:01:23. > :01:26.And in the South East - Bridging the gap - there are plans for a new
:01:26. > :01:36.Thames crossing to improve the region's transport links - we'll be
:01:36. > :01:36.
:01:36. > :30:11.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1715 seconds
:30:11. > :30:14.asking whether it's really Joining me in the studio today is
:30:14. > :30:16.the Conservative MP for Dover and Deal Charlie Elphicke and the
:30:16. > :30:18.Labour columnist and prospective Police Commissioner candidate for
:30:18. > :30:21.Sussex, Paul Richards. First - the Immigration Minister
:30:21. > :30:24.and Ashford MP Damian Green has said this week that he wants to cut
:30:24. > :30:29.the number of migrants entering the UK by allowing only 'the brightest
:30:29. > :30:34.and best' to come here. Charlie Elphicke, is he right to reject
:30:34. > :30:43.middle managers and unskilled workers? We need them to staff our
:30:43. > :30:47.hospitals and care homes, don't we? If you look out people looking for
:30:47. > :30:51.work in places like Dover and where I represent, people say they cannot
:30:51. > :30:55.get an opportunity because the people from Eastern Europe. We need
:30:55. > :31:01.a chance to get a job. You're confident that your constituents
:31:01. > :31:06.will rise to the occasion? Yes, as the benefit system is changing to
:31:06. > :31:11.encourage work and make it pay, this is the right way forward.
:31:11. > :31:14.what do you make of these comments? The Labour introduce the
:31:14. > :31:18.Australian-style system saying if you want to come to the country,
:31:18. > :31:24.you have to contribute to it, but there should not be an anti-
:31:24. > :31:29.immigrant rhetoric, because we rely Andy Butt coming to live here that
:31:29. > :31:33.may not have high skills, but they will put in the hours. -- that may
:31:33. > :31:36.end up coming to live here. Now, anyone who's tried to drive north
:31:36. > :31:38.from Kent into London and Essex will be familiar with regular
:31:38. > :31:44.traffic jams on the Dartford Crossing. But the misery that
:31:44. > :31:47.particular piece of road causes motorists could be coming to an end.
:31:47. > :31:49.The coalition government is looking at building an alternative bridge
:31:49. > :31:53.or tunnel across the Thames. Supporters say it'll ease
:31:53. > :31:56.congestion and create new jobs in Kent. But those who oppose the
:31:56. > :32:06.scheme claim we don't need another crossing and, if it does go ahead,
:32:06. > :32:09.
:32:09. > :32:15.the environmental cost will be too The Dartford crossing is the
:32:15. > :32:19.gateway to Essex, London and beyond, carrying up to thousands of
:32:19. > :32:26.vehicles every day. But there can be a traffic bottleneck with
:32:26. > :32:31.tailbacks and destruction. -- disruption. The only other way is
:32:31. > :32:37.to use the ferry, but takes foot passengers from Gravesend to
:32:37. > :32:40.Tilbury, and it does not always have much custom. There are plans
:32:40. > :32:45.for a newer road crossing to ease congestion and provide easier
:32:45. > :32:50.travel. Easier travel would be welcome. That could be delays of up
:32:50. > :32:54.to three hours on both sides of the river. You are stuck there and you
:32:54. > :32:59.cannot get off. If you have to cross the river, there is no
:32:59. > :33:05.alternative. It is costing you time and money. It is a mess, a
:33:05. > :33:08.bottleneck. We have got to leave out. I have lost count of the
:33:08. > :33:13.number of times I was still care, and I would not wish it on our
:33:13. > :33:17.anyone, even a government minister! The Government minister in charge
:33:17. > :33:21.of the roads is taking a new crossing seriously. We have
:33:21. > :33:29.committed ourselves to looking at another crossing or a tunnel or a
:33:29. > :33:35.wide bridge. The existing a tunnel and bridge, they are designed for a
:33:35. > :33:39.capacity of 135,000 vehicles per day. It has hit 180,000. Three
:33:39. > :33:43.routes around discussion, and one option is alongside the existing
:33:43. > :33:49.Dartford crossing and one is to the west of Gravesend to Tilbury in
:33:49. > :33:54.Essex. One is to be eased, the longest journey by far. The council
:33:54. > :33:57.in Gravesham is opposing the plans because they say it would damage
:33:57. > :34:04.the countryside and make the existing crossing free would solve
:34:04. > :34:08.the problems. At the moment it costs �1.52 crossover at Stafford.
