:01:08. > :01:14.Discarded food that could bring their dropping prices in the south-
:01:14. > :01:24.east. Why bankers may benefit from tax decisions at the cost of poorer
:01:24. > :01:24.
:01:24. > :31:36.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1812 seconds
:31:36. > :31:40.Coming up in the next 20 minutes: the ugly foods that could slash
:31:40. > :31:44.supermarket prices. The supermarkets have these
:31:44. > :31:48.standards that go beyond what is required by law.
:31:48. > :31:52.Sue bankers be forced to pay tax on their bonuses -- should bankers.
:31:52. > :31:59.How job losses at a Kent business forced the Prime Minister into
:31:59. > :32:02.action. As rising food prices put a strain on the family budgets are
:32:02. > :32:07.supermarkets are doing all they can to keep prices down. Consumer
:32:07. > :32:11.groups say a lot of produce is wasted, and prices are higher
:32:11. > :32:20.because bigger retailers will not buy perfectly edible but slightly
:32:20. > :32:24.damaged or unusually shaped fruit and vegetables. These are not just
:32:24. > :32:30.fruit and vegetables, these are misshapen, ugly fruit and
:32:30. > :32:34.vegetables. Less than perfect wonky produce that you will not be that
:32:34. > :32:37.used to seeing, other than in funny photo competitions and the reason
:32:37. > :32:40.you will not be familiar with them is that supermarkets don't like to
:32:40. > :32:43.sell in perfect fruit and vegetables but if they did local
:32:43. > :32:53.farmers say they wouldn't have to throw our weight anywhere near as
:32:53. > :32:54.
:32:54. > :32:59.much of their produce. -- any when their -- throw away anywhere near.
:32:59. > :33:08.We had to decide because of the fickleness, and reliability, to
:33:08. > :33:17.reject a lot of waste which often was for come -- cosmetic problems
:33:17. > :33:22.and in some cases it could be above 50% waste. Here I have three
:33:22. > :33:32.organic cabbages. Let's put them on the scales, see whether they would
:33:32. > :33:33.
:33:33. > :33:39.meet the supermarket criteria. That one would be to light. That one
:33:39. > :33:46.fulfils the criteria. And would make it onto the shelves. This one
:33:47. > :33:51.is too heavy. Three cabbages that look pretty similar. Only one of
:33:51. > :33:55.those would be taken by the supermarket. That is right. A large
:33:55. > :33:58.proportion of the country's fruit and vegetables is grown in the
:33:58. > :34:01.south-east. A 10th of the UK's farms are here and three-quarters
:34:01. > :34:05.of the land is agricultural. If these farmers were not wasting so
:34:05. > :34:11.much of their produce it could even prevent food prices from continuing
:34:11. > :34:17.to rise. Supermarkets do not tend to stock ugly produce a per would
:34:17. > :34:23.consumers buy it if given the chance? I have got two carrots, and
:34:23. > :34:27.two pairs, one is the correct shape one is ugly, but they taste the
:34:27. > :34:32.same. Which of these would you be most likely to buy? That one.
:34:32. > :34:36.the other one was cheaper, would you be interested? I might be, it
:34:36. > :34:40.just looks funny. Sometimes you judge things by their shape when it
:34:40. > :34:45.is not important. A if we were 0 E -- more used is in the abnormal
:34:45. > :34:49.pair would we buy it? Yes, if there is not -- more information to know
:34:49. > :34:53.there was nothing wrong, of course I would buy it. I have never seen a
:34:53. > :34:58.purple carrot. Apparently it tastes just the same. If it was cheaper
:34:58. > :35:03.would you be tempted by it? I would give it a try. Is there a market
:35:03. > :35:07.for it? There might be. Especially in today's economic climate. What
:35:07. > :35:13.can be done to get a produce into the shops so farmers don't have to
:35:13. > :35:17.throw it away? Until 2009 there were strict European Union rules.
