:01:37. > :01:41.And in the South East. Another blow for jobs on the Isle of Sheppey as
:01:41. > :01:51.a wind power company walks away but that making a single turbine. Is
:01:51. > :01:52.
:01:52. > :29:52.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1680 seconds
:29:52. > :29:57.He I and Julia George and this is the Sunday Politics in the South
:29:57. > :30:01.East. Coming up. Chris a sack and Gatwick runway becoming more
:30:01. > :30:06.likely? Anew report says it is a better idea than a whole new
:30:06. > :30:10.airport on the North Kent coast. John in the in the studio, the
:30:10. > :30:14.Conservative MP Tracey Crouch and for Labour, the Sussex-based
:30:14. > :30:18.columnist and commentator Paul Richards. Thank you for coming in.
:30:18. > :30:22.The Prime Minister started the week in Kent promising no benefit cuts
:30:22. > :30:25.for pensioners. John Simpson for the BBC this were to lead the
:30:25. > :30:30.debate about dementia when he said he would rather pop a pill than
:30:30. > :30:34.live in misery and be a nuisance. As Sussex in he says it is time for
:30:34. > :30:38.a Grey Pride Minister, looking out for the needs of older people.
:30:38. > :30:43.Tracey Crouch, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that pensioners
:30:43. > :30:45.are doing quite well in terms of finances. The the to need their own
:30:45. > :30:50.Minister and I think the Labour Party were quite right in
:30:50. > :30:54.appointing a spokesman for it all to people. We made many decisions
:30:54. > :30:58.every day over transport, housing and health care that affect older
:30:58. > :31:02.people, but there is no joined-up approach. We could do with the
:31:02. > :31:06.Minister for older people. Do you think that older people are getting
:31:06. > :31:11.a tougher time work are younger people the ones who need looking
:31:11. > :31:14.out for? Part of this is about having an approach across
:31:14. > :31:19.government like Tracey said, but also having a single Minister would
:31:19. > :31:26.be a good idea. A 65 you will's needs are different from someone of
:31:27. > :31:32.the age of 100. You cannot refer to old people? People in the 60s are
:31:32. > :31:39.going skiing and surfing and are being active. People in their
:31:39. > :31:42.hundreds of are entirely different. You cannot lump them all together.
:31:42. > :31:47.Expand Gatwick and Heathrow, make Manston into a proper airport and
:31:47. > :31:50.just forget about Boris app Island. The latest report says a new hub
:31:50. > :31:55.airport on the North Kent coast would be too expensive and take too
:31:55. > :32:05.long to build. Helen Drew has been exploring the arguments for a
:32:05. > :32:06.
:32:07. > :32:09.bigger Gatwick. Gatwick Airport will soon be publishing its
:32:09. > :32:13.masterplan for the next few years which will include the possibility
:32:13. > :32:17.of the second runway. The airport told us that surrounding land will
:32:17. > :32:22.continue to be safeguarded to give the option to expand. There is
:32:22. > :32:26.local opposition, not least because the medieval village of Charlwood
:32:26. > :32:30.which lies close to the airport and has around 2000 residents could
:32:30. > :32:34.find itself sandwiched between the two runways. But the expansion to
:32:34. > :32:37.take place, but we need to be a good case for it. Aviation bosses
:32:37. > :32:43.have said that the UK needs more capacity it it does not want to be
:32:43. > :32:47.left behind. As we stagnate, our counterparts in Europe and around
:32:47. > :32:50.the world rub their hands with glee. Some, if not all have the capacity,
:32:50. > :32:54.will need to come from the South East. There is the ongoing debate
:32:54. > :32:59.over a third runway at Heathrow as well as the possibility of night
:32:59. > :33:04.flights at Manston and an extended run way here. There is also the
:33:04. > :33:07.proposal for a new airport in the Thames estuary, but this week a
:33:07. > :33:12.report said that this is not the right solution and we take too long
:33:12. > :33:15.to build. Gatwick cannot expand until after 2019 because of the
:33:16. > :33:19.legal ruling, but could still be the strongest contender. Doing
:33:19. > :33:23.nothing is not an option. If you were to talk about expanding
:33:23. > :33:26.Gatwick you would get away from the idea of building an airport in the
:33:26. > :33:30.Thames estuary which has been around for ten years and is frankly
:33:30. > :33:33.something we would seek sooner see the end of. It would cause
:33:33. > :33:37.environmental damage and we do not think the numbers stack up and it
:33:37. > :33:42.could be built in the crucial time frame that we need if we are going
:33:42. > :33:46.to be a player in the aviation hub of business. There is an awful lot
:33:47. > :33:51.of jobs resting on the back of this and we cannot afford to lose out.
