24/02/2012 Newsnight

More trouble for the government's Welfare to Work plans tonight. The

head of a company with millions of pounds worth of government

contracts steps down from her job after allegations of fraud.

Meanwhile, corporate Britain gets cold feet. Can a handful of

activists and a Twitter feed make the government change a key policy

on work experience? The minister calls the campaigners

a front for the Socialist Workers Party. Has the internet picked up

where the trade union movement left off? The place protest can be heard

the loudest. We'll see the activists go head-to-head with the

Conservatives in the studio. Also: The Syrian opposition lobby to buy

weapons from abroad. Should they be allowed to? We speak to the foreign

office from Tunisia. How to get tough on crime when there's no

money? You lock people up in their own houses.

Tonight, a policy in trouble. In a moment we will examine why major

high street companies appear to be wobbling over a government work

experience scheme for the unemployed but first, the Prime

Minister's former family champion, Emma Harrison, has stepped down as

chair of the Welfare to Work firm which is at the centre of a police

fraud investigation. The company has billions of pounds of

government contracts. Our political editor is here. Tell us more about

this company? The Emma Harrison it was very popular. She was seen to

be an inspirational figure, quite different from the faceless people

who would help people into work. If you hear interviews with her, she

would talk about helping people turn around their lives and

persuaded the Prime Minister that she was worth it, and her company

was worth putting large amounts of government money into. She built

the company up over 25 years. She was a persuasive character but this

evening she has stood down. The Daily Mail had been pushing on

allegations of fraud within her company. Tomorrow they were going

to run a story, they have a headline saying, now she is out of

work. The story that will be in tomorrow's Cooper that she clearly

felt was a story too far, that her employees were encouraging people

to help with the numbers of getting people into work by giving them

champagne and forging signatures. That it is a problem for the

government because she is in receipt of such a large amount of

government money. It started recently when she was found to have

given herself large dividends and this is government money so that

was the beginning. The allegations are unproven and the investigation

is ongoing but give us a sense of the reaction tonight politically to

her quitting her job? Liam Byrne has said she has done the right

thing. We have had calls throughout the day. Chris Grayling said they

would not have that it that there was evidence of wrongdoing will

stop she felt she was no longer getting the support she once

enjoyed. You have other politicians calling for the Serious Fraud

Office to be involved so I suppose she is wanting to go away and clear

her name and come back for work. Today as pressure continued to grow

on British retailers to rethink their involvement in the

Government's work experience scheme, the employment minister Chris

Grayling said the campaign was one cooked up by Socialist Workers. The

activists call the programme, which sees people working without

receiving payment from the employers, slave labour. The

government insists there is no mandatory element and says the

majority of British people support it. So why has the business world

been so cowed by this? Could it really be down to a vocal campaign

and a lot of Twitter? The politically then took wreckers

were out in force today, all eight of them, voicing his Gawain at

these offices, the most controversial of the private

companies contracted by the government to help the unemployed.

The protesters laugh at the Minister's claim that they are some

sort of this column, they simply reveal big companies getting people

to work for nothing and they say it has all happened so quickly though

stop in response to Tesco's involvement, we intervene to and

supported a protest outside the Westminster Tesco. You have had a

success? Yes. The support has been massive for the campaign. Chris

Grayling says the Socialist Workers Party are behind all this?

disagree, I am not a member of that party and I am not involved in it.

It is broader than just a small group of radicals, it would have to

be to tackle big companies like Tesco. He claimed people were

organising a online but what is really happening on line seems more

finely balanced. In the last 24 hours, they have been over 211

interactions on a Twitter. They reveal a three-way split between

those in favour of government policy, those against, and at those

deemed neutral. This man is an activist in the modern day in.

Inside Westminster, he is a researcher for a Labour MP. Outside,

he is engaged in various extra parliamentary campaigns, from Save

the educational maintenance allowance, to others. Chris

Grayling would say that you are one of the extremists? Chris Grayling

honestly believes that a multinational organisation like

Tesco is scared of the SNP. The SWP don't really exist if we're honest.