:34:08. > :34:14.In 1991, when the bridge was added to the existing to a lot, they said
:34:14. > :34:18.they would scrap the toll, but the toll is still in place. At this
:34:18. > :34:23.timber yard in Dartford, it says the toll is not the problem cannot
:34:23. > :34:29.be a happy to pay as a more routes would mean more business. We could
:34:29. > :34:34.do more deliveries. We could save on the fuel costs. We could supply
:34:34. > :34:38.two-way customer base further afield or in areas where they
:34:38. > :34:42.previously would have considered the natural boundary of the Thames
:34:42. > :34:46.as being a barrier to doing business with Kent based businesses.
:34:46. > :34:52.I would strongly welcome it. It needs to happen sooner rather than
:34:52. > :34:57.later. In addition to freeing up the roads and two more trade, there
:34:57. > :35:01.is also the economic benefits of building the crossing itself.
:35:01. > :35:06.immediate effect will be lots of jobs building out. That will have
:35:06. > :35:11.to be a good thing in a recession. The timescale for this, I would
:35:11. > :35:15.like to see us get on with it as soon as possible, but at the moment,
:35:15. > :35:20.the jobs are desperately needed. It is very strange that people are
:35:20. > :35:24.opposing it. The Department for Transport will consult on a new
:35:24. > :35:28.crossing in the next year, and as part of this they will talk to the
:35:28. > :35:31.local councils. But are these people opposing the plans putting
:35:31. > :35:39.in the years and ahead of commercial interests, if new jobs
:35:39. > :35:43.and uneasy passage across the river? -- at the speed of a putting
:35:43. > :35:53.these plans ahead of commercial interests and new jobs and NEC
:35:53. > :35:57.
:35:57. > :36:02.passage across the river. Would this not bring huge benefits?
:36:02. > :36:10.The reality is, we need improve traffic links, but we need to
:36:10. > :36:13.remove the physical barriers on the crossing. We need the roads to run
:36:13. > :36:17.smoothly and without the barriers they would run smoothly. I know you
:36:17. > :36:23.want to get rid of the toll, it was eight years since they were meant
:36:23. > :36:27.to go, if anything, it is going to go off, this is unrealistic. It is
:36:27. > :36:32.unrealistic to say that he will consult on an idea without trying
:36:32. > :36:38.to look at options. One option is to remove the toll. Delivered this
:36:38. > :36:42.promise. If the toll was removed, it will not stop in Justin because
:36:42. > :36:47.the predicted volume of traffic is going to exceed the capacity that
:36:47. > :36:51.is there are now. Yes, but they have not demonstrated or prove this,
:36:51. > :36:56.and on the consultation, they say be able Breen be crossing east or
:36:56. > :37:00.west to Gravesend, they will not look at affecting the locals. We're
:37:00. > :37:08.talking about localism and the Government, but we are ignoring
:37:08. > :37:11.local people and concerns. Some of the concerns, it would lift poverty,
:37:11. > :37:16.it would generate growth, some people are so stifled by the
:37:16. > :37:19.congestion, they want this, and local residents will benefit.
:37:19. > :37:24.the local benefits will be seen by better traffic links over the
:37:24. > :37:28.bridge. Get rid of the tolls and see what happens. As well as
:37:28. > :37:32.employment, there are opportunities there to be created, there are lots
:37:32. > :37:36.of brownfield sites to be developed, we are looking here at destroying
:37:36. > :37:41.the Green Belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty. If you
:37:41. > :37:46.look at Gravesend, this is destroying the local environment.
