:42:05. > :42:09.Welcome to your local part of the show. Lots to talk about, from
:42:09. > :42:12.high-speed trains to help for flood victims. But I can only do that
:42:12. > :42:15.with guests. This week they are the Labour MP for Copeland, Jamie Reed,
:42:15. > :42:18.who's in Carlisle and the Liberal Democrat MP for Berwick, Sir Alan
:42:18. > :42:21.Beith. Welcome to you both. Also coming up, a special report on the
:42:21. > :42:24.North East councils investing millions of pounds of their pension
:42:24. > :42:27.funds in tobacco companies just as they are about to take over
:42:27. > :42:30.responsibility for persuading us to stop smoking.
:42:30. > :42:34.But we start with the search for an underground site to bury the UK's
:42:34. > :42:38.high-level nuclear waste. On Wednesday the County Council said
:42:38. > :42:41.it didn't want it in Cumbria - so that should be the end of the story.
:42:41. > :42:47.But is it? District councillors in Copeland are willing to press ahead
:42:47. > :42:55.and have written to the Government requesting an urgent meeting. Jamie
:42:55. > :43:00.Reed, you don't believe this is over. Wife? We have a real,
:43:00. > :43:06.pressing problem with a radioactive waste in this country. We have seen
:43:06. > :43:11.that the process collapsed. What really happened is that the policy
:43:11. > :43:18.imperative and the urgency has intensified and grown as a result
:43:18. > :43:22.of that. There is an overwhelming democratic mandate to take a
:43:22. > :43:27.process for it and I'm duty-bound to try and do that. The rules are
:43:27. > :43:34.that the County Council's decision is final. It has said no. If you
:43:34. > :43:38.look at the make-up of the county council, there is a pressing need
:43:38. > :43:43.and the fact that the Sellafield site in Mike facility -- in my
:43:43. > :43:50.constituency is due to shed thousands of jobs, it is
:43:50. > :43:56.reprehensible to take a decision like this without a plan B. Alan
:43:56. > :44:02.Beith, this is a mess. There is no Plan B. All the eggs are in one
:44:03. > :44:06.basket. This is some they are never wanted us to getting to in the
:44:06. > :44:10.first place. This is why have I have been hostile to nuclear power
:44:10. > :44:15.because we don't know what to do with the waste. I can understand
:44:15. > :44:19.why people in the Lake District do not want to lose their worldwide
:44:19. > :44:24.reputation as an environmentally wonderful place to come to. I can
:44:24. > :44:27.see why people in Workington might see the nuclear industry as the key
:44:27. > :44:31.to their economy. That is interesting, are you saying that we
:44:31. > :44:39.cannot go ahead with new nuclear stations until we solve this
:44:39. > :44:43.problem? We have accumulated so much waste that up to now -- and up
:44:43. > :44:49.to now we can -- we have assumed that we can leave them in short-
:44:49. > :44:54.term storage. That will not do. There was a plan at one stage to
:44:54. > :44:58.bury nuclear waste in the Cheviots. That plan was abandoned. If
:44:58. > :45:03.agreement is not reached on provision to be made in Copeland
:45:03. > :45:13.and elsewhere, then I'm not clear what is going to happen next.
:45:13. > :45:14.
:45:14. > :45:19.Reed, do we keep the waist over ground? We cannot do that.
:45:19. > :45:25.International best practice is to pursue deeper geographical disposal.
:45:25. > :45:31.That is the policy of Cumbria County Council. I disagree with
:45:31. > :45:36.Alan in that the majority of these wastes are not from nuclear power
:45:36. > :45:40.stations, they are from our military programme. The atomic
:45:40. > :45:46.facility in my constituency predates the existence of the
:45:46. > :45:51.National Park and the Lake District and tourism, both very important
:45:51. > :45:55.industries, they have grown up together. Can nuclear power
:45:55. > :46:01.stations be built if we don't have a solution to this problem? A Yes,
:46:01. > :46:04.interim storage will get us through. And there's much more on my blog
:46:04. > :46:06.about that - bbc.co.uk/richardmoss. Now, this spring the NHS hands over
:46:06. > :46:09.responsibility for running stop- smoking campaigns to our local
:46:09. > :46:11.councils. But exclusive research by the BBC's Sunday Politics has
:46:11. > :46:16.revealed that many of those same councils are investing millions of
:46:16. > :46:19.pounds from their pension funds in tobacco companies. As David
:46:19. > :46:29.Macmillan reports, there's growing pressure upon councils to get rid
:46:29. > :46:29.