A lot of these people are our young people who are idle and using the

skills they have, which is on-line media schools. The Labour Party are

in a difficult position over this because they came up with these

schemes? My personal views on that, as a member of the late departure,

you should always be someone who in your core belief, that you believe

in a fair day's wage for a fair day's labour. You don't need to be

a member of the Socialist Party are one of Chris Grayling's grips to

know that a single issue at the right time can have a huge impact.

In the case of a Welfare to Work, the Little Lever has been well and

truly build on the big corporations have taken fright. Last week this

Tesco's branch opposite Parliament was the scene for a protest against

welfare to work. Since then, the clouds have been gathering. A

Conservative think-tank produced a report claiming overwhelming

support for work fair a year ago with 80% wanting unemployed to work

before getting benefits. 50% felt benefit rates were too high. How

does the same think tank believe such a study would turn out amid

the current right? What the public do want to see very clearly is an

element of something for something in welfare reform. That is what

this is, in his claimants doing something for getting the benefits.

Let's put this into context, this is not a free ride for the firms,

they are providing experience and training at getting people into

work who have had very little experience. But they are pulling

out now? I think it is a shame. Welfare to work is listing badly.

Protesters have blown a hole in one of the government's biggest big

ideas. Joining me now is Conservative MP

and member of the work and pensions select committee, Brandan Lewis,

the National Co-ordinator for Youth Fight for Jobs and Education, Paul

Callanan and managing director of Wolff Olins, a brand consultancy

company who have fought for some of the biggest supermarkets in Britain,

Ije Nwokorie. I'm wondering how be got to this

point where you have major British businesses really wobbling about

their involvement in a government scheme that they had signed up to?

That is a real shame as companies that there have a commercial due to

take to look at what their reputation will be and what this

will mean for them. That is why they wanted talk to the government.

We've just got to make sure that we don't lose are really good scheme

because of a pressure group with a particular itinerary, doing

something that could damage the best interest of the people they

represent. You call it a pressure group but it has hit the spot,

there must be something there if they are pulling back? Tesco's are

still part of the scheme and other companies want to reassure

themselves and I can see why they would want to do that but we have

to make sure we keep this scheme going because it is getting young

people an opportunity to get work experience and jobs and that is

what we desperately need. You saw some of the survey results, you are

not representative of most people in this company who think you

should get something and give something? You are doing something

for nothing with these schemes and I would disagree, the vast majority

don't want to see their kids going out to work for their dole money,

they want to see their kids get a decent wage and decent conditions.

Or stay at home and just get the benefits and not do anything?

Nobody wants to see that but at the same time, nobody wants to see

their kids sold off into slave labour and the reason these kids

are wobbling is that they know what it'll do for their reputation,

ticking on the unemployed and not paying for it, it is incredibly

damaging for these companies and rightly so. Are they right to be

having second thoughts, I find that odd that you get all these

companies could reasonably thought about the reputation and talk to

the government, suddenly saying, what are we doing? I don't think it

is odd at all. In this climate with people worried about where their

next pay cheque is coming from, anything that comes from work, the

big gap is they seem to have gone into this without thinking about

the purpose for it beyond profit. They don't seem to have a quick

story about why we are in this in the first place. I think there is

what these organisations need to get here about. It is not the big

business about the merits of the programme, it is about, why are we

doing this? Is that the government's problem? You spoke

about the pressure of the social media, there were 211 treats on

offer to work, that is nothing? got to be careful about how we read

that because that is messages that had the hash out on them. There are

probably more on this. What would you concede that this could be

taken out of proportion, that actually people are not as angry as

may be the Socialist media thinks? The reaction I have had is very

much they do think this is a good scheme. This is giving a young

people the chance for work experience. The only that his

people who are rich and have contacts. This is the government

the ring that gap for people who knew that opportunity. They need

support, they need real opportunities, they don't need to

be sent to work for their dole payment. It is meagre enough as it

is. These companies are still making millions or billions of

pounds of profit, there is no reason that you couldn't give these

people the experience at the same time as taking home a decent wage

for a decent day's work. The motive is simply about profit, these

companies want to increase their profit. They have no interest in

the futures of these young people are giving them opportunities and

the fact is, this is a niggardly about profit. The facts prove this

is wrong, we got to get away from this, we need businesses to do well.

