11/12/2011 The Politics Show South East

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