:30:31. > :30:34.Hello, this is the news in the south-east. Coming up a blast from
:30:34. > :30:39.the past or a future sense of energy?
:30:39. > :30:43.We examine the pros and cons of making nuclear a priority in the
:30:43. > :30:46.south-east. With me in the studio is Conservative MP Gordon Henderson
:30:46. > :30:50.and the newly and winter and leader-in-waiting of Brighton and
:30:50. > :30:56.Hove City Council, the Green Party's Jason. Thank you for being
:30:56. > :31:01.with us. A couple of weeks, we brought you news of a possible late
:31:01. > :31:05.night levy for bars and clubs open after midnight. We now know Sussex
:31:05. > :31:12.police are in favour of the idea. Councils would accept the levy and
:31:12. > :31:17.it would help pay for police costs associated with binge drinking. Now,
:31:17. > :31:21.Brighton has an estimated alcohol cost of �100 million a year. Jason,
:31:21. > :31:25.it is unsurprising police want a bit of money to help them with this.
:31:25. > :31:30.Why don't you agree it is a good idea? Well, obviously police are
:31:30. > :31:33.struggling with cuts, but what we know from the trade in Brighton and
:31:33. > :31:37.Hove is the licensing industry is already struggling to make ends
:31:37. > :31:42.meet and this could push a lot of them over the edge. We think there
:31:42. > :31:48.is a middle ground to find. Even �1,500 a year? Some of them are
:31:48. > :31:52.really struggling, and we are seeing people buying the drinks at
:31:52. > :31:56.home. They buy their drinks on the supermarket and don't actually buy
:31:56. > :32:04.drinks in the clubs, so as to -- so they are struggling to make ends
:32:04. > :32:10.meet. Gordon, you have worked in the industry. Yes, all are not
:32:10. > :32:16.drinking! Where drinkers cause a problem, they should contribute,
:32:16. > :32:25.shouldn't a? I am not a great believer of additional taxes and I
:32:25. > :32:29.would certainly support this levy if it was going to be across a
:32:29. > :32:34.whole industry. But many of our pubs are really struggling at the
:32:34. > :32:37.moment. In the bigger cities, however, we do have a problem with
:32:37. > :32:42.alcohol-fuelled violence and binge drinking, so we do have to do
:32:42. > :32:48.something to tackle that. My own view is there are probably enough
:32:48. > :32:53.laws available to the police to come down on it anyway. So I'm not
:32:53. > :32:59.entirely in support of a levy, because as Jason said it would just
:32:59. > :33:04.push some people into bankruptcy. However, if this is going to stop
:33:04. > :33:08.violence, I think we should at least look at it. OK, more on that
:33:08. > :33:18.shortly. Now, would you want a nuclear power station as a
:33:18. > :33:18.
:33:18. > :33:23.neighbour? One council wants one right in their backyard. Last week,
:33:23. > :33:25.the government said a new plant threatens environmental damage to
:33:25. > :33:30.the neighbourhood. The existing nuclear power station is being
:33:30. > :33:33.wound down, but with locals Dean and climate change a bigger risk to
:33:33. > :33:43.us all, should the government changed its mind and build another
:33:43. > :33:47.
:33:47. > :33:51.Dungeness power station is on the South Kent coast. One is due to
:33:51. > :33:54.stop generating power in 2018, the other is already been
:33:54. > :33:58.decommissioned. Most existing operations across the country are
:33:58. > :34:02.scheduled to be closed within the next decade, and the only way
:34:02. > :34:06.nuclear power can continue his if new plants are built. But whilst
:34:06. > :34:11.the government has earmarked new sites, Dungeness is not one of them.
:34:11. > :34:15.A growing number of voices, including the local MP as well as
:34:15. > :34:19.councils, think the government should change its mind. I think it
:34:19. > :34:24.is the wrong decision. The current power station employs 500 people
:34:24. > :34:28.directly on the site, the nuclear industry employs 1,000 people in my
:34:28. > :34:32.constituency. That is a lot of jobs in an area of relatively high
:34:32. > :34:36.unemployment for the south-east. I think Dungeness is a good site, it
:34:36. > :34:41.is in an area of high energy demand and can produce more than enough
:34:41. > :34:45.electricity for the whole of Kent, so it makes sense. It seems a shame
:34:45. > :34:49.that we may end up importing nuclear energy from under the sea
:34:49. > :34:55.in France. Whilst nuclear power stations are expensive to build,
:34:55. > :35:00.some say they are cost-effective and necessary. One such supporter
:35:00. > :35:07.is Margaret Thatcher's former press secretary. Nuclear energy on the
:35:07. > :35:17.government's own predictions is the cheapest form of electricity
:35:17. > :35:21.