:35:17. > :35:21.They even specified what curve a cucumber should have. That ban was
:35:21. > :35:24.relaxed and at the time it was thought we would start to see him
:35:24. > :35:29.have it produced in our shops but with a couple of recent exceptions
:35:29. > :35:33.that has not been the case. things stand up the private
:35:33. > :35:39.standards of the supermarkets are far stricter than the European
:35:39. > :35:41.Union laws ever were, so even it is legally allowed to sell, at the
:35:41. > :35:46.moment we are not seeing them being sold because the supermarkets have
:35:46. > :35:50.the standards that go of way be and what is required by law. Some
:35:50. > :35:54.supermarkets have begun to act. He at Waitrose they have started
:35:54. > :35:57.selling a range of weather blemished apples, damaged by the
:35:57. > :36:01.frost earlier this year. They are selling them for a cheaper than
:36:01. > :36:11.their other apples. There are not many supermarkets who are happy to
:36:11. > :36:15.
:36:15. > :36:18.sell these imperfect foots. -- foods. When supermarket policies
:36:18. > :36:23.caused surprise to waste food instead of the supplier bearing the
:36:23. > :36:26.entire cost of that, that should be at least shared so that that they
:36:26. > :36:31.increase the incentive on the part of the supermarkets to reduce waste
:36:31. > :36:33.wherever possible. What we have at the moment is what the competition
:36:33. > :36:37.commission, when they investigated the supermarkets, called a moral
:36:37. > :36:44.hazard, the people causing the waste do not bear the cost of it
:36:44. > :36:47.and don't have the incentive. two-and-half years after the
:36:47. > :36:51.European Union will change but we are not really seeing any more and
:36:52. > :36:58.ever produced no shops. -- the rule change. To the supermarkets need to
:36:58. > :37:01.straighten out the rules and start selling wonky vegetables?
:37:01. > :37:05.Extraordinary parsnip. Joining me it is Richard Dodd from the British
:37:05. > :37:11.Retail Consortium. It is two years now since the regulations were
:37:11. > :37:17.relaxed, surely the rejection of so much perfectly edible food is not
:37:17. > :37:24.in the consumer's interest? There were a whole bunch of myths
:37:24. > :37:34.included in those claims. The first thing to note is that the farms and
:37:34. > :37:35.
:37:35. > :37:39.retailers are not by any means the biggest source of food waste.
:37:39. > :37:42.want to talk about the food you're not put it on the shelves and we
:37:43. > :37:49.would to know why you will not put it on the shelves as elegy? You
:37:49. > :37:58.heard the lady, she would buy it. The second point is supermarkets
:37:58. > :38:02.are by no means the only retailer, catering, food manufacturing are
:38:02. > :38:05.the other customers. If the supermarket doesn't buy a project
:38:05. > :38:09.it has to be thrown away, that is rubbish, there are other markets
:38:09. > :38:13.for that material. This whole notion I have been hearing that
:38:13. > :38:17.supermarkets are not stocking what used to be called Class 2 fruit and
:38:17. > :38:23.vegetables is rubbish. Going any supermarket tomorrow, or today, and
:38:23. > :38:31.have a look at what constitutes value ranges, what is on offer.
:38:31. > :38:36.Less than the premium product. acknowledge that. Are you
:38:36. > :38:45.discounted will go to the question, why don't you put more of it, all
:38:45. > :38:48.of it, why do reject any edible food? There is a mass of this kind
:38:49. > :38:53.of project -- product available add value prizes across a whole range
:38:53. > :38:57.of different retailers and to say anything else is wrong. Ultimately
:38:57. > :39:02.you have to be governed by what customers are prepared to buy.
