Beauly to Denny Power Line (Childhood Leukaemia)
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S2M-3642, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on concerns about the increase of childhood leukaemia in the light of the Beauly to Denny power line proposal. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Now that the door at the back of the chamber has been closed, I call on Bruce Crawford to open the debate.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the findings of the Draper Report into the link between high voltage power lines and levels of childhood leukaemia which, among other findings, concluded that children who live within 200 metres of high voltage power lines were nearly twice as likely to have childhood leukaemia as those who lived within 600 metres of a line; further notes that the National Radiological Protection Board recommended that the UK Government should consider the need for further precautionary measures and, as a consequence, the Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs was formed to explore the implications of a precautionary approach and make practical recommendations; is concerned that, with regard to the application by Scottish and Southern Energy to construct a high voltage power line between Beauly and Denny, a survey carried out by Stirling Before Pylons of the Stirling Council area shows that 50 houses are within 100 metres of the pylon corridor, that 48 flats housing approximately 330 students at Stirling University are within 200 metres and that 878 houses are within 600 metres of the pylon corridor, and believes, therefore, in view of the reports showing a link between high voltage power lines and childhood leukaemia and the results of the Stirling Before Pylons survey, that the Scottish Executive should seriously examine these matters as part of its consideration of the application or indeed any future public enquiries which might be held.
I thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing time for the chamber to get quieter and I sincerely thank all my colleagues who signed the motion and members who intend to speak in the debate or simply to listen.
Many complex and wicked issues have arisen as a result of Scottish and Southern Energy's application to erect a high-voltage power line between Beauly and Denny. Campaign groups have been formed along the proposed route of the line that either oppose the erection of the line in principle or seek to mitigate the local effects through rerouting or undergrounding the cables.
Objectors have aired many reasons for opposing the proposals. I will name a few concerns in the Stirling area alone. There are concerns there about the line's impact on the amenity for local residents and recreational interests; on the Ochil hills area of great landscape value; on tourism and the local area's economy; on historic sites of great value, such as Stirling Castle, the Wallace monument and the site of the battle of Sheriffmuir; and on areas of ancient and important woodland. The number of objections has led Clackmannanshire Council to agree formally to object to the proposal, and it is likely that Stirling Council will follow that council this week, which will trigger the mechanism to commence a public inquiry.
It is a great pity that projects of such apparent economic importance to Scotland are considered in a vacuum and that there is no comprehensive energy strategy for Scotland to provide a context for such applications. I have great sympathy for both the proposer and the objectors. If a comprehensive energy strategy had existed and it showed that such a line would serve a vital national economic interest, perhaps the level of conflict could have been much reduced.
I refer to the substantive matter that is raised in the motion: the potential impact on human health of high-voltage power lines. There has been much debate, over a prolonged period, about whether high-voltage power lines can increase the likelihood of cancer, especially childhood leukaemia. However, it is indisputable that, in March 2004, the National Radiological Protection Board, which later became the Health Protection Agency, published a review of the scientific evidence for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields. That review concluded:
"An association between prolonged exposure to intense power frequency magnetic fields and a small raised risk of childhood leukaemia has, however, been found, the scientific reasons for which are presently uncertain. In the light of these findings and the requirement for additional research, the need for further precautionary measures should be considered by government."
That advice was accepted by the Government and the stakeholder advisory group on electromagnetic fields was set up to explore the implications of a precautionary approach and make practical recommendations. SAGE is expected to make policy recommendations to the Government during 2006. I will come back to that at the end of my speech.
Since the setting up of SAGE, we have seen the publication of the Draper study in the British Medical Journal of June 2005. The study, which was funded by the Department of Health and was conducted by the childhood cancer research group at the University of Oxford, looked at childhood cancer in relation to distance from high-voltage power lines. It examined the records of more than 29,000 children with cancer, including 9,700 who had leukaemia. It investigated whether the proximity of those children's home addresses at birth to the nearest high-voltage power line was associated with an increased risk of childhood cancer.
With regard to the result of that large study, I quote from Lewis Macdonald's letter of 31 October 2005:
"This large epidemiological study … found that compared with those who lived more than 600 metres from high voltage power lines at birth, children who lived within 200 metres had a relative risk of leukaemia that was 70% higher and those born between 200 and 600 metres had a relative risk that was 23% higher."
I accept the fact that some of the findings of the Draper study have been disputed; nevertheless, previous international studies have shown findings similar to those in the Draper study. That makes the work that is being carried out by SAGE all the more important.
