12/02/2012 Sunday Politics South East

And in the South East - Bridging the gap - there are plans for a new

Thames crossing to improve the region's transport links - we'll be

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1715 seconds

asking whether it's really Joining me in the studio today is

the Conservative MP for Dover and Deal Charlie Elphicke and the

Labour columnist and prospective Police Commissioner candidate for

Sussex, Paul Richards. First - the Immigration Minister

and Ashford MP Damian Green has said this week that he wants to cut

the number of migrants entering the UK by allowing only 'the brightest

and best' to come here. Charlie Elphicke, is he right to reject

middle managers and unskilled workers? We need them to staff our

hospitals and care homes, don't we? If you look out people looking for

work in places like Dover and where I represent, people say they cannot

get an opportunity because the people from Eastern Europe. We need

a chance to get a job. You're confident that your constituents

will rise to the occasion? Yes, as the benefit system is changing to

encourage work and make it pay, this is the right way forward.

what do you make of these comments? The Labour introduce the

Australian-style system saying if you want to come to the country,

you have to contribute to it, but there should not be an anti-

immigrant rhetoric, because we rely Andy Butt coming to live here that

may not have high skills, but they will put in the hours. -- that may

end up coming to live here. Now, anyone who's tried to drive north

from Kent into London and Essex will be familiar with regular

traffic jams on the Dartford Crossing. But the misery that

particular piece of road causes motorists could be coming to an end.

The coalition government is looking at building an alternative bridge

or tunnel across the Thames. Supporters say it'll ease

congestion and create new jobs in Kent. But those who oppose the

scheme claim we don't need another crossing and, if it does go ahead,

the environmental cost will be too The Dartford crossing is the

gateway to Essex, London and beyond, carrying up to thousands of

vehicles every day. But there can be a traffic bottleneck with

tailbacks and destruction. -- disruption. The only other way is

to use the ferry, but takes foot passengers from Gravesend to

Tilbury, and it does not always have much custom. There are plans

for a newer road crossing to ease congestion and provide easier

travel. Easier travel would be welcome. That could be delays of up

to three hours on both sides of the river. You are stuck there and you

cannot get off. If you have to cross the river, there is no

alternative. It is costing you time and money. It is a mess, a

bottleneck. We have got to leave out. I have lost count of the

number of times I was still care, and I would not wish it on our

anyone, even a government minister! The Government minister in charge

of the roads is taking a new crossing seriously. We have

committed ourselves to looking at another crossing or a tunnel or a

wide bridge. The existing a tunnel and bridge, they are designed for a

capacity of 135,000 vehicles per day. It has hit 180,000. Three

routes around discussion, and one option is alongside the existing

Dartford crossing and one is to the west of Gravesend to Tilbury in

Essex. One is to be eased, the longest journey by far. The council

in Gravesham is opposing the plans because they say it would damage

the countryside and make the existing crossing free would solve

the problems. At the moment it costs �1.52 crossover at Stafford.

In 1991, when the bridge was added to the existing to a lot, they said

they would scrap the toll, but the toll is still in place. At this

timber yard in Dartford, it says the toll is not the problem cannot

be a happy to pay as a more routes would mean more business. We could

do more deliveries. We could save on the fuel costs. We could supply

two-way customer base further afield or in areas where they

previously would have considered the natural boundary of the Thames

as being a barrier to doing business with Kent based businesses.

I would strongly welcome it. It needs to happen sooner rather than

later. In addition to freeing up the roads and two more trade, there

is also the economic benefits of building the crossing itself.

immediate effect will be lots of jobs building out. That will have

to be a good thing in a recession. The timescale for this, I would

like to see us get on with it as soon as possible, but at the moment,

the jobs are desperately needed. It is very strange that people are

opposing it. The Department for Transport will consult on a new

crossing in the next year, and as part of this they will talk to the

local councils. But are these people opposing the plans putting

in the years and ahead of commercial interests, if new jobs

and uneasy passage across the river? -- at the speed of a putting

these plans ahead of commercial interests and new jobs and NEC

passage across the river. Would this not bring huge benefits?