:46:29. > :46:34.of those investments. Take a deep breath in. Gently blow
:46:34. > :46:43.it out. It is the second world of the new year and for these people,
:46:43. > :46:47.it is the second round of a very tough time. I started smoking at 11.
:46:48. > :46:54.It was the early 60s and it was fashionable and trendy. I have
:46:54. > :46:58.smoked ever since. A lot for loss - - a off a lot of people say they
:46:58. > :47:02.could give up smoking but don't, and they enjoy it. The whole thing
:47:02. > :47:08.is a nonsense. It is a horrible, dirty habit. It is very difficult
:47:08. > :47:13.to get out of. In April, local authorities will take
:47:13. > :47:17.responsibility for public health 0 -- from the NHS. Councils will be
:47:17. > :47:22.funding Z sessions like this. But they will also be funding companies
:47:22. > :47:29.that make these. Local authorities in the North East and company -- a
:47:29. > :47:34.Cumbria have invested millions in tobacco firms. Cumbria County
:47:34. > :47:42.Council has �8.2 million. Durham County Council �26.7 million and
:47:42. > :47:48.Teesside council invest �67 million. MP Alex Cullum -- MP Alex
:47:48. > :47:54.Cunningham says there is a clear conflict of interest. We have some
:47:54. > :47:58.of the highest incidence of smoking within a few hundred yards of here.
:47:58. > :48:01.We have to encourage those people to stop. That is one of the
:48:01. > :48:07.responsibilities that the council house. They have to look to other
:48:07. > :48:12.investments, whether it is all, or energy and get a similar return and
:48:12. > :48:19.ditched tobacco once and for all. - - whether it is all oil or other
:48:19. > :48:24.energy. Teesside Pension funds said that their investment policy is not
:48:24. > :48:30.to screen investments on social, ethical or environmental grounds.
:48:30. > :48:37.The fund actively engages to ensure good governments. Pension managers
:48:38. > :48:42.say they have a responsibility to get the best return for their staff.
:48:42. > :48:47.From a historical perspective, they have been good investments. It is
:48:47. > :48:52.important that if they take up 5% of the UK market, that pension
:48:52. > :48:56.funds have been investing there. As to the future, forgetting the
:48:56. > :49:00.ethical side of it, on valuation grounds they are extremely high
:49:00. > :49:05.value stocks so it is questionable whether they can go much higher.
:49:05. > :49:09.The future of tobacco investments has been raised at Stockton council.
:49:09. > :49:15.It has also been considered by members of the Tyne and Wear
:49:15. > :49:20.pension fund. Local authorities face a -- face conflicting than --
:49:20. > :49:30.conflicting responsibilities. It is not just local councils, the
:49:30. > :49:30.
:49:30. > :49:35.BBC's Investment -- invest millions in tobacco. Let's talk to Dr Fu-
:49:35. > :49:42.Meng Khaw. Do you think it is acceptable for these councils to be
:49:42. > :49:46.investing in tobacco. We need to go back to basics. Why is smoking so
:49:46. > :49:53.important? It is the single greatest preventable cause of death
:49:53. > :49:57.in the UK. This is a preventable cause. Taking that aside, where
:49:58. > :50:00.local authorities take on their responsibilities for public health,
:50:00. > :50:04.this would include an ethical consideration as to whether they
:50:04. > :50:12.can practise what they preach. Should they divest themselves of
:50:12. > :50:17.the shares? My opinion is yes. If they are running an -- a campaign
:50:17. > :50:23.to stop people smoking, they should listen best. Where would you draw
:50:23. > :50:27.the line. Should they be investing in brewers, which also present at a
:50:27. > :50:31.public health problem? That is a discussion for those who make the
:50:31. > :50:34.decisions to consider. There are other investments which you could
:50:34. > :50:39.count as being counter to the public health responsibilities
:50:39. > :50:43.which councils will have. Will it really help public health for
:50:43. > :50:48.councils to withdraw? It will cause a problem for their pension funds
:50:48. > :50:54.but will it stop people smoking? terms of the support for tobacco
:50:54. > :51:00.companies, investment in tobacco companies will support the call for
:51:00. > :51:05.smoking and anything that we can do to reduce that lifestyle choice is
:51:05. > :51:08.something we should support. Alan Beith, Northumberland County
:51:08. > :51:12.Council said they hold some of these tobacco stocks but they
:51:12. > :51:16.couldn't say how much. Are you comfortable with that? I would like
:51:16. > :51:21.to see councils reduce their investment but we shouldn't kid
:51:21. > :51:26.ourselves, that will not stop people smoking. Things that matter
:51:26. > :51:32.are the public places smoking ban which really helped. It sends a
:51:32. > :51:37.message, doesn't it? How many people, when they open a cigarette
:51:37. > :51:42.packet, and think about whether the council is investing in it or not?