That background prompted Stirling Before Pylons to undertake its own on-the-ground study into the number of homes that are within 600m of both edges of the proposed power line corridor. That was quite a task for that small group to take on, and it deserves congratulations on the detailed work that it has undertaken. The results of its work certainly impacted on me. It found that more than 870 homes were located within 600m of both edges of the proposed pylon corridor. That includes 578 houses in the village of Fallin and 48 flats housing about 330 students at the University of Stirling, which are within 200m of the edge of the proposed pylon corridor.
In the light of the Draper study and the work that is currently being carried out by SAGE, I cannot see how the Executive can do anything other than accept a cautious and precautionary approach being adopted in regard to the potential impact of the power lines on human health. I am interested to hear whether the minister would support the suggestion that has been made by Scottish Natural Heritage that an alternative route for the line be found to the west of Stirling, with undergrounding.
It is vital that the recommendations of SAGE are able to stand up to the most intense scrutiny. Those recommendations must be rigorous beyond reproach and should in no way be unduly influenced by interest groups from either side of the argument. People must be able to have faith in the recommendations, as otherwise huge amounts of human energy and intellect will be consumed in arguing the case for or against the health impacts of power lines for as long as they exist.
I will advise on time implications later.
I, too, have had concerns expressed to me by constituents about the proposed power line. If the proposal goes ahead, the line will terminate at a new transmission substation just north of Denny in my constituency. Some of the concerns that have been expressed to me are similar to those that have been expressed by Bruce Crawford and relate to possible health risks. The findings of the childhood cancer research group at the University of Oxford indicate that children who live within 200m of high-voltage overhead power lines are 1.69 times more likely to have leukaemia than children who live more than 600m away from such power lines, and that those born between 200m and 600m away from power lines are 1.23 times more likely to have leukaemia than children born more than 600m away from them. Parents are rightly concerned about the health of their children, and the Scottish Executive has a responsibility to address those concerns.
Earlier today, the Executive ruled out a public inquiry into another matter, but I feel strongly that it should order such an inquiry into the proposed power line. There are concerns about environmental matters as well as health matters. Scottish and Southern Energy claims that 75 per cent of the route is the same as the route of the existing power lines, but the new pylons would be 40m to 50m high and would have a very negative visual impact.
Concerns have been expressed to me by people who live in my constituency, but I do not want to be parochial. The proposed power lines would traverse some of the most scenic countryside in Scotland, including the Cairngorms national park, and we should treasure our natural heritage. More than half a century ago, big, ugly pipelines were laid down the mountainside overlooking Loch Lomond, for the Loch Sloy hydroelectric scheme. Such visible scars on such landscapes should never be allowed to happen again. I urge the Executive to hold a public inquiry, to give people maximum opportunity to express their concerns before a final decision is taken.
I apologise to members for having to leave the debate early, at 5.45 pm.
The route of the line runs through my constituency, just as it runs through the constituencies of many other members. It comes down through the Sma' glen, which is marked as the tourist route to Pitlochry, runs to the east of Crieff, skirts around Braco and then enters the Stirling constituency. It impacts significantly on the geographical centre of my constituency.
Health issues are frequently raised in connection with mobile phone masts, terrestrial trunked radio masts and power lines. However, it is fair to say that the strongest adverse health evidence that exists—the Draper report—relates to power lines. Because of that report, in particular, this debate may be seen as slightly different from others. The seriousness of the issue is evidenced by the fact that the stakeholder advisory group was set up by the Westminster Parliament. Westminster's recognition of the health issues that have been raised is important. I am sorry that there was so little Scottish representation on the group.
Many aspects of the power line could be debated. Dennis Canavan has discussed a few of them. I appreciate the fact that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care is in the chamber today, but he could have been accompanied by at least one other of his colleagues. I am sure that I am not the only member to have addressed packed public meetings on the issue, and the controversy is by no means confined to Stirling. The campaign groups cannot be set against one another, because they are as one on the issue.
There is a compelling case for a public inquiry. That case has been discussed by my colleague Bruce Crawford, whom I congratulate on securing the debate. However, I hope that efforts and proposals to mitigate the power line's possible adverse health effects will form part of that process and will not—as so often happens in the planning process—simply be set to one side and excluded from consideration.
I want briefly to address the issue of undergrounding, which I appreciate has both technical and financial implications. Although I realise that the minister responding to the debate might not be able to do so, it would be helpful to have some details about undergrounding, because evidence, particularly from Canada, suggests that the costs of such an approach are nowhere near as high as has been suggested in the debate. I also know that, 18 months ago, Powergen UK received consent to run an undersea cable from Durham to Norway. I realise that that example is not exactly analogous, but it suggests that technical problems can be overcome if people want to do so. That political issue must be addressed.
There is very little point in ignoring the serious concerns raised by many people the length and breadth of Scotland. I very much hope that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care will not do that, because these people are really worried about the potential implications of the project and—to be frank—are bewildered that it could go ahead without a strategic environmental assessment being carried out in the first place. I hope that the same thing does not happen in future.