It is not just about retail, there are technology companies in this

game. If people want to get into this, it is a voluntary scheme will

stop what about providing jobs at the end of this? That is not

necessarily going to happen and also the threat hangs over your

head if you want to drop out of one of these schemes, you benefits are

cut. As for gaining experience in these companies, it is shelf

The work-experience scheme is voluntary in the first place.

People can turn out -- pull-out if it is not for them after the first

few days. They have to make a commitment after the first week but

so did the companies. It is 25 or 30 hours a week for just a few

weeks, giving somebody something on their CV. But the point is that you

do not need to put stacking shelves on a CV, you do not get work

experience from that. I would disagree. It is interpersonal

skills, the habit of being at work and getting that valuable

experience. The results, 50% getting to work at the end of it,

they are proving that is right. Would you tell companies not to

touch the is sore would you say, get on with it? I would probably

say something in between. Think carefully about why you were doing

this and get it clear. Make sure it is not just about profit, but you

have a purpose tied in to watch your organisation is about. We need

more skills in the work force and there are areas that companies can

get clear about. But they have not done that. If you want to provide

cover -- young people with skills, the Government could on role a

programme of public works. We have millions of people in council

houses who cannot... They do not have the money for that. Why not

nationalise the banks and take the money back, use that money to

provide jobs? I will put the allegations of Chris Grayling to

you, from this morning, that you're a front for the Socialist Party.

am a member of the Socialist Party but this project is certainly not a

front. We are supported by seven unions. Putt -- funded by them?

are funded by trade unions that represent 2 million workers in this

country. So he is probably right? It is not a front. It is perfectly

democratic and above board. The reason is that socialists are

taking up this issue, because it is a symptom of a capitalist system

that is corrupt, rotten to the court and the reason no one can get

jobs is because the bank has collapsed and the private sector

has collapsed and the Government is making us pay for it. If you wore

your Socialist Worker tank more loudly... We do, we do. People were

carrying copies of our newspaper. There were eight people on a

protest. That is just the start. It is not just a case of us wanting to

replace traditional methods of trade unions and mass movements,

we're doing this to start a mass movement, to build a movement that

links up young people, working class people and trade unions. That

is ultimately the only thing that will answer the questions. The only

way we can provide jobs, act you have a lot of work to do here.

terms of what the Government wants to do, with this scheme, do you

think it can continue as it is, without more companies changing

their approach? I think it should carry on. Many businesses will

hopefully see that what they're doing is worth doing. We have to

support those businesses across different sectors and thank them

for doing this work to help young people get an opportunity and work

experience to fill their CV and get more experience. That is what we

want, because we have an inheritance of that youth

unemployment. We have to think outside the box. Thank you very

much. In Tunisia, more than 60 countries

have been stepping up economic pressure on the regime in Syria.

William Hague said he would recognise the Syrian National

Council as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people

but he ruled out arming the rebel Free Syrian Army. Tonight, Hillary

Clinton slammed Bashar al-Assad and the countries that have refused to

endorse the UN Security Council's condemnation. The regime refuses to

allow this life-saving aid to reach people in need. It will have even

more blood on its hands if it does this. So too will those nations

that continue to protect and arm the regime. We call on those states

that are supplying weapons to kill civilians to halt immediately.

short while ago, I spoke to the Foreign Office minister, Alastair

Burt, about the diplomatic effort going on there. This summit is all

about trying to find diplomatic solutions to the crisis. What is

the point of it without Russia? point of getting so many nations

together is to demonstrate the isolation of the Syrian regime, and

perhaps to demonstrate to Russia that they can refuse a resolution

at the United Nations Security Council, but by seeing so many

nations all our life together, telling the Syrian regime that they

have to stop the killing, and they have to back the Arab League

proposals which are on the table, much discussed today, the point is

to perhaps remind Russia that they are on the wrong side of history.