:39:02. > :39:05.There is no point in supermarkets buying loads of these kind of
:39:05. > :39:10.things for farmers, putting them out and finding people will not buy
:39:10. > :39:14.them. A larger contradicting yourself, you're saying you are but
:39:14. > :39:17.a little out there and they knew I say you're not put in that there --
:39:17. > :39:21.at there because we wouldn't buy it. You can only put out as much as
:39:21. > :39:25.people are prepared to buy. And people will have seen advertising
:39:25. > :39:30.and promotions around all of this on the television, and elsewhere,
:39:30. > :39:32.supermarkets are working to educate customers to encourage them to buy
:39:32. > :39:36.this sort of produce. They certainly are doing. There is no
:39:36. > :39:44.point in putting it more than will be bought. You will end up throwing
:39:45. > :39:49.that away at the back of the store. Haven't you created and large troop
:39:49. > :39:51.perpetuating consumer expectation, you are the ones that could change
:39:51. > :39:55.it, why did you take responsibility? That is what is
:39:55. > :39:58.happening. That is the precise point are making, you will find
:39:58. > :40:02.lots of this proud Jews available, the prices are lower for it,
:40:02. > :40:09.especially marked up as being suitable for cooking, because it is
:40:09. > :40:13.not necessarily the best looking but still perfectly nutritious, and
:40:13. > :40:20.customers are mordant wit in these times were value matters more than
:40:20. > :40:26.it ever has done before. He took about great two feet. Was about 3,
:40:27. > :40:31.4, 5, what about getting it every one a real choice of the most weird
:40:31. > :40:35.and wonderful and damaged that is still nutritious? Customers have
:40:35. > :40:39.their own preferences about what they are prepared to buy a, there's
:40:39. > :40:43.no point putting stuff in stores people are not going to bite, but
:40:43. > :40:46.that doesn't mean it will go to waste on the farm. That is entirely
:40:46. > :40:50.wrong. A lot of the stuff that doesn't look good enough for
:40:50. > :40:55.customers to want to buy it in the store will end up for example in
:40:55. > :41:03.soups, pies, restaurants, schools, hospitals, part of the meals they
:41:03. > :41:07.sell, supermarkets are not the only customer for farmers produce.
:41:07. > :41:09.Pedigree much for joining us. With the government set to borrow
:41:09. > :41:13.billions this year and for many years to come the Chancellor's
:41:13. > :41:16.Autumn Statement included cuts to try out tax credits and a
:41:16. > :41:20.continuing pay squeeze in the public sector to help reduce
:41:20. > :41:24.borrowing. Some government critics have called for a tax on bank is
:41:24. > :41:29.bonuses as an alternative source of much needed revenue. Would a new
:41:29. > :41:33.bonus tax damage and industry that employs 800,000 people here in the
:41:33. > :41:37.south-east? Here with me in the studio are Mark Croft, the chief
:41:37. > :41:41.executive as Sussex Enterprise and Stuart Jeffrey, chair of the Kent
:41:41. > :41:47.Green Party. Why are you uncomfortable with back bonuses, it
:41:47. > :41:50.is just a commercial organisation rewarding its staff? For three key
:41:50. > :41:54.reasons, inequalities in this country are rising, they have
:41:54. > :41:58.written of the last 10 years, some of the highest in Europe. Paying
:41:58. > :42:05.the richest 1% even more money simply pushes those inequalities
:42:05. > :42:10.further and they are bad for society. Secondly, the banking
:42:10. > :42:16.crisis, the budget crisis, wasn't caused by overspending, a collapse
:42:16. > :42:21.in tax revenues, but we need to close that loop and there is �100
:42:21. > :42:25.billion worth of tax avoidance by the rich corporations. That needs
:42:25. > :42:29.to be addressed. Clearly we need to bring in more tax to ensure the
:42:29. > :42:34.government coffers can avoid the public services. We mustn't forget
:42:34. > :42:39.it was those greedy bankers, gambling recklessly with our
:42:39. > :42:44.economy, that has caused this. went to punish them, say you have
:42:44. > :42:51.got to share some of the pain and you will share it by a taxing our
:42:51. > :42:55.bonuses. They need to share in repaying the debt. Isn't that a
:42:55. > :43:02.strange way to run a tax system, in a public policy, based on
:43:02. > :43:11.punishment. It is a case of insuring the rich people pay their
:43:11. > :43:15.way in society. The poor cannot pay, they cannot bear this out. The rate
:43:15. > :43:20.haven't the money. -- they cannot bail us out. Does the banking
:43:20. > :43:24.sector recognise it needs to be seen to be punished in some way?
