23/02/2012 Newsnight


As David Cameron condemns anti-business 'snobbery', Newsnight assembles a panel of CEOs to ask if business is under unfair attack. Presented by Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 23/02/2012. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, business has been taking a kicking for big profits, big pay


pacts and big bonuses for executives. Tonight the Prime


Minister praised it to the skies. Business is not just about making


money, vital as it is, it is also the most vital force for social


progress that the world has ever known.


Four chief executives are here to debate what business does right,


what it does wrong, and what it wants from the Government.


What happens when it all comes crashing down? David Cameron's


families' champion quits her role after a shrew of fraud allegations


against her company, A4e, I will be asking the Employment Minister did


the Prime Minister fail to carry out due diligence on Emma Harrison.


Until his cap tue, he was Colonel Gaddafi's righthand man, now he's


in jail in Misrata. We interviewed him, and his jailer chipped in too.


TRANSLATION: I wish you would be more co-operative. TRANSLATION:


swear to God, any question you have asked me I have answered.


Good evening, frankly, I'm sick of all this anti-business snobbery,


said the Prime Minister today, in an attempt to change the stormy


weather blowing around business and enterprise in the UK. Accused of


putting profits before people, paying themselves megasalary


packages what Sir Martin Sorrell has called indiscriminate business


bashing. All the politicians have been at it too. Writing today, the


industry giant head of Centrica talked about the profits.


20 years ago it would have been inconceivable that business would


have been held in such low regard. What has gone wrong. David Grossman


reports. There are quite a few in business


wishing the politicians would just keep quiet.


Capitalism takes no prisoners. It kills competition when it can.


The parties, in an apparent competition to talk tough.


Predators are just interested in the fast buck, taking with what


they can out of the business. People right at the top of


Government. There is a wealthy elite, or large businesses, who can


pay an army of tax accountants to get out of paying their fair share


of tax. Today the mood couldn't have been more different. The


Prince Charles in North London to celebrate 30 years of business in


the community. That's three decades of corporations, helping to make


Britain a bit better. The Prime Minister's message, business


bashing has to stop. In recent months we have heard some


dangerous rhetoric creep into our national debate. That wealth


creation is some how anti-social, that people in business are some


how out for themselves. I think we have to fight this mood with


everything that we have got. And the bashing has to stop, said


the Prime Minister, not just because business creates jobs and


pays tax, but because it also makes society work.


Business is not just about making money, as vital as it is. It is


also the most powerful force for social progress that the world has


ever known. While the hall applauded, Labour


has accused the Prime Minister of breath taking inconsistency, of


declaring a truth with vested interests. On the very day you see


RBS paying out millions in bonuses, in a loss-making investment bank,


and British Gas also making millions of pounds in profits at


the same time that families are being squeezed in this country, the


biggest squeeze in living standards in a generation, small businesses


and entrepeneurs struggling to get access to finance. You have the


Prime Minister saying everyone trying to reform the system is


wrong, you are anti-wealth creation and anti-business, this is a


ridiculous state of affairs. Needs to get his act together.


The Prime Minister was in a bit of a hurry, had he to get back to a


meeting on Somali pirates. He left behind, though, plenty of business


people, who feel that they too are often portrayed as ruthless


plunderers. You have listened to the stories of what many companies,


small, medium and large enterprises are doing to put something back


into the community. That is so refreshing, you have a lot of


chairmen and CEOs here today, they are here because they believe they


ought to be doing it. They are doing it. So it would be nice if


some of the coverage actually focuses on what is happening, and


what business is putting back, rather than sort of just assuming


that because a business make as profit, and it pays its executives


well, that is some how obscene. Today's gathering came at the end


of a week when Tesco and others have faced a campaign to stop them


offering unpaid work experience. Some firms here complain that in


the current atmosphere, they are criticised, even when they try to


do some good in the community. is dammed if you do, dammeded if


you don't, expression. We had a situation where we employ a lot of


aprend dis -' present tis painters, and they are -- apprentice painters,


and they are local kids, if you put them as a gang on painting a local


council building, people will say is cheap labour. We are offering


work experience, and money into the local economy, and inspiration to


peer groups. The clients are adding value because we are putting those


people into work. They are leverageing more out of business


instead of us taking profit and leaving. Ultimately, unless these


things are recognised as good practice, they will wither on the


vine. With the budget coming up, another subject discussed here, of


course, is tax. Is the tax environment right here?


