New
Clause
16
Duty
in relation to electromagnetic
fields
‘In exercising its
powers, the HCA must ensure that it does not expose any person to any
risk to their health arising from exposure to electric and magnetic
fields with a frequency of between 30-300
Hertz.’.—[Mr.
Hurd.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
2.15
pm
Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): I beg to move, That
the clause be read a Second time.
I am conscious of the fact that
my name sits in splendid isolation above new clause 16. I hope in the
next few minutes to galvanise some support across the Committee for the
need to press the Government to reach a judgment and possibly a
decision on a possible risk attached to the Bill’s objective,
which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire
correctly described as a step change in the output of housing in this
country. It poses a fundamental question of values for the Government
about the degree to which we are prepared to take risks with public
health in meeting that objective. The purpose of the clause is straight
forward; to impose a duty on the Homes and Communities Agency to
consider the risks to health arising from what are known as extremely
low frequency electromagnetic fields when carrying out its functions,
particularly in respect of the location and development of housing. I
do not know how many scientists or engineers are on the Committee, but
I needed some help in defining electromagnetic fields. In the
cross-party inquiry into childhood leukaemia and extremely low
frequency electromagnetic fields published in July 2007 on which I had
the pleasure of serving they
are
“electric fields and
magnetic fields are created by the generation and transmission of
electricity. The term EMF is used to describe the mixture of these
fields to which people are exposed. Major sources of EMF in our
environment include High-Voltage Overhead Transmission
Lines”
and
“electricity
sub-stations”.
The thorny
problem facing us and the Government arises from growing evidence of an
association—I use that word very carefully for the
Minister—between an increased risk of childhood leukaemia and
the location of homes and, while we are about it, schools. The
Committee should be aware that childhood leukaemia is now the most
common childhood cancer, accounting for a third of all childhood cancer
cases. Around 500
children are diagnosed every year and, although survival rates have
improved, the incidence has been increasing; indeed, it doubled between
the 1970s and the 1990s. So, it is a big deal. As we pointed out in the
inquiry, there maybe many factors causing childhood leukaemia, we do
not know enough. The inquiry chairman, the hon. Member for Dartford
(Dr. Stoate), who, as the House is aware, is a practising GP,
states: “Current
scientific thinking is that childhood leukaemia is likely to have more
than one cause and there may be many factors in the development of the
disease.”
As I will point
out, there is growing evidence for an association and therefore, we
should be very careful about the risks associated with pylons. I will
set out the key milestones in the accumulation of evidence. In 2004 the
Health Protection Agency recommended that the
Government
“consider the
need for further precautionary measures to reduce public exposure to
EMF”.
In 2005, the
groundbreaking Draper report, of which the Minister will be aware,
funded by the Department of Health found that children living within
200 m of high-voltage power lines from birth, had a 69 per cent.
increased risk of developing leukaemia in childhood. That is a very big
number. In response to the Health Protection Agency, the Department of
Health set up the Stakeholder Advisory Group on Extremely Low Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields—SAGE—in 2005 to make
recommendations to Government on practical precautionary measures to
reduce public EMF exposure from sources such as high-voltage power
lines. It published its first interim assessment in April
2007. It identified a ban on building new homes and schools within
specified distances of power lines as
the
“best available
option for obtaining significant
exposure”
from
power lines. SAGE was followed by the cross-party inquiry, on which I
served, into childhood leukaemia and the association with extremely
low-frequency EMF—defined as electromagnetic fields with a
frequency of between 30 and 300 Hz, which is the rate specified in the
clause that I have moved today. The inquiry also recommended a
moratorium on building new homes and schools within specified distances
of these transmission lines. In 2007 the Government referred the SAGE
report back to the Health Protection Agency for guidance. The HPA has
issued guidance on the report and our inquiry, stating that there are a
number of epidemiological studies showing an association between living
close to high-voltage power lines and a small excess of childhood
leukaemia. The Health Protection Agency recommended that the attention
of local authority planning departments and the electricity companies
be drawn to the evidence for a possible small increase in childhood
leukaemia that may result from siting new buildings very close to power
lines.
