03/02/2013 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

Coming up in Yorkshire: white conservative MPs are leading the

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 2424 seconds

attack on gay marriage, ahead of a Hello, you are watching the Sunday

politics for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Coming up today, why

Tory MPs from are part of the world are leading the attack on gay

marriage ahead of the Commons vote. An SOS from flood hit homeowners

who say they cannot afford to insure their properties.

Our guests today are Martin Vickers, the Conservative MP for Cleethorpes

and Diana Johnson, Labour MP for Hull North. Hello to your bed. On

Tuesday we have the crucial vote on same-sex marriage. Let me get your

thoughts. Diana Johnson? I will be supporting the Bill that is coming

before Parliament. I am very disappointed about the quadruple

log on the Church of England ever being allowed to do this but I am

broadly supportive of the evil.. Martin Vickers? I shall be opposing

the proposals. It was in no party's manifesto and I don't think we have

a mandate for it. It is difficult to judge whether there is a

majority, certainly among the younger people they are a lot more

relaxed about it but certainly the over-fifties feel very

uncomfortable with it and I don't think we should rail roads such

social change through without a mandate. The it is estimated that

only around one third of MPs will support the government's proposals

on Tuesday. Bunch of the Tory opposition comes from Yorkshire and

Lincolnshire. Sharing memories are these women

who live with their respective partners in civil partnerships.

They hope the law will soon allow them to marry their other half's.

am very keen on equality for everybody no matter what their race

or their sex, no matter what their sexuality. For a section of society,

probably getting on for 10% of society, being denied the right to

get married, something that heterosexual people have taken for

granted for hundreds of years. For me, that is a question of equality.

I really feel that we need equal marriage. At the moment, although I

am very happy being in a civil partnership with my partner, it is

not an equal. I don't think it is viewed by the general population as

being equal. You say you are married and people have certain

viewpoints on marriage already where as there is not the

historical significance attached to civil partnership that there is to

marriage. More than 100 Conservative MPs are expected to

oppose the Government's proposals when same-sex marriage is debated

in the Commons on Tuesday. It includes many Tories from Yorkshire

and Lincolnshire. I think it's as regards to discrimination against

same-sex couples we are in a very good place with civil partnerships

but for those like me who feel very strongly, and I have had over 300

letters and e-mails from constituents, and I am sure there

are many more who are too shy to write in, they feel that their

religious beliefs are being discriminated against in this

regard and that is why I believe that we need to have a pause for

thought and a longer debate about this. The Church of England will be

banned from carrying out same-sex weddings. The ministers say other

religious institutions will not be forced into conducting weddings for

gay couples but opponents of the Bill are seeking assurances from

the government are people know continue to believe in it the

traditional definition of marriage should not be penalised for their

views. Conservative Edward Leigh wants to amend the a quality act to

protect professions such as teaching. Teachers should not be

payable -- fearful that they have to say that marriage is about the

coming together of Jim and Jonah, but just equally as valid and just

as good is a marriage about Jim and gym. Why should teachers who have

strongly held and traditional and sensible views, why should they be

victimised for expressing those used in their workplace? Despite

opposition from some, MPs looks certain to support same-sex

marriage, changing forever the way this ancient institution is

recognised by law. Diana Johnson, let me pick up on

the point made by Edward Leigh, is there a danger that teachers could

ultimately lose their jobs if they refuse to support same-sex

marriage? I don't think that is the case at all. I was thinking about

the issue of abortion, that the laws on abortion a very clear. The

Catholic Church has very clear views about abortions and

terminations and as long as the Catholic School keep its -- teach

us about the law in the land they are perfectly able to talk about

the fate's approach to termination. I think this is the same thing,

they will have to talk about marriage and if this Bill goes

through there will be same-sex marriage but if the Catholic Church

has a particular view there is no reason for them to stop teaching

what they believe him. If could this be the case? Could people be

forced to accepting used against their own conscience? If we look

back over a number of cases in recent years, whereby those holding

religious views have actually been, what I would regard as

discriminated against, I don't have the confidence in the

interpretation of the courts of what Parliament may lay down.

