:01:20. > :01:24.In the South East, out with the old and in with the new, how a
:01:24. > :01:34.Docklands redevelopment could spell the end of two historic Medway
:01:34. > :01:34.
:01:34. > :37:38.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2164 seconds
:37:39. > :37:43.I'm Julia George and this is Sunday Politics in the South East. Coming
:37:43. > :37:46.up in the next 20 minutes: As the Government gets tough on
:37:46. > :37:50.income support, it could be back to work sooner rather than later for
:37:50. > :37:53.single parents. With me in the studio today is
:37:53. > :37:58.Conservative MP for East Surrey, Sam Gyimah, and the former Labour
:37:58. > :38:02.MP for Gillingham and Rainham, Paul Clark. Let's start with grammar
:38:02. > :38:06.schools - the big story of the week. Sevenoaks could get two new mini
:38:06. > :38:09.grammars linked to existing schools in Tonbridge or Tunbridge Wells.
:38:09. > :38:12.2,000 parents signed a petition, Kent County Council approved the
:38:12. > :38:22.idea, and a loophole in the new schools admission code means it's
:38:22. > :38:24.entirely legal. Given that the parents want it, and that a Kent
:38:24. > :38:29.County Council have said they back the idea, any reason why it should
:38:29. > :38:34.not go ahead? In 1998 we had a clear policy, that was that there
:38:34. > :38:39.would be no new grammar schools created. That was very clear. As
:38:39. > :38:45.you had said in your introduction, about a loophole. The worry is
:38:45. > :38:49.whether this is now back door to actually recreating grammar schools
:38:49. > :38:52.in a wider area across the country. I understand exactly why the
:38:52. > :38:56.parents in Sevenoaks have campaigned for this for their
:38:56. > :39:00.children, but it makes you wonder where is the money going to come
:39:00. > :39:06.from out of what is a Devonport, and which schools will be adversely
:39:07. > :39:11.affected -- what is a given pot. Some said there was a shortage of
:39:11. > :39:14.grammar school places. Some would say that because pupils from Surrey
:39:15. > :39:18.and London and East Sussex are coming across the border and taking
:39:18. > :39:23.places, is that fair and reasonable? I think it is unfair.
:39:23. > :39:28.There are lot of very good schools in East Surrey, the constituency I
:39:28. > :39:34.represent. Two points about this, the first is parental choice. 70%
:39:34. > :39:42.of parents were in support of this many grammar school, to use the
:39:42. > :39:46.phrase that you used. -- mini grammar school. The broader issues
:39:46. > :39:50.about academies and that the heads of academies are given broader
:39:50. > :39:54.scope over budgets, the setting up of the curriculum, and breaking
:39:54. > :40:01.down the barriers between state and independent schools. So you have
:40:01. > :40:04.got Wellington College that has set up an academy, and I don't see the
:40:04. > :40:08.thrust of government policy as bringing back the old school divide
:40:08. > :40:12.between grammar and comprehensive. The thrust of government policy is
:40:12. > :40:16.responding to parents' Choice and having enough good school places
:40:16. > :40:22.for parents to send their kids to. What's more important, creating new
:40:23. > :40:25.homes and jobs or protecting the future of a local football club? In
:40:25. > :40:28.the Medway towns, councillors have to decide whether a �650 million
:40:28. > :40:32.development at Chatham Docks is, on balance, a good thing. The Peel
:40:32. > :40:35.Group wants to build a new hotel, a large supermarket and flats and
:40:35. > :40:37.they claim it will benefit a deprived area. But Gillingham
:40:37. > :40:47.Football Club say the development would scupper their plans to move
:40:47. > :40:50.
:40:50. > :40:56.to a new stadium. Helen Drew has Medway has plenty of history. From
:40:56. > :41:00.dockyards that have been here for hundreds of years, to Kent's only
:41:00. > :41:03.Football League Club, at the same site since 1893. But there is a big,
:41:03. > :41:08.modern development planned for Chatham docks. Intended to
:41:08. > :41:13.regenerate the area, which could threaten its heritage. Gillingham
:41:13. > :41:17.FC is a Medway football club based, unsurprisingly, in a Medway town.