Having made representations on the matter on several occasions to the Public Petitions Committee on behalf of the Stirling Before Pylons action group and the petitioner in question, Caroline Paterson, I welcome this very important debate. Stirling Before Pylons is very much a joint action group, whose membership is made up of constituents in the Stirling and Ochil constituencies. However, the issue has spread beyond those constituencies, and I have liaised with Roseanna Cunningham and others to get a joined-up feel for constituents' views.
I hope that no one doubts the need to transmit renewable energy to southern parts of Scotland and beyond. That is not the issue under debate this evening. Instead, we are debating the health issues associated with the proposed 400kV high-voltage lines which, as Bruce Crawford has pointed out, is the point of the Stirling Before Pylons petition.
I want to concentrate on three points that were raised at the Public Petitions Committee, the first of which is the progress that SAGE has made to date. The group was set up after the NRPB advised the Department of Health at Westminster
"to explore precautionary approaches to limit exposure to electric and magnetic fields lower than the levels in the NRPB guidelines".
SAGE met in December, and its recommendations are expected in May. However, actual planning guidelines might be several months away from being introduced. The minister has stated that the Department of Health considers SAGE to be the appropriate forum for evaluating research and developing guidelines. While we wait for those recommendations, it is surely pragmatic to take a precautionary approach when siting new power lines.
The World Health Organisation and the Health Protection Agency have recommended that further precautionary measures be considered. Indeed, Stirling Council regards the health threat posed by the Beauly to Denny power line as "a major material consideration". I hope that, if Conservative councillors do not walk out of another Stirling Council meeting tomorrow, the council will be able to ask for a public inquiry into the matter.
The second point that was raised at the Public Petitions Committee concerns the Draper report, which I do not think should be dismissed out of hand. Given the scale of the study, which involved 60,000 children over a 33-year period, and its consistent results, which exhibit a grading in levels of childhood leukaemia relative to distance from power lines, it raises issues that must be considered. I will not go into detail on the matter because at last week's Public Petitions Committee meeting I highlighted the petitioner's response to one or two issues that the Executive raised in its own response. That evidence, which stresses the need to take on board the Draper report's findings, is now in the public domain.
Thirdly, on Professor Denis Henshaw's letter to the Public Petitions Committee, the Executive felt that, in advising that no new lines should be sited near housing or the converse, he was being somewhat "pre-emptive". However, we have always said that we should consider the example of other countries such as Sweden and Australia, some states in the United States and some Italian regions that have acted on the body of research that has been gathered over 25 years.
The petition that was submitted in December 2004 is a matter of urgency, given the Beauly to Denny power line proposals. Public health matters did not feature in the routing decision, despite the fact that the Stirling Before Pylons group informed the companies that are responsible of the real threat that is posed to those who live along the proposed route. Because of the deviation corridor, it is not certain where the actual line of the pylons will be and therefore it is difficult to say exactly how many houses will be affected. The MP for the Stirling constituency, Anne McGuire, and I have raised constituents' concerns and mentioned the need for a public inquiry and the use of the precautionary principle.
I, too, apologise because unfortunately I will have to leave the debate early. However, I will read the Official Report. I congratulate Bruce Crawford on achieving this first debate on the Beauly to Denny power line—I predict that it will certainly not be the last.
The upgrade of the Beauly to Denny transmission line has been a controversial issue for some time and for many reasons, not the least of which are its effects on our unique scenery and on tourism, the potential loss of energy because of the length of the transmission line, its environmental impact and its economic impact on businesses. Today we are focusing on an issue that is often raised, which is the line's potential health effects.
Before I consider the health issues, I point out that it is incredible that certain areas south of Beauly, such as the Corrieyairack pass and the areas around Laggan and Drumochter, are not designated as national scenic areas. I am pleased that the Executive intends to lodge amendments at stage 2 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill on national scenic areas, which I hope will be used in relation to the transmission line. I hope that the construction of megapylons will not be allowed in national scenic areas. The possibility of ancient-woodland designation, which Bruce Crawford mentioned, should be examined much more rigorously along the route of the proposed line for the areas that I mentioned because such designation would also be likely to disallow the construction of megapylons.
The main request from groups of protestors is for undergrounding of the line, not just to preserve scenic beauty and to lessen the effects on tourism and businesses, but to protect health. That takes me to the Draper report, which concludes that there is a risk of childhood leukaemia for children who live up to 600m away from a line. As Bruce Crawford said, that could affect up to 900 homes, which is considerably more than the figure that was given in Scottish and Southern Energy's evaluation of the proximity of homes in its application to Highland Council.