:33:51. > :33:56.The Gatwick area has been helped in terms of employment. The airport is
:33:56. > :33:59.responsible for the to 6,000 direct or related jobs and Crawley has
:33:59. > :34:05.cure people claiming jobseeker's allowance and the national average.
:34:05. > :34:10.The local MP has been hosting a debate this week. The Crawley area
:34:10. > :34:13.has benefited from the existence of Gatwick Airport and that is why a
:34:13. > :34:18.lot of Global Connect the -- companies base their UK and
:34:18. > :34:21.European headquarters there. It is why we benefit from their
:34:21. > :34:26.headquarters of the British Crowan companies like Virgin Atlantic and
:34:26. > :34:30.many others that I could mention. We need to be mindful of future
:34:30. > :34:34.economic expansion. We are a trading nation and we rely heavily
:34:34. > :34:39.on the aviation industry. We are leaders in the aviation industry.
:34:39. > :34:42.To deny that would be foolish. I do not think we should rule out the
:34:42. > :34:46.expansion of Gatwick Airport in the future. Looking to the future,
:34:46. > :34:51.Gatwick is investing �20 million per month in its facilities. It
:34:51. > :34:54.recently won new routes are eight, including direct flights to China
:34:54. > :35:01.and South Korea and passenger numbers have risen to 34 million
:35:01. > :35:06.per year. A second runway would bring it further investment.
:35:06. > :35:12.obviously, there is the direct investment in the runway. Hopefully,
:35:12. > :35:20.a large UK company will get that work. The multiplier behind it,
:35:20. > :35:25.they would be five to 10 jobs behind every single shop at Gatwick.
:35:25. > :35:30.I know people commute up from the south coast us. People commute from
:35:30. > :35:34.Kent. It will help the local area and it will expand what we do took
:35:34. > :35:38.a further area. This summer, the Government will publish its
:35:38. > :35:42.document on the long-term future of aviation. Alongside that, it will
:35:42. > :35:45.be looking for suggestions on how to address the need for extra
:35:45. > :35:50.capacity. With ongoing investment in that with's facilities and the
:35:50. > :35:54.surrounding area that has been helped by the job opportunities, we
:35:54. > :35:59.are expanding Gatwick be just the lift that the nation he -- the
:35:59. > :36:03.region needs's John Innes now from our Westminster studio is the
:36:03. > :36:07.former Mayor of Medway Dai Liyanage and he is also the director of
:36:07. > :36:13.demand regeneration in North Kent. A second runway at Gatwick, it
:36:13. > :36:21.would be a quicker solution? will be. It will not happen for
:36:21. > :36:26.another seven years. If we start building up a longer-term solution
:36:27. > :36:32.on the estuary, then in about 10 years' time, we can have that
:36:32. > :36:38.airport. It is a better thing for a longer term solution rather than a
:36:38. > :36:43.short term, short-sighted solution. You are in a minority in Kent,
:36:43. > :36:48.calling for a new hub airport. Here is another report saying it is not
:36:48. > :36:52.the right solution. Are you losing confidence in the hub airport?
