03/02/2013 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

Welcome to your local part of the show. Lots to talk about, from

high-speed trains to help for flood victims. But I can only do that

with guests. This week they are the Labour MP for Copeland, Jamie Reed,

who's in Carlisle and the Liberal Democrat MP for Berwick, Sir Alan

Beith. Welcome to you both. Also coming up, a special report on the

North East councils investing millions of pounds of their pension

funds in tobacco companies just as they are about to take over

responsibility for persuading us to stop smoking.

But we start with the search for an underground site to bury the UK's

high-level nuclear waste. On Wednesday the County Council said

it didn't want it in Cumbria - so that should be the end of the story.

But is it? District councillors in Copeland are willing to press ahead

and have written to the Government requesting an urgent meeting. Jamie

Reed, you don't believe this is over. Wife? We have a real,

pressing problem with a radioactive waste in this country. We have seen

that the process collapsed. What really happened is that the policy

imperative and the urgency has intensified and grown as a result

of that. There is an overwhelming democratic mandate to take a

process for it and I'm duty-bound to try and do that. The rules are

that the County Council's decision is final. It has said no. If you

look at the make-up of the county council, there is a pressing need

and the fact that the Sellafield site in Mike facility -- in my

constituency is due to shed thousands of jobs, it is

reprehensible to take a decision like this without a plan B. Alan

Beith, this is a mess. There is no Plan B. All the eggs are in one

basket. This is some they are never wanted us to getting to in the

first place. This is why have I have been hostile to nuclear power

because we don't know what to do with the waste. I can understand

why people in the Lake District do not want to lose their worldwide

reputation as an environmentally wonderful place to come to. I can

see why people in Workington might see the nuclear industry as the key

to their economy. That is interesting, are you saying that we

cannot go ahead with new nuclear stations until we solve this

problem? We have accumulated so much waste that up to now -- and up

to now we can -- we have assumed that we can leave them in short-

term storage. That will not do. There was a plan at one stage to

bury nuclear waste in the Cheviots. That plan was abandoned. If

agreement is not reached on provision to be made in Copeland

and elsewhere, then I'm not clear what is going to happen next.

Reed, do we keep the waist over ground? We cannot do that.

International best practice is to pursue deeper geographical disposal.

That is the policy of Cumbria County Council. I disagree with

Alan in that the majority of these wastes are not from nuclear power

stations, they are from our military programme. The atomic

facility in my constituency predates the existence of the

National Park and the Lake District and tourism, both very important

industries, they have grown up together. Can nuclear power

stations be built if we don't have a solution to this problem? A Yes,

interim storage will get us through. And there's much more on my blog

about that - bbc.co.uk/richardmoss. Now, this spring the NHS hands over

responsibility for running stop- smoking campaigns to our local

councils. But exclusive research by the BBC's Sunday Politics has

revealed that many of those same councils are investing millions of

pounds from their pension funds in tobacco companies. As David

Macmillan reports, there's growing pressure upon councils to get rid

of those investments. Take a deep breath in. Gently blow

it out. It is the second world of the new year and for these people,

it is the second round of a very tough time. I started smoking at 11.

It was the early 60s and it was fashionable and trendy. I have

smoked ever since. A lot for loss - - a off a lot of people say they

could give up smoking but don't, and they enjoy it. The whole thing

is a nonsense. It is a horrible, dirty habit. It is very difficult

to get out of. In April, local authorities will take

responsibility for public health 0 -- from the NHS. Councils will be

funding Z sessions like this. But they will also be funding companies

that make these. Local authorities in the North East and company -- a

Cumbria have invested millions in tobacco firms. Cumbria County

Council has �8.2 million. Durham County Council �26.7 million and

Teesside council invest �67 million. MP Alex Cullum -- MP Alex

Cunningham says there is a clear conflict of interest. We have some

of the highest incidence of smoking within a few hundred yards of here.

We have to encourage those people to stop. That is one of the

responsibilities that the council house. They have to look to other

investments, whether it is all, or energy and get a similar return and

ditched tobacco once and for all. - - whether it is all oil or other

energy. Teesside Pension funds said that their investment policy is not

to screen investments on social, ethical or environmental grounds.

The fund actively engages to ensure good governments. Pension managers

say they have a responsibility to get the best return for their staff.

From a historical perspective, they have been good investments. It is

important that if they take up 5% of the UK market, that pension

funds have been investing there. As to the future, forgetting the

ethical side of it, on valuation grounds they are extremely high

value stocks so it is questionable whether they can go much higher.

The future of tobacco investments has been raised at Stockton council.

