Question 1 What will you be able to do to help: a) the maintenance of the sea defences of the area; b) the number of oil tankers sitting just off shore; c) the viability of Southwold as a community – the preservation of its character, the issues of affordable housing, transport, policing and medical care?

Question 2 What do you feel is the solution to the concern that there is a lack of control over, or proper consultation about, the big decisions being made that affect the town directly?

Question 3 Are you in favour of the reintroduction of sea eagles – yes or no?

Question 4 What is the unique selling point of your party for this area?

Question 5 How do you intend to fill the shoes of John Gummer?

Prof says . . .

Question 1

a) Sea Defences

East Coast Erosion

UKIP is committed to five long-term infra-structure programmes, one of which is our £30 billion, 20 year, programme for comprehensive river flood prevention and coastal defences for the south and east coasts of England.  This will of course include the provision of permanent sea defences in the Southwold area (see UKIP Manifesto section 2: Jobs, Enterprise and the Economy, and section 11 on Energy and the Environment).

b) Oil Tankers

The very large number of tankers anchored off the Southwold coast are there because the Labour government has specifically designated this as the one place in UK waters where ship to ship oil transfers can take place.  As an example, out of 54 tankers anchored off the British coast, 30 were anchored off Southwold on 18th February this year.

A junior Labour minister has announced that legislation would be “laid before Parliament as early as May”, but that is now impossible.

There is both a pollution threat to our beaches from oil spillages and worse, a combined terrorist-pollution threat.

As your MP I would not be content with the slow process of UK legislation, but require tankers to move on, using our influence in the International Maritime Organisation, which is headquartered in London and which has within its ambit two agencies: the Marine Environmental Protection Centre and the International Sea Safety Management Organisation.  Both of these organisations are actively aware of the pollution and terrorism threats and have great influence on sea users and governments.  They should be lobbied hard.

c) Viability of Southwold

The future of Southwold and neighbouring Reydon will be strongly affected by (i) its age structure (14% under 19; 44% over 60 and 14% over 80 – 2007 mid year estimates from the National Statistical Office) and (ii) the relatively high proportion of second homes which are not occupied full-time.

It is doubtful if any community with this age structure is viable long-term because the small number of children (234 or 6% under 9) will lead inevitably to a sharp decrease in the locally born population in 20 years or so ahead.

The high proportion of second homes, combined with the decrease in the locally-born popuation makes it unlikely that the essential character of Southwold will be maintained beyond this 20 year period without a specific remedy.

The remedy lies in the establishment of new business in keeping with the town’s history.  This can only come from re-introduction of the fishing industry and the repair and maintenance which goes with that.  Such a change would attract a new, younger element to the town on a considerable scale, which would be under the control of local people.

To re-establish the fishing industry along the Suffolk coast – and indeed all along Britain’s coast, Britain will have to withdraw from the EU Common Fisheries Policy, reassert its sovereignty over our part of the Continental Shelf (broadly the median lines between Britain, Norway and the Continental EU), decide its own fishing policy in the light of sensible fish stocks conservation and the needs of our fishermen.

UKIP’s policy, as is well-known, is to withdraw from the European Union, with all that will mean to our former fishing communities along our coasts.

UKIP espouses two other policies with direct bearing on Southwold and indeed on Suffolk Coastal generally:

(i)     UKIP favours final planning decisions to be made at the level of those directly affected, unless there is a clear-cut national interest involved.  This would mean parishes would have the final word on housing for instance – and this would apply to the extend and nature of affordable housing.

Coastal protection

(ii)     As mentioned in 1(a) UKIP has a 20 year £30 billion programme for coastal protection and river flood defences (see UKIP Manifesto section 2).  Responsibility for coastal protection and river defences would be removed from Natural England and the Environment Agency and vested in a National Rivers and Coasts Protection Agency (NRCPA) responsible to the people of the affected areas.  With the stated resources, it would be able to design and finance sound schemes of protection along our coasts, including those at Blyth estuary.  The NRCPA would also have the resources and remit for sensitive developments for recreation areas such as lagoons, wildlife reserves, as well as farming, should the local people favour these.  This would have the potential to increase the long-term viability of Southwold and Reydon.

With major new income streams and a younger tax-paying population, Southwold would be well-placed to afford the transport, policing and medical care which its people will need.

Question 2

Lack of Control over Big Decisions

Our policy of putting the final decision on local planning in the hands of the parishes, and if necessary to local referendums, will replace entirely the unsatisfactory and undemocratic “consultation” processes we now have – as described in Question 1(c) for example.

Question 3

Sea Eagles

No, I am not in favour of their introduction into Suffolk Coastal.

I regard the proposal by Natural England as a costly gimmick to, in their own words “lead a high-profile flagship species project that will highlight the organisation”.

Question 4

Unique selling point of UKIP

UKIP’s unique selling point is its policy of withdrawing Britain from the European Union.  The benefits for Southwold and surroundings are:

(i)     re-establishment of our off-shore fishing industry

(ii)    recovery of £12,000 million in annual gross payments to the EU, a substantial portion of which will go into the fishing industry and the coastal protection programme as described in answer 1(c).

Question 5

Shoes of John Gummer

As an MP I will: