Examination of Witnesses (Questions 880-899)
LORD HUNT
OF KINGS
HEATH, MR
GEOFFREY PODGER,
DR JOHN
STATHER AND
DR ALASTAIR
MCKINLAY
17 MAY 2006
Q880 Chairman: Dr McKinlay,
I understand that the HPA commissioned some work on the evidence
base of EMF exposure, and a 600-page document edited by Professor
Roger Ordidge, who told me that, having presented you with this
information, not even a response was given to it, let alone any
use of it. Are you aware of that?
Dr McKinlay: I am not personally
aware of it. I could refer you to my deputy director, here.
Dr Stather: A lot of information
has come in. Maybe I could look at the process we went through
over the four years between 2000, when the Stewart report came
out.
Q881 Chairman: Can you
just answer this specific question? A 600-page dossier—
Dr Stather: I do not recall having
seen a 600-page dossier.
Q882 Chairman: Even though
you commissioned it and paid for it? You are not even aware that
it exists.
Dr Stather: I know we have lots
of papers presented.
Q883 Chairman: Professor
Roger Ordidge assured us that he did do a massive trawl of all
the available literature, and presented it to HPA. It was commissioned
by HPA. He presented it to HPA and he did not even get an acknowledgment
that he had handed it in, because you were more concerned with
mobile phone masts.
Dr Stather: I think that is not
true; we are concerned with issues across the whole spectrum.
We did get evidence from a large number of people and could have
got information from Sir Roger Ordidge as well, but we did not
commission anything from him. I am clear on that.
Chairman: We take your word for that.
Q884 Dr Iddon: Minister,
it looks to me, as a scientist, as if quite weak scientific evidence
has quite properly, as Dr McKinlay has pointed out, led to guidelines
which have now been turned into the Physical Agents directive—inflexible
absolute limits that now have to be enforced. Would you say that
that is probably a true statement?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly,
the directive is based on the guidelines and they do have some
absolute limits in them, which would be due to be translated into
law in this country; so I would agree with that supposition. As
you know, the Government itself did not want to see this directive
brought into place, acting on the advice that you have already
heard from the Health and Safety Executive that the health and
safety benefits were very difficult to see; and that in any case
current health and safety legislation and the guidelines that
had already been produced by the HPA's predecessor were sufficient.
That is the basis on which we took our discussions into Europe.
The problem from our point of view is that although, when the
original wider Physical Agents directive was first discussed in
Europe in the early nineties, clearly there was a lack of consensus
then. By the time the new directive was proposed around 2002,
life had moved on, and this country was isolated in that position
of not wanting to see the directive brought in. As ever in that
situation, we were faced with a position of going into outright
opposition, when in so doing you probably lose influence over
what was in the directive; and clearly the decision was taken
that given this was going to be a fait accompli, our best
efforts would be in trying to ensure that the directive was as
satisfactory to this country as possible. You will know that as
a result of those negotiations we were to a certain extent successful.
The static field limits were withdrawn. Where we were not particularly
successful was in asking for a new impact assessment, as I gather
you have discussed already with the Commission officials.
Q885 Dr Iddon: I think
that makes the British Government's position absolutely clear.
Dr McKinlay, what consultations were there between ICNIRP and
the Commission during the development of this directive? Can you
lead us through that process?
Dr McKinlay: Sure. Can I ask you
for your patience if I refer to my notes here? There is a chronology
of interaction. I was very pleased to be invited to this Committee
about ten days ago, so I have done all my own research work, going
back 16 years. I hope it is complete. I have tried very hard to
make it accurate and complete, so I will take you through it,
if you wish.
Q886 Chairman: Can you
do it very briefly, because we are desperately short of time?
Dr McKinlay: It will be brief,
yes; it is a brief chronology. I guess it goes back to 1990/91,
just before ICNIRP was formed in 1992. There was a report, which
has already been referred to, published in Physica Medica,
which set out a paper concerning occupations of workers and physical
agents. That was asked for by DG5, the health directorate of the
Commission. This was not an ICNIRP project but it was a common
project of NRPB and an Italian institute and a German institute,
which were European members of ICNIRP's predecessor. That is the
first involvement. Then in the period 1992 to 1996, advice on
exposure of the public to NIR was provided again to DG5 from European
ICNIRP members. A report was compiled by an ad hoc working
group comprising scientists from those three institutions, and
this was published. I have a copy that I can leave with you; it
is entitled Non-Ionising Radiation: Sources, Exposure and Health
Effects. It did cover EMF within that. In 1996 and 1997 there
was an ICNIRP panel of exerts, who were invited, again by DG5,
to investigate the occurrence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
This is an issue that has returned quite recently, particularly
in respect of mobile-phone masts. So ICNIRP was looking at that,
way back in the mid-nineties. Then in 1997/98 there was exposure
of the public to EM fields. You remember the European Council
recommendation limiting exposure of the public, which encompassed
the ICNIRP guidelines. We provided clarification of the guidelines,
the cautionary nature of the guidelines, the meaning of reference
levels and basic restrictions and how they should be used. That
work is referenced in the annexes of the Council recommendations.
That, again, is DG5. In 1999 to 2001 there was concerted action
given to ICNIRP from the European Commission. Concerted action
was a task where they pay not for the work that is done but for
an allowance for meetings, and travel expenses and such like;
so that concerted action was on possible health risks to the general
public from the use of security and similar devices. You can see
these devices in shops, if you walk through the magnetic loops.
Indeed, here, in the House of Commons, you walk through these
devices. That was for DG13, and that was published in 2002. Now
we come to the nitty-gritty, I guess—2003. We had a meeting
of three of us, that is myself, Professor Bernhard, who was the
vice chairman of ICNIRP during that period, and the scientific
secretary Rudiger Matthes from Germany. We had a meeting in Luxembourg
with the head of Employment and Social Affairs, DG—and there
was also another gentleman, Antonius Angelides. There were no
formal minutes taken of this meeting, to my knowledge. However,
I can inform you as to what took place, if you want me to develop
that a little, because that is quite an important meeting.