:37:46. > :37:50.This argument is used often, but is the current infrastructure... Let's
:37:50. > :37:56.move away from tolls, do you think the current infrastructure in this
:37:56. > :38:01.area is OK as it is and does not need expanding? No, if you go along
:38:01. > :38:04.the A2, there are four lanes and that is often held up with traffic
:38:04. > :38:09.jams and accidents and a row problems to a great shame because
:38:09. > :38:12.of it. All of the local MPs agree this would be a good thing is,
:38:12. > :38:16.naturally it would be beneficial, do you really think that just by
:38:16. > :38:20.lifting the tolls, the problem would be solved and you want to
:38:20. > :38:27.stand in the wake of this book for Gravesham? I am not saying that at
:38:27. > :38:31.all. We can look out for the best place to put the bridge would be
:38:31. > :38:34.and remove the toll. The Government is bringing in a consultation, but
:38:34. > :38:38.we hear from the county council that the bridge will be there
:38:38. > :38:41.within three to five years. I do not know how they can do this, they
:38:41. > :38:45.need to go forward with an existing routes that they have already
:38:45. > :38:52.considered. There was no consultation there, that is
:38:52. > :38:56.predetermined. Charlie, you're presumably in favour of this?
:38:56. > :39:01.think this is a great idea. We need more jobs and money across Kent as
:39:01. > :39:06.a whole. It would benefit Gravesham and be great for East Kent, Dover
:39:06. > :39:11.and Deal and Thanet, and would be great for the county. Poor, what
:39:11. > :39:15.would you say? I respect the position of John Burton, but we are
:39:15. > :39:19.in a desperate position economically, and we need these
:39:19. > :39:24.jobs and infrastructure coming for were it, so I would want to see
:39:24. > :39:27.some kind of cross St, the debate would be about where, but we need
:39:27. > :39:31.it for jobs and growth in the region. The main high demand is
:39:32. > :39:34.about tolls, and the sympathy with this? The previous Labour
:39:34. > :39:40.governments did not get rid of it eight years ago and they could have
:39:40. > :39:44.done. Now, the finances are in MS, so the idea to suddenly find the
:39:44. > :39:49.money to get rid of the tolls is a bit pie-in-the-sky. We need to be
:39:49. > :39:54.realistic. We need more transport because we know the M25 crossings
:39:54. > :39:57.are chock-a-block. We need the extra capacity. What about in
:39:57. > :40:02.Airport in the Thames estuary? That would make this look like a very
:40:02. > :40:11.small argument! It would! Them they do not think anybody wants the Mad
:40:11. > :40:16.Cat Island idea! Big projects like that go horribly wrong! We think
:40:17. > :40:20.that the island in Kent is a bit mad! To look at Southend, Manston,
:40:20. > :40:25.this would drive the economy on both sides of the estuary and
:40:25. > :40:28.create more jobs and money. John Burton, not a lot of sympathy for
:40:28. > :40:34.your argument, do you think you will be able to stop this going
:40:34. > :40:38.ahead? We have to represent local people, and the local view is
:40:38. > :40:41.agreeing with this side and we need to have a proper link across the
:40:41. > :40:46.bridge and we need to think about the road is the structure in Kent
:40:46. > :40:50.and Essex and how they are affected. Is this the right location of their
:40:50. > :40:54.takeaway be told? Let's test it. If you want a bridge orate tunnel, put
:40:54. > :41:04.it in the right place, not just grab something because it is quick
:41:04. > :41:05.
:41:06. > :41:08.and easy to do. Thank you. The alcohol fuelled party which
:41:09. > :41:11.began with the introduction of 24 hour licensing could be about to
:41:11. > :41:14.end. The Government wants to 'rebalance' the law to tackle the
:41:14. > :41:17.social disorder which has become a problem for many of our coastal
:41:17. > :41:20.towns. In Brighton and Hove, it's estimated that alcohol misuse costs
:41:20. > :41:23.the police and the economy a hundred million pounds year. One
:41:23. > :41:26.solution being considered is a late night levy. A tax on clubs and bars
:41:26. > :41:29.which serve alcohol after midnight. The money raised would go to the
:41:29. > :41:32.police and local councils and the Sunday Politics South East has
:41:32. > :41:34.learned Sussex Police will be meeting to discuss the levy next
:41:35. > :41:40.week. But would it solve the problem, or kill off local
:41:40. > :41:43.businesses? If you were elected Police
:41:43. > :41:48.Commissioner, Paul Richards, you would have to implement this levy,
:41:48. > :41:53.is it a good idea? Beepers and look at this closely because the money
:41:53. > :41:57.going into the police force is down. -- people should look at this
:41:57. > :42:02.closely. Late-night trouble on the street cost a lot of money to
:42:02. > :42:06.police. Maybe the local businesses that are benefiting from this extra
:42:06. > :42:10.custom should put more money back into the police force. About 70 %
:42:10. > :42:14.of the cash raised would go to the police with this scheme, so it
:42:14. > :42:20.would pay for the officers needed. But did you not think this money
:42:20. > :42:24.would be ring-fenced for the police, they could do what they wanted?