then we need to be clear, this is only allowing the churches that

wanted to conduct same-sex marriages. It does not force anyone

to do something they do not wish to do. It is not forcing them, that is

the intention, but all these things tend to have unintended

consequences and there will be immediate legal challenges which

could drag on for years and I am fearful that however fearful --

however hard the government they try to tie it down that it would

eventually come unstuck. The Human Rights Act seems to override much

of our own legislation, doesn't it? I don't accept that. I do think

that when several partnerships were introduced there was a great row

about what it would mean an it would be the end of marriage and

has worked really well and those people now accept civil

partnerships are a very good idea. I think if people are in loving

relationships and they want to get married then I think they should be

allowed to do so. Martin made a point about the younger generation,

they support this. I think there are perhaps some younger --

cultural issues with the older generation that young people think

if you wind a loving relationship and you want to get married them

what is the problem? No one is forcing anyone to do this? Is there

a danger that many in your party will look out of step with public

opinion? We should then categorise this in party-political terms. It

is the case that many Tories will vote against it but in terms of

public opinion, it is very different. I go out on the streets

of Cleethorpes I guess you would find exactly similar views

irrespective of people's voting habits. I don't think this is

anything to do with party politics, I wasn't implying that at all.

agree. There is a perception in the way that some reports have come

over in saying that the Tories are backwoodsmen but not the other

parties. They think it is a problem in your party in that David Cameron

was trying to show it as the modern face and some of the views that are

being put forward are far from modern and family orientated. How

damaging could this be, do you believe, for the Conservatives?

is difficult to judge. For some people it will be a sort of deal

breaker, some people have said to be this is the last straw and I

will never vote Conservative again but we all know we have heard that

before on other issues. For some it will be and I accept that, they

feel very deeply about it and I feel very sad that we have -- we

might be in danger of railroading it through. Diana makes a valid

point about the younger generation. If we had allowed this to evolve

over another 10 years then I suspect it may well have moved from

civil partnerships to gay marriage without too much fuss but at the

moment there are a lot of people who feel very strongly and their

views should be respected. But no one is forcing anybody to do

anything here, that is the point, it it is about the alarming those

who wish to marry, it is not about forcing people to have same-sex

marriages. Isn't this all about priorities? Many people ask why it

when the economy is in the state it is that you are spending time in

Parliament looking at this? I am a supporter of this Bill but you

asked a very important question because at the moment I think the

government are in difficulty in terms of the legislation they are

bringing forward. At a time when we should concentrate at getting

growth into the economy and getting jobs into areas like Hull, there is

no legislation to do that. We are dealing with these issues and I

think it is a good and important issue but the government should

have a packed legislative programme and they do not have that. They are

finding bits and pieces to sell our days at Westminster. For do you

accept you will not win this mode? Are I rather suspect it will pass,

which I think is regrettable. It should be in the manifesto and

discussed at a later date. Let us move on now.

The next time you renew your home insurance, spare a thought for

those living in flood-hit areas. One North Yorkshire homeowner has

told the Sunday Politics she needs to pay an excess of �20,000 if she

makes a claim. Pressure is growing on the government to strike a new

deal with the insurance companies to ensure that affordable cover is

available for householders. Nick Morris reports.

It took the ceiling and most of the boards down here and the last time

it came in, the third time, the water market over there. After this

home was flooded three times in three months last year, she began

to consider moving away. After receiving her renewal offer for

flood insurance she realised she was stuck, quite literally in the

mud. They offer a dust terms that were reasonable but they wanted an

excess of �20,000. It means you cannot sell the property because

you cannot get a mortgage without be able to get insurance and there

is no way that any company in their right mind will insure it. In 2008

Insurers and the government agreed that cover would be available for

nearly all flood risk areas, but this agreement does not control the

size of the excess they can demand. Five years on, with this agreement

known as the state of principles, set up to expire in June, the

future for Maria and thousands like her is even less certain.

