---

Energy Bill

moved Amendment No. 76: 76: After Clause 90, insert the following new Clause— ““Duty to protect public health (1) The Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) is amended as follows. (2) In section 3D(2) (exceptions from sections 3A to 3C) omit the words ““or 37””. (3) In section 29 (regulations relating to supply and safety), after subsection (2)(g) insert— ““(h) specify the distance at which any new high voltage line should be installed from any existing development.”” (4) After section 37(3) insert— ““(3A) In granting consent under this section, the Secretary of State must ensure that he 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.”” (5) In Schedule 8 (consents under sections 36 and 37) at the end of paragraph 2(1) insert ““and the Health Protection Agency””. (6) In Schedule 8 (consents under sections 36 and 37) in paragraph 2(2) after ““relevant planning authority”” insert ““or the Health Protection Agency””. (7) In Schedule 8 (consents under sections 36 and 37) after paragraph 2(6) insert— ““(7) In this Schedule ““Health Protection Agency”” has the same meaning as in the Health Protection Agency Act 2004 and includes any successor to its functions in respect of radiation.”””” The noble Lord said: I hope to move this amendment more briefly than the last one as I am conscious that we are nearing the end of our deliberations and that we want to reach the end of the list before we have to adjourn. The amendment is about a possible link between electric and magnetic fields, EMF, and extremely low frequency electricity current, ELF, and the incidence of childhood leukaemia for children either in utero or born and living within 200 metres of a high-voltage transmission line. This issue is clearly important. It has been the subject of several reports and of a recent debate in Grand Committee on the Housing and Regeneration Bill on 10 June, when the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Best, tabled an amendment in pretty well the same terms as the one I am speaking to this afternoon. The issue is whether it is desirable, necessary or proportionate to take steps to reduce the risk. It is interesting to learn that the evidence of the link is based almost wholly on epidemiological studies. There is very little, if anything, to establish causation. That makes it extremely difficult for those responsible for policy to decide action because one is inevitably thrown back on the precautionary principle. I have discussed this issue with the charity Children with Leukaemia and, more recently, with a scientist from the National Grid, Dr John Swanson. I am extremely grateful to both for the information and guidance they have given. I mentioned the reports a moment ago. The most significant report is the so-called SAGE report—an acronym for the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs. It is an admirable initiative, trying to break away from the confrontational approach and to establish a collaborative effort to reach some consensus about what advice to give to the authorities. The stage that we have now reached is that the Health Protection Agency has commented on the SAGE report and issued its own advice. We now await the Government’s response to that report. We are promised that ““later this year””— I take that from the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in Grand Committee on the Bill that I have just mentioned, on 10 June reported in col. 179. Can Ministers perhaps be a little more specific about that, since ““later this year”” still leaves us with six months? Could we have slightly more detail? The noble Baroness referred to ““precautionary measures””. Could we have some indication of what those might be? One suggestion widely canvassed was that authorities should insist on a very wide corridor, of perhaps 400 metres, within which housing and schools would be planned. What has been made clear in the grid is that that would entail a huge cost and an enormous sterilisation of land. The HPA’s estimate of what we are dealing with here is that out of 450 cases of childhood leukaemia per annum perhaps two might be attributable to ELF/EMF from transmission lines. I find it very difficult to believe that a corridor could conceivably be regarded as a proportionate response to that. At the other end, there is apparently some evidence that EMF fields emanating from poor house wiring might be contributing to the problem and that the cost might be as little as £20 a house to put that right. I have no means of knowing whether that is right, but that is the figure that I was given. There is a third matter which perhaps ought to be left to the Planning Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, "““the HPA recommends that, within the existing government planning framework, the attention of local authority planning departments and electricity companies be drawn to the evidence for a possible small increase in childhood leukaemia””.—[Official Report, 10/6/08; col. GC 179.]" The HPA itself has also said: "““Raising awareness of a hazard without giving advice on how to reduce exposure could cause anxiety and attendant health detriment””." Just issuing information to planning authorities without some accompanying guidance would seem to me to fall into the HPA’s trap. I was quoting from paragraph 6 of its report. The industry takes a very positive approach to this issue. There is no suggestion of trying to sweep it under the carpet. The concerned NGOs remain very anxious to continue the collaborative approach inherent in the SAGE process. My proposed new clause, which was suggested by Children with Leukaemia, makes certain more specific suggestions about distance from developments or a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure no risk. I am prepared to agree that there can never be no risk when talking about developments of this kind. The involvement of the HPA has also been referred to. For these reasons, it would be wrong to press this in advance of the Government’s promised response to SAGE, but the amendment does give Ministers an opportunity to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said on 10 June. On that basis, I shall decide whether to return to this on Report. That will depend on when we can expect the Government’s response. We will not reach that point until after the long Recess, so there is time for this to be considered. I share the concern that there may be something here of which we need to take account and that the precautionary principle requires that that is done. I beg to move.