16/06/2013 Sunday Politics South West

carbon footprint of our meat industry. And the disabled woman

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2336 seconds

who's losing care just because she's on the Sunday Politics in the South

West. Measuring a cow's carbon hoofprint. Could meat farming

actually be good for the environment? And for the next twenty

minutes, I'm joined by Alison Seabeck, the Labour MP for Plymouth

Moor View, and Adrian Sanders, the Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay. Now,

both the Labour and the Liberal Democrats have criticised David

Cameron's plans to crack down on political lobbying. They fear the

Tories are using the row over lobbying to attack Labour's links to

the unions. But it's also become clear that companies are paying

money to all kinds of parliamentary groups. You both sit on several of

these groups. Take one, Alison, it is sponsored by a campaigning group,

a charity, the all-party BA group which serves a similar purpose is

served by brewers. It is very difficult. All-party groups often

have a useful purpose, I still serve on the water group. It gave me an

opportunity with the problems about water to really keep pushing the

issues we were facing in the south-west. That is funded by water

companies. It was a reverse lobbying going on. I think some people have

questioned whether it is right. People are rightly and comfortable.

It needs to be transparent. Most people did not know the water

companies funded the all-party water group. I am involved with defence

groups with the Armed Forces and NATO talking to us for good

reasons. But it is funded by defence manufacturers. They do not go to

lobby asks because the meeting is about the person has come to talk to

us about NATO but if anybody looking in was to pick up a newspaper, that

is paid for by the defence sector and it cannot be right. There is an

argument for change. It needs to be more transparent. We need to know

who they are, their contact with ministers, and I think the public

have a right to know who the MP is talking to. You sit on a couple of

health-related groups. I think they are supported by associated

charities but what is your view on the relationship? I think it works

very well. I chaired the diabetes group, the secretary at does not

receive money but it is run by diabetes UK. Of course they

represent patients and they bring along representatives of patients to

the meeting. But also the pharmaceutical companies come along

and send wraps. They do not have any participation in the meeting but

they are there and they get to hear what the problems are patients are

experiencing. There is no money. Alison is right. We need to be

transparent. The way to do that is to have a register of lobbyists and

that is something that was in the coalition programme for government

but is still waiting to be put into practice. It was put there by the

Liberal Democrats side. OK. Good plug, Adrienne! This week changes to

disability benefits came in, bringing tougher tests for

claimants. Charities are warning that half a million disabled people

will lose out under the new regime. A few days ago the Care Minister met

one disabled campaigner from Devon who's already lost a lot of her care

package simply because she's moved house. Jenny Kumah reports.

After years of communal living, Sarah decided she wanted to live

more independently. It took 13 years to find suitable accommodation to

meet her needs. But when she made the move from Exmouth to Paignton

there was an expected price to pay. 23.5 hours of carer support to help

with daily tasks in Exmouth and it went down to 16 and I also lost

respite in the move. Sarah was macro care was provided by Devon County

Council but now it comes from Torbay. One big impact has been

physiotherapy and swimming. The one sports activity I can do is forming

but afterwards I am really tired. Currently my level of support means

I cannot have a support worker to support me. So, that is impacting on

my health and my doctor is keen to take up swimming again but it can't

happen. These are hard times for local authorities, they have less

cash and rising demand for services. This year, Torbay Council is saving

�1.7 million from its adult social care budget. Sarah lived here for

more than two months before she was assessed for care needs. Devon

continued to fund her for 12 weeks after she moved out of the county.

In the 11th week Torbay assessed me and it was just after that I got

told my care would drop which was difficult. Torbay care trust would

not comment on this case but say it is important for the trust to

carefully and fairly allocate adult social care resources to those who

need it most. They haven't given a clear reason but in the assessment I

was told things like going out food shopping or cleaning and clothes

washing would be something I would have to pay out of my DLA care which

is fine in some ways but it is there to support with the additional costs

of disability not specifically paying for carers. The disability

living allowance is now being phased out. The government is replacing it

with personal independence payments. Ministers say this will

make better use of resources but charities think it will leave people

like Sarah worse off. Disabled people are worried at the moment

because it seems like they -- their support and income is being cut from

all sides was 600,000 disabled people are about to lose their

entitlement to disability benefits and on top of that those same people

are losing their social care support. This week, Sarah met the

care and support minister. Norman Lamb reassured her laws were coming

in to give people confidence care would continue if they move house.

