Clause
81
Power
to amend licence conditions:
gas
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I thought that we were still into smart meters and
I was awaiting the excitement of the vote, but that comes later, does
it not? That is what threw me.
Clause 81 needs to be regarded
partly in the context of the group of clauses. We have just voted on
clause 80 so unanimously because we know that it makes a number of
minor and consequential amendments to the Gas Act 1986, to supplement
the substantive transfer of functions in relation to gas meters made by
clause 79.
Before the
transfer, functions under section 17 of the Act and related regulations
are the responsibility of Ofgem. Where the legislation mentions those
Ofgem employees who carry out such functions, it refers to them as
members of the director’s staff. To reflect the transfer of
responsibilities and to future-proof the provisions against possible
machinery of government changes, it is proposed to replace the
references to members of the
director’s—Ofgem’s—staff with more general
references to persons employed in the civil service of the
state.
Most of the
functions covered in the transfer are carried out by appointed meter
examiners, but not all meter examiners are civil servants, and they
still need to be paid. Clause 80(4) therefore makes provision to allow
payment of those examiners who are not employed in the civil service of
the state, including in respect of any pensions payable. I am therefore
grateful that colleagues supported that clause.
Clause 81 is necessary to
ensure that the National Weights and Measures Laboratory can recover
the costs associated with functions relating to the standards and
accuracy of meters under section 17 of the Gas Act 1986. Responsibility
for those functions currently rests with Ofgem, which is funded for
that purpose by a licence fee paid by pipes and wires companies. Those
are the companies that transfer gas and electricity through the
networks—the gas transporters and the electricity transmission
and distribution operators.
The cost of such fees is then
passed on to other groups operating in the competitive gas market, such
as the suppliers themselves, as part of the normal charging
arrangements for use of network services. Given that the licence fee is
currently collected by Ofgem, however, we need to find a way of
ensuring that the laboratory, which is concerned with metrology, can
recover any costs associated with its new responsibilities under
section 17 of the
Act.
The solution
proposed in the clause reflects the model already used for energywatch.
Put simply, Ofgem will continue to collect the money attributable to
such functions from the pipes and wires companies through the licence
fee. However, the money will pass directly into the consolidated fund,
from which the laboratory can then recover it. That is the least
burdensome approach, because licensees are not required to change
arrangements for the payment of fees, and the laboratory does not need
to set up any new complex financial
system.
A requirement
for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish any modifications
provides protection for licence payers. The power itself is available
only for a period of six months following commencement because it is
envisaged that only one licence modification will be
required.
As I have explained, this
important clause represents no additional burden to the pipes and wires
companies that receive and pay for the service, but it ensures that the
National Weights and Measures Laboratory can recover its costs for the
transferred work that it will undertake.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 81
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
82
electricity
meters
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
I can move the clause very briefly because it
transfers existing statutory responsibility for the technical aspects
of electricity meters from the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to
the Secretary of State. It follows the same form as the transfer of
functions in relation to gas meters in clause
79.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 82 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
83
Section
82: consequential
amendments
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Clause 80 made several minor and consequential
amendments to the Gas Act 1986 with regard to the transfer of functions
in relation to gas meters, which was set out in clause 79.
Similarly, clause 83 makes several minor and consequential
amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 in relation to electricity
meters, following the transfer of functions set out in clause
82.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 83 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
84
Power
to amend licence conditions: electricity
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Malcolm
Wicks:
The clause sets out provisions on cost recovery for
functions in relation to electricity meters in the same way as clause
81 did for functions in relation to gas meters. That is necessary to
ensure that the National Weights and Measures Laboratory can recover
the costs associated with functions relating to the standards and
accuracy of meters under schedule 7 of the Electricity Act
1989.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause 84 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
85
Electricity
safety
Charles
Hendry:
I beg to move amendment No. 47, in
clause 85, page 75, line 8, at
end add—
‘(3) This section
does not apply to electricity display
devices.