The reality is, we need improve traffic links, but we need to

remove the physical barriers on the crossing. We need the roads to run

smoothly and without the barriers they would run smoothly. I know you

want to get rid of the toll, it was eight years since they were meant

to go, if anything, it is going to go off, this is unrealistic. It is

unrealistic to say that he will consult on an idea without trying

to look at options. One option is to remove the toll. Delivered this

promise. If the toll was removed, it will not stop in Justin because

the predicted volume of traffic is going to exceed the capacity that

is there are now. Yes, but they have not demonstrated or prove this,

and on the consultation, they say be able Breen be crossing east or

west to Gravesend, they will not look at affecting the locals. We're

talking about localism and the Government, but we are ignoring

local people and concerns. Some of the concerns, it would lift poverty,

it would generate growth, some people are so stifled by the

congestion, they want this, and local residents will benefit.

the local benefits will be seen by better traffic links over the

bridge. Get rid of the tolls and see what happens. As well as

employment, there are opportunities there to be created, there are lots

of brownfield sites to be developed, we are looking here at destroying

the Green Belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty. If you

look at Gravesend, this is destroying the local environment.

This argument is used often, but is the current infrastructure... Let's

move away from tolls, do you think the current infrastructure in this

area is OK as it is and does not need expanding? No, if you go along

the A2, there are four lanes and that is often held up with traffic

jams and accidents and a row problems to a great shame because

of it. All of the local MPs agree this would be a good thing is,

naturally it would be beneficial, do you really think that just by

lifting the tolls, the problem would be solved and you want to

stand in the wake of this book for Gravesham? I am not saying that at

all. We can look out for the best place to put the bridge would be

and remove the toll. The Government is bringing in a consultation, but

we hear from the county council that the bridge will be there

within three to five years. I do not know how they can do this, they

need to go forward with an existing routes that they have already

considered. There was no consultation there, that is

predetermined. Charlie, you're presumably in favour of this?

think this is a great idea. We need more jobs and money across Kent as

a whole. It would benefit Gravesham and be great for East Kent, Dover

and Deal and Thanet, and would be great for the county. Poor, what

would you say? I respect the position of John Burton, but we are

in a desperate position economically, and we need these

jobs and infrastructure coming for were it, so I would want to see

some kind of cross St, the debate would be about where, but we need

it for jobs and growth in the region. The main high demand is

about tolls, and the sympathy with this? The previous Labour

governments did not get rid of it eight years ago and they could have

done. Now, the finances are in MS, so the idea to suddenly find the

money to get rid of the tolls is a bit pie-in-the-sky. We need to be

realistic. We need more transport because we know the M25 crossings

are chock-a-block. We need the extra capacity. What about in

Airport in the Thames estuary? That would make this look like a very

small argument! It would! Them they do not think anybody wants the Mad

Cat Island idea! Big projects like that go horribly wrong! We think

that the island in Kent is a bit mad! To look at Southend, Manston,

this would drive the economy on both sides of the estuary and

create more jobs and money. John Burton, not a lot of sympathy for

your argument, do you think you will be able to stop this going

ahead? We have to represent local people, and the local view is

agreeing with this side and we need to have a proper link across the

bridge and we need to think about the road is the structure in Kent

and Essex and how they are affected. Is this the right location of their

takeaway be told? Let's test it. If you want a bridge orate tunnel, put

it in the right place, not just grab something because it is quick

and easy to do. Thank you. The alcohol fuelled party which

began with the introduction of 24 hour licensing could be about to

end. The Government wants to 'rebalance' the law to tackle the

social disorder which has become a problem for many of our coastal

towns. In Brighton and Hove, it's estimated that alcohol misuse costs

the police and the economy a hundred million pounds year. One

solution being considered is a late night levy. A tax on clubs and bars

which serve alcohol after midnight. The money raised would go to the

police and local councils and the Sunday Politics South East has

learned Sussex Police will be meeting to discuss the levy next

week. But would it solve the problem, or kill off local

businesses? If you were elected Police

Commissioner, Paul Richards, you would have to implement this levy,

is it a good idea? Beepers and look at this closely because the money

going into the police force is down. -- people should look at this

closely. Late-night trouble on the street cost a lot of money to

police. Maybe the local businesses that are benefiting from this extra

custom should put more money back into the police force. About 70 %

of the cash raised would go to the police with this scheme, so it

would pay for the officers needed. But did you not think this money

would be ring-fenced for the police, they could do what they wanted?

Police Commissioners will set the budget, so if they want to go down

this route, then the money should be ring-fenced into these areas.

The balance needs to be got right, so we do not want to see late-night

business is going at a business because of this. It is not a

punitive fine, it is a contribution from profits to allow the police to

do their jobs so that other people do not have to pay for the policing.

