:01:11. > :01:21.carbon footprint of our meat industry. And the disabled woman
:01:21. > :01:21.
:01:21. > :40:17.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2336 seconds
:40:17. > :40:21.who's losing care just because she's on the Sunday Politics in the South
:40:21. > :40:26.West. Measuring a cow's carbon hoofprint. Could meat farming
:40:26. > :40:29.actually be good for the environment? And for the next twenty
:40:29. > :40:34.minutes, I'm joined by Alison Seabeck, the Labour MP for Plymouth
:40:34. > :40:36.Moor View, and Adrian Sanders, the Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay. Now,
:40:36. > :40:40.both the Labour and the Liberal Democrats have criticised David
:40:40. > :40:43.Cameron's plans to crack down on political lobbying. They fear the
:40:43. > :40:46.Tories are using the row over lobbying to attack Labour's links to
:40:46. > :40:56.the unions. But it's also become clear that companies are paying
:40:56. > :41:06.money to all kinds of parliamentary groups. You both sit on several of
:41:06. > :41:13.these groups. Take one, Alison, it is sponsored by a campaigning group,
:41:13. > :41:19.a charity, the all-party BA group which serves a similar purpose is
:41:19. > :41:25.served by brewers. It is very difficult. All-party groups often
:41:25. > :41:30.have a useful purpose, I still serve on the water group. It gave me an
:41:30. > :41:34.opportunity with the problems about water to really keep pushing the
:41:34. > :41:42.issues we were facing in the south-west. That is funded by water
:41:42. > :41:47.companies. It was a reverse lobbying going on. I think some people have
:41:47. > :41:52.questioned whether it is right. People are rightly and comfortable.
:41:52. > :41:57.It needs to be transparent. Most people did not know the water
:41:57. > :42:00.companies funded the all-party water group. I am involved with defence
:42:00. > :42:06.groups with the Armed Forces and NATO talking to us for good
:42:06. > :42:14.reasons. But it is funded by defence manufacturers. They do not go to
:42:14. > :42:20.lobby asks because the meeting is about the person has come to talk to
:42:20. > :42:25.us about NATO but if anybody looking in was to pick up a newspaper, that
:42:25. > :42:30.is paid for by the defence sector and it cannot be right. There is an
:42:30. > :42:35.argument for change. It needs to be more transparent. We need to know
:42:35. > :42:42.who they are, their contact with ministers, and I think the public
:42:42. > :42:48.have a right to know who the MP is talking to. You sit on a couple of
:42:48. > :42:54.health-related groups. I think they are supported by associated
:42:54. > :42:59.charities but what is your view on the relationship? I think it works
:42:59. > :43:05.very well. I chaired the diabetes group, the secretary at does not
:43:05. > :43:12.receive money but it is run by diabetes UK. Of course they
:43:12. > :43:15.represent patients and they bring along representatives of patients to
:43:15. > :43:21.the meeting. But also the pharmaceutical companies come along
:43:21. > :43:25.and send wraps. They do not have any participation in the meeting but
:43:25. > :43:34.they are there and they get to hear what the problems are patients are
:43:34. > :43:38.experiencing. There is no money. Alison is right. We need to be
:43:38. > :43:43.transparent. The way to do that is to have a register of lobbyists and
:43:43. > :43:50.that is something that was in the coalition programme for government
:43:50. > :43:56.but is still waiting to be put into practice. It was put there by the
:43:56. > :43:58.Liberal Democrats side. OK. Good plug, Adrienne! This week changes to
:43:58. > :44:00.disability benefits came in, bringing tougher tests for
:44:00. > :44:04.claimants. Charities are warning that half a million disabled people
:44:04. > :44:07.will lose out under the new regime. A few days ago the Care Minister met
:44:07. > :44:13.one disabled campaigner from Devon who's already lost a lot of her care
:44:13. > :44:20.package simply because she's moved house. Jenny Kumah reports.