There is a
steady development of evidence and recommendations have been put before
the Government, which they are now mulling over. The Minister of State,
Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn
Primarolo), who deals with public health, is on the record as saying
that her Department will consider the advice in consultation with other
Departments, the devolved Administrations and the
HPA.
The Minister here today, in
response to Children with Leukaemia, wrote
saying,
“This
issue obviously needs serious thought and we will be in touch with you
once we have shaped our thinking in the light of all the advice that
has now emerged.”
I am
aware that this is a highly complicated and thorny issue with
implications for some of the policy responses to the recommendations,
not least in terms of the implications for land values. I am aware of
that because we addressed those matters in our
inquiry.
The Bill
provides an opportunity for adopting in a robust and real way the
precautionary principle. If the Minister has any doubt about the
popular support for that, I refer him to a series of early-day motions
tabled in this Parliament: early-day motion 403, which refers to
concern about the increase of leukaemia related to proximity to power
lines, was signed by 233 Members of Parliament and early-day motion
1784 was signed by 146
MPs.
We spent some
time in our inquiry gauging public opinion on this matter, with the
help of the Children with Leukaemia charity. A survey from Opinion
Leader research showed that three out of five people surveyed were
concerned about the effects of electromagnetic fields on health and
three out of four people surveyed thought that preventive action should
be taken to protect children from EMF
exposure.
I urge the
Minister to be bold. I know that he is a sensitive man: he and I carved
exotic animals out of blocks of ice one afternoon recently. Sensitivity
is not enough at this stage. In the face of growing evidence, we need
to take this issue seriously. It is time for the Government to take a
view and communicate it. The simple question is, do the Government
acknowledge the risk and, if so, why should we take
any?
Alistair
Burt:
I should like to put on the record the Conservative
Front Bench’s support in respect of the issues so ably raised by
my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I pay tribute to him
and to his colleagues from all parties for their work on this delicate
subject.
It
is an odd phenomenon. I suspect that quite a lot of MPs have had the
odd occasion in their constituency when something has been raised with
them that has led to queries about the safety of exposure to EMFs. That
is demonstrated by the breadth of cross-party support for the early-day
motions. In supporting my hon. Friend, I accept that there seems to be
some substance to this matter, and that it is sensible to take action
now to try to ensure that nothing new is done that would add to the
number of children who have been affected. I appreciate that, again, we
are getting into lists and picking out specific examples, but the
Minister is interested in the matter and we want to see how far he
could
go.
I
am interested in the block of ice business in which my hon. Friend and
the Minister were involved. That seems like a modern management
development tool that I have not yet cottoned on to—perhaps it
is something that I can introduce in my new role to see how it helps my
colleagues to develop. Perhaps the Minister could tell me more later.
However, this is a serious amendment that deals with a serious subject
for the families concerned. I hope that the Minister can respond in
some way to the matters raised by my hon.
Friend.
Lembit
Öpik:
It would not be reasonable to expect the
Minister to become an expert on electromagnetic fields, given that his
portfolio is housing. However, this is an interesting debate and I hope
that I will remain in order, Mr. Gale, if I highlight a
couple of thoughts. I have looked at this research myself. I come from
a scientific background and my father was a physicist. There is no
question but that when dealing with energy, there can be unintended
consequences on health, as intimated by the hon. Member for
Ruislip-Northwood. It is perfectly plausible to draw an association
between radiation and health, so it is reasonable to obtain the
Minister’s perspective on how the Government perceive the
precautionary principle in relation to radiation sources. We have
probably all had some dialogue with individuals who are concerned about
mobile phone masts. Indeed, I participated in a conference in this very
room on that subject some time ago.
I have looked
at a lot of the research on this matter, and I think that much of it is
equivocal and circumstantial. One highly publicised research report
seemed to be based on a very small sample, and I wondered whether the
sample was sufficiently significant to provide reliable results.
