New Clause 17
Planning Bill
4:30 pm

Richard Benyon (Whip, Whips; Newbury, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is fundamental and asks how far we are prepared to take risks with public health resulting from new developments. My name sits in solitary splendour on the new clause and I hope that I can persuade hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support it. It would impose a duty on planners to consider health risks arising from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. I am sure that all members of the Committee know what those are, but if they would like some help, the cross-party inquiry into childhood leukaemia provided a very good definition in its paper published in July 2007. It states:

“Both 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... electricity substations”.

There is growing evidence of an association—I use that word carefully—between increased risks of childhood leukaemia and the location of homes and schools. Childhood leukaemia is the most common of all childhood cancers. There are 500 diagnoses a year and, while survival rates are improving, its incidence has doubled since the 1970s. I would be the first to concede that there could be many factors behind that, but there are certain milestones in the evidence that the Committee should consider, and the Bill provides a good vehicle for making radical changes.

In 2005, the Draper report, which was a ground-breaking piece of research 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 childhood leukaemia. That is nearly 70 per cent., which is a very high number indeed. In 2005, in response to that report, the Health Protection Agency set up the stakeholder advisory group on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, which made recommendations to the Government on practical, precautionary measures.

My new clause seeks, as a precautionary measure, to reduce the public’s exposure to EMF from sources such as high-voltage power lines. In April last year, SAGE reported that a ban on building new homes or schools within a specified distance of high-voltage lines was “the best available option” for obtaining a significant reduction in exposure to EMF from power lines. The cross-party group also defined extremely low frequency EMFs as having a frequency of between 30 and 300 hertz, and that is in the new clause. The Health Protection  Agency has since recommended that the attention of local planning departments should be drawn to that evidence.

We are also assisted by a report from the World Health Organisation, which reported on the issue last year and made a number of recommendations. The first of two main recommendations stated:

“When changes to existing ELF sources are contemplated, ELF field reduction should be considered alongside safety, reliability and economic aspects.”

The second recommendation suggested:

“Local authorities should improve planning of ELF EMF-emitting facilities, including better consultation between industry, local government, and citizens when siting major ELF EMF-emitting sources.”

I am sorry to burden the Committee with jargon, but we have a situation where the Government are rightly shaping their opinion on the growing body of evidence. It would be a mistake to have to revisit the issue at a later stage when the Government will have to respond further to that growing body of opinion.

Many of us in the room are parents, and some of us have become parents recently. It is an extremely sensitive issue. It is hard to contemplate the experience of a family when a child is diagnosed with childhood leukaemia—there is not only the suffering of the child, but the fear and misery for the family. I do not want to play on the heart strings of the Committee, but want to look in a completely straightforward and scientific way at the direction in which the science is moving. Concern is felt across the House, and early-day motions 403 and 1784, which address the issue, have received 233 and 146 signatures respectively.

I finish by making two key points. First, the Government want to set national policy statements that the infrastructure planning commission will have to use when making decisions. There is an opportunity to include a recognition of the association between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, and to make applicants and the IPC recognise those factors in national policy statements. Secondly, it is extremely expensive to re-route a power line, and all relevant stakeholders in the application, including the Government, should address that key issue at the planning stage.

Chris Mole (PPS (John Healey, Minister of State), Department for Communities and Local Government; Ipswich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman took great pains to assert that he was going to use the term “association” and yet the usual basis on which we make judgments is cause and effect. Cleary there is no evidence of cause and effect that is demonstrable in statistical terms because there can be relationships between two measurable factors that are not necessarily causally linked but exist in the same location for different reasons. That is why there has to be a science that does not move; new evidence might be gained but there has to be evidence of cause and effect before a decision to legislate is taken.

Richard Benyon (Whip, Whips; Newbury, Conservative)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo). She is responsible for dealing with that matter. She wrote to the charity Children with Leukaemia, 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.”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 353.]