It does sound reasonable, there are a lot of problems socially, health

why is, police have a lot to clear up, why should these people not to

contribute to the messy caused? That does not deal with the base

problem, there will not be less people a drunk and clogging up

Accident and Emergency. At least they would contribute to the public

service that helps them. The issue is 24 hour drinking and laid-back

licences, they should be less of an idea of this culture. People cannot

get a drink after 2am hacks back be polite to go out after 2am.

understand this. Because there is a late-night licence, people are

walking back late at night, vandalising cars, are fighting in

the streets, people are up in arms because of this. I need to be aware

of the nuisance that this caused as. There should be less of it. You're

saying you do not want a tax on fun, you want a ban on drinking after

midnight? I want to stop their late-night irresponsible drinking

that clogs up accident and emergency and people being sick and

fighting and vandalising property. You must be frustrated that the

Government is not going further with this? One of the big mistakes

was the idea bet you could have Continental, cafe culture, 24 hour

drinking, but that is not the way we are here. Of the Budget not

drink in a plasma because it is a cold country, they tend to have

closing time at 12 o'clock at night. -- people will not drink in a play

as a big as it is cold here. It is a big problem in a Sussex, Hastings,

East Bourne, Brighton and Hove. problem with an early licence is

lots of house parties, it is more noisy and damaging to the local

community. People will still want to stay up late drinking, that is

what they want to do, but banning them in the city centre means they

would do it in their homes. If you put a levy on the businesses

profiting from this behaviour, then the policing is there to stop this

kind of trouble. It is not a very high levy, I think it is between

�304,500 a year for a business making a good profit out of this

licensing. -- it is between �300 and �4,500. There would be a

financial incentive then for the council to grant more late-night

licences. There are too many as it is, it needs to be reined in.

do you do that? You need to restrict licensing and be tougher

on licensing. A recent announcement of a tougher licensing regime for

lap-dancing clubs which is a good thing, we need a tougher licensing

regime for late night boxing and late-night drinking. You're not

worried about putting businesses at a business? I do not think there is

much trade after midnight anyway, and I think the right balance is

that the residents should be able to go to bed in peace and quiet and

not have disturbances on the way home. Another police would get 70 %.

What about giving some to the NHS because of the rise in admissions?

If that works with the police, then maybe that'll be OK. A very anti-

market message from Charlie. That is like saying we should have more

cigarettes sold, everyone has tried to rein in the amount of cigarettes

sold because they have been as bad for you, because late-night

drinking is a bad way for our culture to go as well because of

too much fighting. Let's break up a party there!

And now a round up of the week's events in the region with our

Political Reporter Alan Soady. It was a farewell Fabio Capello as

the England manager resigned. Sports minister and Faversham MP

Hugh Robertson put the boot in. a player in his team had behaved in

the way that he has behaved to the Football Association he would have

taken the top as possible action. Colonel Tim Collins was accused of

scoring an own goal, he wants to be Kent's collected Police

Commissioner but was criticised after revealing he would only do

with part-time saying that was all the job needs. An argument blew up

over plans for a wind farm of the Brighton coast. Caroline Lucas

insist it will be worth be changed in the CD of. And the South East

celebrated the two hundredth birthday of Charles Dickens. But in

the House of Lords, the quality of speech-writing was no match for the

Victorian novelist. I know these are hard times, so, I didn't have

any Great Expectations! Sounds more like bleak house to me!

That was Alan Soady. Paul Richards - what did you make of your Kent

counterpart Tim Collins saying he could do the job part time? You've

said you'd sacrifice a chunk of your salary if you were elected as

Police Commissioner. The salary is a substantial salary, �100,000 in

some constabularies. I admire Tim Collins and his public record is

there, but he is wrong here. It is a full-time job, not a part-time

job. It sets police budgets, hiring and firing constables, it

represents the public in the police service. A big job. But you think

it is overpaid? 30 % of the salary if I was selected would go to

police charities and victims' charities, because my campaign is

about to victims' rights and I think you can survive happily on

�60,000, but it is a full-time job, so, Colonel Collins, you have got

this wrong. Charlie, lots of fewer MPs have been voicing opposition to

the wind farms. Onshore wind farms is a bad idea, they are noisy, they

drive people mad, offshore wind farms, this is the right way to go,

so I think it is a good proposal in principle. Caroline Lucas has not

necessarily looked at the issue in terms of the current on the seabed

and making to for the environment and the sea bed is protected.

do you mean by that? You need to make sure that the environment is

not disturbed on the seabed and currents are not disturbed so

that's the flora and fauna are in the sea and they are not damaged.

As a general principle, the wind farm has been good of Thanet.