It is getting better, corporation tax is coming down. We pay our


corporation taxes in the UK. The Government has made big strides


there, I think. Ultimately we will have to sort out how we tax people


in general, I think. Higher rates of tax? I think we are going to


have to look at some of those in keeping all lent here inside the UK.


There is a little -- talent here inside the UK. There is a little


bit of drain on that. The 50p tax rate we are talking about? I think


we are looking in general at tax in the UK, and how that works relative


to other economies. If the Government gets it wrong,


businesses could relocate taking tax and jobs with them.


Bashing businesses might be good politics, but it also could be very


bad economics. With me now are four people who


manage some of the biggest businesss in Britain. Among them


they employ over 70,000 people, Mark Price is the managing director


of Waitrose, and chairs the charity For the community. And one of the


UK's most powerful business women, and Ken McMeiken, and Paul


Dreschler, sitting at the head of Wates Construction, a major


contractor. Paul Dreschler, first of all, the


idea that business is a pariah has grown up much more than ever before,


over the last two years. Why do you think it has been so bad? I think


you can look at this in a few ways. I feel over the past number of


years business has done a tremendous amount for good in


society. I think perhaps with all the challenges of the world economy


and the local economy, and some of the financial service issues,


society has lost trust in business. We have to earn that back. I think


the best way to earn it back is to be more public about some of the


great things we are doing. It is interesting, in fact, often when we


actually ask business people to come on and justify their own


positions in their own companies, it is hard to get them to come on


to the programme and talk about what they actually do? I think you


will find tonight we will be delighted to talk about what we are


doing. This idea that moral capitalism, which is what Ed


Milliband is talking about, which begs the question of what is


immoral capitalism. He talked about predator rather than producer


companies, what is that about? is hard to comprehend, begin people


talking about businesses making a fast buck, they are not businesses


around for the long-term. All of us here work for businesses that have


been around for a long time. We have been in the UK for 80 years.


If you are going to be a sustainable business, you have to


make sure you are doing the right thing not just for today but for


the long-term. Is there immoral capitalism? I'm sure you can find


anything where you look, for the main, most businesses are in this


for doing good. People who are not business literate, most of us, in a


way, what they see is huge headline profits? Yeah, but the profits are


hugely important, if companies are going to invest and continue to


grow, by growing what you then do is create jobs. If there is one


thing we have as a big challenge as a country, we need to create more


jobs, because there are so many people out of work, that's how we


are actually going to get a feel- good factor back into the UK.


Unless we have companies growing profitably, and investing those


profits back into growing and creating jobs, then we get into a


vicious downward spiral. talking about any of the companies


here, there is this whole question from UK Uncut, that there are


companies not paying their full corporation tax, they would


presumptionably, be seen by you, as the immoral face of capitalism?