The Draper report highlights the finding of magnetic-field studies, albeit that they are disputed, that the effect on the human population is to disrupt night-time production of the hormone melatonin, which is a natural anti-cancer agent in the body. The issue takes me back to evidence that was given a few years ago to the Health and Community Care Committee on the health effects of genetically modified crops, which was similar to the evidence that we face today: there was no proof of harmful effects, but there was also no conclusive evidence that there were no harmful effects. I agree with members who argue that we should adopt the precautionary principle, which was the conclusion that the Health and Community Care Committee reached.
It is my understanding that a public inquiry into the upgrade of the line is inevitable. If so, I am not sure that it would be the appropriate place and time to examine evidence that relates to health effects. It is within the remit of the Minister for Health and Community Care to ensure that an independent review of existing information on health effects be carried out so that we have an evidence base on which we can make good decisions. Research must also be done into the proposed huge cluster of pylons around the Beauly interconnector. The issue is not just about the upgrade of the Beauly to Denny line; we must also consider potential upgrades to the north, from Beauly to Ullapool and Kintore.
I thank Bruce Crawford for securing the debate. Beauly is in my constituency, which is at the north end of the proposed Beauly to Denny line upgrade. As Mary Scanlon pointed out, there is already a substantial substation—an interconnector—at Beauly. With the proposed upgrade to the line, we are faced with the prospect of a new substation that will be about the size of a football field. It is planned that that should be built close to a cluster of housing.
The United Kingdom Government's main adviser, the Health Protection Agency, has admitted that
"the possibility remains that intense and prolonged exposures to magnetic fields can increase the risk of leukaemia in children."
However, the HPA also says that
"the epidemiological evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion".
The Government's position is that it remains unproven whether magnetic fields cause leukaemia in children. Given that it remains unproven, it would be sensible to be cautious and to exercise the precautionary principle. Experience in the Highlands, as in other places around the UK, points to a positive correlation between high-level magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. I remember a reported leukaemia cluster at the United States airbase at Forse in Caithness, and there have been better-documented cases such as Sellafield in Cumbria.
Given the recent published profits of Scottish and Southern Energy and the other utility companies, there is an even greater duty upon them to be sensitive to communities. It is reasonable to suggest that that would mean moving the proposed Beauly substation away from housing. As members know, I am not a scientist, but I would not like to live next to a substation or any site that emits an ominous low-level hum 24 hours a day. That said, we need to be realistic about electromagnetic fields. Our televisions, fridges and mobile telephones all emit electromagnetic radiation. A TV does not emit much radiation compared with a pylon, but our children do not sit 2m or less from a pylon.
Electricity transmission offers real promise for the future of the Highlands and Islands, and it would not be sensible to stop the development of renewables because of concerns over electromagnetic radiation. Power lines can allow us to export renewable power, which would benefit our local economy and the global environment. There are exciting possibilities, especially for the emerging technologies that will harness wave and tidal power. However, communities such as Beauly, Kiltarlity, Kilmorack and Kirkhill need a fair hearing. All the concerns of the communities along the Beauly to Denny line need serious scrutiny. We have some big questions that still require answers, on issues such as EMFs and subsea cables.
We need to be convinced about the true costs of undergrounding. We need firm figures that are based on the most up-to-date technologies; we do not need incomplete and changing estimates. The people along the proposed pylon route are owed a proper hearing. We need to know that each part of the line will be considered on its merits and that the realistic needs of communities will be put ahead of company profits.
I thank Bruce Crawford for bringing the subject for debate. I declare an interest, in that I live within 1km of the proposed Beauly to Denny power line upgrade. That said, I am not opposed to the upgrade.
All of us recognise that climate change is the number 1 threat that we will face in this century. Onshore wind farms, small-scale renewables, energy efficiency and offshore renewables all have parts to play in tackling climate change. Onshore renewable energy sources require onshore grid capacity. For example, the Braes of Doune wind farm that is being built near Stirling needs onshore grid capacity. Other proposed wind farms in Perthshire and the Highlands will also require an upgrade in grid capacity in order that they can operate properly. It is inevitable, therefore, that those who are fundamentally opposed to wind farms see the prevention of the power line upgrade as a chance to stop wind energy development in Scotland. That must not be allowed to happen.
The majority of people who have written letters of objection to the line are reasonable people, who want the development of renewable energy sources in Scotland but who also want a better balance to be struck between health concerns, impacts on the landscape and the line's route. I, like other members, was happy to work with Stirling Before Pylons in supporting its attempts to bring a petition to Parliament.
The real debate lies in where the pylons should go. Undergrounding of the line is a superficially attractive solution: it may be easier on the eye but it does not make environmental sense if motorway-sized trenches will have to be dug through sensitive peat soil and other habitats. Although there may be a case for undergrounding small sections of the line, we must concede that the majority of the line will be carried by pylons. The question is where the pylons will go and how close they will be to people's homes.