:35:21. > :35:27.generation. On the government's own projections. And that takes into
:35:27. > :35:32.account wind, renewables, gas and coal. And as that also take into
:35:32. > :35:40.account the building of a new plant and the decommissioning? Yes, it is
:35:40. > :35:46.the total cost. Frankly, Nuclear is a poor man's friend. And keeping it
:35:46. > :35:50.electricity down there would be beneficial. In Kent, East Sussex
:35:50. > :35:59.and Surrey, over 180,000 households are in fuel poverty and the problem
:35:59. > :36:07.is getting worse. In some areas of the south-east, over 15% of
:36:07. > :36:15.household of fuel poor. Some also argue nuclear is better for the
:36:15. > :36:20.environment. One unlikely supporter is the former head of Greenpeace in
:36:20. > :36:28.the UK. He says it is there any way to meet carbon reduction targets.
:36:28. > :36:35.Taking into account the full life- cycle of production and
:36:35. > :36:40.decommissioning, the carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear are about 18
:36:41. > :36:46.from what they are from a coal fire station and a quarter of a gas
:36:46. > :36:51.fired power station. Nuclear is the only way that the UK government can
:36:51. > :36:54.meet its carbon reduction targets which are legally binding under the
:36:54. > :36:58.climate change act. He is also in favour of spending public money on
:36:58. > :37:02.nuclear, something which already happens for certain renewable
:37:02. > :37:07.sources. There will need to be subsidies of some sort, that will
:37:07. > :37:12.have to be accepted. But it is necessary to subsidise nuclear
:37:12. > :37:17.because it is an essential part of climate protection. That is what
:37:17. > :37:21.sending -- spending public money on. Some say more needs to be done to
:37:21. > :37:25.secure that the region's future electricity supply. Is the solution
:37:25. > :37:31.to prioritise nuclear ahead of other energy sources? To help the
:37:31. > :37:38.environment, job opportunities and people's fuel bills?
:37:38. > :37:42.Joining us now from a studio in Oxford is Catherine. Nuclear power
:37:42. > :37:46.- cheaper, helps reduce carbon emissions, and the people of
:37:46. > :37:52.Dungeness want it! Why do you say they should not get it? Well, it
:37:52. > :37:57.certainly isn't cheaper. It may be less carbon emitting, but it is not
:37:57. > :38:02.cheaper. It 2008 the cost was a �38 per megawatt lower than coal and
:38:02. > :38:06.gas and much lower than onshore and offshore wind. But that does not
:38:06. > :38:13.take into the cost of decommissioning and waste product.
:38:13. > :38:19.He said that that was eight level lysed generation cost. Know, we
:38:19. > :38:23.have always had subsidised decommissioning. That has never
:38:23. > :38:29.been at the door of the energy companies. And we now know that
:38:30. > :38:34.decommissioning is hugely expensive and the radioactive waste lies
:38:34. > :38:40.around for thousands of years in a dangerous state. Well, let me pick
:38:40. > :38:44.you up on a one. In the last 24 hours, the chief scientist for the
:38:44. > :38:50.government, said David King, argues that you can re-use that waste. He
:38:50. > :38:55.says plutonium could be used to create even more energy. Do not
:38:55. > :39:00.always, the technology is not there. Some of it can be used, but most
:39:00. > :39:04.cannot. And also, it is not sustainable. We don't have enough
:39:04. > :39:08.uranium in stable countries. If all power stations were built that
:39:08. > :39:12.people would like to be built, we would probably have about 20 years
:39:12. > :39:18.of uranium that we know of, say it is not sustainable. What we need to
:39:18. > :39:22.be doing is putting the money into renewable and into energy reduction.
:39:22. > :39:26.We heard about people in fuel poverty, if we put money into
:39:26. > :39:33.helping them with their fuel padding and more efficient use of
:39:33. > :39:39.energy, we would save enormous amounts without going down a very
:39:39. > :39:46.risky route. Let's talk about it being risky. Obviously there was
:39:46. > :39:50.Japan, but let us look at two very good to -- robust opinion polls.