think the simple answer to that is, yes. We want to pay our share of


taxes to the UK economy, we want to create jobs and do something for


society. As it was said 30 years ago, a healthy high street needs a


healthy back street. What all the companies you have here, and all


the companies in BITC do, they understand that we need a strong


society if we are going to build good, sustainable businesses, with


good profits. The point about UK Uncut, they are right, there are


some companies not paying full corporation tax. You talk about


companies would do better to be more transparent, there is a


problem, of course, when you don't pay full corporation tax, you don't


want to be transparent? On the other hand, there are 840 member


companies in Businesses in the Community, that are great examples


of doing business with people in the community, ex-offenders. That


far outweighs it. You would be against people not paying


corporation tax? Everybody has to pay society. They are giving awe


bad name? They have to pay their way. This idea that making money is


a bad thing, it is a good thing. The suggestion would be that you


can make your profit, but actually you pay a fair wage, you don't pay


massive bonuses and put people, as it were, in the lower orders, on


pay rises that don't even take care of inflation, that you act in a way


that is moral, and a lot of companies don't? You have got to


act in a trustworthy, moral, transparent way, that is seen as


being fair. Some people may get paid more thans or, that would be


seen as being fair. I pick -- others, that would be seen as fair?


I pick you up on that, the companies that want a sustainable


future know they have to treat all stakeholders with respect, their


buyers, their employers, we have to get that right. We don't report on


the news on companies that don't make their profit figures and don't


get numbers, we report the few that have done well. We miss the


thousands of companies, 10,000 companies are aligned to BITC,


doing great work today, 40 companies got their community


marked today, those 40 companies gave three quarters of a billion


pounds to charity in the last four years. It is those stories that are


really important. Let's talk about the differentials. Do you think, of


in itself, the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid is


an issue? Can I just before we move on to that point, go back to the


last point for a second. The point you were really trying to get at,


is it immoral in some way that companies aren't paying their fair


tax. I think what people look at is, if they are paying their taxes, why


aren't company seen to pay their's. And big high-profile companies, I


won't name them, but they are high- profile companies? It is right, if


a company is not seen to be paying its tax it should be held to


account, and there are many ways to do that. What we are saying is you


have to have a balance, if you blow it up and say those fewer companies


are systematic of what is happening in all business, then all business


gets cast with the same shadow. Let's see, do you think there are


predators and producers, do you think there are companies in this


country more predatory than producing? The terminology is not


helpful. Do I think there are really good companies that do a


fantastic amount for the community, and also very strong, growing


businesses that pay their taxes, which is good for the economy,


absolutely. Are there some that don't? I'm absolutely sure there


are, they have to be held to account as individuals. Not


taornishing the whole of business. I do -- taornishing the whole of


business. I think this is a danger for British business, when the


media holds up one or two examples and says that is business.


Hang on, these examples might be pretty stark examples. They might


be getting away with it, and tarnishing you. On the question of


differentials, lowest to highest paid, does the gap actually matter?


I think it does, particularly to the people that work for you, in


your company. They will look, I think, to see whoever is earning


the most, and whether they think 245 person deserves it. There is a


credibility - that person deserves it. There is a credibility issue.


What is your's, the gap? The gap times the average is 50. What is


the John Lewis partnership? constitution in the John Lewis


partnership, says the highest-paid executive can't earn more than 75


times the average partner. Do you think in terms of reputation for


business, if there was the John Lewis-style 75-times more, would


that be moral and responsible capitalism, do you think that is a


model, if we rolled this out through many of the big companies,


you would be seen to be more ethical, more upstanding? It is


good to have a guide as a guiding principle, but it comes back to


exactly that point. Would you be able to stand up in front of your


employees, your associates, and for them to know how much you earned


and to think it is fair. Trust is about doing the right thing and


doing the fair thing, in society and your own business as well.


think we would all see, if you want to survive in the long-term, and we


are a fourth generation family company, 115 years, you only last


that amount of time if you have the trust of all your stakeholders.


Your customers and society at large. Do you, in terms of I don't know


how your own salary is constituted, do you have a moral compass when it


comes to a percentage you are paid more than your lowest worker?


have a compass that says the people who own the company have to


determine what it is to pay all the executives. What is the difference?