(4) In this section,
“electricity display device” means a device that can be
attached to a meter board in order to provide information on the amount
of electricity being
used.’.
The
clause relates to electricity safety standards. Essentially, it will
transfer inspection and enforcement issues relating to those standards
from the Secretary of State to the Health and Safety Executive and give
the HSE the power to amend the standards as it sees fit. In particular,
it deals with the issue of electricity display devices, which the
Minister mentioned earlier. I predicted on Thursday that they would be
popped into a cupboard:
“They will put them away
in a cupboard and never use them
again”.——[Official Report, Energy Public Bill
Committee, 6 March 2008; c.
539.]
It is only
because I shamed the Minister into taking his out of the cupboard that
it might be fitted, but I suspect that if he looks at it, he will see
writing on it saying, “This should only be attached to a meter
by somebody who understands what they are doing.” He knows an
awful lot about an awful lot of things, but whether he knows how to
attach things to his meter remains to be seen. If he is not back here
on Monday, we will understand that he did not, but I shall not
go there.
The issue
with EDDs, although I do not want to start a protracted debate about
them, is that the Government appear to be advocating not smart metering
but giving consumers more information, which has a danger. I should
like to know how that relates to the clause in terms of safety measures
and how they will be monitored. We will be expecting consumers who do
not know much about the issues to attach EDDs to their own meters. That
could be dangerous; they could get shocks, or worse. How will that be
dealt with? Will the companies providing the devices have an obligation
to be responsible somehow for their safety? What will happen in those
circumstances? It is a probing amendment to see how the Minister plans
to take forward the measures.
EDDs are not a satisfactory
replacement for smart meters, although I am sure that you do not wish
us to get into a debate on that, Mr. Amess. They are not as
safe as they might be, and people might be tempted to install them
themselves. Who will have legal liability if something goes wrong? The
amendment would ensure that the companies would be exempted from any
responsibility if someone fits an EDD
incorrectly.
Dr.
Iddon:
The Department of Health funded the Draper report,
published in 2005, which found that children living from birth within
200 m of high-voltage power lines had a 70 per cent. higher chance of
developing leukaemia in childhood. It was the largest ever study of
childhood cancers and power lines, involving every childhood cancer
case in the UK during a 30-year period. The causes of childhood
leukaemia are not well understood, but there is
increasing evidence that environmental factors play a part. Ionising
radiation is the only established cause of the disease. In 2004, the
Health Protection Agency recommended that the Government
“consider the need for further
precautionary
measures”
to reduce
public exposure to electromagnetic
fields.
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is being ingenious,
but I have been listening carefully, and I cannot see the relevance to
the amendment. It seems to me that he is speaking about new clause 26.
Could he make his remarks entirely relevant to amendment No.
47?
Dr.
Iddon:
I seek your guidance, Mr. Amess. I am
trying to discuss electrical safety with respect to health. Is that not
in order under the clause?
The
Chairman:
The amendment refers specifically to electricity
display devices. If the hon. Gentleman can make his remarks relevant to
that, I am happy to hear
him.
Dr.
Iddon:
My ingenuity does not stretch that
far.
Charles
Hendry:
On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Could
you clarify whether this important and interesting issue might be
relevant to the clause stand part debate on clause 85, which relates to
electricity
safety?
The
Chairman:
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It
would be entirely relevant to a clause stand part
debate.
12.45
pm
Malcolm
Wicks:
I should clarify for the record that my display
device is in a cupboard because I was so busy drafting a response to
the hon. Member for Wealden that I did not look at the
instructions closely
enough.
We will
discuss the big issues about display under our proposals on smart
meters. Display devices may not be as smart as smart meters, but they
should not be ashamed. They should be proud and come out of the closet.
That will include my own closet at the weekend. I will my report
progress to the hon. Gentleman, albeit
privately.
The
amendment applies to display devices and looks at the health issues.