It is clear from that that the Government recognise that there is a huge shift in the evidential basis for the assertion that there may be an association. It ill behoves us to say that there is no risk and that we should therefore just forget about it. It is of fundamental importance and massive concern to families up and down the country. The point is that if it can be included in the national policy statements and be dealt with at the planning stage, it does not have to be revisited later, when looking at re-routing, burying power lines or moving an electricity sub-station. There is an entirely practical cost element and an element based on emerging evidence. In addition, the Government are rightly thinking in that direction as well, all of which point towards including the new clause in the Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd (Parliamentary Leader; Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Plaid Cymru)

I support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman ought to be congratulated on tabling it and on his arguments in favour of it. It is all very well talking about cause and effect, but surely where public health is concerned precautionary principles should take precedence over such balancing acts. There is a body of scientific opinion in favour of that kind of clause and he is right. If we take a precautionary line, we can avoid further health risks and/or costs.

It is a perfectly proper new clause and should have been in the Bill all along because we all know from our postbags how big a concern it is whenever one of those power lines is proposed anywhere near a school, for example. We are very busy bees at that time dealing with various complaints and so on, all of which could be avoided. I fully support the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further thought and perhaps come back with something that might accommodate people’s concerns.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury on both his interest and his ingenuity in tabling the new clause. It is similar to one that was floated in the Bill on the Homes and Communities Agency just over 10 days ago. The serious point—and I am sincere in this—is that he is part of a significant all-party push behind a concern to have a more firm science base, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich says needs to be more clearly established, and to see a suitably stronger Government policy response. He has given that process a significant shove.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the risk from extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields. I am advised, for ease of reference, to call those fields ELF EMFs, which I will. The hon. Gentleman is right that the main sources of those fields is power lines, but ELF EMFs are also emitted by electricity sub-stations, household wiring and electrical appliances around the house. They are by no means confined to the situation that concerns him.

The hon. Gentleman touched on this, but guidelines are in place. The Health Protection Agency has, with additional advice, looked at how those should be beefed up. It has provided that advice to Government, and, as he said, we are rightly shaping our opinion on that at the moment. We need to do that, but legislating in advance of coming to a conclusion about understanding the extent of the risk and, therefore, what is necessary is a little premature.

One point of comfort to the hon. Gentleman is that we are clear, and ministerial colleagues have made clear, that any precautionary measures that we conclude are going to be required as a result of the concern and the potential risk of ELF EMFs will be implemented at the national level. Therefore, the specific duty that he wants to put on the infrastructure planning commission is probably not the right way to proceed and is probably jumping the gun. However, as I said, he has given the debate an important shove and helped to raise its profile.

Returning to the response that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), gave on the Housing and Regeneration Bill about 10 days ago when the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) moved a similar new clause, as the junior Minister with responsibility for housing and planning, he agreed to meet the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I do not believe that that meeting has taken place yet and the hon. Member for Newbury may wish to join it. That seems a sensible way of bringing those two interests together. He may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, whom he quoted, is due also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who chaired the all-party parliamentary inquiry into these things, which also gave significant support to the impetus. On that basis, I hope that he does not feel that he needs to press his new clause to a Division. Again, I pay tribute to the way in which he raised the issue in Committee.

Richard Benyon (Whip, Whips; Newbury, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Right from the outset, however, I should say that I should not be congratulated. The wonderful organisation Children with Leukaemia is excellent at bringing to the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House the devastating affects of that illness, the science that relates to it and the experts’ direction of travel. I take the Minister’s point that there may be other opportunities to raise the subject. My co-conspirator, to whom he referred, is my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. He was on that cross-party inquiry, chaired by the hon. Member for Dartford. If I can tag along with him to meet the Minister, I will.

I shall consult Children with Leukaemia and see whether there is another way in which we can make progress on this and continue the path of travel towards a consensus, as well as some form of legislative action, which will give great comfort to many people across the country.