Although the jury is still out on the issue, genuine concerns exist about the health effects of pylons. From peer review work around the world, we know that corona ions are formed when air passes through an electromagnetic field. Corona ions can cause health effects in humans, so we must adopt the precautionary approach to pylons. We must question the standards and guidelines that are adopted for them and for other technologies that create EMFs.
Scotland must follow countries that have recognised that electromagnetic sensitivity is a medical condition. It is also partly why I—with Jean Turner and other members—have formed a cross-party group on electromagnetic radiation and health. We will consider the health issues surrounding pylon and other EMF-emitting technologies, including the role of the stakeholder advisory group on EMF and its work over the past several months.
A recommendation was made during the first session of the Scottish Parliament that health should be a material consideration in the planning system. I hope that that issue will be revisited in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, along with the Stirling Before Pylons petition.
Ministers, with or without the findings of a public inquiry, must allow the upgrade to take place. They must also ensure that the impact on human health is minimised. The upgrade is an opportunity. It involves the removal of an existing power line and a replacement that could be moved further away from housing than is the present line. A solution must be found sooner rather than later so that we can see real progress in developing onshore renewable energy and tackling climate change.
I congratulate Bruce Crawford on his motion. It is a worthwhile cause for members whose constituencies or regions are on the power line's route to discuss earnestly. I want to pick up on the epidemiology in the Draper report and the response that I have seen and expect to hear again from the minister.
On March 26, as a result of a decision in Parliament, smoking in public places will be banned. Parliament's basis for that change in health policy resulted from epidemiological studies that showed that over 30 years the risk for a non-smoker who lives with a smoker of contracting lung cancer would increase from one chance in a thousand to 1.25 in a thousand. That resulted in a draconian change to the law. Some people have argued—including me, but also eminent scientists—that those findings could have been confounding or due to errors in statistics. Nevertheless, Parliament decided that the increase in risk required a change in law.
The Draper report was based on a study of 66,000 children over 30 years. The study showed that risk increased to 1.7 in a thousand from a background figure of one in a thousand. In other words, the increase in the risk of contracting leukaemia from living in proximity to pylons was greater than the increase in the risk of contracting cancer from second-hand smoke. The Executive, however, says that that result is due to confounding or to chance and that it cannot necessarily act on the Draper report. The Executive's approach is therefore inconsistent.
Parliament felt that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a smoking ban. Therefore, if we are to take a consistent line and apply the precautionary principle, we should accept the Draper study and, at the very least, reconsider how we construct and position pylons. We must consider undergrounding or using sea beds. Such things are possible and are worth investing in.
It is said that no causal medical link exists between contracting lung cancer and second-hand smoke, but Parliament decided that the statistical link was great enough for Parliament to act. It is said that no causal medical link exists between contracting leukaemia and living in proximity to high-voltage pylons; but the statistical link is greater than that between second-hand smoke and lung cancer. That fact should be acknowledged by members who voted for a total ban on smoking in public places. They should lobby the Executive to apply the precautionary principle, act consistently, and help to save lives.
Before I call the next speaker, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to extend the debate.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended until 6.20 pm.—[Mr Mark Ruskell.]
Motion agreed to.
I thank the minister for his willingness to remain longer in the chamber for the debate.
I thank Bruce Crawford for securing this debate. It is essential that people in Stirling, and people near all the possible routes for the pylons, be given a wider perspective.
Communities in the north of our nation—in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles—have argued that they have a right to be part of the new renewables world that we are moving into. The potential of the resources in those communities is estimated to be greater than the current installed capacity of all sources of energy in Scotland—around 11GW.
When making the case for grid connections to the islands, people say that, in the fossil fuel era, energy flows were centred on urban areas, but that, as non-fossil fuel systems are likely to be much more important in future, changes to the grid distribution system are inevitable. The question is therefore less about whether to invest in grid upgrades and more about where and how to do so.
The where and how are at the centre of the argument, and the people of Stirling are almost at the epicentre—if we accept that the route proposed by Scottish and Southern Energy will be the main conduit for electrical energy from the north.
Does Mr Gibson agree that one of the main issues is that we do not know exactly where the line will go?
I have sympathy with the member for not knowing the exact location in the Stirling area to within about a quarter of a mile, but we know Scottish and Southern's general suggestions for the route between Beauly and Denny. The route will have to be sorted out.