:36:52. > :36:56.If you look at the report and terms of reference it is looking for a
:36:56. > :37:00.short-term solution. We are looking for a long-term solution. That is
:37:00. > :37:10.the difference. People do not understand what a hub airport means.
:37:10. > :37:11.
:37:11. > :37:19.It means it is like a bus station, whereas other airports are like
:37:19. > :37:24.bus-stops. You need a bus station. Having at four runways, like other
:37:24. > :37:32.airports, look at China. They are building 50 airports in the next
:37:32. > :37:36.ten years. The UK will be left behind. You mention inconvenience
:37:36. > :37:41.for residents if Gatwick expanse, what about the inconvenience and
:37:41. > :37:46.the environmental damage that would be caused by a massive new
:37:46. > :37:50.development of the North Kent coast? How about the jobs. How
:37:50. > :37:53.about the regeneration for the area? That is the most important
:37:53. > :37:59.thing. There are a lot of young people who are unemployed in those
:37:59. > :38:03.areas. There is no hope for them for the future. Here is something
:38:03. > :38:09.that within 10 years' time, we did have a new airport, new jobs and a
:38:09. > :38:13.career and a future for the people of the area. Are you convincing
:38:13. > :38:18.anyone? The council had been opposed to this as have local MPs.
:38:18. > :38:25.Is anyone coming on side and is anyone listening to those voices?
:38:25. > :38:32.Absolutely. A lot of business people are supporting this campaign.
:38:32. > :38:42.We need to ask the people, without asking anyone spending �50,000 of
:38:42. > :38:42.
:38:42. > :38:46.my money, on propaganda. I do not understand the logic of the council.
:38:46. > :38:53.I do not know what their hidden agenda is. Let us bring in the
:38:53. > :38:57.studio guests in. Is there a hidden agenda here? Why would any MP say
:38:57. > :39:03.yes to a massive infrastructure project and a massive number of new
:39:03. > :39:07.jobs? I a whole variety of reasons. The man until impact is one of
:39:07. > :39:11.those reasons. This is a 50 billion pound project and it would take
:39:11. > :39:15.decades to get planning permission and to start up. Boris has made it
:39:15. > :39:18.clear that he sees this as an opportunity for Londoners to have
:39:18. > :39:22.jobs. He has made it clear that quite a few of the jobs would
:39:22. > :39:27.transfer from Heathrow directly, so any suggestion that there would be
:39:27. > :39:34.new jobs for local people is misguided. A youngsters need jobs
:39:34. > :39:39.today, not in 20 years' time. is a big opportunity for jobs that
:39:39. > :39:43.has disappeared in Kent recently the investment in the
:39:43. > :39:48.infrastructure is just an available to us at the moment. There is
:39:48. > :39:53.another point as well, in that Medway in particular is a highly
:39:53. > :40:00.populated and to suddenly find thousands of new homes and all the
:40:00. > :40:05.infrastructure at that could go with that, I do not think this is
:40:05. > :40:10.appropriate to build a brand-new airport off the Kent coast.
:40:10. > :40:14.Sussex they think it is a brilliant idea to have investment in their
:40:14. > :40:18.existing airport. If there was a simple choice for you, expand
:40:18. > :40:22.Gatwick or a new airport? You have got a perfectly good word class
:40:22. > :40:27.airport at Gatwick. The pain has been taken already in the council,
:40:27. > :40:33.now it has a world-class airport, so you expand what you have. The
:40:33. > :40:40.economy is flatlining and we cannot wait for that two decades. Does it
:40:40. > :40:47.have to take that long? The even the ones that have been referred to
:40:47. > :40:51.as being built in China and should by, the still take time to be built.
:40:51. > :40:56.With the economy flatlining and jobs needed now, with the airport
:40:56. > :41:00.already there, let us build in Gatwick.