:41:17. > :41:22.The club says it could be forced out if the docks development gets
:41:22. > :41:25.the go-ahead. The problem is this. Gillingham's ground is hemmed in by
:41:25. > :41:29.houses on all sides, transport is not ideal and there are very few
:41:29. > :41:34.additional facilities, so it needs to relocate. To make a new stadium
:41:34. > :41:37.financially viable, it requires a new supermarket alongside it. But
:41:37. > :41:41.with one being proposed at Chatham Docks, and the only other side
:41:41. > :41:45.within made way for the club's relocation just two miles from it,
:41:45. > :41:49.it is too close to attract similar investment. The reality is if
:41:49. > :41:53.Chatham Docks goes ahead, and if it takes the supermarket, with the
:41:53. > :41:56.investment it would bring and the conferencing and other retail and
:41:56. > :42:02.facilities that would generate the football club needs, the football
:42:02. > :42:06.club would be able to relocate within Medway and will have no
:42:06. > :42:09.option but to look elsewhere, and that will have to be outside
:42:09. > :42:13.Medway's area. A football club is very important for investment
:42:13. > :42:18.generally. The club's chairman Hazlitt -- written to Medway
:42:18. > :42:21.council, asking it to reject the Chatham docks proposal. He told us
:42:21. > :42:25.that building a new stadium would create over 2000 jobs and he will
:42:25. > :42:30.start looking outside of Medway immediately, if the development on
:42:30. > :42:34.this site goes ahead. The �650 million plans for Chatham Docks
:42:34. > :42:38.include building a hotel, Holmes, a conference centre and a big
:42:38. > :42:43.supermarket here. The developers are repealed group, who are beside
:42:43. > :42:47.the BBC's new home at Salford Quays -- the developers are the Peel
:42:47. > :42:52.Group. It is not just the football club that objects. The groups says
:42:52. > :42:55.it would create 3,500, took 4,000 jobs, but opponents are worried it
:42:55. > :42:59.could lead to the downfall of the docks, which have been operating
:42:59. > :43:03.for hundreds of years, initially as a naval port and more recently
:43:03. > :43:08.commercially. Sections of nearby docks are also closing. The future
:43:08. > :43:12.is very bleak for the dock facilities. Rochester ridge beside
:43:12. > :43:17.has a housing development which has been planned for the last 10 years
:43:17. > :43:23.-- Rochester riverside. The Sheerness docks area, there is
:43:23. > :43:29.going to be a wind farm fabrication unit, which will take over
:43:29. > :43:34.something like two-thirds of the port facility. The development of
:43:34. > :43:40.Chatham dock will require a large proportion to be taken over. It
:43:40. > :43:44.will be disastrous. Not just on lost jobs, but that is obviously in
:43:44. > :43:49.the forefront, but it is also the facility. The facility will
:43:49. > :43:53.disappear for ever, it will never come back. Aside from potentially
:43:53. > :43:56.taking away businesses like the football club and docks, there are
:43:56. > :43:59.concerns about the implications on housing demands. The developers are
:43:59. > :44:03.planning to build flats and houses on the side, but some say it might
:44:03. > :44:07.not be enough. If you have a development organised around a
:44:07. > :44:12.supermarket, by its nature, supermarkets offer relatively low-
:44:12. > :44:15.paid, part-time and often insecure jobs. The outcome can be for
:44:15. > :44:21.housing, if you organise a development around a supermarket,
:44:21. > :44:24.you have even greater pressure on social housing, even greater
:44:24. > :44:28.pressure on low-cost homes, and that can reinforce the culture of
:44:28. > :44:32.poverty, the culture of low incomes which you already have in the
:44:32. > :44:36.Medway towns today. Should the development at Chatham docks get
:44:36. > :44:41.the go-ahead, or are the benefits of having a football club in Medway,
:44:41. > :44:44.as well as rare working dogs, too great to be washed away?
:44:44. > :44:48.Helen Drew, reporting. Joining me from our studio in Westminster is
:44:48. > :44:53.Conservative MP for Rochester and Strood, Mark Reckless.