It has also been considered by members of the Tyne and Wear

pension fund. Local authorities face a -- face conflicting than --

conflicting responsibilities. It is not just local councils, the

BBC's Investment -- invest millions in tobacco. Let's talk to Dr Fu-

Meng Khaw. Do you think it is acceptable for these councils to be

investing in tobacco. We need to go back to basics. Why is smoking so

important? It is the single greatest preventable cause of death

in the UK. This is a preventable cause. Taking that aside, where

local authorities take on their responsibilities for public health,

this would include an ethical consideration as to whether they

can practise what they preach. Should they divest themselves of

the shares? My opinion is yes. If they are running an -- a campaign

to stop people smoking, they should listen best. Where would you draw

the line. Should they be investing in brewers, which also present at a

public health problem? That is a discussion for those who make the

decisions to consider. There are other investments which you could

count as being counter to the public health responsibilities

which councils will have. Will it really help public health for

councils to withdraw? It will cause a problem for their pension funds

but will it stop people smoking? terms of the support for tobacco

companies, investment in tobacco companies will support the call for

smoking and anything that we can do to reduce that lifestyle choice is

something we should support. Alan Beith, Northumberland County

Council said they hold some of these tobacco stocks but they

couldn't say how much. Are you comfortable with that? I would like

to see councils reduce their investment but we shouldn't kid

ourselves, that will not stop people smoking. Things that matter

are the public places smoking ban which really helped. It sends a

message, doesn't it? How many people, when they open a cigarette

packet, and think about whether the council is investing in it or not?

I used the word comfortable, I would feel more comfortable if we

were not investing in tobacco, but I would been -- it is more

important how we produce -- but pursue policies that persuade

people not to smoke. It is an invidious position that the council

is in. I'm not comfortable in investing in the tobacco industry.

Anyone who has seen the effect of smoking on people would not be

comfortable with the knowledge that we are now presented with. But

councils are in an invidious position. They have to look after

their pension funds. But if there is a choice, we could perhaps seek

a choice as well. We could see Cumbria council divest itself. But

they have to look after the interest of the pension pot. As a

pension shadow minister, is it time for all of us to get out of these?

We have a moral obligation to look at making ethical investment. I

don't think there are any plans for doing that at the moment, but it

should be examined. Councils have to get the best deal, it is a bit

of a minefield. If you don't invest in tobacco, do best in arms, or

mining, or BP. People object to some of those. What is morally

objectionable to one person he is OK to another. I think it presents

will difficulties. They have the legal obligation to get the best

deal they can for their employees. Fish and invest too heavily in any

particular sphere. And over time, investment in tobacco will become a

less valuable investment because fewer and fewer -- and fewer people

smoke. It is on the other side of the world that tobacco companies

are making their money. They should not make a rash decision to jump

out of tobacco and then find themselves in something else which

is ethically doubtful as well. They should be pursuing policies of to

discourage people from killing themselves by smoking. Tell us what

to think on Twitter. Now who can forget the awful

experiences of people in Cockermouth, Morpeth and Malton

where flood water ruined homes and destroyed businesses. Well there's

a warning this week that more flooding misery could be on the way

- and not just because of rising water. Labour has accused the

Government of mismanaging important negotiations with the insurance

industry. That could leave thousands of people living in flood

risk areas unable to insure their homes. Here's our North Yorkshire

political reporter. The last time it came in, the third

time, the watermark. After Maria Longstaff's home was flooded for

the third time last year, she began to consider moving away. But after

receiving the renewal offer for flood insurance she realised she

was stuck. They offered terms were fine but they wanted an excess of

�20,000. Uninsurable. You can't sell the property because you can't

get a mortgage without being able to get insurance. There is no way

any company would insure it. Back in 2008, the insurers and the

government agreed that cover would be available form nearly all flood

risk areas. But this agreement does not control the prices companies

charge or the size of the excess they can demand. Five years on, is

this agreement, known as the statement of principles due to

expire in June, the future for Maria is even less certain. People

with homes in floodlit areas, must be guaranteed cover. The excesses

that people player -- payout, cannot be too high. The third and

most important factor is that the government must underwrite any

losses that insurers make going forward with this scheme. That

appears to be the big stumbling block to this plan. They have been

talking about it for the last two years. A firm of solicitors says

that the complaints it receives from people about insurers are

going up. A finding reliable cover is difficult now, it might become

impossible because --. My concerns are that if a householder takes out

a policy is whether the policy will take -- will pay out or whether the

insurance company will find ways to deflect the responsibility. But the

industry insist that it is not the villain of the peace.

government needs to look further ahead, long-term and make sure that

the right investment takes place to combat the effect of climate change.