She is still worried that the wider package of cuts could still leave

people like her without the help they need. Do you sympathise with

Sarah was to mark yes, I think the problem we currently have is people

with a range of disabilities are facing a series of different cuts to

services. What the government have failed to do is do a assessment on

how these different changes through the bedroom tax to DLA are

reflecting this significant group of people with disabilities. And the

Conservative minister recently refused to do that assessment. It is

difficult to know, if you do not understand the problem, what you do

about it. It is left and right-hand not knowing what it is doing.

issue of the problems with Sarah moving, this is nothing to do with

the coalition, this is the systems that have been in place since you

were in government. There has all been a degree of choice. And what

local councils can afford to support. We know they are all

cutting back. Should there be a national standard? It wasn't a pro

two for the Labour government. is a strong argument for looking at

that because of the multiplicity of changes that are affecting people.

We are seeking to look at and understand the nature of the problem

as a whole before we commit to changing the system again. Quite

frankly, there has been a lot of turmoil in the system. Sarah is your

constituent. Is Torbay right or wrong to be cutting care? This is

the problem. You have a Tory Devon Council assessing differently to a

Torbay Council. You also have a big structural care system in Devon, a

smaller one in Torbay. It is not always the case of the bigger one

does better and is more generous. In this case, those factors. You need

to have a bar and which cannot fall if you are to have different

assessments in different local authority areas a national

assessment. We do not have either. I think I would rather have a bar and

which cannot fall so an area can go way above the bar if it wants to but

the bar has to be high to begin with. I also think things might

improve the bit and the Social Care Bill occurs that will try to rectify

these things but the problem we have got is to get the kind of

Rolls-Royce social care system we want is going to cost more money

than we have. There will be difficult decisions and it is really

unfair that somebody is an area that perhaps is feeling the pinch more

than when they were in Devon and deciphering and it is compounded

further by other decisions like not all local areas are charging people

Council tax who qualified. This government is keen on postcode

lotteries and localism. Localism works if you have the funding to

offer the same level of services everywhere else. You might choose

not to. You still get one level of care in one local authority and

different in another. It would be fine if areas could choose but if

the public could be clear they can remove the people making the

decision at the ballot box which they cannot and a first past the

post voting system. Localism. party sat there repeatedly in

committee after committee saying localism is the answer, support the

local agenda and we said you will get a postcode lottery because we

were aware that in certain circumstances that was happening.

And it is postcode lottery writ large with no national control over

anything. The government are farming it out. Any system that is complex,

like a healthcare system, you need local decision-making to reflect

different demands and needs. The problem is the funding streams do

not recognise where those problems are more acute, that is why localism

does not work. You have to make sure you have the right funding streams

then localism can work. OK, we must move on. The commonly-heard argument

that eating meat is, costly, inefficient and downright bad for

the environment is back in the news. But the meat and farming lobby has

sharpened up its steak knife and struck back. A report, authored by a

Devon MP and farmer, claims rearing livestock could actually be good for

the planet. Johnny Rutherford reports.

A quarter of the countries capital reside in the South West but for how

much longer? Is the meat industry is under attack. Last week a report

said Britain should cut down on the meat they eat. A group of MPs said

meat should only be eaten as an occasional luxury rather than as

part of the everyday diet. A statement welcomed by animal aid.