I have no idea what the percentage is. Should you know? I don't think


that is the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is employees have


to decide, the owners of the company, and the people who do


business with us. If you are talking about restoring the


reputation of business, if you thought that was, I'm not saying


you have a bad reputation, if it was that the transparency issue,


that would be one way, presumably, in which you could change what


people think of the company, in some way? We would say, as a


company, that we will be, and are totally transparent in the way we


report. It is all available for employees, for all of our


shareholders and customers. other point on this, what we do at


Gregg s, 10% of all profits are shared with staff. There is


something about when your employees feel they are benefiting in the


success of the company. It is proportionate, but everyone is


sharing in the success. How many employees are on minimum wage in


the company? We are above minimum wage, and we work very hard to keep


bof it. If you take the last three or four years, we have made sure we


have a wage increase every year, this year it is 2.7 pay increase.


Let's move on and talk about the budget. Not so much from the


construction point of view, but retail, chocolate, pays trees, you


are seeing what your custom -- pass trees, you are seeing what


customers are buying every day? Consumer confidence is very low,


lower than the Government recognises at the moment. In terms


of the budget, anything that can be done to help the unemployed,


disposable income, getting people back into the work force, has to be


a good thing. In the budget what would you like to see, there is


talk of cutting NI, cutting taxes for various things, and


infrastructure, it would help Wates. What would you like to see?


things would help, from a business point of view, absolute clarity


from the Government in terms of corporation tax, and where we are


going with that, so we can plan very much in how we will continue


to invest as a business. The other one for me is actually


infrastructure, believe it or not. I think if we can get some of these


big schemes that create jobs, into the economy, then from a consumer


point of view, that puts more money back into people's pockets, which


actually means we have got more disposable income, which means


people will spend again. One of the suggestions today was for


deregulation, what people will see who are not in business about


deregulation that it is easier to get rid of people and sack them?


would like to see something that would make it easier for the work


force, but it has to be fair. I would not support employees' rights


being removed. We have to make sure it is fair, not just for businesses.


Anything else for George Osborne? Consistency and getting down the


national debt. We are spending too much on the state and we need to be


in good shape, that trumps everything else. The what about


cutting NI? There are a whole host of things in cutting tax, that is


the most important thing. The other thing you can do is look at,


different g the -- given the nation is short of funds, can we find


smarter ways of using private finance, there is tremendous


opportunities out there. One of the criticisms of businesses is your


hoarding too much cash and you are keeping too much as a rainy day?


can only Madam Speaker for us, we spent �21 million on two new


bakeries, and record capital expenditure opening more shops and


creating more jobs. Where I have seen, from my position as CBI


chairman in the north-east, I have seen some of the smaller private


companies, who are very cautious about the economy, who are not


hearing good mood music coming out, whether that's from Government or


from the media. There is all sorts of reasons why people will


potentially hoard cash. We have to find way of giving them the


confidence to invest now for the long-term. David Cameron said today


business is the most powerful tool for social change, is that your


job? It is the most exciting part of the job. The greatest source of


pride is what we can do with young people in schools, we have today.


Would you like to run a school? There is nothing more important for


this nation than to transform the opportunity for every child, so


they are able to have the best opportunities in life. So I think


that education, which is why we have, in business in the community,


a long-term partnership programme between 115 companies, and 150


schools, with the aim of moving that to 500 by 2014, because we can


raise aspirations. That is a bigger model, as a company would you like


to run a school? That is not what this is about. Some companies do


want to do that? We are talking about a mutual model, it is about a


force for change. What is in it for us, employees go out there, they


get great skills, they start to mentor, mentor other kids in


schools and programmes, they come back more rounded individuals. Also


what we find is we are building skills in the environment in which


we are employing from. I know business people they would be the


better people to run training academys, and turn round


aspirations for young children, for whom the standard model of schools


is not what they want, they want a more targeted thing? We want to run


great businesses and create jobs, we want to serve our stakeholders.