:44:20. > :44:24.After years of communal living, Sarah decided she wanted to live
:44:24. > :44:29.more independently. It took 13 years to find suitable accommodation to
:44:29. > :44:37.meet her needs. But when she made the move from Exmouth to Paignton
:44:37. > :44:41.there was an expected price to pay. 23.5 hours of carer support to help
:44:41. > :44:48.with daily tasks in Exmouth and it went down to 16 and I also lost
:44:48. > :44:53.respite in the move. Sarah was macro care was provided by Devon County
:44:53. > :44:58.Council but now it comes from Torbay. One big impact has been
:44:58. > :45:02.physiotherapy and swimming. The one sports activity I can do is forming
:45:02. > :45:10.but afterwards I am really tired. Currently my level of support means
:45:10. > :45:13.I cannot have a support worker to support me. So, that is impacting on
:45:13. > :45:19.my health and my doctor is keen to take up swimming again but it can't
:45:19. > :45:26.happen. These are hard times for local authorities, they have less
:45:26. > :45:32.cash and rising demand for services. This year, Torbay Council is saving
:45:32. > :45:36.�1.7 million from its adult social care budget. Sarah lived here for
:45:36. > :45:41.more than two months before she was assessed for care needs. Devon
:45:41. > :45:47.continued to fund her for 12 weeks after she moved out of the county.
:45:47. > :45:55.In the 11th week Torbay assessed me and it was just after that I got
:45:55. > :45:59.told my care would drop which was difficult. Torbay care trust would
:45:59. > :46:03.not comment on this case but say it is important for the trust to
:46:03. > :46:10.carefully and fairly allocate adult social care resources to those who
:46:10. > :46:14.need it most. They haven't given a clear reason but in the assessment I
:46:14. > :46:20.was told things like going out food shopping or cleaning and clothes
:46:20. > :46:24.washing would be something I would have to pay out of my DLA care which
:46:24. > :46:31.is fine in some ways but it is there to support with the additional costs
:46:31. > :46:36.of disability not specifically paying for carers. The disability
:46:36. > :46:38.living allowance is now being phased out. The government is replacing it
:46:39. > :46:43.with personal independence payments. Ministers say this will
:46:43. > :46:47.make better use of resources but charities think it will leave people
:46:47. > :46:52.like Sarah worse off. Disabled people are worried at the moment
:46:52. > :46:58.because it seems like they -- their support and income is being cut from
:46:58. > :47:01.all sides was 600,000 disabled people are about to lose their
:47:01. > :47:06.entitlement to disability benefits and on top of that those same people
:47:06. > :47:11.are losing their social care support. This week, Sarah met the
:47:11. > :47:15.care and support minister. Norman Lamb reassured her laws were coming
:47:15. > :47:20.in to give people confidence care would continue if they move house.
:47:20. > :47:26.She is still worried that the wider package of cuts could still leave
:47:26. > :47:32.people like her without the help they need. Do you sympathise with
:47:32. > :47:36.Sarah was to mark yes, I think the problem we currently have is people
:47:36. > :47:46.with a range of disabilities are facing a series of different cuts to
:47:46. > :47:48.
:47:48. > :47:52.services. What the government have failed to do is do a assessment on
:47:52. > :47:58.how these different changes through the bedroom tax to DLA are
:47:58. > :48:03.reflecting this significant group of people with disabilities. And the
:48:03. > :48:09.Conservative minister recently refused to do that assessment. It is
:48:09. > :48:17.difficult to know, if you do not understand the problem, what you do
:48:17. > :48:22.about it. It is left and right-hand not knowing what it is doing.
:48:22. > :48:26.issue of the problems with Sarah moving, this is nothing to do with
:48:26. > :48:32.the coalition, this is the systems that have been in place since you
:48:32. > :48:35.were in government. There has all been a degree of choice. And what
:48:35. > :48:44.local councils can afford to support. We know they are all
:48:44. > :48:49.cutting back. Should there be a national standard? It wasn't a pro
:48:49. > :48:54.two for the Labour government. is a strong argument for looking at
:48:54. > :48:59.that because of the multiplicity of changes that are affecting people.