The possibility of underseaing has been mentioned. Estimates by the island local authorities suggest that putting a cable under the sea from the outer Hebrides to Scotland would cost about £400 million; that an integrated offshore cable running down the coast from the northern isles would cost about £800 million; and that the Beauly to Denny line would cost about £330 million. The difference in the cost of the proposals is not that great—it will not cost anything like 30 times more to put the line under the sea. All the issues must be examined in the context of a public inquiry. There is no way that the health issues or the route issues can possibly be decided unless the Scottish Executive takes on board the fact that an undersea cable would be a way of simultaneously opening up the possibilities that are created by our new forms of infinite power supply and protecting the people who live in the areas through which the lines that would otherwise carry that power to the places where it will be used would be situated. The cost and health issues will have to be examined.
I listened to the arguments about landscape with some interest. We are talking about human-made landscape. People are sometimes keen to go for solutions such as undergrounding that are highly likely to disrupt that landscape. Indeed, the disruption to the landscape that would be caused by undergrounding a section of line—regardless of how long it was—would be as wide as a motorway. I am sure that the lairds are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of the wayleaves that would be payable for undergrounding compared to those that they would get for the placing of pylons on their land, for example. Those pirates of the sea, the Crown Estate commissioners, would not get as much in wayleaves for an undersea cable as the lairds would get for pylons or for an underground system.
I support Bruce Crawford's motion. If we want to help the people of Stirling to sort out their problems, with the help of councils, we must insist that the Scottish Executive deals with matters comprehensively and takes on board all the issues.
I will be staying with the power line issue not only until the end of tonight's debate, but until it is resolved. As other members have done, I thank Bruce Crawford for securing the debate and for addressing the health issues that the proposed line raises. A few months ago, Brian Monteith left the Tory party; he also voted against the smoking ban. Tonight he spoke in favour of the motion, so he is truly a man who is on the road to salvation.
One day last spring, as the queue to get in to watch my local football team inched forward, the man in front of me turned round and we spoke about the need for the precautionary principle to be applied—not in relation to the game that we were about to watch, but whenever issues to do with electromagnetic radiation are being dealt with. At that time, the proposed upgrading of the power line between Denny and Beauly was coming over the horizon and my fellow football supporter was Sir William Stewart, who is one of this country's leading scientific experts in the field of electromagnetic radiation.
As everyone knows, Sir William was the man who headed up the United Kingdom Government committee that investigated the radiation effects of mobile phone use. His findings on that issue were strongly based on the assumption that precautions should be taken until all the possible consequences of using technology in which the use of electromagnetic radiation is involved are known. He was of the same mind when I mentioned the proposal to run high-voltage power lines down the spine of Scotland.
Just prior to that chance meeting, I, in my capacity as a councillor in Fife, had been dealing with a rash of planning applications for TETRA telecommunications masts. Councillors had worries about the possible health risks associated with those masts but, most frustratingly, they could not use those worries as a reason to reject the proposals. Members who are familiar with the planning process will know that health concerns cannot be used as a ground for refusing a planning application. Councillors were also frustrated that the applicants dismissed most of the health risks as being unfounded.
In a previous sphere of work, I was involved in reporting the outbreak of BSE in this country. At that time, the disease had an extremely high profile because of its link to CJD, which affects humans. There was a shortage of good science on the issue, which created a partial vacuum that was filled by the opinions and views that scientists with contracts to renew and bad, or junk, scientists offered through websites and phone calls.
Whenever the science is not sound or complete, doubts emerge, opinions are voiced and headlines are written. In this case, what we need more than anything is more good, well-researched science. In that way, everyone will know more fully the implications of long-term exposure to high-voltage power lines.
I do not dismiss any of the previous bodies of work, such as Draper; I see them as stepping stones towards the emergence of a more conclusive and comprehensive view. Until the time comes when we have more good science, I will side with those who are concerned about the proposed power line. Bruce Crawford was right to emphasise the need for the advice that is coming out of SAGE to be robust and comprehensive.
I congratulate Bruce Crawford on bringing this important debate to the chamber.
A few months ago, I attended a packed meeting in Beauly at which most of the hundreds of people who had gathered were obviously against having a power line close to the villages of Beauly, Kiltarlity and Kirkhill. I also attended a meeting of Glenurquhart community council, which was held in Cannich village. People there are deeply concerned that the new pylons, which are twice the size of existing pylons, will impinge on the lives of local residents and affect tourism. The main reason for people's antipathy towards the new power line is the visual impact that it will make on the dramatic scenery of the Highlands.
Health concerns were also raised; the question of childhood leukaemia is certainly causing worry to many parents. There has long been a rumour that proximity to pylons can be dangerous. My local village of Glenview by Dalmally in Argyll has an enormous pylon that is situated 80m away from the primary school, which is attended by 80 children, two of whom are my children. The local village shop is practically underneath the pylon; there is not a house in Glenview that is more than 100m from the pylon.