:41:00. > :41:04.Another blow for jobs on the Isle of Sheppey. Vestas has abandoned
:41:04. > :41:08.plans to build wind turbines in a huge factory in Sheerness. No one
:41:08. > :41:13.knows exactly why, but could government policy be to blame?
:41:13. > :41:17.There are mixed messages about cuts in subsidies for wind energy. At
:41:17. > :41:23.least 10% and it could be 25% and according to one Cabinet Minister,
:41:23. > :41:27.subsidies could be gone altogether by 2020. You are one of the MPs who
:41:27. > :41:31.wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this year St you wanted to limit
:41:31. > :41:34.the growth of onshore wind production. Investors need long-
:41:34. > :41:39.term certainty. You are part of the reason that investors say they will
:41:40. > :41:44.not be part of the future in Kent. I think the decision by the company
:41:44. > :41:48.is a bit of a red herring. They closed a site on Tyne met on
:41:48. > :41:52.exactly the same day that the announce the decision on the Isle
:41:52. > :41:59.of Sheppey. The closed five sites in Scandinavia last year. It is a
:41:59. > :42:02.commercial decision. Why did one of your colleagues say that their
:42:02. > :42:06.decisions suggests a lack of confidence within the industry over
:42:06. > :42:13.the government's commitment to green energy? I heard her interview
:42:13. > :42:17.and she made clear that all energy has been subsidised at some point
:42:17. > :42:20.and the subsidies decline over time. We need to ensure that people do
:42:20. > :42:23.have an understanding about the government's commitment to
:42:23. > :42:28.renewable energy and in the next few weeks the government will be
:42:28. > :42:31.making announcements on the banding review. The taxpayer subsidises the
:42:31. > :42:36.energy and it has to subsidise the right energy that is getting the
:42:36. > :42:42.right results. You are shaking your head. How long to be go on
:42:42. > :42:47.subsidising wind energy? How long before we say it has to stand on
:42:47. > :42:52.his own two ft? We need a low- carbon economy, and we need jobs as
:42:52. > :42:57.well. This plant would have given 2000 high skilled jobs in the south.
:42:57. > :43:02.These are the kind of jobs we need in the low-carbon economy that the
:43:02. > :43:06.government claims to want to support. It seems to be closing its
:43:06. > :43:09.doors to Green Investment and those jobs are going elsewhere. You
:43:09. > :43:13.cannot say there is cause-and- effect between a government that
:43:13. > :43:21.signals it is not interested in subsidising the industry and a big
:43:21. > :43:28.supplier like Vestas at St forget it. To think that Tracey's decision
:43:28. > :43:31.is part of the recent Vestas is not here in Kent? It is. It is based on
:43:31. > :43:40.the framework of the government who does not seem to be serious about
:43:40. > :43:43.wind energy. Ed Davey said that we have to be green and been green it
:43:43. > :43:46.means being straight with investors and companies and not messing them
:43:46. > :43:50.around. We need a clear message so that people understand what the
:43:50. > :43:54.subsidies will be and whether this government backs renewable energy.
:43:54. > :43:58.I absolutely. We will see an announcement from Ed Davey over the
:43:58. > :44:05.next few weeks. It will set out the banding rebuke and what the subsidy
:44:05. > :44:11.will be for certain energies. what shook the level be? I favour
:44:11. > :44:17.offshore wind. It is more consistent. I would have less
:44:17. > :44:25.subsidy for onshore wind. We have to see the industry and --
:44:25. > :44:29.demonstrate it is what the tax payers money. We wanted jobs, but
:44:29. > :44:36.millions of households are believed to be in fuel Prof pretty. They are
:44:36. > :44:41.clamouring for cheaper electricity. The need MX-. You need a nuclear to
:44:41. > :44:47.blend slowly into types of low- carbon energy. You need action on
:44:47. > :44:54.fuel prices particularly. In the longer term, we need those green
:44:54. > :44:58.jobs in the south. We need a high skilled engineering jobs. Is there
:44:58. > :45:07.a prospect that and other renewable energy firm and they come along? Is
:45:07. > :45:13.anyone making positive noises? side that Vestas were going to use
:45:13. > :45:21.is perfect for renewable Engineering. Why aren't there any
:45:21. > :45:25.other companies coming? Vestas made a commercial decision. It has been
:45:25. > :45:34.closing sites all over the world for the last few years. They have
:45:34. > :45:39.not had a single order for a wind turbine. If the site was perfect
:45:39. > :45:43.and they decide not to come, you do not need to be a genius to work out
:45:43. > :45:51.because unaffected do you? Or lover let when this has suggested that
:45:51. > :45:55.all subsidies should go for renewable energy by 2020. There is
:45:55. > :45:59.a strain of thought in the Conservative Party that is quite
:45:59. > :46:04.anti- low-carbon the energy. They do not see it as the way forward.