:48:59. > :49:03.We are seeking to look at and understand the nature of the problem
:49:03. > :49:12.as a whole before we commit to changing the system again. Quite
:49:12. > :49:17.frankly, there has been a lot of turmoil in the system. Sarah is your
:49:17. > :49:24.constituent. Is Torbay right or wrong to be cutting care? This is
:49:24. > :49:31.the problem. You have a Tory Devon Council assessing differently to a
:49:31. > :49:36.Torbay Council. You also have a big structural care system in Devon, a
:49:36. > :49:41.smaller one in Torbay. It is not always the case of the bigger one
:49:41. > :49:46.does better and is more generous. In this case, those factors. You need
:49:46. > :49:51.to have a bar and which cannot fall if you are to have different
:49:51. > :49:56.assessments in different local authority areas a national
:49:56. > :50:01.assessment. We do not have either. I think I would rather have a bar and
:50:01. > :50:05.which cannot fall so an area can go way above the bar if it wants to but
:50:05. > :50:10.the bar has to be high to begin with. I also think things might
:50:10. > :50:14.improve the bit and the Social Care Bill occurs that will try to rectify
:50:14. > :50:19.these things but the problem we have got is to get the kind of
:50:19. > :50:24.Rolls-Royce social care system we want is going to cost more money
:50:24. > :50:28.than we have. There will be difficult decisions and it is really
:50:28. > :50:34.unfair that somebody is an area that perhaps is feeling the pinch more
:50:34. > :50:41.than when they were in Devon and deciphering and it is compounded
:50:41. > :50:47.further by other decisions like not all local areas are charging people
:50:47. > :50:54.Council tax who qualified. This government is keen on postcode
:50:54. > :51:00.lotteries and localism. Localism works if you have the funding to
:51:00. > :51:05.offer the same level of services everywhere else. You might choose
:51:05. > :51:12.not to. You still get one level of care in one local authority and
:51:12. > :51:17.different in another. It would be fine if areas could choose but if
:51:17. > :51:20.the public could be clear they can remove the people making the
:51:20. > :51:29.decision at the ballot box which they cannot and a first past the
:51:29. > :51:32.post voting system. Localism. party sat there repeatedly in
:51:32. > :51:35.committee after committee saying localism is the answer, support the
:51:35. > :51:40.local agenda and we said you will get a postcode lottery because we
:51:40. > :51:46.were aware that in certain circumstances that was happening.
:51:46. > :51:53.And it is postcode lottery writ large with no national control over
:51:53. > :51:57.anything. The government are farming it out. Any system that is complex,
:51:57. > :52:02.like a healthcare system, you need local decision-making to reflect
:52:02. > :52:06.different demands and needs. The problem is the funding streams do
:52:06. > :52:11.not recognise where those problems are more acute, that is why localism
:52:11. > :52:14.does not work. You have to make sure you have the right funding streams
:52:14. > :52:17.then localism can work. OK, we must move on. The commonly-heard argument
:52:17. > :52:21.that eating meat is, costly, inefficient and downright bad for
:52:21. > :52:24.the environment is back in the news. But the meat and farming lobby has
:52:24. > :52:27.sharpened up its steak knife and struck back. A report, authored by a
:52:27. > :52:34.Devon MP and farmer, claims rearing livestock could actually be good for
:52:34. > :52:40.the planet. Johnny Rutherford reports.
:52:40. > :52:45.A quarter of the countries capital reside in the South West but for how
:52:45. > :52:52.much longer? Is the meat industry is under attack. Last week a report
:52:52. > :52:56.said Britain should cut down on the meat they eat. A group of MPs said
:52:56. > :53:01.meat should only be eaten as an occasional luxury rather than as
:53:01. > :53:06.part of the everyday diet. A statement welcomed by animal aid.