:51:42. > :51:46.I used the word comfortable, I would feel more comfortable if we
:51:46. > :51:50.were not investing in tobacco, but I would been -- it is more
:51:50. > :51:56.important how we produce -- but pursue policies that persuade
:51:56. > :52:01.people not to smoke. It is an invidious position that the council
:52:01. > :52:06.is in. I'm not comfortable in investing in the tobacco industry.
:52:06. > :52:10.Anyone who has seen the effect of smoking on people would not be
:52:10. > :52:14.comfortable with the knowledge that we are now presented with. But
:52:14. > :52:19.councils are in an invidious position. They have to look after
:52:19. > :52:25.their pension funds. But if there is a choice, we could perhaps seek
:52:25. > :52:35.a choice as well. We could see Cumbria council divest itself. But
:52:35. > :52:35.
:52:35. > :52:43.they have to look after the interest of the pension pot. As a
:52:43. > :52:47.pension shadow minister, is it time for all of us to get out of these?
:52:47. > :52:50.We have a moral obligation to look at making ethical investment. I
:52:50. > :52:56.don't think there are any plans for doing that at the moment, but it
:52:56. > :53:01.should be examined. Councils have to get the best deal, it is a bit
:53:01. > :53:07.of a minefield. If you don't invest in tobacco, do best in arms, or
:53:07. > :53:12.mining, or BP. People object to some of those. What is morally
:53:12. > :53:16.objectionable to one person he is OK to another. I think it presents
:53:16. > :53:22.will difficulties. They have the legal obligation to get the best
:53:22. > :53:27.deal they can for their employees. Fish and invest too heavily in any
:53:27. > :53:31.particular sphere. And over time, investment in tobacco will become a
:53:31. > :53:35.less valuable investment because fewer and fewer -- and fewer people
:53:35. > :53:39.smoke. It is on the other side of the world that tobacco companies
:53:39. > :53:43.are making their money. They should not make a rash decision to jump
:53:43. > :53:48.out of tobacco and then find themselves in something else which
:53:48. > :53:54.is ethically doubtful as well. They should be pursuing policies of to
:53:54. > :53:57.discourage people from killing themselves by smoking. Tell us what
:53:57. > :53:59.to think on Twitter. Now who can forget the awful
:53:59. > :54:02.experiences of people in Cockermouth, Morpeth and Malton
:54:02. > :54:05.where flood water ruined homes and destroyed businesses. Well there's
:54:05. > :54:08.a warning this week that more flooding misery could be on the way
:54:08. > :54:10.- and not just because of rising water. Labour has accused the
:54:10. > :54:13.Government of mismanaging important negotiations with the insurance
:54:13. > :54:15.industry. That could leave thousands of people living in flood
:54:15. > :54:24.risk areas unable to insure their homes. Here's our North Yorkshire
:54:25. > :54:32.political reporter. The last time it came in, the third
:54:32. > :54:36.time, the watermark. After Maria Longstaff's home was flooded for
:54:36. > :54:39.the third time last year, she began to consider moving away. But after
:54:40. > :54:47.receiving the renewal offer for flood insurance she realised she
:54:47. > :54:52.was stuck. They offered terms were fine but they wanted an excess of
:54:52. > :54:56.�20,000. Uninsurable. You can't sell the property because you can't
:54:56. > :55:02.get a mortgage without being able to get insurance. There is no way
:55:02. > :55:06.any company would insure it. Back in 2008, the insurers and the
:55:06. > :55:11.government agreed that cover would be available form nearly all flood
:55:11. > :55:16.risk areas. But this agreement does not control the prices companies
:55:16. > :55:25.charge or the size of the excess they can demand. Five years on, is
:55:25. > :55:31.this agreement, known as the statement of principles due to
:55:31. > :55:36.expire in June, the future for Maria is even less certain. People
:55:36. > :55:41.with homes in floodlit areas, must be guaranteed cover. The excesses
:55:41. > :55:45.that people player -- payout, cannot be too high. The third and
:55:45. > :55:50.most important factor is that the government must underwrite any
:55:50. > :55:54.losses that insurers make going forward with this scheme. That
:55:54. > :55:59.appears to be the big stumbling block to this plan. They have been
:55:59. > :56:04.talking about it for the last two years. A firm of solicitors says
:56:04. > :56:09.that the complaints it receives from people about insurers are
:56:09. > :56:19.going up. A finding reliable cover is difficult now, it might become
:56:19. > :56:19.