:43:24. > :43:27.think this concept of punishment is a bit daft. People that earned a
:43:27. > :43:31.lot of money already paid more tax as a percentage of their income
:43:31. > :43:37.than the average. What is wrong with that. The second thing is, yes,
:43:37. > :43:42.the banking system got it wrong for five years ago, let's find out, let
:43:42. > :43:46.hideaway of making it work to stimulate the business community
:43:46. > :43:53.because it is those businesses that generate the wealth, the jobs, that
:43:53. > :43:57.pay the tax, that pay for our public sector. A banking bonus
:43:57. > :44:01.targeted at individuals is probably not going to achieve very much,
:44:01. > :44:06.Alastair Darling... Last time they introduced it for a year under
:44:06. > :44:12.Labour, 2.3 billion. That is the equivalent of the entire budget for
:44:12. > :44:16.Kent County Council. That is not a paltry sum of money. Why introduce
:44:16. > :44:22.it aimed at individuals, were not aimed it at the banks themselves.
:44:22. > :44:27.We have got the bag levy. Where, have both? -- Bank levy. You'll go
:44:27. > :44:32.to raise money, but why not raise it across the board, widest pick on
:44:32. > :44:36.bankers? We had just been talking about the supermarket sector, chief
:44:36. > :44:40.executives earn whopping salaries and great bonuses, while we just
:44:40. > :44:50.talking about bank bonuses, where do we have a Taxol bonuses? Mark
:44:50. > :44:54.
:44:54. > :45:00.made the points that the rich get pay proportionally less, on income
:45:00. > :45:06.tax, possibly,... We're talking about their salaries and bonuses.
:45:06. > :45:10.We are talking about total wealth. The rich must be made to pay more
:45:10. > :45:18.tax, and yes, let's whiteness across wider sectors, no problem.
:45:18. > :45:24.The Green Party doesn't want to see bonuses paid that arrow in excess
:45:24. > :45:30.of any one worker's salary. No more bonus than save �15,000, 20 Gaza-
:45:30. > :45:34.bound, should be paid. The X this money should go back. -- excess
:45:34. > :45:39.money. What has been made of the fact top bankers might leave the
:45:40. > :45:43.country if they were only given �15,000 bonus, would that happen,
:45:43. > :45:49.is there any evidence to suggest if we do this people in the south-east
:45:49. > :45:56.will move to the forest? If we did was to it was suggested, yes, there
:45:56. > :45:59.would happen and very fast indeed. -- what he was suggesting. They
:45:59. > :46:04.wouldn't have to go very far to learnt that some are else. If we
:46:04. > :46:08.are talking about the current tax proposal on the table, we believe?
:46:08. > :46:12.Probably not in the short term, because most of them were born and
:46:12. > :46:17.brought up here, they don't want to move abroad. The reason why this
:46:17. > :46:21.was brought in under Labour was because what they wanted to do was
:46:21. > :46:25.get the banks to lend more to small and medium-size enterprises.
:46:25. > :46:30.Alastair Darling said it had no impact on that at all. It is a tax
:46:30. > :46:36.that has no point other than raising 2.3 billion. And punishing
:46:36. > :46:40.people. What about the Government's ongoing role? They could limit
:46:40. > :46:47.bonuses, particularly at the state- backed banks and they have talked
:46:47. > :46:52.about it. They could, they couldn't do it at the other banks unless
:46:52. > :46:55.they brought in primary legislation. Why would we limit the bonus
:46:55. > :47:02.structure in our largest companies? Why would you just pick on banks?