:53:06. > :53:09.What we need to do is rely more on a plant -based diet, it is better for
:53:09. > :53:15.the environment, every study shows this. You can feed more people, you
:53:15. > :53:20.get less environmental pollution. It is better for help and animals. It
:53:20. > :53:25.gets rid of the slaughterhouse. That is why more and more young people
:53:25. > :53:29.are thinking to the Guinness. Devon MP is leading the fight back
:53:29. > :53:33.with a report calling for a robust scientific way to measure carbon
:53:33. > :53:40.emissions from livestock. To give as a clear idea of the extent to which
:53:40. > :53:44.the carbon stored in grassland balances the methane. What I would
:53:44. > :53:50.say to the vegetarian and vegan fraternity is much of this grassland
:53:50. > :53:56.we do not want to plough and the way we keep that managed is through
:53:56. > :54:00.raising livestock. There was a great need to eat the meat from that
:54:00. > :54:04.grassland so it is one and the same. And people choose to eat meat
:54:04. > :54:08.and people choose to eat meat across the world. Now we are seeing China
:54:08. > :54:14.and Vietnam and these countries getting richer and they are eating
:54:14. > :54:17.more meat. The meat needs to come from somewhere. Cattle farmers said
:54:17. > :54:21.the landscape is naturally ideal for grazing and not suitable for
:54:21. > :54:29.anything else. If you were to change that land use into arable, you would
:54:29. > :54:37.have to do plough it, which would release nitrogen and carbon, you
:54:37. > :54:44.will also be looking to go down a high input farming system than is
:54:44. > :54:47.presently on the land. That produces livestock and meat at the end of the
:54:47. > :54:53.day. Farmers are beginning to work locally with scientists to happen
:54:53. > :54:59.choose their carbon footprint. At these laboratories they are
:54:59. > :55:04.developing a system for measuring carbon in livestock farming. We know
:55:05. > :55:08.a lot about what goes on in the top 30 centimetres of the soil. What we
:55:08. > :55:16.do not understand is what goes on in the subsoil down here. We know there
:55:16. > :55:22.is potential down here, this is containing less carbon. From
:55:22. > :55:26.experiments we know soils that have been degraded and lack Qabun have a
:55:26. > :55:33.great potential to store more. Experiments are going on to develop
:55:33. > :55:38.a grass with deeper roots to store more carbon. Some believe we would
:55:38. > :55:42.still be better off without cattle. It is an inefficient way of
:55:42. > :55:47.producing food and it's a global picture. Whatever the exact figures
:55:47. > :55:51.and I agree we should get an exact picture as we can, the overall truth
:55:51. > :55:59.is the human population has to rely far less on animal products if we
:55:59. > :56:07.are either to survive in the next hundred years. Are you firmly on one
:56:07. > :56:12.side or the other? It can be polarised. It is not a good way
:56:12. > :56:16.forward. I eat meat. But I have the message that I ought to be eating
:56:16. > :56:22.less red meat for health reasons there is nothing new about issue, 30
:56:22. > :56:27.years ago I read about the forest being cleared in South America to
:56:27. > :56:37.graze cattle to meet the demands of North America. As that package
:56:37. > :56:37.
:56:37. > :56:43.shows, other countries are beginning to change their diets. The argument
:56:43. > :56:49.is persuasive but we will see more and more people rejecting redmeat
:56:49. > :56:54.and other meats as there is more information out there as to how food
:56:54. > :56:58.is produced. That is why there is greater demands for animal welfare
:56:58. > :57:02.to be improved all of the time. The next generation will probably have
:57:02. > :57:07.less meat eaters than the last generation. There will be changes
:57:07. > :57:12.over time. It is people who want a radical solution and overnight
:57:12. > :57:20.everybody to change their diet, that ain't going to happen. British
:57:20. > :57:24.farmers are leading the way in terms of their carbon footprint. In the
:57:24. > :57:28.developed world they are at the cutting edge and they really do
:57:28. > :57:38.understand the need to reduce the carbon footprint. But the chap in
:57:38. > :57:43.the video is right, �2 of beef takes up the same amount as running a car
:57:43. > :57:48.for three hours. It is not efficient. I cannot see a sudden
:57:48. > :57:54.turn off, people stopping eating meat. And you accept the argument
:57:54. > :58:00.about certain landscapes. You could not grow crops on them anyway.
:58:00. > :58:06.farmers, we should be listening to them as well. They clearly have an
:58:06. > :58:10.interest but they have expertise I do not have. It is challenging. We
:58:10. > :58:20.do need to see the science and therefore the work, the all-party
:58:20. > :58:21.
:58:21. > :58:27.group on beef, have produced and are intending to produce a report which
:58:27. > :58:33.is worth looking at to inform the debate. One thing that strikes me is
:58:33. > :58:39.you describe yourself as progressive MPs. Only rich people ate meat and
:58:39. > :58:44.the hoi polloi ate vegetables. There is an argument that the meat is more
:58:44. > :58:53.widely available and affordable now, that is progress in a way. Do
:58:53. > :59:00.we want to go back to the past where aristocrats eat meat? Meat is not
:59:00. > :59:04.particularly cheap. It is not progress if it damages the
:59:04. > :59:11.environment. No doubt about that. It is right and proper that information
:59:11. > :59:16.is there in order to make -- so people can make informed choices and
:59:16. > :59:23.do that over a period of time. Over time, we will see less meat eaten in
:59:23. > :59:27.the country but you then have the case, as we know, of meat production
:59:27. > :59:30.increasing to meet the needs of other countries. The period of time
:59:30. > :59:40.before the discussion has run out. Now our regular round-up of the
:59:40. > :59:40.
:59:40. > :59:44.political week in sixty seconds. As new planning restrictions are
:59:44. > :59:50.placed on wind farms, a call for solar panels to get the same
:59:50. > :59:54.treatment. Many constituents in Cornwall are becoming increasingly
:59:54. > :59:59.concerned that the green fields are becoming solar fields. She decisions
:59:59. > :00:07.regarding solar fields is subject to the same planning laws as wind
:00:07. > :00:14.turbines? Anger at the Cornish homes which can only be let to Londoners.
:00:14. > :00:19.We have major problems in Cornwall in terms of housing people.
:00:19. > :00:23.Criticism of the councils running anti-smoking campaigns while
:00:24. > :00:27.investing money in tobacco companies. I strongly suspect all
:00:27. > :00:32.political parties are guilty of it. But it is a matter for local
:00:32. > :00:37.authorities. And 300 years on, called for the government to pardon
:00:37. > :00:47.the witches of Bideford, the last English women to be hanged for
:00:47. > :00:48.
:00:48. > :00:52.witchcraft. Alison, you agree with the criticism
:00:52. > :00:57.of investing in tobacco companies. Yes, local authorities on the back
:00:57. > :01:02.of the problems with the Icelandic banks, they ought to be looking at
:01:03. > :01:07.whether they are investing and they should invest ethically. Adrian, do
:01:07. > :01:12.you agree? It is a difficult situation, there should because
:01:12. > :01:16.rotation with staff but we want the best return on the money being
:01:16. > :01:22.invested. I have a feeling if you ask, they would agree, ethical
:01:22. > :01:26.investment over tobacco company returns. Alison, this does not
:01:26. > :01:31.affect your constituency but the debate about wind farms and solar
:01:31. > :01:37.panels, what about the suggestion the government clamps down on wind
:01:37. > :01:44.farm developments but solar panels are rampaging. It is getting
:01:44. > :01:51.prescriptive, what next? We do need renewable energy sources. Wind farms
:01:51. > :02:00.and solar... They do have a visible impact, I can see one from part of
:02:00. > :02:09.my constituency. Or a nuclear power station. There are strict planning
:02:09. > :02:12.controls. We want a nuclear power station at Torpoint? But logically
:02:12. > :02:17.if the government is restricting wind farm development as it is,
:02:17. > :02:23.shouldn't solar panels been bought in as well? I think there is
:02:23. > :02:27.something about people, solar farm is and whether there is something
:02:27. > :02:32.they can pay in compensation to the community in the way they are moving
:02:32. > :02:39.on wind farms. Apart from that, no. And these homes in Cornwall only
:02:39. > :02:45.being given to Londoners in XL. Well, it is an interesting story.
:02:45. > :02:54.London councils, for other reasons are moving people out of London
:02:54. > :03:02.because they cannot afford the rent. So, Annable Forsyte! We must leave