. But merely setting the target changes nothing and that's the point I'm
trying to make.
BYERS: That's why.... well I would certainly
accept that which is why, when we publish the targets later this week that's
really only the start. We then have to put in place the support, the
assistance to enable departments in the various agencies to achieve those
targets. That's far better you know than the old approach.....
HUMPHRYS: But you can't do that.....
BYERS: Well we can give guidance. We can
assist. We can provide resources.....
HUMPHRYS: What in Whitehall you can tell the bloke
running the police force in Manchester how he should be running his police
force. I don't understand that.
BYERS: No we don't have to do that. We can
provide the resources and say look, these are the priorities we expect you to
achieve with the extra money that you're getting.
HUMPHRYS: But you've already got that extra money.
I mean what they would say to that is - Yeah, that extra money was helpful, if
there was extra money for the police or where ever it happens to be but by damn
I need that to do the things I've already got lined up. Now you're saying to
him, 'We want to do something.....' You see the danger is that you will
distort things here, that there will be an element of distortion. Go back to
the very simple example of cutting car crime; If in Manchester their priority
is not actually cutting car crime but it's dealing with drug pedlars or
something and you come along... and you can't have a target for absolutely
every single area of activity in the country can. And you come along and say -
'This is the priority.' And they say, 'Sorry. We don't think so.' They're
going to have to go with what you think because otherwise they will lose money
somewhere down the raod, lose resources. So they've got to obey you.
BYERS: No, we're prepared to engage in a debate
but we believe.....
HUMPHRYS: But you've just told me you're not going
to change.....
BYERS: We believe that for the three year
period that we're coming up to from April of next year, the targets that we're
setting are ones which the public will support. They're targets in the round,
they cover all the key areas which we believe are priorities. It's part of our
modernisation and reform agenda and I think it will break the culture of
secrecy in Whitehall, we'll be held accountable and we're prepared to be judged
on how we can raise standards in our public services.
HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, thank you very much.
And that's it for this week and indeed
for this year. We'll be back on January the seventeenth. Have a good holiday.
Goodbye.
...oooOooo...
|