In the past, doctors told me that the cancer and leukaemia figures for Glenview are very high. However, planners at the time that the pylon was built were ignorant of the possible link between pylons and leukaemia, just as people in the 1950s were ignorant of the link between smoking and cancer. As Brian Monteith pointed out, the Government is now banning smoking; perhaps it should also think of using the precautionary principle to ban the siting of overhead pylons near residential areas.
The cheapest option is often not the most economic or safest in the long run. The area of the Highlands around Beauly has been a growth area of late. If these huge pylons are placed close to residential areas, there could be a detrimental effect on the price of residential property. Also, the possibility of an increased risk of leukaemia in children could cause depopulation, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid happening to our rural areas.
The pylons will undoubtedly take something away from the scenic beauty of the area, yet its scenery is the major asset of the Highlands in terms of tourism, which is now Scotland's largest industry. That was not the case at the time that the pylons were first built, but things have changed. The Beauly to Denny line will carry wind farm generated electricity. If we were not quite so reliant on so many wind farms, the new line would not be necessary. With only minor upgrades needing to be made, new wind farms could be accommodated using existing infrastructure.
Debates on pylons are nothing new. The interconnector to Northern Ireland required the construction of 200 pylons in Ayrshire and the same number in Northern Ireland. There was enormous pressure to bury the pylons, but the then Labour Secretary for State for Scotland—later First Minister of the Scottish Parliament—Donald Dewar, discarded that option, choosing instead the option of using pylons. His decision came despite the fact that the previous Secretary of State for Scotland—the well-known Conservative, Michael Forsyth—had favoured the underground option.
Donald Dewar made his decision following a public inquiry and after enormous opposition from the stop the overhead power lines campaigning group. I assume that the decision was taken on the ground of cost. We are told that undergrounding is far more expensive, but although it is more expensive to put drains and sewers underground, we put them underground nevertheless. We know that it is beneficial to mankind to do so.
Planning rules in this country are so strict that they disallow the construction of inappropriate buildings in sensitive or scenic areas. However, for some reason, they do not give a damn about ugly pylons and dangerous overhead wires. Looking to the future, we are told that climate change will produce more hurricanes and lightening across Scotland, which will cause endless costly damage to overhead wires and interruptions to power supplies. That is not only expensive but can be dangerous in crucial situations.
There are enough reasons not to use overhead cables to convince me that undergrounding is a far better option. If there is even the slightest risk to innocent children of leukaemia, which the Draper report suggests, why do we take a chance?
Cancer is a serious business and one of the things that make leukaemia and other cancers so alarming is that we do not know in general what causes them. In the debate, members have raised the possibility that electromagnetic radiation from the electricity distribution system might be among the causes of childhood leukaemia. The right response to such concerns is not to assume them to be right or wrong but to consider the evidence and to act on it in a proportionate fashion.
The evidence includes a large number of published papers. The results of those studies are often inconclusive and they are sometimes contradictory, so we must look beyond individual independent papers to expert reviews, which evaluate the evidence critically to provide a balanced overview.
In 2001, the National Radiological Protection Board's advisory group on non-ionising radiation produced a comprehensive review of the subject, which focused particularly on two studies. The first was a study from 1999 and 2000 by the UK childhood cancer study investigators, which found no evidence that the risk of childhood leukaemia or any other cancer was associated with the proximity of homes to electrical installations or the levels of magnetic field to which children are exposed.
The second study—by Ahlbom and others in 2000—pooled the results of studies on childhood cancer and exposure to magnetic fields in homes from several different countries. That analysis, which included data from the UK childhood cancer study, suggested that there might be a doubling of the risk of leukaemia for children who were exposed to magnetic fields of 0.4 microteslas or more. It is estimated that about four in every 1,000 children in the UK are exposed to magnetic fields at or above that level and that about half of those exposures are due to overhead power lines, while most of the others are attributable to electrical wiring in the house.
From those figures it might be concluded that, if there were indeed an effect for magnetic fields above 0.4 microteslas, one or two of the approximately 500 cases of childhood leukaemias that are diagnosed each year in the UK might be attributable to the magnetic field from power lines. However, the general conclusion of the review was:
"In the absence of clear evidence of a carcinogenic effect in adults, or of a plausible explanation from experiments on animals or isolated cells, the epidemiological evidence is currently not strong enough to justify a firm conclusion that such fields cause leukaemia in children."
The review also concluded that the possibility remained that intense and prolonged exposures to magnetic fields could increase the risk of leukaemia in children.
A number of members have mentioned undergrounding. It is worth noting that underground cables also emit magnetic fields, albeit within a smaller area.
Is it not correct to say that undergrounding can be done in different ways and that the cable can have a covering that is strong enough to reduce the electromagnetic radiation significantly?