:56:19. > :56:24.impossible because --. My concerns are that if a householder takes out
:56:24. > :56:30.a policy is whether the policy will take -- will pay out or whether the
:56:30. > :56:34.insurance company will find ways to deflect the responsibility. But the
:56:34. > :56:39.industry insist that it is not the villain of the peace.
:56:39. > :56:43.government needs to look further ahead, long-term and make sure that
:56:43. > :56:48.the right investment takes place to combat the effect of climate change.
:56:48. > :56:53.So who is to blame to leap -- for leaving householders in flood risk
:56:53. > :56:56.areas high but not dry. It is clear from the insurers that there is a
:56:56. > :57:01.great deal of frustration at the inability of the government to
:57:01. > :57:06.reach a deal on this issue. Any deal will require legislation. It
:57:06. > :57:10.will be a tight timetable now. floods minister was in Yorkshire
:57:10. > :57:15.this week to look at flood defences. He did not have time to speak to
:57:15. > :57:20.the Sunday politics but his department sent us this statement.
:57:20. > :57:24.The discussion with the ABI about what replaces the statements of
:57:24. > :57:28.principles on going. We want to find a lasting solution that
:57:28. > :57:33.secures the affordability and availability of flood insurance for
:57:33. > :57:40.the first time without placing unsustainable cost on insurers or
:57:40. > :57:45.insurance payers. Alan Beith, the Association of
:57:45. > :57:49.British Insurers says that the situation is at crisis point. The
:57:49. > :57:55.government is playing a dangerous game. People like Maria could be
:57:55. > :58:00.uninsurable in future. The worries of people about being uninsurable
:58:00. > :58:06.or the size of the premium is the problem. There is brinkmanship
:58:06. > :58:13.going on. The insurers would say that. Politics -- politicians and
:58:13. > :58:20.people outside this -- if people outside this discussion are telling
:58:20. > :58:25.the government giving, then they win. Insurance is about sharing
:58:25. > :58:29.risk. The insurers and the government had to work out ways
:58:29. > :58:36.that the race can be shared but not so that the prices householders not
:58:36. > :58:44.affected. The real problem at is the insurance which stops flooding
:58:44. > :58:51.in the first place. Jamie Reed, who bears the most it responsibility
:58:51. > :58:56.for sorting this out? I used to be the shadow floods Minister and I
:58:56. > :59:00.think the government has dropped the ball in a spectacular fashion.
:59:00. > :59:05.Flood defence spending has been cut by this government. The risks are
:59:05. > :59:11.already rising. What we are looking at, if we don't strike a new deal
:59:11. > :59:14.which meets the needs of people and businesses around the country, is
:59:14. > :59:18.potentially so waves of this country being uninsurable and
:59:18. > :59:21.communities being unmortgageable. This is one of the biggest issues
:59:21. > :59:25.facing this country and the government seems unable to make any
:59:25. > :59:29.progress. The insurance industry just wants its own way. It wants to
:59:29. > :59:35.make sure it is not stop with the bill and the government is being
:59:35. > :59:38.responsible? The industry was always going to play hardball. Is
:59:38. > :59:43.in brinkmanship? That is not entirely the case. They are
:59:43. > :59:47.prepared to accept risk, they understand better than we do the
:59:47. > :59:51.notion of sharing that risk across different areas and their customers.