This new agreement must be much more extensive. In the future

people with homes in a flood risk areas must have all the homes

guaranteed cover. The excesses that people pay out when they suffer

flooding cannot be too high, but the third and most important factor

is that the Government must underwrite any losses that

insurance companies make going forward with this game. That

appears to be the big stumbling block. They have been talking about

it for two years. In Hull this firm of solicitors said that complaints

it receives over insurance companies about flooding are rising

fast. They are finding -- finding - - if a finding reliable and

affordable cover is difficult now it may soon become impossible.

my concerns are going to be are that if a householder takes out a

policy of insurance that is covered by the new increment, whether the

policy will actually find out, or whether or as we have found, the

insurance will find ways to deflect the responsibility. The industry

insists it is not the villain of the peace. The Government, we

believe, needs to look further ahead and long term and make sure

the right investment in the right places takes place to combat the

effects of climate change. So, who is to blame for leaving

householders in flood risk areas high but not so dry? From the

insurers there was a great deal of frustration about the inability of

the Government to reach a deal on this issue. Any deal will whizz it

-- any deal will require legislation so will be a very tight

timetable now, whatever happens. The flood Minister was in Yorkshire

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

but he sent us this statement... Discussions about what will replace

the state of principles are ongoing. We want a lasting solution that

secures the availability of flood insurance for the first time with -

- without placing unsustainable costs on wider policy holders or

taxpayers. Our region has just marked the anniversary of the great

flood of 1953 that devastated parts of the east coast. 60 years on

homeowners will be hoping that a new insurance deal services before

the waters rise again. Clearly many homeowners are worried

right now because when will we finally see this deal between the

government and the insurance companies? I have been pressing the

Minister on this with a number of questions in the parliament. As

well as being in Yorkshire yesterday he was also in my

constituency and I had discussions only yesterday about it. He does

assure me that the negotiations are going along well and we will have

an announcement soon. It is a major worry for many of my constituents

and I very much hope we will reach a conclusion fairly soon.

Government says it is spending extra money on flood defences, what

more could it do? There has been about a 27% cut in the money it has

been spending on flood defences and that is one issue. What is making

me very cross is the deadline for the statement of principles ending

has been known for some time and in the summer of last year I asked the

Secretary state was an agreement close and I was told yes. It was

going to be announced shortly and it was all going to be fine and we

are now in February and still no announcement. People already

reviewing their house insurance for the next 12 months and that a

uncertainty is causing real problems in an area like Hull which

at the dreadful floods in 2007. The Government really need to get a

move on. They are being very complacent about this. They need to

actually come to a conclusion and see what the new agreement is.

Something is not quite right in these negotiations. The insurance

industry does not seem to be willing to play ball. When are we

going to get some news that will help these hard-pressed homeowners?

I think both sides are playing their cards close to their chests

which is understandable in a period of negotiation. I agree with Diana,

people are uncertain and we wanted our -- we want an answer as quickly

as possible. I and a day and and others will continue to press the

minister. The government have given an absolute assurance that they

will see this through to a satisfactory agreement and we have

to hope that that comes pretty quickly. Diana Johnson, the

previous statement of principles was agreed in a very different time

and very different economic circumstances, will a future Labour

government in a position to bankroll the insurance industry if

they have to take huge losses from flood claims. Let us be very clear

that around the world there are schemes in place to protect areas

that flight and that the Government takes a role in insurance --

ancient -- ensuring that insurance is available in those areas. While

the statement of principles, you are right, was that a certain time,

now the problem is that the Treasury are being asked for to

underwrite potential losses for a short period for the insurance

industry and they are dragging their feet on that. That is where

we have got to. It is the Treasury that are saying they are not happy

about the deal that seems to have been hammered out. At the end of

the day something has to be done. You cannot leave areas of the

country without access to house insurance. It would completely

blind the market. Should people who do not live in flood risk areas

bankroll people who do through higher premiums? The whole

principle of insurance is the sharing of risk, isn't it? So we

are all doing that any way when we play our premium. But we have to

keep the premium at an acceptable and affordable level. That is the

key when the announcement comes. Let's get some more of the week's

political news now. Len Tingle has our round-up in 60 seconds.