In Business In The Community, we are absolutely focused on getting


young people into work. How we are doing that, Paul runs a great


business class on getting people into work in school, we have


146,000 work placements we have apprenticeship and mentoring


schemes. We are concerned as a group to do all we can to get young


people working. I will talk about unemployment in a moment. The


Government has set enormous store on the work schemes to get that two


million unemployed down and get them into companies like we are


talking about tonight. The boss of one training company, A4e, under


police investigation, resigned today from the role of Government's


Families' Champion. I will ask today whether David Cameron failed


to do due diligence on Emma Harrison. First the twists and


turns on the work experience row. Great play is being made of the


welfare-to-work idea. But is the dizzying number of ideas,


programmes and schemes, really providing value, at best it is


swings and roundabouts, according to Sarah. She has had two spells


with the Government's favourite job seeking firm, A4e. She was sent to


be coached into finding work, instead they gave her a placement,


unpaid, training as their receptionist. To begin with, I


didn't mind, I needed the experience, I wanted to get into


reception/administration, and I had no previous experience, it was a


stepping stone for me. You did the 13 weeks, unpaid? That's right.


Then what happened? They decided to take me on as a full-time employee.


For Sarah, back then, five years ago, it seemed ideal. For A4e too,


it would have earned them more Government cash, first for getting


Sarah a placement, although with themselves, and then for getting


her a paid job, again at A4e. It is firms like A4e, that are supposed


to search out jobs in the woj programme, the Government's big


idea to use the private and voluntary sectors to cut


unemployment. The programme's 18 providers, running back to work


schemes, are only part of the picture. The first point of contact


is the Jobcentre, sending job seekers on other routes. Some are


put on mandatory work activity. We asked how many, the Department for


Work and Pensions hasn't replied. Meanwhile it is the unpaid, work


experience placements, that have caused the recent controversy. They


are arranged through the Jobcentre, and are initially voluntary. If


they stick it out for a week at Tescos and elsewhere, they have to


remain in place for up to two months, or risk losing benefits.


That has exposed big firms to accusations they are making money


for from people struggling to find work. It is really important people


volunteer to take up work experience placements, we know it


is an important way to get back into the work place. We think it is


equally important, that organisations, whether charity or


corporates, offer good quality work experience placements too. It seems


issues around the benefit rules are getting in the way, with companies


volunteering and wanting to put in those placements. We think the


Government should look at the benefit rules again. David Cameron


and the gang at Number Ten, that is the typically matey way A4e's boss,


Emma Harrison, refers to her friends in Government. Well, the


gang, may be interested to know, that Sarah, the A4e jobseeker who


became an A4e employee, has a second part to her story.


I tried to make the most of it, I mean I thought there was no use me


sitting around doing nothing, so I, it was put towards me whether I


could help out. You were helping advising other job seekers how to


find jobs? That's right. You were looking for a job yourself? I was,


yes. What assistance did you get this time? I didn't get any


assistance at all, I did everything myself, I didn't get any advice.


The last week of the 13th week I found a job. You did? That was all


off my own back, nobody helped me. But you were on their books,


though? I was, yes. A4e, like every private job seeking


firm would pick up another Government fee for that. Tonight,


Emma Harrison, the chairman, has resigned from her other Government


job, the called Families Champion, saying she didn't want the current


media environment to detract from very important work with troubled


families. I spoke to Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister earlier


today. Let's begin today with the resignation of Emma Harrison as the


Families' Champion, was due diligence done on Emma Harrison?


First of all, I can't really comment very much about what's


happening, there is obviously an on going police investigation. We put


out a very clear statement to the department yesterday, saying we had


reminded A4e of their contractual ob gauges to us. She has ob --


obligations to us, she has obviously taken the decision she


has taken today. Because of the on going police investigation it is


not right for me to say anything further. Historically since 2005,


there have been nine investigations into ra. 4E, five of which resulted


in the return of public money. Surely that is a huge failure of


judgment by David Cameron. issue when we address any concern


of what happens in a sub contractor to any Government department is any


organisation can have an individual localised problem, the issue always


for any department looking at these issues is whether the problem is


systemic. We have been very clear in the statement we made yesterday,


that we would, in the case of a systemic issue, we would not


hesitate to terminate our relationship with A4e, that is all


we can say now. One final point on this, when she was appointed as


families' champion, these investigations had been going on


before that. This is not something new, it was a failure of judgment?