:42:24. > :42:28.Police Commissioners will set the budget, so if they want to go down
:42:28. > :42:32.this route, then the money should be ring-fenced into these areas.
:42:32. > :42:36.The balance needs to be got right, so we do not want to see late-night
:42:36. > :42:40.business is going at a business because of this. It is not a
:42:40. > :42:47.punitive fine, it is a contribution from profits to allow the police to
:42:47. > :42:52.do their jobs so that other people do not have to pay for the policing.
:42:52. > :42:59.It does sound reasonable, there are a lot of problems socially, health
:42:59. > :43:02.why is, police have a lot to clear up, why should these people not to
:43:02. > :43:06.contribute to the messy caused? That does not deal with the base
:43:06. > :43:10.problem, there will not be less people a drunk and clogging up
:43:10. > :43:16.Accident and Emergency. At least they would contribute to the public
:43:16. > :43:21.service that helps them. The issue is 24 hour drinking and laid-back
:43:21. > :43:27.licences, they should be less of an idea of this culture. People cannot
:43:27. > :43:33.get a drink after 2am hacks back be polite to go out after 2am.
:43:33. > :43:36.understand this. Because there is a late-night licence, people are
:43:36. > :43:41.walking back late at night, vandalising cars, are fighting in
:43:41. > :43:47.the streets, people are up in arms because of this. I need to be aware
:43:47. > :43:51.of the nuisance that this caused as. There should be less of it. You're
:43:51. > :43:57.saying you do not want a tax on fun, you want a ban on drinking after
:43:57. > :44:01.midnight? I want to stop their late-night irresponsible drinking
:44:01. > :44:05.that clogs up accident and emergency and people being sick and
:44:05. > :44:09.fighting and vandalising property. You must be frustrated that the
:44:09. > :44:13.Government is not going further with this? One of the big mistakes
:44:13. > :44:18.was the idea bet you could have Continental, cafe culture, 24 hour
:44:18. > :44:23.drinking, but that is not the way we are here. Of the Budget not
:44:23. > :44:30.drink in a plasma because it is a cold country, they tend to have
:44:30. > :44:38.closing time at 12 o'clock at night. -- people will not drink in a play
:44:38. > :44:43.as a big as it is cold here. It is a big problem in a Sussex, Hastings,
:44:43. > :44:47.East Bourne, Brighton and Hove. problem with an early licence is
:44:47. > :44:51.lots of house parties, it is more noisy and damaging to the local
:44:51. > :44:54.community. People will still want to stay up late drinking, that is
:44:54. > :44:58.what they want to do, but banning them in the city centre means they
:44:58. > :45:02.would do it in their homes. If you put a levy on the businesses
:45:02. > :45:09.profiting from this behaviour, then the policing is there to stop this
:45:09. > :45:13.kind of trouble. It is not a very high levy, I think it is between
:45:13. > :45:23.�304,500 a year for a business making a good profit out of this
:45:23. > :45:24.
:45:24. > :45:27.licensing. -- it is between �300 and �4,500. There would be a
:45:27. > :45:32.financial incentive then for the council to grant more late-night
:45:32. > :45:38.licences. There are too many as it is, it needs to be reined in.
