Housing and Regeneration Bill

As the noble Lord concluded, there is indeed scope for this sort of amendment to other Bills, but I am glad that we have an opportunity to address the matter now. It is a change from what we have been discussing so far in this Committee and it is none the worse for that. It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, dignifying the Committee’s proceedings, even on an occasional basis. We take this matter very seriously, and I cannot possibly improve on the summary that the noble Baroness gave of the Draper report and the research. She was clear that the biological mechanisms are not understood but that nevertheless there is sufficient evidence to give pause for thought about what exposure implies. As the noble Baroness knows, guidelines are already in place in this country to protect people from exposure to ELF EMF, and they are based on the established effects of exposure in these fields. In addition, we are currently considering the need for additional practical precautionary measures to reduce exposure to ELF EMF. I shall say a little more about that but, first, I shall set out the background to this issue. As noble Lords know, we take our advice from the Health Protection Agency, including on the matter of limiting exposure to ELF EMF. In 2004, following a comprehensive review of the available scientific evidence, the National Radiological Protection Board—the NRPB, now part of the Health Protection Agency— recommended the adoption of guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, known as the ICNIRP guidelines. They are based on the established health effects of exposure to ELF EMF 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 fivefold 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. In addition to the established health effects of exposure to ELF EMF, there is also some scientific evidence to suggest a link between childhood leukaemia and EMF exposure below the guideline levels, although, as the noble Baroness said, there is no accepted consensus on a plausible biological mechanism to explain the association. In view of those uncertainties, the Health Protection Agency also recommended that the Government should consider the need for further precautionary measures in respect of people’s exposure to ELF EMFs. We have a stakeholder advisory group, known as SAGE, which includes academics, people from the electricity industry and pressure groups. It reported in April 2007, setting out what it thought were practical precautionary measures to reduce exposure to ELF EMF. One option was to introduce a moratorium on the building of new homes and schools within at least 60 metres of high-voltage overhead lines and on the building of new high-voltage lines within 60 metres of existing homes and schools. That is known as the ““corridor approach””. The HPA responded to the SAGE report, noting that the corridor option that SAGE considered for separating new dwellings from high-voltage power lines and vice versa was not supported by the cost-benefit analysis, even assuming a causal link between exposure to ELF EMFs and childhood leukaemia. Therefore, it is sensible that a decision to implement this precautionary option should be weighed against other health benefits obtainable from the same resources. Nevertheless, 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 which may result from siting new buildings very close to power lines or new power lines very close to existing buildings. I am referring to the report there. Noble Lords can be assured that we are giving careful consideration to the HPA’s advice in conjunction with other government departments and the devolved Administrations. We expect to respond to the SAGE report, and later this year will set out any practical precautionary measures that we think are justified. We believe that any measures which are appropriate in limiting the exposure of the general public to ELF EMFs should apply at the national level. It is not appropriate in this Bill to place individual responsibilities and duties on the HCA or the regulator, as they will be subject to the same statutory controls, regulatory frameworks or guidance concerning exposure to ELF EMFs as any other body. I hope that with those assurances regarding our intended response to the report and the inappropriate nature of the amendment in relation to the Bill and the agency, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.