:46:04. > :46:08.You can see that there is a strain of thought coming from the likes of
:46:08. > :46:15.those people, but that is not the way we will get the economic
:46:15. > :46:25.recovery that we need. Lookout for a camera you roll by
:46:25. > :46:26.
:46:26. > :46:30.Tracy in this week's political round-up. Tracey Crouch claimed a
:46:30. > :46:33.victory over the government's U- turn on petrol prices. Fuel prices
:46:33. > :46:38.have been increasing and they had been putting pressure on household
:46:38. > :46:42.budgets and business budgets. I think this is a good news and
:46:42. > :46:47.asthma. The Green Party leader urged the government to look at the
:46:47. > :46:51.extradition treaty between the UK and US under which this man was
:46:51. > :46:55.sent to the States to await trial. House of Lords reform has been
:46:55. > :47:02.dominating procedures in Parliament and MPs will debate the issue next
:47:02. > :47:06.week and a number are expected to rebel. This MP asked. Is it a bit
:47:06. > :47:12.stupid to ask for House of Lords reform, but against the programme
:47:12. > :47:17.motion? Do you recognise this man. Security guards at the Olympic site
:47:17. > :47:21.didn't and refused entry to him. He was apparently rather upset, giving
:47:21. > :47:31.that he is the Olympics Minister. With the game's less than a month
:47:31. > :47:34.away, it will help raise his profile. Everybody loves the story
:47:34. > :47:39.and we will come on to that in a moment. There you were at the
:47:39. > :47:45.beginning talking about a cut in the fuel duty rise. Is she right? A
:47:45. > :47:49.year us. It is good that the cut is taking place. The problem was the
:47:49. > :47:52.shambles that it led up to. Ministers at the Treasury and the
:47:52. > :47:59.Cabinet did not know about it and it seems unfunded. We do not know
:47:59. > :48:04.whether money is coming from to match the cuts. You were not the MP
:48:04. > :48:09.who was put up during the week, defending that decision. A I signed
:48:09. > :48:14.the pledge, so I would not have been put off to defend the position.
:48:14. > :48:24.At the that was the right decision to make. We have saved �500 million
:48:24. > :48:32.
:48:32. > :48:36.on the Olympics, so we can ring- fence that for the cut. A bit MP
:48:36. > :48:42.with the whole do you know here a moment. Are those words that any
:48:42. > :48:45.politician should ever utter? No. I feel slightly sorry for the
:48:45. > :48:50.Private Office and the civil servants whose job it is to make
:48:50. > :48:58.sure that they have passes. You cannot blame the Minister. A two
:48:58. > :49:03.you get recognised? I do. Sometimes in embarrassing circumstances. In
:49:03. > :49:07.the supermarket -- in the supermarket sometimes. It is fine
:49:07. > :49:15.and it comes at the job. The would she ever uttered those words?
:49:15. > :49:21.no! I am regularly not recognised and I'm comfortable with that.
:49:21. > :49:31.Thank you. That is set for Sunday Politics in the South East. My