So who is to blame to leap -- for leaving householders in flood risk

areas high but not dry. It is clear from the insurers that there is a

great deal of frustration at the inability of the government to

reach a deal on this issue. Any deal will require legislation. It

will be a tight timetable now. floods minister was in Yorkshire

this week to look at flood defences. He did not have time to speak to

the Sunday politics but his department sent us this statement.

The discussion with the ABI about what replaces the statements of

principles on going. We want to find a lasting solution that

secures the affordability and availability of flood insurance for

the first time without placing unsustainable cost on insurers or

insurance payers. Alan Beith, the Association of

British Insurers says that the situation is at crisis point. The

government is playing a dangerous game. People like Maria could be

uninsurable in future. The worries of people about being uninsurable

or the size of the premium is the problem. There is brinkmanship

going on. The insurers would say that. Politics -- politicians and

people outside this -- if people outside this discussion are telling

the government giving, then they win. Insurance is about sharing

risk. The insurers and the government had to work out ways

that the race can be shared but not so that the prices householders not

affected. The real problem at is the insurance which stops flooding

in the first place. Jamie Reed, who bears the most it responsibility

for sorting this out? I used to be the shadow floods Minister and I

think the government has dropped the ball in a spectacular fashion.

Flood defence spending has been cut by this government. The risks are

already rising. What we are looking at, if we don't strike a new deal

which meets the needs of people and businesses around the country, is

potentially so waves of this country being uninsurable and

communities being unmortgageable. This is one of the biggest issues

facing this country and the government seems unable to make any

progress. The insurance industry just wants its own way. It wants to

make sure it is not stop with the bill and the government is being

responsible? The industry was always going to play hardball. Is

in brinkmanship? That is not entirely the case. They are

prepared to accept risk, they understand better than we do the

notion of sharing that risk across different areas and their customers.

But the government has to step up to the plate. If there is no

insurance in place, it will fall on the taxpayer doubly to bail out

communities and to really solve these problems which we can see

coming right now. The accusation is that the government is not doing

enough to get the deal done but also it is cutting flood prevention

work which means four -- more people have problems. I don't know

of Jamie was talking about a 30% increase in the amount available

for flood defences. The government has to choose priorities. Some of

the areas most affected in the north are going to be the subject

of major investment. There is also a small scale Investment which

deals with the awful risk that people face when they are in a

flood risk area and the ground floor area can be complete be

damaged. We will have to see how that works out. Thank you very much.

Now, what costs �33 billion, will take 20 years to build and create

hundreds of thousands of jobs? A new railway of course. And a very

fast one at that. Here's our very own Inter City express Mark Denten

with some less-than-enthusiastic reaction to High Speed 2 - and the

The Prime Minister says extending High Speed 2 rail line will to

Manchester and Leeds will spread wealth and prosperity. Dave

Anderson was not impressed. We are being told we will have a second-

rate railway system. The outgoing Bishop of Durham warned that the

North East economy must not be ignored. It is very striking how

easily economic policy ignores the North East. It is not a huge region.

But it has this remarkable history and it has suffered a great deal.

There's been a public inquiry into plans to extend the Yorkshire and

Lake District National Parks. And in Washington, it is said the

UK Sport was wrong to cut its funding.

Jamie Reed, High Speed 2, eat the government says that the north-

eastern Cumbria will benefit from it. A put some questions in

Parliament to see what the benefit would be for my constituency and in

general. I think if you are going to grow the economies of the North

East then we will have some benefit from that in some way but I

understand the anxiety and cynicism of some people. I suppose the

government, would you congratulate them because they have moved

forward more than Labour? It was a Labour policy. It was widely

supported by the Labour Party and I do support it. There are details to

be ironed out. It is clear that we need to invest in hour rail

infrastructure and our road infrastructure and all sorts of

physical infrastructure programmes. There is no churlishness from me.

Alan Beith, the government said this was of the North-South divide.

But it is 20 years away and it is not coming north of Leeds or

Manchester. I don't think anyone in the government has said it will

solve the North-South divide. It will help, it will contribute

particularly for Yorkshire and the north-west. The benefit farce will

be the trains continuing up to Newcastle and Edinburgh which will

cut short by half-an-hour the journey to London. But before the

first piece of rail line of his lane for -- is laid for High Speed

2, we should improve the East Coast main -- mainline. Is there not a

danger that resources will be sucked into this project and others

will lose out? I don't think that will happen, because the budget is

done quite separately. The government is making less of an

investment in area but I wanted that to continue, that the East

Coast Main Line it gets the capacity improve moments --

improvements it needs. It is required for the improvement of the

economy of the North East. Thank you both very much.

And that's it for this week. We had a problem with BBC iIplayer last

week - apologies if you wanted to watch last Sunday's show and

couldn't find it. I've been assured it won't happen again as someone

has given something an almighty kick. But if do you want to keep up