Q887 Chairman: I want
to bring you specifically back to MRI. In 2003-04 ICNIRP provided
significant guidelines on MRI, and as such ICNIRP would have known
that—or what would have been the impact of that guidance
on MRI?
Dr McKinlay: I was going to return
to that as my final point, because I think that came up in the
earlier evidence. I know of no evidence like that, or advice that
ICNIRP gave to the EC specifically on MRI. As I said at the beginning,
we do not concern ourselves with exposure to the particular device
with a particular frequency; we deal with the scientific evidence
for health effects, and we issue the guidelines. We gave lots
of advice in terms of the guidelines and understanding the guidelines,
but that was interpreted in that way—
Q888 Chairman: But, with
respect, in 2002 you said that the ICNIRP 1998 guidelines were
out of date. I cannot fathom what influence or what was the way
in which you then influenced the Commission, in terms of saying,
that those guidelines were out of date.
Dr McKinlay: I think what you
are referring to is the static magnetic field guidelines in particular.
In fact, as I was going to go on to say, at that particular meeting
in 2003 probably the most important advice that ICNIRP gave to
the Commission was that because the static magnetic field guidelines
were being currently reviewed, because of all the activity that
was going on in terms of assessment and review, and because we
knew that ICNIRP were going to revise the guidelines, they should
not include those in the directive; they should not include static
magnetic fields in the directive. That was the clear advice we
gave. We also gave that advice in writing in a reply to a letter
sent by the Italian permanent representative, because it was the
Italian presidency at that time that took the guidelines through
to fruition. She wrote to ICNIRP and asked whether the static
magnetic fields were under revision, and whether they were likely
to be revised. We replied in the affirmative and said to her that
it would be inadvisable to include static magnetic fields in the
directive. I have the letters that cover that.
Q889 Dr Iddon: It is accurate
to say that ICNIRP are not content—not content that their
guidelines, as they existed at that time, were correctly used
to draw up the Physical Agents directive?
Dr McKinlay: Again, as I said
at the beginning, we issued guidelines. It is up to governments
and super-national governments to decide about regulations. We
do not lobby on this. We do not have a view about it, but we do
provide scientific advice.
Q890 Dr Iddon: With respect,
you have already admitted in front of this Committee this morning
that you felt that your guidelines were out of date and that you
were about to review them.
Dr McKinlay: For static, yes.
Q891 Dr Iddon: Did you
make that point to the Commission?
Dr McKinlay: Yes, we did.
Q892 Dr Iddon: Quite strongly?
Dr McKinlay: Yes, we did. We have
the letters—for static we did.
Q893 Chairman: But not
for variable fields.
Dr McKinlay: No, because the revision
of variable fields—well, it seemed rather a long way away
because ICNIRP has to wait for the completion of the health risk
assessment from the World Health Organisation before it will revise
its guidelines. That is part of the ICNIRP process. We look to
those very high-level activities within the World Health Organisation,
and those have not been published yet.
Q894 Dr Iddon: If I could
ask either of you from the HPA; how influential was the work of
the group that Colin Blakemore sat on, the Weak Electric Fields
Group, in informing the work of, as it was then, the NRPB?
Dr Stather: After the Stewart
report that you have heard about which recommended the adoption
of ICNIRP guidelines for the public for mobile phone frequencies,
we were asked by HSE what was meant by mobile phone frequencies.
Out of that discussion we set up a group under Alastair to look
at electromagnetic fields, across the whole spectrum. As part
of that initiative, we established the group under Colin Blakemore
to look specifically at weak electric fields. We produced a consultation
document in 2002 that went out to government departments and others
and we had an open meeting;[3]
so there has been a process of consultation in terms of how we
finalised the guidelines that were published in 2004, essentially
adopting ICNIRP guidelines for the UK. The key points of the advice
we got from government in terms of shaping those recommendations
was to clarify where there were uncertainties, which we did, across
the whole spectrum, and look at those uncertainties in relation
to where further work was needed. We laid that out in the context
of the guidelines we produced.
Q895 Dr Iddon: But were
you as surprised as perhaps Colin Blakemore was that the work
of that group had influenced the formation of the Physical Agents
directive?
Dr Stather: Well, we were not
aware that it was going to do.
Q896 Dr Iddon: There was
no discussion—is that what you are saying?
Dr Stather: In relation to the
directive, no. We just set up the group to advise us, educate
if you like, NRPB as it was then, in relation to how we shaped
the guidelines for the UK.
Q897 Dr Iddon: Does it
seem rather odd that an important EU directive is being formulated,
based on evidence that a group here has provided; but there is
no direct link between the Commission and the group?
Dr Stather: Well, HPA and NRPB
as it was is an advisors body. We advise government departments
and others on radiation protection matters, and that is as much
as we do, and acknowledge the uncertainties, as Colin Blakemore
also said, around the guidelines.
Q898 Chairman: You appreciate,
John, that what we are trying to do is to find—the purpose
of this inquiry is to look at scientific advice to the government
and how it gets there and to try to do that audit trail. It is
a classic case, is it not, of something that is going to have
a significant effect, so that is the purpose.
Dr Stather: Yes.
Q899 Dr Harris: Mr Podger,
you said that you thought that the UK had sought to remove MRI
from the directive in 2003 in Council.
Mr Podger: I am not sure at which
meeting it was but it was certainly tried either in council or
a sub-committee of the council.
3 Note by the witness: as well as publishing
a consultation draft on the web in May 2003. Back
| 