:44:53. > :44:59.Why do you welcome the Chatham Docks development? I believe Medway
:44:59. > :45:04.is open for business. I think it is important that we extend a welcome
:45:04. > :45:09.to investors who would like to put money into Medway, would like to
:45:09. > :45:17.develop land to bring in more employment, more mixed use. Be that
:45:17. > :45:21.retail, hotels, housing. I think it is quite an attractive development
:45:21. > :45:29.that Peel Group have put four. They have done Salford media keys, as
:45:29. > :45:33.the BBC is well aware of. I think this is an interesting proposal,
:45:33. > :45:37.high quality office development, it will create jobs and the decision
:45:37. > :45:41.is one for the development control team at Medway councillors. I think
:45:41. > :45:47.it looks like a good idea. There is an interesting point, that it is
:45:47. > :45:51.not ambitious enough. Talk about a supermarket, flats and a hotel, he
:45:51. > :45:55.says you should be trying to encourage higher end jobs.
:45:55. > :46:01.understood that the development involved higher-value office
:46:01. > :46:05.development, and what Peel Group described as an events centre. They
:46:05. > :46:10.were talking about bringing things like the X Factor and other types
:46:10. > :46:16.of events to make way. If that were to succeed, that would be a real
:46:16. > :46:22.positive. Broadly, I think if there are good ideas for investment, we
:46:22. > :46:28.generally want to welcome that and support that, rather than look for
:46:28. > :46:32.something that is perfect. Or allowing Gillingham football club
:46:32. > :46:37.to have a veto over whether other landowners develop their businesses
:46:37. > :46:41.and sites in Medway. Are you saying Gillingham Football Club's argument
:46:41. > :46:44.is not a real one, that this would damage them? As I understand it,
:46:44. > :46:48.Gillingham Football Club are saying that Medway council should and
:46:49. > :46:54.other developments and not allow other people to allow a supermarket
:46:54. > :46:57.to set up, and create jobs, and better shopping for people in
:46:57. > :46:59.Medway. The only people who should be allowed to do that are
:46:59. > :47:03.Gillingham Football Club and until they have done that, no one else
:47:03. > :47:08.should be allowed to develop their land, least of all with a retail
:47:08. > :47:12.supermarket. I don't think that can be right. We have to welcome all
:47:12. > :47:16.investors to Medway. In an even- handed way, to show Medway is open
:47:17. > :47:19.for business, wants to create jobs and is going to support that
:47:19. > :47:23.investment and redevelopment that is so important for the future of
:47:23. > :47:28.the towns. Let's bring in a Gillingham Football Club fan, Paul
:47:28. > :47:31.Clark. Mark Reckless has got a good point, why should Gillingham
:47:31. > :47:36.Football Club be allowed to hold the council and this development
:47:36. > :47:41.hostage? Gillingham Football Club, I am not here to speak on their
:47:41. > :47:44.behalf but they are not holding it to veto. Five years ago we had this
:47:44. > :47:47.polarisation, some in authority saying it didn't matter whether
:47:47. > :47:51.Gillingham football club went, and others said it was important they
:47:51. > :47:57.remained. I have to say to you, I believe for the good of the Medway
:47:57. > :48:00.towns, it is important to retain... Actually older than 120 years,
:48:00. > :48:04.something like 130 years of Gillingham football club itself
:48:04. > :48:07.within the Medway towns. I think it is important for Gillingham
:48:07. > :48:12.football club that it remains in the Medway towns as well. It is
:48:12. > :48:16.about finding a suitable site. Five years ago I worked very closely
:48:16. > :48:21.with Paul Scally and the leader of the council to look at identifying
:48:21. > :48:25.40 odd sights as to what would work, and it wouldn't work. If I am not
:48:25. > :48:30.mistaken, they have gone down to League 2, they have a ground that
:48:30. > :48:36.is often only half full, do they really need this new stadium?
:48:36. > :48:40.have to think big. You need to think bigger. This isn't just about
:48:41. > :48:44.building a football stadium, this is about building a multi-purpose
:48:44. > :48:50.stadium that actually can present, as much as I love the X Factor,
:48:50. > :48:55.let's think bigger and better in terms of events and so on, and
:48:55. > :48:59.opportunities across the board for entertainment. You can see the
:48:59. > :49:04.arguments playing up, would you welcome the developments like this?