Look, I think the detail of what's happened, we treat anybody,


organisation, individual, in this country, as innocent until proven


guilty. I think it is important to wait and see what happens at the


end of the police investigation before we form any judgments.


move on now, sticking with A4e, this is something new, and a


Newsnight investigation has discovered this today, that


somebody, who was an unemployed client of A4e, was subsequently


employed by A4e, did you know about that? There are very many examples


this the welfare-to-work industry of people who have been unemployed


who have gone on to become employment advisers. As long as it


is a proper, long-term position, that is a totally sensible thing to


do. If somebody has been unemployed, they have the personality and skill


and able to mentor other people unemployed, there is nothing at all


unreasonable about that. In establishing the work programme,


and you have to recognise that all these issues predate the work


programme and the current programme. They are programmes that existed


under the previous Government. What we have done is we have put


together a package that means the providers aren't paid until an


unemployed person has been in work for six months. There is no


question of somebody being able to put a short-term work placement in


their office, it couldn't happen under the programme. What you are


saying, basically, is if A4e, or any other provider, has an


unemployed person comes to them, takes them on, and that person


stays. After six months how much does the provider get? After six


months, typically, it is just over �1,000, so the sums don't add up.


To take someone on, even on the national minimum wage, you will pay


them many thoiss of pounds. I would not in any way want to prevent the


welfare-to-work industry from recruiting some previously


unemployed people to be meant tord by the currently unemployed. Surely


-- men tord by currently unemployed people. There are many who have


emerged from difficult times and ended up in roles providing


mentoring to those having a difficult time. The woj programme


makes it impossible for it to be a - the work programme makes it


impossible for someone to take on somebody for a six month period and


claim a payment after it. You have lots of schemes. Let's talk about


the work experience scheme specifically, specifically


unemployed people working for profit-making companies. Do they


have to take the placement? We have been very clear, the purpose of the


scheme is it is a voluntary scheme to provide young unemployed people


with an opportunity to get into the work place, and demonstrate to a


potential employer what they can offer, or gain experience they can


take to an interview elsewhere. think go to this profit-making


company -- if they go to this profit-making company, and leave


again, do they have their benefits taken away from them? The situation


is very straight forward. The scheme is voluntary, they will meet


the potential ploiper, if they are happy they will -- employer, if


they are happy they will start the placement. If the placement doesn't


work out they can leave in the first few days. If they leave at a


later date we will investigate the reason, if they leave without good


reason, rude to the employer or walked away, they could face a


sanction. That is the same sanction they might face up to for not


attending a job interview. within a wiek if they choose to


leave the scheme they will have benefit taken away from them, it is


not voluntary it is compulsory? is voluntary, they don't need to be


there in the first place. If you say if someone goes on a placement,


the company provides a mentor and uniform, and down the line they are


rude and walk out, are you saying there should be no consequence at


all for that person. There could be lolts of reasons they could -- lots


of reasons they could leave. If they leave after the first week and


face the sanction of their benefits being taken away, that equates to


compulsory? It is not automatic, we would only sanction somebody if


they left without good cause in circumstances of the kind I have


described. There has to be an issue here. We are putting a lot of


effort, and are employers, into giving young people a chance.


essentially cheap labour? Nonsense, if I thought any employer was using


it to replace staff, I would stop referring. I don't accept, in the


case of Tesco, taking someone and giving them four weeks work


experience, and the possibility of a job afterwards, is anything but


giving them a chance in life. When you have companies in manufacturing


and technology is anybody saying we shouldn't help young people to get


into the work place and show off what they can do, and go into work.


Half of the young people in the scheme are coming off benefits as a


result. Our four CEOs are still here.