Nevertheless, if there is not sufficient evidence, it is incumbent on
the Government to research the matter further. Will the Minister give
us his views on something that I have long regarded as the most
sensible way forward on this and other health-related housing and
accommodation matters? If we tabulated health data on a geographical
basis, we could see whether regular patterns are developing around the
country, perhaps around certain industrial sectors or concentrations of
radiation sources. That would greatly help us to build a more reliable
understanding of the causal links between such relatively new
technologies and the human
body.
Obviously,
there are risks to certain industries. If they were shown to be
significant polluters of health, the consequences would be very
expensive. Notwithstanding that, strides in technology have been so
great that we have probably wandered into a technological environment
in which there are unintended consequences on human health that we are
only beginning to understand. Will the Minister consider the case for a
geographical tabulation of illness around the country? If so, perhaps
we can discuss this issue further.
Mr.
Wright:
I commend the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to
the new clause on the manner in which they did so. They spoke with
sensitivity, which is to be expected from members of such a
high-calibre Committee. I pay tribute particularly to the hon. Member
for Ruislip-Northwood. I know that he is interested in this issue and
that, as he said, he participated in the cross-party inquiry into
childhood leukaemia and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic
fields. I think he said that the inquiry reported last July and made a
number of recommendations. I thank him and the other members of the
inquiry team for their work, which has made an important contribution
to the debate on exposure to electric and magnetic fields.
The
frequencies to which the amendment relates are known as extremely low
frequency electric and magnetic fields. For ease, I shall refer to them
as ELFEMFs. The main sources of those fields are power lines,
electricity substations, household wiring and electrical appliances
around the home. Let me be blunt about my approach
to the new clause. I do not believe that the proposed duty on the HCA is
necessary or appropriate, as there are already guidelines on the
exposure of people to ELFEMFs. The Government are considering the need
for additional practical precautionary measures beyond the adoption of
the guidelines. Any precautionary measures that are deemed necessary
will be implemented at a national level. That is a crucial point. As
such, a duty does not need to be placed on the HCA. It might help hon. Members to
understand the matter better if I set out the current framework for
limiting exposure to ELFEMFs. Hon. Members may be aware that the
Government take advice from the Health Protection Agency on limiting
exposure to ELFEMFs. In 2004, following a comprehensive review of the
available scientific evidence, to which the hon. Member for
Ruislip-Northwood alluded, the then National Radiological Protection
Board, which is now part of the Health Protection Agency, recommended
the adoption of guidelines set out by the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection.
2.30
pm
Those
guidelines, known as the ICNIRP guidelines, are based on the
established health effects of exposure to ELFEMF, and set values for
workers, building in a significant level of protection. The guidelines
for public exposure to power frequency magnetic fields incorporate a
further five-fold safety margin from those for workers in recognition
of the fact that the general population includes individuals who may be
more sensitive to adverse health effects than the working population.
However, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood eloquently said,
there are uncertainties associated with the health effects of exposure
below the guidelines, and in view of those uncertainties, the HPA also
recommended that the Government should consider the need for further
precautionary measures in respect of exposure to
ELFEMFs.
In
response to that recommendation, the stakeholder advisory group on
ELFEMFs—SAGE—was established. It 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 to make
practical recommendations for precautionary measures. SAGE reported in
April 2007, and made a number of important recommendations on power
lines, property, and wiring and electricity in
homes.
Perhaps one of
the most pertinent recommendations to the Government’s housing
delivery agenda was the option that an effective way significantly to
reduce exposure to ELFEMFs was to introduce a moratorium on the
building of new homes and schools within at least 60 m of high-voltage
overhead lines, and on the building of new high-voltage lines within 60
m of existing homes and schools. That is known as the corridor
approach.
