................................................................................ 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...