What we need to do is rely more on a plant -based diet, it is better for

the environment, every study shows this. You can feed more people, you

get less environmental pollution. It is better for help and animals. It

gets rid of the slaughterhouse. That is why more and more young people

are thinking to the Guinness. Devon MP is leading the fight back

with a report calling for a robust scientific way to measure carbon

emissions from livestock. To give as a clear idea of the extent to which

the carbon stored in grassland balances the methane. What I would

say to the vegetarian and vegan fraternity is much of this grassland

we do not want to plough and the way we keep that managed is through

raising livestock. There was a great need to eat the meat from that

grassland so it is one and the same. And people choose to eat meat

and people choose to eat meat across the world. Now we are seeing China

and Vietnam and these countries getting richer and they are eating

more meat. The meat needs to come from somewhere. Cattle farmers said

the landscape is naturally ideal for grazing and not suitable for

anything else. If you were to change that land use into arable, you would

have to do plough it, which would release nitrogen and carbon, you

will also be looking to go down a high input farming system than is

presently on the land. That produces livestock and meat at the end of the

day. Farmers are beginning to work locally with scientists to happen

choose their carbon footprint. At these laboratories they are

developing a system for measuring carbon in livestock farming. We know

a lot about what goes on in the top 30 centimetres of the soil. What we

do not understand is what goes on in the subsoil down here. We know there

is potential down here, this is containing less carbon. From

experiments we know soils that have been degraded and lack Qabun have a

great potential to store more. Experiments are going on to develop

a grass with deeper roots to store more carbon. Some believe we would

still be better off without cattle. It is an inefficient way of

producing food and it's a global picture. Whatever the exact figures

and I agree we should get an exact picture as we can, the overall truth

is the human population has to rely far less on animal products if we

are either to survive in the next hundred years. Are you firmly on one

side or the other? It can be polarised. It is not a good way

forward. I eat meat. But I have the message that I ought to be eating

less red meat for health reasons there is nothing new about issue, 30

years ago I read about the forest being cleared in South America to

graze cattle to meet the demands of North America. As that package

shows, other countries are beginning to change their diets. The argument

is persuasive but we will see more and more people rejecting redmeat

and other meats as there is more information out there as to how food

is produced. That is why there is greater demands for animal welfare

to be improved all of the time. The next generation will probably have

less meat eaters than the last generation. There will be changes

over time. It is people who want a radical solution and overnight

everybody to change their diet, that ain't going to happen. British

farmers are leading the way in terms of their carbon footprint. In the

developed world they are at the cutting edge and they really do

understand the need to reduce the carbon footprint. But the chap in

the video is right, �2 of beef takes up the same amount as running a car

for three hours. It is not efficient. I cannot see a sudden

turn off, people stopping eating meat. And you accept the argument

about certain landscapes. You could not grow crops on them anyway.

farmers, we should be listening to them as well. They clearly have an

interest but they have expertise I do not have. It is challenging. We

do need to see the science and therefore the work, the all-party

group on beef, have produced and are intending to produce a report which

is worth looking at to inform the debate. One thing that strikes me is

you describe yourself as progressive MPs. Only rich people ate meat and

the hoi polloi ate vegetables. There is an argument that the meat is more

widely available and affordable now, that is progress in a way. Do

we want to go back to the past where aristocrats eat meat? Meat is not

particularly cheap. It is not progress if it damages the

environment. No doubt about that. It is right and proper that information

is there in order to make -- so people can make informed choices and

do that over a period of time. Over time, we will see less meat eaten in

the country but you then have the case, as we know, of meat production

increasing to meet the needs of other countries. The period of time

before the discussion has run out. Now our regular round-up of the

political week in sixty seconds. As new planning restrictions are

placed on wind farms, a call for solar panels to get the same

treatment. Many constituents in Cornwall are becoming increasingly

concerned that the green fields are becoming solar fields. She decisions

regarding solar fields is subject to the same planning laws as wind

turbines? Anger at the Cornish homes which can only be let to Londoners.

We have major problems in Cornwall in terms of housing people.

Criticism of the councils running anti-smoking campaigns while

investing money in tobacco companies. I strongly suspect all

political parties are guilty of it. But it is a matter for local

authorities. And 300 years on, called for the government to pardon

the witches of Bideford, the last English women to be hanged for

witchcraft. Alison, you agree with the criticism

of investing in tobacco companies. Yes, local authorities on the back

of the problems with the Icelandic banks, they ought to be looking at

whether they are investing and they should invest ethically. Adrian, do

you agree? It is a difficult situation, there should because

rotation with staff but we want the best return on the money being

invested. I have a feeling if you ask, they would agree, ethical

investment over tobacco company returns. Alison, this does not

affect your constituency but the debate about wind farms and solar

panels, what about the suggestion the government clamps down on wind

farm developments but solar panels are rampaging. It is getting

prescriptive, what next? We do need renewable energy sources. Wind farms

and solar... They do have a visible impact, I can see one from part of

my constituency. Or a nuclear power station. There are strict planning

controls. We want a nuclear power station at Torpoint? But logically

if the government is restricting wind farm development as it is,

shouldn't solar panels been bought in as well? I think there is

something about people, solar farm is and whether there is something

they can pay in compensation to the community in the way they are moving

on wind farms. Apart from that, no. And these homes in Cornwall only

being given to Londoners in XL. Well, it is an interesting story.

London councils, for other reasons are moving people out of London

because they cannot afford the rent. So, Annable Forsyte! We must leave