Mark Price, Fiona Dawson, Ken McMeiken, and Paul Dreschler.


Are you comfortable with young people coming to you and leaving


after a week and having benefits taken away? I'm not comfortable


about that part of the scheme. We are giving unemployed youngsters a


real opportunity to get work experience, we are giving them


great training, mentoring, it enables us to give them a reference


if they don't come and work for us at the end of it. Half of the


people we have taken through on our scheme are now in employment, after


anything from a four to eight week placement. Let's stick with the


idea you are not comfortable with, if you are not comfortable with it,


are you able to do anything about it? I have asked for talks with


Government, there will be a meeting next week, along with other


business leaders, to talk about the issue. With Chris Grayling?


after a week or more, you decide as an individual, that it is not


working for you, and you leave the scheme, we don't believe at Greggs,


that the benefit should be taken away from them. Our view is if they


are volunteering for the scheme, and for whatever reason they come


off, they go back on to benefits. Are you in the minority in this,


are there a number of businesses going with it? I don't know how


many businesses are going with it. We have asked in response to our


concerns about this part of the scheme we have a meeting and talk


about it. Do you think it undermines the scheme, a number of


companies, as you well know have pulled out of it, and Tesco's, this


is a different point, Tesco's have said they are doing benefit plus


now, plus payment, would you alter your attitude to that and follow


the Tesco model, separate from people losing their benefits to


make it seem more morally reasonable. You have young people


working side-by-side with workers doing the same job but getting full


pay? There is a different point of it, they are coming into jobs that


we have created as additional to what we need to get job experience,


otherwise they wouldn't exist. We have created them to give them the


training, the experience, the mentoring, the coaching and the


support, then, hopefully, and nearly half of the people that we


have had through our scheme over the last eight months, are now


working for us or working for other companies. The other half that


aren't, we are actually able to give them a really good reference


to say they have actually spent time with us. I have asked the


people we have had through Greggs on the scheme, whether they should


thought we should continue doing the scheme or pull out.


Unequivocally they said stay in it. They said you need to see it for


them, this is a lifeline that gives them an opportunity to get a job.


They need a job. Would you be comfortable continuing with the


scheme if they do not remove this threat for take away benefit, it is


a very big threat -- taking away benefit, it is a very big threat?


would hope the response would be to continue with the scheme as it is


going. If more than a week after people come off, they would lose


benefits. You can see why a company like Tesco's has changed their


approach to this, they were targeted, but you are not involved


in the scheme, but as an employer would you be comfortable taking


people on benefits, and not paying something towards the employment?


It depends on the role, clearly with ourselves and Greggs, we have


a variety of different schemes. This is what we have to do with


building schemes in our work place and the communities involved. There


are many ways of doing it, work placement is one of them. A


mentoring scheme, we have over 50% of our employers who volunteer in


the local community. Most that have is skills based, which is terrific.


I think, you know, it is not about the fact that these people who come


and work in our business, are necessarily doing a full-time job,


they are jobs in addition to the jobs we would normally have. We


want to create a mind set of work, which is incred below important at


the same time. Construction is incredibly difficult at the moment,


would you support this scheme? the Prince's Trust we have given


3,000 young people the opportunity to experience the world of work,


build their confidence. Of those, this is a very short, two-week


programme, of those, 53% go into employment afterwards, and 20% go


into training afterwards. These are some of the one million young


people in this country not in education, employment or training,


these programmes can make a big difference. If they are undermined


because they are seen as unfair, predatory, and a substitute for


people who are actually in full- time employment, then actually it


is a displaysment activity and will be completely undermined? Sorry,


there is a small minority of people out there who don't like the scheme.


When you talk to young people on the scheme they like it, they want


us to continue offering it as employers.