:59:51. > :59:56.But the government has to step up to the plate. If there is no
:59:56. > :59:59.insurance in place, it will fall on the taxpayer doubly to bail out
:00:00. > :00:03.communities and to really solve these problems which we can see
:00:03. > :00:07.coming right now. The accusation is that the government is not doing
:00:07. > :00:13.enough to get the deal done but also it is cutting flood prevention
:00:13. > :00:19.work which means four -- more people have problems. I don't know
:00:19. > :00:25.of Jamie was talking about a 30% increase in the amount available
:00:25. > :00:28.for flood defences. The government has to choose priorities. Some of
:00:28. > :00:34.the areas most affected in the north are going to be the subject
:00:34. > :00:40.of major investment. There is also a small scale Investment which
:00:40. > :00:43.deals with the awful risk that people face when they are in a
:00:43. > :00:49.flood risk area and the ground floor area can be complete be
:00:49. > :00:52.damaged. We will have to see how that works out. Thank you very much.
:00:52. > :00:55.Now, what costs �33 billion, will take 20 years to build and create
:00:55. > :00:59.hundreds of thousands of jobs? A new railway of course. And a very
:00:59. > :01:01.fast one at that. Here's our very own Inter City express Mark Denten
:01:01. > :01:11.with some less-than-enthusiastic reaction to High Speed 2 - and the
:01:11. > :01:19.
:01:19. > :01:23.The Prime Minister says extending High Speed 2 rail line will to
:01:23. > :01:31.Manchester and Leeds will spread wealth and prosperity. Dave
:01:31. > :01:39.Anderson was not impressed. We are being told we will have a second-
:01:39. > :01:44.rate railway system. The outgoing Bishop of Durham warned that the
:01:44. > :01:50.North East economy must not be ignored. It is very striking how
:01:50. > :01:55.easily economic policy ignores the North East. It is not a huge region.
:01:55. > :02:01.But it has this remarkable history and it has suffered a great deal.
:02:01. > :02:11.There's been a public inquiry into plans to extend the Yorkshire and
:02:11. > :02:17.Lake District National Parks. And in Washington, it is said the
:02:17. > :02:24.UK Sport was wrong to cut its funding.
:02:24. > :02:28.Jamie Reed, High Speed 2, eat the government says that the north-
:02:28. > :02:33.eastern Cumbria will benefit from it. A put some questions in
:02:33. > :02:38.Parliament to see what the benefit would be for my constituency and in
:02:38. > :02:44.general. I think if you are going to grow the economies of the North
:02:44. > :02:51.East then we will have some benefit from that in some way but I
:02:51. > :02:55.understand the anxiety and cynicism of some people. I suppose the
:02:55. > :03:01.government, would you congratulate them because they have moved
:03:01. > :03:06.forward more than Labour? It was a Labour policy. It was widely
:03:06. > :03:11.supported by the Labour Party and I do support it. There are details to
:03:11. > :03:13.be ironed out. It is clear that we need to invest in hour rail
:03:13. > :03:19.infrastructure and our road infrastructure and all sorts of
:03:19. > :03:24.physical infrastructure programmes. There is no churlishness from me.
:03:24. > :03:27.Alan Beith, the government said this was of the North-South divide.
:03:27. > :03:32.But it is 20 years away and it is not coming north of Leeds or
:03:32. > :03:36.Manchester. I don't think anyone in the government has said it will
:03:36. > :03:40.solve the North-South divide. It will help, it will contribute
:03:40. > :03:46.particularly for Yorkshire and the north-west. The benefit farce will
:03:46. > :03:50.be the trains continuing up to Newcastle and Edinburgh which will
:03:50. > :03:54.cut short by half-an-hour the journey to London. But before the
:03:54. > :04:01.first piece of rail line of his lane for -- is laid for High Speed
:04:01. > :04:05.2, we should improve the East Coast main -- mainline. Is there not a
:04:05. > :04:10.danger that resources will be sucked into this project and others
:04:10. > :04:14.will lose out? I don't think that will happen, because the budget is
:04:14. > :04:18.done quite separately. The government is making less of an
:04:18. > :04:24.investment in area but I wanted that to continue, that the East
:04:24. > :04:27.Coast Main Line it gets the capacity improve moments --
:04:27. > :04:31.improvements it needs. It is required for the improvement of the
:04:31. > :04:34.economy of the North East. Thank you both very much.
:04:34. > :04:37.And that's it for this week. We had a problem with BBC iIplayer last
:04:37. > :04:40.week - apologies if you wanted to watch last Sunday's show and
:04:40. > :04:44.couldn't find it. I've been assured it won't happen again as someone
:04:44. > :04:47.has given something an almighty kick. But if do you want to keep up