................................................................................ ON THE RECORD STEPHEN BYERS INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 10.5.98 ................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: But first, tomorrow we'll get the first report from the Social Exclusion unit. That was set up by the Prime Minister to deal with people who are cut off from society in all sorts of ways - they're probably poor, very poor, don't have a job, no real education and live in the worst housing estates. And the government say this is the biggest challenge facing them. They say the entire government can be judged on how effectively they deal with this. Stephen Byers is one of the Ministers Tony Blair has put in charge of the Social Exclusion unit - and he's in Newcastle. Good afternoon Mr Byers. STEPHEN BYERS: Good afternoon. HUMPHRYS: Can we be clear first of all that the root cause of Social Exclusion lies in poverty. BYERS: I think there's a whole variety of factors. We can have people in poverty who are not socially excluded. So what we are looking at really is a sort of multi-layered approach as far as Social Exclusion is concerned. People, yes in poverty, without jobs, poor housing, bad health. All of those factors make up a Social Exclusion as far as the government is concerned. HUMPHRYS: But there's a limit, isn't there, to what you can do without raising the income of the people at the bottom of the pile. BYERS: Well that will clearly help and that's one of the reasons why, for example, for those in work, we will be introducing a National Minimum Wage. It's one of the reasons why we're investing three and a half billion pounds in our new deal to get unemployed young people into jobs. So we've got a strategy which will address those concerns. But over and above that, there needs to be a recognition that there are individuals, and indeed whole communities, who are excluded, who don't feel part of society. And the real challenge for a government that wants to create a decent society, is to ensure that all of our people can benefit and that isn't happening at the moment. HUMPHRYS: Yeah, because things like a Minimum Wage will help some but it won't help, for instance, people who aren't earning a wage at all. It won't help the very old, old people who are very poor, it won't help the disabled and so on. It won't help lots of people. BYERS: Sure and we are recognising that and that's one of the reasons why we've begun the reform of the Welfare State and the Green Paper that was published just a couple of months ago, begins the process of doing that, lying down very clear targets and very clear goals as far as the government is concerned. You're right to point out that the Welfare State, as it presently exists, costing almost a hundred billion pounds in benefits, is really not meeting the needs of the individuals, which is why we have embarked on the process of reforming the Welfare State so that people can receive the benefits that they deserve. HUMPHRYS: And poverty isn't just absolute is it, it's relative. BYERS: It's relative and that's one of the reasons why people may feel excluded. That they can see that other people are doing well and as the economy continues to improve, more and more people will benefit from that. The danger is that there will be a minority of people who will feel left out. Now, we want to have an inclusive society. We said we would govern for all our people, and that means people who are expressing, or feeling Social Exclusion at the moment. We are not going to turn our backs on these communities and on these individuals. We are saying that we have a responsibility in government and the Social Exclusion Unit, has begun the process of bringing together, across government, across Whitehall, departments working with communities, working with Local Authorities, with the Police and with the private sector, to tackle the problem of Social Exclusion. HUMPHRYS: And you acknowledge then, that you have to reduce inequality. You have to narrow the gap between the poorest and the best off. BYERS: Well that's part of the process, but there is no one simple single solution to- HUMPHRYS: But that's a necessary part of it, an
essential part of it. BYERS: It is part of it and that's one of the reasons why we are introducing a Minimum Wage to help those in work and for those who are not in work, who are relying on benefits, we are tackling and reforming the Welfare Benefit System. HUMPHRYS: Do you object to my use of the word essential, the adjective essential here. BYERS: I don't object to it. What I am saying though is that it's a rather simplistic approach- HUMPHRYS: Why? - what? - reducing inequality. You made a great deal of it when the Tories were in power. BYERS: No, what I am saying if we are serious about tackling Social Exclusion, there is more to it than simply looking at levels of poverty. HUMPHRYS: Indeed. But I said and I'll pursue with this for a moment if I may, that it is an essential part of it, reducing inequality is an essential part of what you are about. BYERS: And I'm saying it's one of the factors that we need to address and we need to be aware of if we are serious about creating a modern and decent Britain. HUMPHRYS: And if you failed in that, you will
have failed. BYERS: What I am saying John, is that we have a variety of measures which will ensure that the inequalities we see at the moment, can be addressed. And two examples I've given, the new deal for young unemployed, the Minimum Wage for those people in work but in poverty at the moment, will tackle those issues. HUMPHRYS: But you have also acknowledged that they are not going to help, necessarily all of the people at the very bottom of the heap. And when you talk about Welfare Reform, in the context of reducing inequality, what you must therefore be talking about is higher benefits, mustn't you. BYERS: What we're talking about I think John, is looking at how the Welfare Benefit System works at the moment and recognising there are weaknesses and we need to build on it. Which is why we begun the process of reforming the Welfare State and we are beginning to do that. We have had the Green Paper and we are now moving forward to ensure that the billions of pounds that goes into welfare is spent in a way which ensures we don't create a dependency culture but provide people with the opportunities of getting into work- HUMPHRYS: Those who can help themselves. BYERS: -and that's the best way, that's the best way. HUMPHRYS: If they can help themselves, if they can do that, but they can't necessarily, can they, you've acknowledged that already. BYERS: That's the best way of ensuring that people come out of poverty, and also that they are included because work is a great way of feeling that you are part of society and that you are both paying your way and making a valuable contribution. HUMPHRYS: Yes, If you are capable of doing it, but if you're very old or you're disabled or disadvantaged in some other ways you may not be able to do that, and the reason that I'm persisting with the inequality theme is that the only way to achieve that reduction in inequality, to make us all that much more equal is to increase the benefits for those who cannot, for whatever reason, work or join in the other things that you have on offer, and therefore you have to redistribute wealth, that old phrase that you people don't seem to like very much any longer. BYERS: What we're doing John,and the Green Paper on Welfare Reform makes this very clear, is that those vulnerable members of our society and you identified them, are going to be protected, and that is an assurance which has been given by the Prime Minister, that as we reform the welfare state those people that have no choice will be protected. HUMPHRYS: Mm - what does that word mean - protected. Does it mean given more money? That's what people listening to this programme will understand, because you will get - I certainly will get an awful lot of letters after this, saying, from old people particularly saying: Look, I can't afford to live in a dignified and decent way now. Are they going to give me more money or aren't they? BYERS: Well, what we're saying, and this is part of our reform of the welfare state, is we are spending getting on for a hundred billion pounds on welfare benefits, but there are many people who feel that they are not getting the sorts of benefits and the sort of quality of life that they deserve, and so what we're looking at is how we can redistribute the money that goes on welfare benefits, not just paying it out almost on a weekly basis, the Giro cheque comes in, but by saying that for some people who are presently in receipt of welfare benefits there's a better way forward, which is actually in work, but also recognising that there will be some people as you rightly identify who won't be able to do that and they need to be protected as well. HUMPHRYS: So you will redistribute from the poor to the poor, but not from the better off to the poor - that's the implication of that answer. That's clearly what you just said. BYERS: What we're saying John, and this does link in with the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, is that we need to have different ways and new ways of looking at how government reacts, and how government policies affect individuals. And what we're acknowledging is that the welfare benefit system at the moment is not meeting our criteria of insuring that those people who need it have a good quality of life, those people who can get into work. Now what we're saying is, we want to use the welfare benefit system to help people who can work to get into jobs, and the new deal is a very important element of this. HUMPHRYS: Right. But you're not looking at taking a little bit more off people who have the most and giving it to the people who have the least, because that's what you used to talk about in your party didn't you? That was what redistribution used to mean. BYERS: Well, the real challenge for a serious government is to look at the three-hundred-and-twenty-five billion pounds of public spending which we have at the moment, and to re-order our priorities. HUMPHRYS: The Beveridge government wasn't a serious government was it then? BYERS: Well no, I mean, there wasn't a Beveridge Government, the Beveridge report was wholly appropriate for nineteen-forty-four. It may not be appropriate for nineteen ninety-eight and the next century. HUMPHRYS: So those principles don't apply any longer? BYERS: What we're looking at - well, the principles were outlined in Frank Field's Green Paper on welfare reform. We're moving forward, things have changed, and the challenge that we've got is to re-order our priorities within the three hundred-and twenty-five billion pounds of public spending, and that's what we're doing, that's what the comprehensive spending review will do, and I think when we get the recommendations from that towards the end of June or July, then we'll be able to see the way forward. HUMPHRYS: Let's look specifically at what tomorrow's report is going to be about, and that's schools as I understand it - exclusion - we used to call it expulsion, but not any longer, and truancy and all that sort of thing. Now, you want to stop - reduce the number of exclusions, you want, you have a new strategy for stopping truants as well. Is there going to be more money available for schools in all of this? BYERS: Well, we've provided twenty-two million pounds already to pilot some new ways of reducing truancy, but I have to say if you look across local education authorities there are some of them without any extra money who have already managed to reduce dramatically the number of exclusions, so for example Newham which has forty-one thousand school pupils only had thirty-nine exclusions last year. Now if Newham can do it, and it's not a leafy shire council, then there are many other authorities who could look at the best practice and see how Newham have been successful. HUMPHRYS: Are you going to make it, or try to make it, more difficult then, for those who don't perhaps go down the Newham road, make it more difficult for them to expel children? BYERS: Well, the first point to make John is that there will be situations when children do need to be excluded if they're acting in a way which puts at risk the quality of education being received by the other children in school. Then that should not be allowed to happen and exclusion would be wholly appropriate, because we do have to put the interests of the majority of children