11/12/2011 The Politics Show South East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/12/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Discarded food that could bring their dropping prices in the south-


east. Why bankers may benefit from tax decisions at the cost of poorer


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1812 seconds


Coming up in the next 20 minutes: the ugly foods that could slash


supermarket prices. The supermarkets have these


standards that go beyond what is required by law.


Sue bankers be forced to pay tax on their bonuses -- should bankers.


How job losses at a Kent business forced the Prime Minister into


action. As rising food prices put a strain on the family budgets are


supermarkets are doing all they can to keep prices down. Consumer


groups say a lot of produce is wasted, and prices are higher


because bigger retailers will not buy perfectly edible but slightly


damaged or unusually shaped fruit and vegetables. These are not just


fruit and vegetables, these are misshapen, ugly fruit and


vegetables. Less than perfect wonky produce that you will not be that


used to seeing, other than in funny photo competitions and the reason


you will not be familiar with them is that supermarkets don't like to


sell in perfect fruit and vegetables but if they did local


farmers say they wouldn't have to throw our weight anywhere near as


much of their produce. -- any when their -- throw away anywhere near.


We had to decide because of the fickleness, and reliability, to


reject a lot of waste which often was for come -- cosmetic problems


and in some cases it could be above 50% waste. Here I have three


organic cabbages. Let's put them on the scales, see whether they would


meet the supermarket criteria. That one would be to light. That one


fulfils the criteria. And would make it onto the shelves. This one


is too heavy. Three cabbages that look pretty similar. Only one of


those would be taken by the supermarket. That is right. A large


proportion of the country's fruit and vegetables is grown in the


south-east. A 10th of the UK's farms are here and three-quarters


of the land is agricultural. If these farmers were not wasting so


much of their produce it could even prevent food prices from continuing


to rise. Supermarkets do not tend to stock ugly produce a per would


consumers buy it if given the chance? I have got two carrots, and


two pairs, one is the correct shape one is ugly, but they taste the


same. Which of these would you be most likely to buy? That one.


the other one was cheaper, would you be interested? I might be, it


just looks funny. Sometimes you judge things by their shape when it


is not important. A if we were 0 E -- more used is in the abnormal


pair would we buy it? Yes, if there is not -- more information to know


there was nothing wrong, of course I would buy it. I have never seen a


purple carrot. Apparently it tastes just the same. If it was cheaper


would you be tempted by it? I would give it a try. Is there a market


for it? There might be. Especially in today's economic climate. What


can be done to get a produce into the shops so farmers don't have to


throw it away? Until 2009 there were strict European Union rules.


They even specified what curve a cucumber should have. That ban was


relaxed and at the time it was thought we would start to see him


have it produced in our shops but with a couple of recent exceptions


that has not been the case. things stand up the private


standards of the supermarkets are far stricter than the European


Union laws ever were, so even it is legally allowed to sell, at the


moment we are not seeing them being sold because the supermarkets have


the standards that go of way be and what is required by law. Some


supermarkets have begun to act. He at Waitrose they have started


selling a range of weather blemished apples, damaged by the


frost earlier this year. They are selling them for a cheaper than


their other apples. There are not many supermarkets who are happy to


sell these imperfect foots. -- foods. When supermarket policies


caused surprise to waste food instead of the supplier bearing the


entire cost of that, that should be at least shared so that that they


increase the incentive on the part of the supermarkets to reduce waste


wherever possible. What we have at the moment is what the competition


commission, when they investigated the supermarkets, called a moral


hazard, the people causing the waste do not bear the cost of it


and don't have the incentive. two-and-half years after the


European Union will change but we are not really seeing any more and


ever produced no shops. -- the rule change. To the supermarkets need to


straighten out the rules and start selling wonky vegetables?


Extraordinary parsnip. Joining me it is Richard Dodd from the British


Retail Consortium. It is two years now since the regulations were


relaxed, surely the rejection of so much perfectly edible food is not


in the consumer's interest? There were a whole bunch of myths


included in those claims. The first thing to note is that the farms and


retailers are not by any means the biggest source of food waste.


want to talk about the food you're not put it on the shelves and we


would to know why you will not put it on the shelves as elegy? You


heard the lady, she would buy it. The second point is supermarkets


are by no means the only retailer, catering, food manufacturing are


the other customers. If the supermarket doesn't buy a project


it has to be thrown away, that is rubbish, there are other markets


for that material. This whole notion I have been hearing that


supermarkets are not stocking what used to be called Class 2 fruit and


vegetables is rubbish. Going any supermarket tomorrow, or today, and


have a look at what constitutes value ranges, what is on offer.