Thank you very much. With the world's eyes on the


violence in Syria, the aftermath of the revolution has moved off the


crisis. But the highest-ranking officer in custody today, has


spoken to Newsnight today. Our diplomatic editor Mark Urban


visited his jail sell in Misrata. This was where the Gaddafi regime


made its last stand. It was to Sirte, the former leader's home


town, where he came last year, after the fall of the capital. And


where, as this last haven was besieged, his inner circle saw


their world crumble. TRANSLATION: For us as military personnel, for


me personal, the situation was terminal. However, we didn't know


what other people's feelings or views were. The situation was


precarious, none the less, there were no hospitals or doctors, nor


power, or medicine, or communication. We had returned to a


primitive life style. On the 20th of October, Gaddafi,


seeing the end was near, tried to flee with his last, most loyal men,


in a convoy of armed 4X4s. The dictator said they were heading to


the village he had been born. But spotting the vehicles from the air,


the Libyan revolution's foreign friends had other ideas.


TRANSLATION: NATO hit us twice, once while we were moving. But the


impact wasn't on the vehicle, it was on two cars behind us. Our car


stopped, the air bag deployed and the engine seized. We had to change


to another car, only Gaddafi suffered a small wound from the


glass shards, not anything else. All the vehicles grouped at a power


station and again we were targeted by NATO planes, and attacked


forcefully. Although we got out of the vehicles, the firing continued,


and people were shot, and suffered burns.


(scheming) With survivors of the convoy trying


to get away on foot, Gaddafi, and his son were captured.


General Dhao, bearded at this time, was taken alive, but wounded.


In jail today, he remains unrepentant in his loyalty to the


former leader, and is still urging people to follow his ideas.


TRANSLATION: Gaddafi was in power for 42 years, had he strong ideas,


and tremendous support. I don't think that will disappear overnight.


Gaddafi is dead, that's true, but his ideas as a philosopher, or as a


politician, will live on. These may carry on and be adopted by non-


Libyans and appear elsewhere outside Libya. All the philosophers


of the world had their ideas adopted after their death.


The general has now been in prison for four months. Like many others,


locked up by the revolution, he has been held in a legal limbo. Have


you seen a lawyer, do you know whether you will face a trial?


TRANSLATION: No. Do you know whether you will face charges, will


there be a trial, have they told you anything? TRANSLATION: No, no.


How do you see your future now? TRANSLATION: Let's try to look out


of the window. I can't foresee the future, I don't know what the mood


on the street is like. I have no idea or contact or visits from the


outside world. I can't tell you what the future will hold.


The general is accused by the revolution of involvement in many


of the crimes of the Gaddafi years. As our interview drew to a close,


the prison director challenged his detainee to provide more


information. TRANSLATION: I wish you would be


more co-operative. TRANSLATION: I swear to God that


any question you have asked me I have answered. You must have trust


in me, even if you have received contrary information, you must


trust me. TRANSLATION: This is an interview


and you are in custody, it is possible that you are afraid.


However, the questions are there for you to answer, whether now or


in the internal section. TRANSLATION: I answered you, I


swear to God I have no further about this evidence someone has


passed on. If I had any information, why wouldn't I tell you?


TRANSLATION: The reason I ask, is why keep this information from us?


There is some information that you haven't given us.


TRANSLATION: No, no, whatever I had, I gave. But sometimes you think I


have information that I don't have. Why would I want to keep


information from you? The director also accused his captive of


involvement in the Abu Saleemmassacre, the killing of 1200


prisoners in 1996. TRANSLATION: stated you were in an office with


the head of intelligence and you saw an explosion. TRANSLATION:


no, Ibrahim, you have got the documents. We left the one-time


head of the Libyan people's guard, in the hands of those who still


believe he can unlock many of the old regime's secrets. As an


As David Cameron brands business 'the most powerful force for social progress the world has ever known' and condemns anti-business 'snobbery', Newsnight assembles a panel of CEOs to ask if business is under unfair attack.

Presented by Kirsty Wark.

Download Subtitles