The safety of electricity display devices is completely separate from
the safety of electricity distribution equipment, which is the subject
of the clause. My understanding is that display devices can be attached
to a meter board to provide information on the amount of electricity
being used. The objective of such devices is to raise awareness of
energy consumption and thereby promote energy efficiency. Such battery
operated devices are readily available at appropriate retail outlets.
One energy supplier currently provides them free to customers who sign
up to a particular tariff. As I mentioned in a previous debate, the
Government will publish their policy on such devices later this month
as part of the response on metering and billing.
The clause
deals exclusively with section 29 of the Electricity Act 1989 and
regulations made under it. Those regulations relate to the safety of
electrical equipment operated by generators, electricity transmission
and distribution companies, and meter operators. They might apply to
overhead power lines, buried cables and meters, but not to devices
installed by the consumer such as electricity display devices. The
amendment would therefore not have its intended impact and is
unnecessary. I believe that it is a probing
amendment.
In his
discussion last Thursday, the hon. Member for Wealden raised concerns
about the installation of electricity display devices. Perfectly
properly, he has returned to that theme today. He might find it helpful
to know that my officials have been in discussion with the Health and
Safety Executive about the safety risks associated with such devices
and their installation. Neither my Department, nor the HSE consider
there to be any notable safety
issues.
The
instructions on how to install electricity display devices that are
currently on the market are clear. They provide step-by-step
instructions on how to attach the device to the meter board. I look
forward to reading them again. Consumers are advised to contact
qualified electrical installers if they are unsure about how to install
the devices. Any fault with a device would be a consumer product
reliability issue, as with any other electrical device or appliance. As
the clause does not apply to such devices, the amendment is
unnecessary. I request that the hon. Gentleman considers withdrawing
it.
Charles
Hendry:
I am happy to withdraw the amendment. As I made
clear, it was a probing amendment. I thank the Minister and his
officials for the work that they have done with the HSE to clarify the
situation. He has provided the clarity that we were seeking. However,
we will return to these issues under the wider debate on smart
metering. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
Before we come to the clause stand part debate,
I remind the Committee that anyone wishing to participate must make
their remarks relevant to the clause, which is entirely about
electricity safety. The debate must not be drawn towards any new
clauses that hon. Members have
tabled.
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Dr.
Iddon:
I appreciate your patience and I will endeavour to
follow your ruling, Mr.
Amess.
I have already
referred to the fairly hefty Draper report. In 2004 the Health
Protection Agency recommended that the
Government
“consider the
need for further precautionary
measures”
to
reduce public exposure to electromagnetic frequencies. In response, the
Government set up a stakeholder group called SAGE—the
Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs—which has been examining
electromagnetic frequency issues since 2004. It published its first
report
last year, proposing a moratorium on the building of new homes and
schools in proximity to high-voltage power lines and vice versa. SAGE
was unable to recommend that option explicitly because substantial
costs to the energy industry were involved. A cross-party inquiry into
childhood leukaemia was set up in 2006, and it reported in 2007. Its
main recommendation was to introduce a moratorium on building new homes
or schools within at least 60 metres of existing high-voltage overhead
transmission lines carrying a 275 kV or a 400 kV load to protect
children from an increased risk of leukaemia. The Government referred
the 2007 SAGE report to the Health Protection Agency last year for
advice. The HPA issued guidance on the report and also took into
consideration the 2007 report published by the cross-party group of
MPs. It recommended that “the attention of local authority
planning departments and electricity companies be drawn to the evidence
of a possible increase in childhood leukaemia, which may result from
siting new buildings very close to power
lines.”
Last month, the
Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the
Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo) updated the House by
reporting that discussions were under way with agencies, the industry
and trade associations to seek initial views on the practicalities of
implementing those recommendations. The matter was discussed during the
passage of the Planning Bill and the Housing and Regeneration Bill. As
a result, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr.
Wright) asked his officials to draft proposals by Easter. I felt that
that matter should be raised during the passage of this
Bill.