SAGE
undertook a cost-benefit analysis of the proposal, and found that such
an approach would not pass a cost-benefit test by conventional Treasury
book rules. For that reason, SAGE could not recommend that approach,
but presented it merely as an option for consideration. SAGE asked the
Government to make a
clear decision on whether to implement the option and, further to its
report, a cross-party inquiry, of which the hon. Member for
Ruislip-Northwood was a member, specifically recommended that that
option should be implemented. On receipt of the SAGE report, the
Government sought the advice of the HPA on the recommendations. In
November 2007, the HPA responded to SAGE’s report. A key
statement in that response
was: “HPA
supports precautionary measures that have a convincing evidence base to
show that they will be successful in reducing exposure, are effective
in providing reassurance to the public, and where the overall benefits
outweigh the fiscal and social
costs”.
The HPA
also noted that the corridor option considered by SAGE for separating
new dwellings from high-voltage power lines and vice versa, is not
supported by the cost-benefit analysis, even assuming a causal link
between exposure to ELFEMFs and childhood leukaemia, so a decision to
implement that precautionary option should, frankly, be weighed against
other health benefits obtainable from the same resources. Nevertheless,
HPA recommends that within the existing Government planning framework,
the attention of local authority planning departments and the
electricity companies should be drawn to the evidence for a possible
small increase in childhood leukaemia that may result from siting new
buildings very close to existing buildings.
The Committee
will recognise that the issue of exposure to ELFEMFs, which we are
considering, is vital. Hon. Members can be assured that we are
carefully considering HPA’s advice on the recommendations in the
SAGE report in conjunction with other Departments and the devolved
Administrations.
Mr.
Hurd:
I thank the Minster for an extremely thorough
response. Could I draw him a little on when he expects the Government
to publish their response to the advice that they have
received?
Mr.
Wright:
We expect to respond to the SAGE
report, including setting out any practical
precautionary measures which we think are justified.
I have
ministerial responsibility for this and, as a father, I think it a
vital and important issue. I want to do all I can to make sure that it
is addressed and that sensible recommendations are implemented. I give
the House, and in particular the hon. Gentleman, my
reassurances—as set out in a letter to the Children with
Leukaemia organisation on 7 January—that I will do my very best
to make sure that this issue is addressed. I am consulting with
Government Departments and ministerial colleagues to ensure that we
consider this fully.
I do not want to provide a
knee-jerk response. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is new and
emerging data with regard to relatively new and emerging scientific
evidence and industries. I want to mitigate as much as possible the
risks and concerns about this.
I hope I have given a thorough
response, Mr. Gale. I hope that I have reassured the hon.
Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who made his argument in the most
articulate and sensitive manner.
Lembit
Öpik:
I do not seek to commit the
Government through this Minister to my suggestions—I say that
for the record—but I ask him to express his opinion whether
there is merit in considering the formal tabulation of health data on a
geographical basis, for the reasons that I gave
before.
Mr.
Wright:
Let me put that direct question to ministerial
colleagues, in particular Ministers from the Department of Health, in
my discussions with them. I will certainly keep them
informed.
I would be
happy to meet the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood on a regular basis
to keep him informed because I know that he sincerely holds these
views. I want to keep him fully aware of what the Government are
thinking on this. I am very keen to move forward in a sensitive manner
and not to make a knee-jerk response. I hope he respects
that.
I do not
think it is appropriate to place a duty on the HCA since it will be
subject to the same statutory controls, regulatory frameworks or
guidance concerning ELFEMFs as any other body. On that basis, with the
greatest sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I hope that he
will consider withdrawing this
amendment.
Mr.
Hurd:
My intention in tabling this new clause was to throw
a spotlight on the issue and to try to tease out of the Government a
sense of how seriously they are taking it and what they are preparing
to do.
We have heard
a very sincere and personal response from the Minister. Like he, I am a
father and my value system tells me that we should not be taking any
risk in this situation. That is my interpretation of the precautionary
principle. I am also extremely clear about the complications, costs and
consequences of some of the precautionary measures that are being
proposed.
I take at
face value his personal commitment to moving this agenda forward within
the Government. I also hear what he said about needing to address the
matter through a national strategy. On the basis of what I have heard,
I am prepared to accept the argument for withdrawing the new clause. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave, withdrawn.
| 
