Agenda item - Formal Public Involvement

This is the part of the meeting when members of the public can formally ask questions of the Board or present a petition. These need to be notified to the Board in advance of the meeting. Ring the Secretary to the Board, Penny Jennings on (01273) 291065 or send an e mail to penny.jennings@brighton-hove.gov.uk

 

(a) Petitions – to consider any petitions received by noon on 22 January 2020;

 

(b) Written Questions - to consider any written questions received by 22 January 2020;

 

(c) Deputations – to consider any Deputations received.

41a     Petition(s)

 

41.1    There were none.

 

41b     Written Question(s)

 

41.2    It was noted that five written questions had been received, four of which related to the roll-out of 5G technology and the other to social prescribing. Three of those who had submitted questions were not in attendance at the meeting, the Chair confirmed however that details both of the question(s) themselves and the responses given would be set out in the minutes. The questions submitted and the responses provided by the Chair are set out below:

 

            Accountability for Future Health Issues Related to 5G – Mr Manderlay

 

41.3    The Chair, Councillor Moonan, invited Mr Manderlay to put his question which is set out below:

 

            “Who is going to be held accountable for any future health issues in either individuals or groups of people related to 5G?

 

            Is it not true that the person or persons held responsible will be the one (or ones) whose signature (or signatures) appear on the permits?”

 

41.4    The Chair, responded in the following terms:

 

            “The report which the Board is considering today sets out the role of the Council in relation to the roll-out of 5G in the context of its planning powers. The Council should follow the National Planning Policy Framework when considering planning applications and this states that local planning authorities should not “set health safeguards different from the International Commission guidelines for public exposure.” The Council is therefore expected to rely on the International Commission guidelines which have been reviewed by Public Health England (PHE). Further, in most cases, as set out in the report no planning applications are required because of permitted development rights and the Council therefore has limited powers in dealing with proposals to which these rights apply.”

 

41.5    Mr Manderlay had given prior notification of a supplementary question and this is set out below:

 

            “In your “response to petition to halt the roll-out of 5G” you state that you (and the government) take the advice from Public Health England. On their website PHE refer to research and studies regarding the safety of RF, including Non-Ionising Radiation. My question is, what are these researches and studies and, most importantly, who conducted them? Thousands of doctors and scientists the world over have drawn attention to hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed papers to the total lack of independent studies about the long term effects of non-ionising radiation in humans (not to mention wildlife). If PHE claim the studies have been done, they need to state who did them and why as well as their lengths and specific remits. Shouldn’t a decision which potentially affects the health and wellbeing of many generations to come be based on thorough, independent research and studies?”

 

41.6    The Chair’s response is set out below:

 

            “I will need to refer you to Public Health England as they are the lead body on reviewing the evidence base from all areas. They provide the guidance which local bodies then use. I should stress that Public Health England is different from our local public health team. Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) which is the expert national public health agency.

 

            Refusal of Major Insurers to Insure Their Policies Against Negative Health Impacts of wi-fi Technologies Including 5G- Ms Hidalgo

 

41.7    Ms Hidaglo was invited to put her question which is set out below:

 

            “If 5G is so safe, how come that leading insurers the world over, including Lloyds of London refuse to insure in their policies against any negative health effects caused by wi-fi technologies including 5G”

 

41.8    The Chair, responded in the following terms:

 

            “insurance companies operate as independent commercial entities, unlike Council’s which are required to follow the International Commission Guidelines. I cannot comment on the stance taken by insurance companies but I would like to reiterated that the Council will always carefully consider any planning application which does come forward that relates to 5G and there is the opportunity for people to put forward their comments in relation to those applications which will be given careful consideration in each case.”

 

41.9    Mr Hidaglo had given prior notification of a supplementary question and this is set out below:

 

            “What about the increasing number of people already sensitive to EMF? I know someone who is and their life has exponentially got worse ever since the launch of 3 and 4G. Nausea, headaches, dizziness and nerve pain on a daily basis. With 5G on top of this life will become intolerable to these people. And, as I have said their numbers are increasing.”

 

41.10  The Chair, responded in the following terms:

 

            As I have set out above, any concerns or objections that are raised in relation to individual planning applications will be carefully considered, including any health concerns.”

 

            Classification of Impact on Wildlife as an Emerging Issue- Ms Blosse

 

41.11  The following question had been notified by Ms Blosse:

 

            “The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and emerging Risks (SCHEER), assessed potential effects on wildlife from increases in electromagnetic radiation. 5G technology was classified as an “emerging issue” and given the highest ranking as an environmental hazard. It highlighted the concern that since health and safety issues remain unknown, it leaves the possibility of unintended biological consequences to the environment. The EKLIPSE report “The Impacts of EMR on Wildlife” confirms the harm from EMR on wildlife. Bees are at greater risk and in decline. What is the Health and Wellbeing Board planning to do to protect our city?”