The magnetic field can certainly be confined, which is the important point. Nonetheless, we are talking about the magnetic field that the cables themselves generate, whether they are overhead or underground.
In 2004, the NRPB conducted a review of the scientific evidence for limiting exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields. On the basis of that review, it advised:
"The government should consider the need for further precautionary measures in respect of exposure of people to"
electric and magnetic fields.
The final study that we must take into account is the Draper report, which was published last year. Members have described its findings on increased risk of childhood leukaemia. However, for the sake of completeness, it should also be noted that, at distances greater than 200m, the magnetic field levels from power lines would normally be lower than those in the home from domestic sources, such as conventional electrical wiring. Although the Draper report clearly contributes to the concerns, it is important to bear in mind the views of the authors—not of ministers, as Brian Monteith suggests—that the statistical association could have been due to chance or some other aspect of living near power lines and that they could offer no satisfactory explanation of their findings in terms of possible causation by magnetic fields.
On the issue of the magnetic fields that exist in homes, as compared with those that come from power lines, I hope that the minister would accept that it is children's long-term exposure to power lines over prolonged periods, particularly during the evenings, that causes the problem. That is not like, for instance, someone using a shaver and happening to get an electromagnetic pulse near his face. That is not the same as living perpetually—and especially overnight—next to an overhead power line.
If Bruce Crawford's point is that the risk is not the same in every domestic residence, I would agree with it. However, we would be as unwise to ignore the evidence about the possible impacts of domestic electricity arrangements as we would to disregard the possible impacts of overhead power lines. That is why SAGE, the stakeholder advisory group that was set up on the basis of the reviews that have been carried out, has in turn set up two working groups. One group is to consider the impact of overhead power lines, and the other is to consider the impact of magnetic fields in people's homes. It is right that both those factors are considered seriously in that way.
Roseanna Cunningham mentioned membership. A senior scientific adviser from the Scottish Executive Health Department is a member of SAGE and will be one of those who will receive the reports of the working groups on both those impacts. We expect the report of the group dealing with overhead power lines to be made in the course of the summer. It may well be that some of the recommendations will have something to say about planning policy for power lines—that is of course entirely a matter for the group to determine on the basis of its scientific expertise and the best available medical evidence.
If the Scottish Executive decides to hold a public inquiry into the planning application, is there any way in which that inquiry could address health issues as well as planning issues?
As I have said and as I intend to explain further in the next few moments, the SAGE process will produce recommendations, which we expect to have this summer. It would be reasonable to predict that any decision on the Beauly to Denny line, and certainly any public inquiry that is held into the application to construct the line, would occur at such a time that the content of the SAGE recommendations, which will relate to any possible impact of overhead power lines on health, could be considered.
The debate touches on energy policy—as a number of members did in their speeches—as well as on health. I did not recognise Bruce Crawford's suggestion that there was no clear sense of direction in energy policy. Our view on the need to generate more renewable energy could hardly be clearer. Everyone who has spoken on that point recognises that that will require a substantial upgrading of Scotland's electricity transmission and distribution network. All those who recognise the particular potential of the Highlands and Islands to generate renewable energy will recognise the importance of having the means to carry that power south.
In no way did I dispute that the Scottish Executive has a renewables target and policy in that area. However, in the context of energy policy, perhaps the minister could tell us what impact the extension to the life of the Hunterston power station might have on proposals for the future. What impact would the extension to the life of Longannet have on energy policy for Scotland? The minister must consider these issues as a whole; it is not just a little—
I counsel the minister to keep his remarks relevant to the subject of the debate.
I can assure the Presiding Officer that I will do precisely that, focusing on the application that has been made jointly by Scottish and Southern Energy and Scottish Power for their Beauly to Denny proposals. The application was made on 28 September last year and the public consultation period ended at the end of January. Other consultative bodies, such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, will respond by the end of February, and the local authorities have until the end of April. Several thousand representations have been received from the public and they will be considered by Scottish ministers as part of the process of determination under the Electricity Act 1989.
Any suggestion that a feature of the environment or of technological development might affect the health of Scotland's children will be treated with due seriousness on the basis of the evidence. The concerns of those who respond to the consultation will receive proper consideration from ministers in reaching a decision.
As I said a moment ago in response to Dennis Canavan, in the event of there being a public inquiry on this issue, it is unlikely to begin its consideration before the recommendations of the SAGE working group on power lines and property are known. Should there be no public inquiry, I am equally confident that ministers will want to take account of whatever recommendations have emerged from the SAGE process at that stage.
It is not a choice between a healthier population and a healthier environment; we aspire to a joined-up approach across government, which will ensure that we achieve both.
Meeting closed at 18:20.