:49:04. > :49:08.And I am an Arsenal fan. Really muddying the waters back ex
:49:08. > :49:12.something that Mark said that is interesting, the watchword should
:49:12. > :49:16.be sending the signal that Medway is open for business, to attract
:49:16. > :49:20.the biggest possible investment, to regenerate the town, to create jobs,
:49:20. > :49:24.at a time when growth is really the biggest challenge facing the UK.
:49:24. > :49:28.For me, not representing the Syria, and mindful that it is another
:49:28. > :49:33.football club, what I would say -- not representing this area. If I
:49:33. > :49:39.was advising, go for the deal that brings the most intense of economic
:49:39. > :49:42.potential to the area. -- in terms of. When we were in government,
:49:42. > :49:46.being open for business, no question that Medway was open for
:49:46. > :49:49.business. The regeneration, the investment in the universities,
:49:49. > :49:54.Rochester riverside, to make way for the development that is
:49:54. > :50:03.happening there now. What I am saying, and I do believe that Peel
:50:03. > :50:06.have now said... Let me close this down, and Peel have said to us,
:50:06. > :50:12.they are still happy for Gillingham to talk to them about this
:50:12. > :50:16.development, so the door is still open.
:50:16. > :50:19.Should you go back to work when your kids start school? This week
:50:19. > :50:21.in the South East, nearly 7,000 single parents - mostly mums -
:50:21. > :50:24.received letters from the government suggesting they should
:50:24. > :50:26.start looking for a job. They'll all be moved from income support to
:50:26. > :50:29.Jobseeker's Allowance after their child's fifth birthday. So is this
:50:29. > :50:32.a timely message to work-shy parents? And are there many jobs
:50:32. > :50:37.you can do between school drop-off and pick up, term-time only. Let's
:50:37. > :50:44.ask our guests of the day what they make of this.
:50:44. > :50:47.Sam Gyimah, why now? You have to remember the age at which parents
:50:47. > :50:52.have to look for work has been coming down for the last three
:50:52. > :50:57.years. Under the Labour government it was 12, then 10, now five years
:50:57. > :51:00.old. The policy simply says, when your children reach the age of five,
:51:00. > :51:04.you should be moved from income support to Jobseeker's Allowance,
:51:04. > :51:08.which means you should begin to look for work. The reason I say why
:51:08. > :51:11.now, we have historically very high unemployment and it is
:51:11. > :51:15.disproportionately affecting women, so it seems like a bad time to do
:51:15. > :51:20.it. We also have �300 million of extra support for childcare coming
:51:21. > :51:24.in next year, why now? I understand the pressures that lone parents can
:51:24. > :51:29.be on. I was brought up by my mother on her own, there were three
:51:29. > :51:35.of us, she had to juggle. I was in Ghana, where there was no support.
:51:35. > :51:41.I understand the challenges of juggling children and work. I and
:51:41. > :51:46.35, a lot of my friends are having children, because that seems to be
:51:46. > :51:49.the age, for a lot of them, they say, I am going to have my children,
:51:49. > :51:54.when they get to the stage when they start school, I will begin to
:51:54. > :51:59.look for work and maybe when they are 13, I will aim to get back into
:51:59. > :52:03.the workforce full-time. This is what happens anyway, as far as the
:52:03. > :52:06.economy is concerned, so I don't see anything wrong with saying that
:52:06. > :52:10.if people are on benefits as well, that should be aligned with how
:52:10. > :52:14.things happen with most people. We're talking about single parents
:52:14. > :52:18.specifically. Your party started this, Sam is right to point out
:52:18. > :52:23.that it came down to seven, why didn't you take the opportunity
:52:23. > :52:26.during the good economic times to make -- did the one thing that
:52:26. > :52:31.would make a real difference, tackle the issue of unaffordable
:52:31. > :52:37.child care. That is exactly what we did do, we increase the number of
:52:37. > :52:42.child care places by some 30,000. Under the working tax credit, up to
:52:42. > :52:48.80% of childcare costs were covered. The Universal Credit that is coming
:52:48. > :52:54.in, locking huge cuts in child care support. There is an issue about
:52:54. > :53:03.the timing of this. We reduced it from 16, 12, to 10. The coalition
:53:03. > :53:07.brought it down to seven in October. I am not disagreeing with that. Nor
:53:07. > :53:13.is the Labour Party disagreeing with that. But the timing is
:53:13. > :53:18.worrying. These people, and mainly women, are going to be going...