They could be drawn in. The weight of nations speaking today should

not be treated lightly. I put it to you that without China and Russia

present and willing to engage you can do nothing. I disagree. What

was being asked of nations today was that those countries that are

not involved in sanctions to date should become involved. The EU has

taken 11 rounds of sanctions, as it freezes, and travel bans, targeted

actions on individuals, and oil embargoes. We were proposing today

that this squeeze, the stranglehold on the Syrian economy, or on Syrian

diplomatic and economic means, if this is taken up more dramatically

it will put serious pressure on Syria. Russia and China do not need

to be part of that but other nations can do it and Russia and

China will see how far behind they are. President Assad has been

accused of crimes against humanity already. There is bloodshed going

on, something close to civil war in several parts of the country and

none of this is stopping him. then the pressure has got to

increase. To what? We were trying to, by getting more nations

involved and indicating where extra pressure can be put to none,

whether it is diplomatic or financial or economic, all of these

cumulatively will have a difference. A militarily? The United Kingdom is

not involved in that. There is an arms embargo on that will not be

Maybe help and support will be given to opposition in other ways.

Is it not time you allow the opposition that you recognise as a

legitimate representative of the country to have that embargo lifted

and import their own arms to defend themselves? There are many

different parts of the Syrian opposition. If you mean the

National Council, they did not have that discussion when they spoke to

the Secretary of State. Would you like to see that happen? The United

Kingdom is part of an arms embargo, but the frustrations expressed by

others were clear. It is not for the United Kingdom to dictate to

other countries what they may or may not to. If they wish to support

those who were trying to protect and defend themselves. That is the

point. What the United Kingdom can do very clearly is say to the

regime that is perpetrating this cycle of violence at him a stop.

But we know that Russia is already arming one side. At the moment

there is an imbalance because the other side cannot get the arms to

defend themselves. Is it not time that that was addressed? With

respect, that is easy to say but the overwhelming sense of the

conference was to introduce more arms into this situation, which

might make the situation worse. So many countries that we are speaking

to said that the Arab League has a plan. Let us get behind that plan,

let us put the pressure on Syria economically, diplomatically,

politically, in order to get them to turn aside from killing and

realise how isolated they are. The Arab League plan is the way to go

forward. The country has expressed frustration with what was happening

on the ground and the abhorrence of what was happening was the be clear.

The UK can understand that very well. -- was very clear.

It looks like virtual prison and sounds like it but you are not

allowed to college virtual prison. How do you lock up criminals when

you have no money to spend on incarceration? You keep them in the

raw homes with severe restrictions on the movement. That is David

Cameron's latest plan as his party encourages him to get tough on

crime. But how will the good clock -- good cop, bad cop duo, Ken

Clarke and Theresa May, make his work in practice? -- make this work.