The World
Health Organisation also acknowledges the association—I cannot
put it more strongly than that—between a child living in
proximity to high-voltage power lines and childhood leukaemia. In its
latest report, the WHO states
that
“low cost
precautionary measures are warranted.”
The Bill will result in an expansion of
the grid to accommodate greater generating capacity especially from
renewable sources of energy. In my view, it is important that the views
of such organisations are taken into account by the Minister when that
extended grid is established. I look forward to any comments that my
hon. Friend the Minister can make at this stage on this
matter.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Let me just introduce the clause and then I will
comment on the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton,
South-East. The clause concerns a transfer of responsibility for
electricity safety from the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform to the HSE. The engineering inspectorate of the
then Department of Trade and Industry was identified as carrying out
functions in the area of electricity safety in a 2005 report about
reducing administrative burdens by Philip Hampton. It highlighted that
those functions were important for protecting the public. The Committee
will be aware of the potential for serious personal injury and even
fatality as a result of non-compliance with standards for electrical
safety. It is important, for example, to ensure that electricity
infrastructure complies with the required clear signage to protect
against persons coming into contact with high-voltage
installations.
The
HSE’s remit extends to the safety of workers and the public in
workplaces. The Hampton report noted that there was a link between that
and the enforcement of electricity safety regulation. As such, we
considered it to be appropriate to move those functions relating to
safety of persons under the umbrella of one single safety regulator.
That transfer ensures that health and safety inspectors, who have
day-to-day experience of dealing with matters of safety, will now
inspect and enforce issues relating to electricity safety standards.
The transfer means that those inspectors will also be able to use their
own governing legislation, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
in cases in which there has been a breach of electricity safety
standards. That allows for the use of criminal sanctions and even a
maximum two-year imprisonment for breach of an enforcement notice. That
means that sanctions available in cases in which there has been a
breach of electricity safety standards mirror those available for a
breach of all other safety standards, which are governed by the 1974
Act. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is a
proportionate measure since the most serious breaches of electricity
safety standards could result in
death.
In response to
the question from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, the
Government take their advice from the Health Protection Agency on
limiting exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields,
which I will refer to as ELF EMF for
brevity.
In
2004, following a comprehensive review of scientific evidence, the then
National Radiological Protection Board, which is now part of the Health
Protection Agency, recommended the adoption of guidelines set by the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Those
guidelines—known as ICNIRP guidelines—are based on the
established health effects of exposure to ELF EMF. They set values for
workers, building in a significant level of protection. The guidelines
for public exposure to power frequency magnetic fields incorporate a
further fivefold safety margin, in recognition of the fact that the
general population includes individuals who may be more sensitive to
adverse effects than the working
population.
In
addition to the established health effects of exposure, there is some
scientific evidence to suggest a link between childhood leukaemia and
EMF exposure below the guideline levels, although there is no consensus
on a plausible biological mechanism to explain the association.
However, in view of the uncertainties associated with the health
effects of exposure below the guidelines, the Health Protection Agency
also recommended that the Government consider the need for further
precautionary measures in respect of exposure of people to ELF
EMF.
In
response to that recommendation, a stakeholder advisory group on such
exposure was established, which brought together a range of
stakeholders, including academics, electricity industry representatives
and pressure
groups, with a remit to identify and explore the implications for a
precautionary approach, and make practical recommendations for
precautionary
measures. That
stakeholder advisory group, SAGE, reported in April 2007 and made
recommendations in relation to power lines, property, wiring in homes
and electrical equipment in homes. On receipt of the report, the
Government sought the advice of the Health Protection Agency on the
recommendations it contained. In November 2007, the Health Protection
Agency responded to the SAGE
report.
We are
currently considering the Health Protection Agency report, and I expect
to receive advice from officials on that issue in the near future. We
expect to respond to the SAGE report, including setting out any
practical precautionary measures that we think are justified, later in
the year.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 85
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