No surprise the Prime Minister arrived in Leeds this week with the

transport secretary at his side. It was for a specially convened full

Cabinet meeting in Leeds to announce the North's first new row

wait for 120 years. I think it is one of the best

dancers to healing the North-South divide and bringing growth to our

great northern cities. New high- speed trains will not be arriving

on a platform in Yorkshire until 2033, first there is a year's

consultation for those affected by the route like Bryan Mason's Farm

Shop. We are absolutely devastated. The map shows that it goes through

the business, through the house, through everything. Applause, or

was it relief? Government plans to abolish 50 constituencies were

thrown out. The Yorkshire Conservative MPs Philip Davies and

a David Davies rebels because both would have been severely affected

by the change. Where for once, Diana Johnson, you

can say something nice about the Liberal Democrats because they have

done you a big favour by blocking the boundary changes. I am glad

they saw sense in the end because the proposals around boundary

changes was ill thought-through and wasted �12 million doing this.

Actually it did not take into account, in my constituency for

example, all the people the one not in the electoral register. That is

where the FA should have been put, to get them all on the electoral

register and then equalise the size of constituencies, not this cack-

handed way of doing things that was proposed by the coalition. Do you

accept it will be virtually impossible for the Conservatives to

win the next election with an overall majority? Absolutely not.

It will be more difficult. According to the experts to analyse

these things, from a selfish point of view, I am very at beef to be

fighting the same constituency. I have grown into it, I like it, it

is my home territory so I am very happy in that sense but will we

win? Who knows? Politics can change very quickly. Why do we need 650

MPs in the House of Commons? The House of Representatives and the

Senate combined in the USA have fewer members. Yes but you are

comparing apples and pears there. In the States there is a federal

system. You have States with a very governments and their own

parliaments. In this government we have obviously Wales and Scotland

having devolved authorities but for the rest of the country it is a

council and it is Parliament. We do not have the same level of

governments that there are in other countries so why things 650, while

we should always keep it under via -- under review, we know the

population is growing in this country so we need to take that

into account. I want to ask you both about high-speed rail. Neither

of you in your constituencies will benefit directly but Martin Vickers,

can you justify the cost to your constituents? I favour HS2. As a

country we have got to move forward and have a high-speed rail network.

It is not quite true to say there is no immediate benefit to this

area, it will free up capacity on the East Coast Main Line and

hopefully the Government will do everything they can to ensure that

British-based companies in our area get the contracts for the

construction. Do you think of so many it will benefit the economy in

your area? I support HS2, but actually I would like to see high

speed trains in my area. We do not even have that too Hull at the

moment and the plans to electrify the line stop at Selby so we do not

even get too Hull in the plans at the moment, let alone in 2033.

that is a point, will be see extra investment in other railings?

already are, with the Midland Main Line and the route down to Wales

and so on that they are being electrified it almost as we speak.

The government have produced a number -- a lot of cash for capital

investment in the railways. I agree that I would like to see the line

up to Cleethorpes alleged fight but we keep arguing the corn and

eventually it will happen. When HS2 is built it will be quicker to get

to Sheffield to London and a curry takes to get to Doncaster from

Cleethorpes. I can believe that because I had a painful journey

from Cleethorpes to Doncaster every week! He is a long-term project and

it is really a case of jam tomorrow with HS2. It is a very long-term

project and I think we want to see the investment in infrastructure.

It will be many years before we see any building work taking place and

what we need really is the infrastructure to be built in the

next few years. We need, as I have said before, we need investment in

roads now. We could spend money now to have great benefit and create

jobs. Are we going to see some unhappy MPs on the route? Martin

Vickers, compulsory purchase orders, with their constituents? It will be

difficult for the constituencies affected, I accept that. I hope we

do not rush it through because people have a right to be heard but