:53:18. > :53:25.Low-paid jobs, short-term hours and so on. They are going to be going
:53:25. > :53:30.for those jobs. The king in the Gillingham and Rainham, there has
:53:30. > :53:34.been a 190% increase in long-term young unemployed in a year --
:53:34. > :53:37.looking in Gillingham and Rainham. For every vacancy notified to the
:53:37. > :53:41.Jobcentre, there are almost 35 claimants for every job. I am
:53:41. > :53:48.worried about the people who we want to be helping themselves, and
:53:48. > :53:52.most of them wanted... If they can't find a job that they can't do
:53:52. > :54:01.in term time, they are not going to lose anything, they will still get
:54:01. > :54:05.the same amount of money. They have got to be seeking jobs. There are
:54:05. > :54:10.certain relaxations for lone parents, in the sense that they can
:54:10. > :54:15.work short term, they can turn down jobs if they are not suitable for
:54:15. > :54:20.child care responsibilities. But that is going to be a difficulty. I
:54:20. > :54:26.do wonder whether we need to be looking at whether employers are
:54:26. > :54:31.geared up to say, don't start at 9:30am, or 10 o'clock am, to say
:54:31. > :54:40.that -- to make sure you can do the summer run. What about the school
:54:40. > :54:47.holidays? -- to make sure you can do the school runs. You have put
:54:47. > :54:52.your finger on it, people should be looking for work, during term hours.
:54:52. > :54:56.If that is not possible, they should not be put under pressure.
:54:56. > :54:59.We are going to do a whole programme on the cost of childcare,
:54:59. > :55:02.not that I have got a vested interest!
:55:02. > :55:11.And now a round-up of the week's events in the region with our
:55:11. > :55:14.political editor, Louise Stewart. The MP for Thanet North defended
:55:14. > :55:18.controversial comments he made about gay marriage. His support
:55:18. > :55:24.civil partnerships but believes that... Marriage is a term that
:55:24. > :55:28.describes a union between a man and a woman, in church or out of church.
:55:28. > :55:32.No stranger to controversy herself, Speaker's wife Sally burkas spot
:55:32. > :55:36.anger among the family of two young Canterbury men who died after
:55:36. > :55:42.taking a drug which is to be banned. Sally Birkenau said a stroke -- a
:55:42. > :55:48.ban would only increase its use. Kent County Council backs the first
:55:48. > :55:53.major expansion of a grammar school in 40 years. A former Cranbrook
:55:53. > :55:56.Rugby School welcomed the first full assisted -- rugby player
:55:56. > :56:03.welcomed the first full assisted suicide debate to be held in the
:56:03. > :56:13.Commons in a number of years. And epilepsy sufferers aim to reduce
:56:13. > :56:15.
:56:15. > :56:19.the stigma of the condition by A powerful subject on legalising
:56:19. > :56:25.assisted dying. If there was an opportunity to vote on us, would
:56:25. > :56:29.you vote in favour of changing the law? No, the debate was whether the
:56:29. > :56:33.DPP guidelines should be put in statute, and I think, no. The
:56:33. > :56:36.simple reason is I do not really think the law could sufficiently
:56:36. > :56:41.address all the circumstances in which someone could be in that
:56:41. > :56:44.situation, and they wouldn't be coerced into dying. Whilst I
:56:44. > :56:47.appreciate the pain and suffering that some people find themselves in,
:56:47. > :56:54.I don't think the law can sufficiently addressed the
:56:54. > :56:59.challenges around the collision. I agree with Sam. There was a
:57:00. > :57:03.debate in my time and for the same reason, you cannot legislate for
:57:03. > :57:07.each individual circumstance. My worry is that we should protect the
:57:08. > :57:11.most abominable. -- vulnerable.