first if their quality of education is being threatened in some way. But we should be looking at exclusions which take place at the moment, perhaps for inappropriate reasons. HUMPHRYS: Such as? BYERS: Well, perhaps the wearing of jewellery, hairstyles, not wearing a school uniform. Those situations should be addressed early and shouldn't be a reason for exclusion. HUMPHRYS: So what does a headteacher do then if a child says: no, I know it's the rule of the school that I shouldn't wear a nose-ring or whatever they wear, but I'm going to carry on doing it, or I won't wear a school uniform, even though I'm meant to wear a school uniform. What do they do then? BYERS: Well there are measures that can be introduced before it gets to Exclusion. I think what we need to have is the school working very closely with parents and with the individual child to say: look, school is a place of work and we expect certain requirements, certain rules to be abided by, and that does occur. And I think it's worth stressing that in the vast majority of schools, there is that very good, positive working relationship. But there are some individual schools, where clearly, you know,
Exclusions are running at far too high a level and where truancy is a real problem. Which is why we will be announcing tomorrow that we will set up, not just Local Education Authority based targets for reducing the number of Exclusions and the level of truancy. But in those individual schools where there's a real problem, we will be setting targets for those schools as well to reduce the level of truancy and reduce Exclusions. HUMPHRYS: But I mean if you are really serious about this you would have to set up special units and the like, wouldn't you, and they do cost serious money. BYERS: That's one of the recommendations that will be coming from the report tomorrow, is that those children who are excluded, for good reason, have to be found alterative education. At the moment, all too often they are left with perhaps just two or three hours a week of education. We need to do far better than that. So there will need to be, they are called Pupil Referral Units, there will need to be units set up with high quality provision, to meet the needs of those young people. And yes that will be an extra demand on the public purse. HUMPHRYS: Will it cost quite a lot. BYERS: Well we'll have to find it within our departmental budget but if that's what needs to be done, then we'll have to do it. HUMPHRYS: But within the budget so something else would have to give then in that case. BYERS: We need to re-order priorities. It was the point I was making earlier, John, within three hundred and twenty-five billion pounds of public money, if this is a priority for the government, and it is, then coming out of the Comprehensive Spending Review, we will need the money to deliver these units. HUMPHRYS: Because some people worry that what you are actually-Nigel de Gruchy was talking about it in one of the papers this morning, wrote about it in one of the papers this morning, the Express I think. He said you are trying to shift social problems off the streets and into the schools. And this is a worry that a lot of teachers have. I mean you say, well maybe some kids oughtn't to be expelled, but the teachers, probably, know best here don't they, and the headteachers. BYERS: In many cases they do and that's fine. And I stress the point again John, that there are many schools who are doing excellent work in this area. However, there are a handful who have a particularly high level of Exclusions and also a bad record as far as truancy is concerned and we also have Local Education authorities which have high levels of truancy. What we are saying to them is: look, we will publish levels of truancy and Exclusions, and we will want you to establish targets, agreed with government, to reduce those numbers. And we've said, and the report will make it clear tomorrow, we want to reduce the level of truancy and Exclusions by a third by the end of this parliament. A dramatic change from where we are at the moment. HUMPHRYS: But that might mean, mightn't it, keeping children in schools who would threaten the education, disruptive or ill-disciplined children in schools, who would threaten the education of others, who are well behaved and want to learn. BYERS: Sure, and I'm made it clear, John, that there's no question of insisting that every individual child must be kept within that school- HUMPHRYS: -a limit of a third reduction. BYERS: No, if they are putting at risk the quality of education being received by the other children, then Exclusion is wholly appropriate. But if you look at the way in which Exclusions are operating at the moment, there are real questions that need to be answered about why certain children are being excluded. They are not putting the education of other children at risk and it's that group of youngsters that really should be kept in school and should be given an education of curriculum, which is motivating and which re-engages those young people. HUMPHRYS: Nigel de Gruchy seemed to think this is a terribly difficult area and he's worried that you will provoke, I think his words were 'thousands of disputes in schools'. Teachers saying we're not going to have this and threatening some kind of action. BYERS: Well that's the usual Nigel de Gruchy comment isn't it. He says that about almost everything the government is doing at the moment. What we said is that there's an issue here. We are not walking away from it, it would be easy to do that, we're not turning our backs on these young people. But what we are saying is that for the minority, Exclusion is appropriate if they are putting at risk the education of other children. But for a sizeable number, then school is appropriate and we need to find ways of ensuring that they can be offered the opportunities which are being made available to other youngsters as well. So they feel part of school and they can feel part of society. Because those children who are excluded often go into unemployment when they leave school and often go into criminal activity as well. So it's in our interest as a society, to do something about reducing the levels of Exclusion. HUMPHRYS: Stephen Byers, thanks very much indeed. BYERS: Thank you. ...oooOooo...