:39:50. > :39:54.They both demonstrated that public support for nuclear power in this
:39:54. > :39:58.country has not gone down, it has gone up. The people of Dungeness
:39:58. > :40:06.want it, they don't feel there is a risk. The market forces are not
:40:06. > :40:09.coming up with the money since the big nuclear catastrophes of
:40:09. > :40:13.Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Not one nuclear power station has
:40:13. > :40:18.been built without government subsidy since then because it is
:40:18. > :40:22.too expensive for the markets - the insurance, the decommissioning, the
:40:22. > :40:29.building and all the safety features make it an enormously
:40:30. > :40:35.expensive form of energy in terms of environmental and safety
:40:35. > :40:41.concerns. If we actually put that money into investment into
:40:41. > :40:46.renewables and into energy reduction, we would actually have
:40:46. > :40:50.sustainable and save electricity supplies. Thank you. Jason, I am
:40:50. > :40:55.intrigued to know the official Green party line on this. In terms
:40:55. > :40:58.of the green movement, it threatens to split you down the middle.
:40:58. > :41:02.we oppose it. The government had been playing fast and loose with
:41:02. > :41:06.the figures here. They don't include the insurance costs, the
:41:06. > :41:10.security costs. But it is not just the government to gives these low
:41:10. > :41:17.figures. The Royal Academy of Engineering puts it down as a penny
:41:17. > :41:25.for penny almost as cheap as gas. If you look at the go Shemar, only
:41:25. > :41:29.about �1.4 billion of insurance was liable to the insurers. The rest
:41:29. > :41:35.was the government's liability. There is a limitless cost to
:41:35. > :41:39.dealing with this very dangerous fuel, which is limited - there is
:41:39. > :41:49.less than 20 years' worth of uranium. Why would we spend
:41:49. > :41:54.billions in such a short an energy source? Well, Gordon, you are the
:41:54. > :41:58.last person I would expect to hear endorsing nuclear power. The your
:41:58. > :42:04.constituents, wind energy surely has to be the future. If you get a
:42:04. > :42:08.great at the tight -- appetite for wind energy, you could get that
:42:08. > :42:11.turbine up and running and that would mean jobs for people.
:42:11. > :42:20.Absolutely, and I'm a great supporter of the both onshore and
:42:20. > :42:23.offshore wind. But I'm not an expert about nuclear. I'm an expert
:42:23. > :42:28.on what I think my constituents want, and what they want is to be
:42:28. > :42:34.able to turn the light on and have power. My big concern isn't about
:42:34. > :42:39.the environment, I mean, I am concerned, but my big concern is
:42:39. > :42:43.energy security. We are increasingly going to be held
:42:43. > :42:48.hostage by overseas supplies of energy, so we need our own supplies,
:42:48. > :42:51.and we need them from a mix of sources. One of them is no clear.
:42:51. > :42:57.That doesn't mean to say we cannot put money into reducing the need
:42:57. > :43:02.for it, which is what the Green Party want. We will have to leave
:43:02. > :43:06.it there. We are back to policing - should it ever be for-profit?
:43:06. > :43:11.Earlier this week, Sussex police talked to private security
:43:11. > :43:19.companies about privatising part of their service. Almost every area of
:43:19. > :43:24.service was up for discussion. Police forces across the country
:43:24. > :43:29.have to make 20% budget cuts, but his privatisation really the answer,
:43:29. > :43:32.and will it change policing for good or evil? Gordon, let's start
:43:33. > :43:36.with you. Theresa May clearly believes that some sort of
:43:36. > :43:45.outsourcing is the way forward. Kent Police told us this week they
:43:45. > :43:50.will not look at privatising or out serving anything - have they got it
:43:50. > :43:54.wrong? Good for them. I would oppose any suggestion that we
:43:54. > :43:59.privatise the core police service. So, what would you be happy with
:43:59. > :44:02.them doing? Well, there is always an argument for some of the
:44:02. > :44:06.services. For instance, the maintenance of vehicles, canteens,
:44:06. > :44:15.things civilians could easily do. But the actual core services,
:44:15. > :44:18.patrolling our streets, we cannot sub-contract that. So you would
:44:18. > :44:23.make a distinction between frontline policing and backroom
:44:23. > :44:27.policing? Well, even back room policing I would be nervous. Why,
:44:27. > :44:36.what you worried about? Because there has to be continuity, and if
:44:36. > :44:45.you have the police themselves on the front line, they need to be