Less than the premium product. acknowledge that. Are you


discounted will go to the question, why don't you put more of it, all


of it, why do reject any edible food? There is a mass of this kind


of project -- product available add value prizes across a whole range


of different retailers and to say anything else is wrong. Ultimately


you have to be governed by what customers are prepared to buy.


There is no point in supermarkets buying loads of these kind of


things for farmers, putting them out and finding people will not buy


them. A larger contradicting yourself, you're saying you are but


a little out there and they knew I say you're not put in that there --


at there because we wouldn't buy it. You can only put out as much as


people are prepared to buy. And people will have seen advertising


and promotions around all of this on the television, and elsewhere,


supermarkets are working to educate customers to encourage them to buy


this sort of produce. They certainly are doing. There is no


point in putting it more than will be bought. You will end up throwing


that away at the back of the store. Haven't you created and large troop


perpetuating consumer expectation, you are the ones that could change


it, why did you take responsibility? That is what is


happening. That is the precise point are making, you will find


lots of this proud Jews available, the prices are lower for it,


especially marked up as being suitable for cooking, because it is


not necessarily the best looking but still perfectly nutritious, and


customers are mordant wit in these times were value matters more than


it ever has done before. He took about great two feet. Was about 3,


4, 5, what about getting it every one a real choice of the most weird


and wonderful and damaged that is still nutritious? Customers have


their own preferences about what they are prepared to buy a, there's


no point putting stuff in stores people are not going to bite, but


that doesn't mean it will go to waste on the farm. That is entirely


wrong. A lot of the stuff that doesn't look good enough for


customers to want to buy it in the store will end up for example in


soups, pies, restaurants, schools, hospitals, part of the meals they


sell, supermarkets are not the only customer for farmers produce.


Pedigree much for joining us. With the government set to borrow


billions this year and for many years to come the Chancellor's


Autumn Statement included cuts to try out tax credits and a


continuing pay squeeze in the public sector to help reduce


borrowing. Some government critics have called for a tax on bank is


bonuses as an alternative source of much needed revenue. Would a new


bonus tax damage and industry that employs 800,000 people here in the


south-east? Here with me in the studio are Mark Croft, the chief


executive as Sussex Enterprise and Stuart Jeffrey, chair of the Kent


Green Party. Why are you uncomfortable with back bonuses, it


is just a commercial organisation rewarding its staff? For three key


reasons, inequalities in this country are rising, they have


written of the last 10 years, some of the highest in Europe. Paying


the richest 1% even more money simply pushes those inequalities


further and they are bad for society. Secondly, the banking


crisis, the budget crisis, wasn't caused by overspending, a collapse


in tax revenues, but we need to close that loop and there is �100


billion worth of tax avoidance by the rich corporations. That needs


to be addressed. Clearly we need to bring in more tax to ensure the


government coffers can avoid the public services. We mustn't forget


it was those greedy bankers, gambling recklessly with our


economy, that has caused this. went to punish them, say you have


got to share some of the pain and you will share it by a taxing our


bonuses. They need to share in repaying the debt. Isn't that a


strange way to run a tax system, in a public policy, based on


punishment. It is a case of insuring the rich people pay their


way in society. The poor cannot pay, they cannot bear this out. The rate


haven't the money. -- they cannot bail us out. Does the banking


sector recognise it needs to be seen to be punished in some way?


think this concept of punishment is a bit daft. People that earned a


lot of money already paid more tax as a percentage of their income


than the average. What is wrong with that. The second thing is, yes,


the banking system got it wrong for five years ago, let's find out, let


hideaway of making it work to stimulate the business community


because it is those businesses that generate the wealth, the jobs, that


pay the tax, that pay for our public sector. A banking bonus


targeted at individuals is probably not going to achieve very much,


Alastair Darling... Last time they introduced it for a year under


Labour, 2.3 billion. That is the equivalent of the entire budget for


Kent County Council. That is not a paltry sum of money. Why introduce


it aimed at individuals, were not aimed it at the banks themselves.