:47:02. > :47:06.My personal view is I don't think you should be targeting the richest
:47:06. > :47:11.people in society by adding even more on because they do well. It is
:47:11. > :47:17.those people that are creating the strategies that Orrell companies
:47:17. > :47:24.like Tesco, Sainsbury's, to make money and deploy it hundreds of
:47:24. > :47:32.thousands of people. -- and employee. We have got to generate
:47:32. > :47:35.jobs to do this out of this hole. - - to be ourselves. When the
:47:35. > :47:38.pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced it was pulling out of
:47:38. > :47:42.Kent with a potential loss of thousands of jobs alarm bells went
:47:42. > :47:50.off in government. Science, especially the batik and dress-
:47:50. > :48:00.sense industry is seen as crucial to future economic success. --
:48:00. > :48:00.
:48:00. > :48:05.bioscience. How much of that money will come to the south-east?
:48:05. > :48:09.Explain to us the connection between this new money and Pfizer,
:48:09. > :48:16.is it because that is exactly where the money is there, because of what
:48:16. > :48:21.happened to Pfizer? The best way of putting it is the local crisis with
:48:21. > :48:27.Pfizer's withdrawal drew big government attention to a national
:48:27. > :48:30.problem. It is a national problem. Essentially, the bioscience and
:48:30. > :48:34.pharmaceutical industry employ thousands of people, with �50
:48:34. > :48:38.billion to the UK economy. In the last 10 years it has been in
:48:38. > :48:45.serious decline. We used to about 6% of all clinical trials in the
:48:45. > :48:49.world in the UK. In 2010 we and 81.4%. If this is one of the growth
:48:49. > :48:53.areas of the British economy, �180 million he is a laughably small
:48:54. > :48:58.amount, isn't it? In the terms of the pharmaceutical industry it is a
:48:58. > :49:02.drop in the ocean. It cost the big pharmaceutical company to bring one
:49:02. > :49:05.drug to do clinical trials and bring it to market. This is
:49:05. > :49:14.attempting to leave it a lot of investment with what is a very
:49:14. > :49:17.small sum of money. -- leverage. Could get an idea from the
:49:17. > :49:22.conception stage to the markets did. That is one of the things that
:49:22. > :49:28.government had to be. But it isn't for Kent, it is for the whole
:49:28. > :49:32.country. A for the whole country, the entire industry, and the start-
:49:32. > :49:35.up companies throughout the UK and there are plenty of other places in
:49:35. > :49:42.the UK where they will be start-up companies, universities, competing
:49:42. > :49:46.to get some of that. In Kent who are we competing with, where my the
:49:46. > :49:50.money and industry go. The industry has been going to India and China.
:49:50. > :49:54.In the UK there are other competitive areas, for example the
:49:54. > :49:59.Cambridge Science Park, and one in Scotland outside Dundee. They will
:50:00. > :50:03.want to compete hard for this cash. How does Kent make itself look like
:50:04. > :50:07.the right place for a growing industry, what can they do? It is
:50:07. > :50:12.very difficult. We have to acknowledge that if Pfizer were
:50:12. > :50:16.looking to locate in the UK today as it did 50 years ago he probably
:50:16. > :50:20.wouldn't come to sandwich, it isn't perfectly connected to markets, it
:50:20. > :50:23.is not perfectly connected to major hubs of population. It is close to
:50:23. > :50:27.good research university, the University of Kent, and that helps
:50:27. > :50:32.a great deal, but it will have to fight for every penny. It isn't the
:50:32. > :50:36.natural location. What is the natural location? Unless the
:50:36. > :50:40.government strategy and his liberalisation of links to NHS data
:50:40. > :50:45.to help drug companies rarely works, these jobs are going to India,
:50:45. > :50:50.China, to less intensely regulated areas where specialist expertise is
:50:50. > :50:56.cheaper to employ. Was all about hysteria? There was hysteria about
:50:56. > :51:00.access to our medical records, was that foolish? The notion the
:51:00. > :51:05.government has is it can open up NHS databases to research companies,
:51:05. > :51:09.drug companies, is a very good idea. Of course it is controversial
:51:09. > :51:13.because we have to make certain the data is anonymous. They can help it
:51:13. > :51:18.isn't the whole solution. This is a real battle and the world is not