:44:45. > :44:55.able to communicate with the backroom. There is civilisation
:44:55. > :45:01.already in -- severely ionisation - - some of the areas have been
:45:01. > :45:05.civilised already. Jason, where would you draw the line? I think it
:45:05. > :45:09.is shocking. It is ill-considered, you cannot possibly have private
:45:09. > :45:14.contract is doing investigation and providing the public safety and
:45:14. > :45:17.protection that police officers do. But also, it is ill-considered. We
:45:17. > :45:24.see time and again that this sort of outsourcing just creates an
:45:24. > :45:31.additional level which adds costs. The NHS, in their move towards
:45:31. > :45:35.privatisation, they cost went towards 14% up from 5%. It will
:45:35. > :45:38.really undermine confidence. All because of these austerity measures
:45:38. > :45:42.from the government, it is ill- considered. I used philosophically
:45:42. > :45:47.opposed to privatisation, or privatisation of the police
:45:47. > :45:52.specifically? Boat. Is this green philosophy, that privatisation is
:45:52. > :45:55.that? There is obviously a grey area on this, I would not expect
:45:55. > :45:59.the police to be building their own photocopiers or printers, and they
:45:59. > :46:06.should use the best providers there, but when it comes to core services,
:46:06. > :46:12.the reason they are in the public sector is it is different from a
:46:12. > :46:20.commercial centre. Their duty is to serve everybody. Are you aware that
:46:20. > :46:24.they already privatised aspects such as custody suites? Yes, and it
:46:24. > :46:28.is regrettable. What is your concern? Well, it is about
:46:28. > :46:31.democratic accountability. accountability, do you believe many
:46:31. > :46:34.people believe the police are that accountable as they stand? I would
:46:34. > :46:37.have thought there is quite a broad perception that nobody ever takes
:46:37. > :46:41.the blame in the police when someone goes wrong anyway.
:46:41. > :46:44.welcome I think there is an issue there and at the police should be
:46:44. > :46:48.more directly controlled by directly elected councillors, but
:46:48. > :46:51.that is an argument that has been winning with the government at the
:46:51. > :47:00.moment. The government is introducing elected commissioners
:47:00. > :47:03.who will be in charge of local police forces. That is still
:47:04. > :47:07.democracy, because people will be able to select those people. That
:47:07. > :47:11.is what we're talking about. You want accountability, you cannot get
:47:11. > :47:14.more accountable than being elected. If I would prefer more councillors
:47:15. > :47:23.to be involved rather than creating another level of one person who
:47:23. > :47:33.could easily influenced. I was a councillor on Kent Council and I
:47:33. > :47:36.
:47:36. > :47:46.know that actually one remove from there protection of our people.
:47:46. > :47:49.
:47:49. > :47:52.us take a round-up of this week's Water companies across the south-
:47:52. > :47:57.east will introduce hosepipe bans next month to conserve water
:47:57. > :48:04.supplies in drought conditions. The Environment Secretary said we must
:48:04. > :48:08.act now. The family of a Kent businessman
:48:08. > :48:12.extradited to the US welcomed the Prime Minister raising the issue
:48:12. > :48:17.with the President during talks in Washington. But they said it is
:48:17. > :48:23.done action, not words. The region has no premier football
:48:23. > :48:28.clubs, but that did not stop Damian Collins introducing a Bill saying
:48:28. > :48:34.that owners of top-flight teams past a fitness test.
:48:34. > :48:44.And there was a ding-dong over Big Ben. Visitors will be able to visit
:48:44. > :48:44.
:48:44. > :48:47.it for free after a U-turn over charges. Why did Hitler tried to
:48:48. > :48:55.spend so much time bombing it out of existence of it is not a symbol
:48:55. > :49:04.of Britain? Let's start with a hosepipe ban.
:49:04. > :49:10.Gordon, people in quite large much the -- numbers called my radio show
:49:10. > :49:14.to say they didn't care. Would you report a constituent who you are
:49:14. > :49:21.caught breaking the ban? No, I wouldn't, I think that is for
:49:21. > :49:29.police to detect people. I have to say, I have always worried about
:49:29. > :49:35.the hosepipe ban. It is daft to me. You can just use a watering can!
:49:35. > :49:39.Let's talk about football clubs. She Division to be included in this
:49:39. > :49:44.scrutiny? I don't believe the government has any duty to look
:49:44. > :49:48.after football clubs. Jason? Well, the seagulls obviously very
:49:48. > :49:53.important to our community so it is important they are well run. Well,