We have got the bag levy. Where, have both? -- Bank levy. You'll go


to raise money, but why not raise it across the board, widest pick on


bankers? We had just been talking about the supermarket sector, chief


executives earn whopping salaries and great bonuses, while we just


talking about bank bonuses, where do we have a Taxol bonuses? Mark


made the points that the rich get pay proportionally less, on income


tax, possibly,... We're talking about their salaries and bonuses.


We are talking about total wealth. The rich must be made to pay more


tax, and yes, let's whiteness across wider sectors, no problem.


The Green Party doesn't want to see bonuses paid that arrow in excess


of any one worker's salary. No more bonus than save �15,000, 20 Gaza-


bound, should be paid. The X this money should go back. -- excess


money. What has been made of the fact top bankers might leave the


country if they were only given �15,000 bonus, would that happen,


is there any evidence to suggest if we do this people in the south-east


will move to the forest? If we did was to it was suggested, yes, there


would happen and very fast indeed. -- what he was suggesting. They


wouldn't have to go very far to learnt that some are else. If we


are talking about the current tax proposal on the table, we believe?


Probably not in the short term, because most of them were born and


brought up here, they don't want to move abroad. The reason why this


was brought in under Labour was because what they wanted to do was


get the banks to lend more to small and medium-size enterprises.


Alastair Darling said it had no impact on that at all. It is a tax


that has no point other than raising 2.3 billion. And punishing


people. What about the Government's ongoing role? They could limit


bonuses, particularly at the state- backed banks and they have talked


about it. They could, they couldn't do it at the other banks unless


they brought in primary legislation. Why would we limit the bonus


structure in our largest companies? Why would you just pick on banks?


My personal view is I don't think you should be targeting the richest


people in society by adding even more on because they do well. It is


those people that are creating the strategies that Orrell companies


like Tesco, Sainsbury's, to make money and deploy it hundreds of


thousands of people. -- and employee. We have got to generate


jobs to do this out of this hole. - - to be ourselves. When the


pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced it was pulling out of


Kent with a potential loss of thousands of jobs alarm bells went


off in government. Science, especially the batik and dress-


sense industry is seen as crucial to future economic success. --


bioscience. How much of that money will come to the south-east?


Explain to us the connection between this new money and Pfizer,


is it because that is exactly where the money is there, because of what


happened to Pfizer? The best way of putting it is the local crisis with


Pfizer's withdrawal drew big government attention to a national


problem. It is a national problem. Essentially, the bioscience and


pharmaceutical industry employ thousands of people, with �50


billion to the UK economy. In the last 10 years it has been in


serious decline. We used to about 6% of all clinical trials in the


world in the UK. In 2010 we and 81.4%. If this is one of the growth


areas of the British economy, �180 million he is a laughably small


amount, isn't it? In the terms of the pharmaceutical industry it is a


drop in the ocean. It cost the big pharmaceutical company to bring one


drug to do clinical trials and bring it to market. This is


attempting to leave it a lot of investment with what is a very


small sum of money. -- leverage. Could get an idea from the


conception stage to the markets did. That is one of the things that


government had to be. But it isn't for Kent, it is for the whole


country. A for the whole country, the entire industry, and the start-


up companies throughout the UK and there are plenty of other places in


the UK where they will be start-up companies, universities, competing


to get some of that. In Kent who are we competing with, where my the


money and industry go. The industry has been going to India and China.


In the UK there are other competitive areas, for example the


Cambridge Science Park, and one in Scotland outside Dundee. They will


want to compete hard for this cash. How does Kent make itself look like


the right place for a growing industry, what can they do? It is


very difficult. We have to acknowledge that if Pfizer were


looking to locate in the UK today as it did 50 years ago he probably


wouldn't come to sandwich, it isn't perfectly connected to markets, it


is not perfectly connected to major hubs of population. It is close to


good research university, the University of Kent, and that helps


a great deal, but it will have to fight for every penny. It isn't the


natural location. What is the natural location? Unless the


government strategy and his liberalisation of links to NHS data


to help drug companies rarely works, these jobs are going to India,


China, to less intensely regulated areas where specialist expertise is


cheaper to employ. Was all about hysteria? There was hysteria about


access to our medical records, was that foolish? The notion the


government has is it can open up NHS databases to research companies,


drug companies, is a very good idea. Of course it is controversial


because we have to make certain the data is anonymous. They can help it


isn't the whole solution. This is a real battle and the world is not


Download Subtitles