23/02/2012 Newsnight

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