:45:38. > :45:42.do you do that? You need to restrict licensing and be tougher
:45:42. > :45:47.on licensing. A recent announcement of a tougher licensing regime for
:45:47. > :45:50.lap-dancing clubs which is a good thing, we need a tougher licensing
:45:50. > :45:56.regime for late night boxing and late-night drinking. You're not
:45:56. > :46:00.worried about putting businesses at a business? I do not think there is
:46:00. > :46:03.much trade after midnight anyway, and I think the right balance is
:46:03. > :46:11.that the residents should be able to go to bed in peace and quiet and
:46:11. > :46:16.not have disturbances on the way home. Another police would get 70 %.
:46:16. > :46:22.What about giving some to the NHS because of the rise in admissions?
:46:22. > :46:28.If that works with the police, then maybe that'll be OK. A very anti-
:46:28. > :46:32.market message from Charlie. That is like saying we should have more
:46:32. > :46:35.cigarettes sold, everyone has tried to rein in the amount of cigarettes
:46:35. > :46:38.sold because they have been as bad for you, because late-night
:46:38. > :46:42.drinking is a bad way for our culture to go as well because of
:46:42. > :46:45.too much fighting. Let's break up a party there!
:46:45. > :46:55.And now a round up of the week's events in the region with our
:46:55. > :46:59.Political Reporter Alan Soady. It was a farewell Fabio Capello as
:46:59. > :47:04.the England manager resigned. Sports minister and Faversham MP
:47:04. > :47:08.Hugh Robertson put the boot in. a player in his team had behaved in
:47:08. > :47:12.the way that he has behaved to the Football Association he would have
:47:12. > :47:17.taken the top as possible action. Colonel Tim Collins was accused of
:47:17. > :47:20.scoring an own goal, he wants to be Kent's collected Police
:47:20. > :47:24.Commissioner but was criticised after revealing he would only do
:47:24. > :47:29.with part-time saying that was all the job needs. An argument blew up
:47:29. > :47:36.over plans for a wind farm of the Brighton coast. Caroline Lucas
:47:36. > :47:38.insist it will be worth be changed in the CD of. And the South East
:47:38. > :47:41.celebrated the two hundredth birthday of Charles Dickens. But in
:47:41. > :47:47.the House of Lords, the quality of speech-writing was no match for the
:47:47. > :47:54.Victorian novelist. I know these are hard times, so, I didn't have
:47:54. > :47:58.any Great Expectations! Sounds more like bleak house to me!
:47:59. > :48:02.That was Alan Soady. Paul Richards - what did you make of your Kent
:48:03. > :48:06.counterpart Tim Collins saying he could do the job part time? You've
:48:06. > :48:13.said you'd sacrifice a chunk of your salary if you were elected as
:48:13. > :48:17.Police Commissioner. The salary is a substantial salary, �100,000 in
:48:17. > :48:22.some constabularies. I admire Tim Collins and his public record is
:48:22. > :48:27.there, but he is wrong here. It is a full-time job, not a part-time
:48:27. > :48:31.job. It sets police budgets, hiring and firing constables, it
:48:31. > :48:37.represents the public in the police service. A big job. But you think
:48:37. > :48:41.it is overpaid? 30 % of the salary if I was selected would go to
:48:41. > :48:44.police charities and victims' charities, because my campaign is
:48:44. > :48:49.about to victims' rights and I think you can survive happily on
:48:49. > :48:55.�60,000, but it is a full-time job, so, Colonel Collins, you have got
:48:55. > :49:01.this wrong. Charlie, lots of fewer MPs have been voicing opposition to
:49:01. > :49:05.the wind farms. Onshore wind farms is a bad idea, they are noisy, they
:49:05. > :49:10.drive people mad, offshore wind farms, this is the right way to go,
:49:10. > :49:14.so I think it is a good proposal in principle. Caroline Lucas has not
:49:14. > :49:18.necessarily looked at the issue in terms of the current on the seabed
:49:18. > :49:22.and making to for the environment and the sea bed is protected.
:49:22. > :49:27.do you mean by that? You need to make sure that the environment is
:49:27. > :49:31.not disturbed on the seabed and currents are not disturbed so
:49:31. > :49:35.that's the flora and fauna are in the sea and they are not damaged.
:49:35. > :49:39.As a general principle, the wind farm has been good of Thanet.