 

41.12  The Chair’s response is set out below:

 

            “The County Ecologist has been consulted on this issue. None of the main government departments and agencies (The Environment Agency, DEFRA, Natural England) and or leading advocacy groups (RSPB and Bug Life) have information or guidance on this issue and do not direct us to any research. However, the issue was raised in the House of Commons’ during questions and at that time (June 2019), Margot James gave the following response on behalf of the Government:-

 

            “Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) has the potential to impact the movement of insects and some species of animals, but there is currently no evidence that human-made EMR, at realistic field level impacts on (a) plants, (b) animals or (c) insects.”

 

            The guidance we do have is that there is no known impact on human health (the remit of Health and Wellbeing Board) and, as we have already heard, there are planning and legal limitations on how the city council can act as a local planning authority. As I have set out above, any concerns or objections that are raised in relation to individua planning applications will be carefully considered and if there is guidance or relevant research that comes forward this can considered alongside those concerns and objections.”

 

            Limitations of ICNIRP-Ms Gomez/Ms Edgell

 

41.13  The following question had been notified by Ms Gomez/Ms Edgell:

 

            The ICNIRP does not guarantee the correctness, reliability, or completeness of the information published on its website for guideline purposes. The content is provided for information only. ICNIRP do not assume any responsibility for any damage, including direct or indirect loss suffered by users or third parties in connection with the website and the information it contains including any technical data, recommendations, or specification available and an insurance company (Swiss Re) has listed 5G as a “high impact risk”. Their white paper wording as follows:

 

            “existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptake in liability claims could be a potential long term consequence. https://es-ireland.com/2019/06/17may-2019-swiss re-classifies-5g-as-high-impact-emerging-risk-in-whitepaper/

 

            Therefore if an insurance company will not take the risk then why would Brighton and Hove risk the health and lives of the residents of Brighton and Hove. Who is taking responsibility for damages caused by forcing me to be tortured by 5G pollution against my will?”

 

41.14  The Chair’s response is set out below:

 

            “Again I refer back to my previous responses and to the information set out in the report. I cannot comment on the position taken by insurance companies but the Council is clear about its responsibilities in relation to determining planning applications in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. This does require policies citing the International Commission guidelines to be treated as material when considering electronic communications development proposals. Once again I would like to reiterate that much of the development connected with the roll out of 5G will benefit from permitted development rights. The Council will carefully consider every individual planning application that it does receive, including any objections or comments received.”

 

            Social Prescribing – Mr Kapp

 

41.15  The Chair, Councillor Moonan, invited Mr Kapp to put his question which is set out below:

 

“Why isn’t improvement in health included in the Council’s 3 year plan (published in the “Argus” on 18 January 2020), when £454 million of public money is devolved from central government to the Clinical Commissioning Group this year, which together with £126mpa makes £580mpa for health and social care, which will probably rise next year to £600mpa, the dispersion of which should be decided by all councillors at the budget meeting on 27 February 2020?”

 

41.16  The Chair thanked Mr Kapp for his questions and responded in the following terms:

 

            “I would like to correct you as the Council Plan has several pages covering “A Healthy and Caring City”. However, the Council Plan is the Council Plan covering the things it can control. While it does include working with partners, such as the, pages covering “A Healthy and Caring City” the CCG while a partner is also an entity in its own right with its own control over its finances and priorities. The Council and the CCG have both agreed the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy to which we are both joint partners and is focused on health improvement for the city. We will continue to work with the CCG on joint priorities but there would need to be a significant change in national legislation for your proposal to be allowed in law.”

 

41.17  Mr Kapp was invited by the Chair to ask a supplementary question if he had one and this and the Chair’s response to it is set out below:

 

41.18  “We had information given to the July Board about social prescribing but not the detailed funding as to how it works. I have had similar emails from people who run various things like Nordic Walking wanting to know how they can get funding to run such services. However the Board is not the funding controller for social prescribing nor is the CCG –this comes from the national pocket. Will the Health and Wellbeing Board agree to take a paper raising the question of whether or not licensed social prescribing providers should be paid as pharmacists are paid for drugs?”

 

41.19  The Chair responded as set out below:

 

            “At the outset I should explain that Social Prescribing is not the same as prescribing medication. NHSE had a detailed webpage covering which I would encourage people to look at. It is. however far too detailed to report all the information to you today so I have been selective but have attached the link to the detail and this will go in the minutes.https://www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/

 

            Social Prescribing is a way for local agencies to refer people to a link worker. Link workers give people time, focusing on “what matters to me” and taking a holistic approach to people’s health and wellbeing. They connect people to community groups and statutory services for practical and emotional support. Funding for the new social prescribing link workers became available to primary care networks (PCNs) from 1 July 2019 when the reformed GP contract began. This is the biggest investment in social prescribing by any national health system, and legitimises community-based activities and support alongside medical treatment as part of personalised care.”

 

41.20  RESOLVED – That the questions submitted and the Chair’s response to them be noted and received.

 

41c     Deputations

 

41.21  There were none.