A placing criminal-justice with 21st century community justice was

a mission that, in its early months, united the coalition and delighted

reluctant Liberals. Ken Clarke stood four-square with Nick Clegg

in pledging to bring down sentencing rates. Hence this joke

at last year's Spectator awards. we make a good double act in that

eye lock them up and you let them out. Very dry but not side-

splittingly funny for those in Number Ten. They were fearing the

public view community sentences as a walk in the park. Over the last

few months, the Minister of State for policy has worked with Ken

Clarke and Home Secretary Theresa May to put more punch into the

punishment. This morning, reports emerged of what sources said would

be a draconian new regime with offenders sentenced to a virtual

prisoner. Curfew for 16 hours a day, threatened with an immediate court

hearing if they left the house arrest, and judges allowed to

confiscate passports and driving licences. Cameron promoted this

strategy today when asked at a private meeting whether he feared

the party was losing its reputation for being hard on crime. He told

them that the toughening of community sentences would reassure

them. The pressure on the number of prison places is so high that at

the last election the Tories campaigned on a policy of prison

ships to deal with it. Recently, Ken Clarke wrote to Cabinet

colleagues urging them to proceed with care when going for a crime --

a crime of drug driving to match thatch of drink-driving. The

dilemma hanging over them is this, how do you reduce the number in

prison at the same time has been tough on crime? That we are seeing

a new push reflect the findings of a selection of opinion polls. Tory

donor Lord Ashcroft found in March of last year that four fifths of

the public and victims of crime saw community sentences as, in their

words, soft punishment. By last time we polled public opinion on

this, three-quarters of people thought that this Government was no

tougher on crime than the previous government. -- the last time. There

is a desire for the Government to be tougher on crime, particularly

since the riots last summer. People think that one of the reasons why

reoffending rates are so high is that the prison regime is too

lenient and the alternatives to prison, community sentences, are to

relax and are ineffective. Community sentences are not working

and the public knows it. One third are not completed and there are

250,000 recorded crimes committed by people on sentences in the

community. The coalition is right to be looking at reforming them but

the questionnaires, what is the best way? The evidence we have seen

shows that punishment has to be a keen -- a key element of the

sentence. It is important for public confidence but it needs to

be robust. The pay back to the community needs to be visible.

There are some that do not think the policy needed tinkering with.

You have a successful scheme running with proven results. 10%

better than a short prison sentence. What you need to do is capitalise

upon it and build on what is working well. Intensive supervision,

community payback, and attention to addictions, housing and mental

health needs, and learning difficulties. That would really

make it work better than it is now. The Lib Dem coalition partners

agree that community sentences need some tightening up. Although they

have their demands. What I want to see in the new community sentences

that are being proposed is that yes, they are properly monitored and

properly enforced unsupervised, but also that everything that needs to

be built around a package, in terms of insuring that that person does

not reoffend, if they have a drink problem, for instance, that that is

addressed. We need to have the hard work that is involved in the

community sentence but also the support that is needed to make sure

that person does not reoffend. sources tell me that actually the

eventual publication will reveal something slightly softer, but a

leak of a tough document now has helped the Tories to show what they

would have liked to have done, undiluted by coalition partners.

Passports will probably not be confiscated and if a subject needs

their driving licence, they should have it for their sentence. It is

likely that instead of one community punishment fit in all,

there will be a gradation of punishments depending on the

severity of crime. Whatever the reincarnation, some detect grand

designs. We have to fix community sentences to make a more robust and

tackle the breaches. We need to stop this exhalation -- escalation

of offending which leads to short- term prison sentences. You cannot

start from a position that they are an alternative to prison. They

proceed prison. That is the debate. Those at Number Ten -- there are

those at No. 10 who were happy with the policy because it makes current

punishment offer but Oliver Letwin has said to have a bigger ambitions

for the policy in the future. If the public can be made to trust

community sentencing as much as custodial sentencing then one day,

he thinks, it can replace prison. This worries the Tory right wing.

An idea supposed to toughen things up could then have softened them.

The new policy may not be as strong as reports suggest but it will

further blur the boundary between locking them up and letting them

out. Lock them out while letting them stay out.

A quick word from our thumb about the review tonight.

Tonight, we are embracing her glamourous side with a look at the

line-up for this year's Oscars. -- MA for. Joining me, Brian Cox, Mike

Miller and film critic Natalie Haynes.

Haynes. The front pages: The Financial

Times has George Osborne ruling out cuts to fuel duty, as its main

story. He says he is set for confrontation with motorists. The

Daily Telegraph as a warning from Lynne Featherstone, challenging the

role of the Church in a debate over gay weddings, saying that the

Church does not own marriage. A preview of the Oscars, with The

Artist. And the Times, devastation, despair and courage on Syria's

bloody front line, telling the story of the week undercover -- a

journalist's week undercover. And finally, I think he saw that

one earlier, the woman who has had to quit from A4e after allegations