Summary of Oral Evidence presented to IEGMP by Professor R H Clarke, National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), on Wednesday 22 March 2000

Home > Summaries of Oral Evidence >

Professor Clarke started by observing that his letter of invitation indicated that the Group is interested in hearing about the funding of NRPB, its priorities and the recent public consultation exercise.

NRPB is 30 years old in 2000 and had been given functions to carry out research into the health effects of radiation, initially ionising radiation, but subsequently non-ionising radiation as well. It was mandated to provide advice to those with responsibilities for radiation safety, including Government departments, and to provide technical services. Initially, 95% of the funding for NRPB had come from the Government, but this has now been reduced to around 40–45%, with the remaining 55–60% earned from work performed under contract. In the present financial year, income from the Government would be around £6 million, whilst that from contracts would be around £8 million. However, the year is likely to be difficult because of a gap in funding from the European Union, which is an important source of funds.

The work programme is the result of consultation with Government departments, particularly the Department of Health. For the coming year, the process started last July, with a seminar at which interested Government departments were asked to make presentations outlining their priorities. These priorities fed into the development of the Corporate Plan, which was finalised by the Board of NRPB in February and is expected to be signed off by the Minister for Public Health at the annual Accountability Review on 8 May. Together with the Corporate Plan, the Business Plan sets a number of targets, which have to be agreed by Government departments and for which the Board is accountable. There would normally be 8–10 targets for a given year and these can vary from ongoing work, such as servicing committees, to specific requirements, such as producing a report for the Government on the health risks from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). The final decision rests with the Minister for Public Health, who also provides the funds to carry out the work. Core funding is used for work specified in the Corporate Plan.

There are separate funds for specific ongoing activities, such as providing the secretariats of the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee (ARSAC) and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). The latter is an independent advisory group for Government, with members appointed by the Chief Medical Officer. NRPB services the committee technically and administratively. In addition to providing the secretariat, NRPB prepares written material for consideration by the group and publishes its reports, although these remain COMARE reports.

It is difficult to quantify the resources specifically committed to non-ionising radiation. There is a commitment of 10–12% in the Physical Dosimetry Department. However, this is supplemented by a rapidly increasing commitment in the technical centres, which provide advice to employers on protection of their employees. A range of topics are covered including, for example, the use of ultraviolet radiation at sewerage plants, and display lasers at concerts, where the practice of audience scanning results in a risk of eye damage. NRPB is increasingly being asked to perform assessments around base stations and, although this work is performed under contract, has now requested permission to place the results in the public domain. In addition, NRPB performs national and international advisory work and supplies information on non-ionising radiation to the general public.

Of the 310 staff employed at NRPB, about 36 are based at the Northern Centre, 25 at NRPB Scotland, and the remainder at Chilton. Around 70 staff are administrative, and the rest are scientific and technical. The Department of Health requires efficiency savings and this means that the Government grant will continue to fall in real terms. As a result, it is likely that staff numbers will decrease, although the extent of this is uncertain, because the ability to win contracts is also a key factor. Against this backdrop, work on non-ionising radiation is the top priority, with emergency response second. Government departments have set these priorities, and although there is no additional funding, the Department of Health is content for them to be supported by core funding. Resources have been reallocated to reflect these priorities. For example, effort has been reduced in areas such as inhalation biokinetics of radionuclides and dosimetry development. Other work, such as dose assessments, is often performed under contract, and this allows core funding to be allocated to areas of higher priority such as non-ionising radiation. In addition, communications are essentially entirely core-funded.

NRPB receives around 40,000 enquiries a year from the public, and around 50,000 'hits' a month on the website. Ten years ago enquiries would have mainly related to ionising radiation, but now non-ionising radiation accounts for around 25% of all enquiries, with radon also a popular subject. Enquiries from the press and general public are dealt with by non-scientists working to a technical brief, at least initially. They seek to provide information in a form that is accessible to the public, and are backed up by scientists from the Physical Dosimetry and Radiation Effects Departments. These members of staff can handle more specialised queries. In general NRPB has a great deal of experience in these areas, having worked closely with the Health and Safety Executive and co-authored a report on tolerability of risk. The Group noted that they had heard criticism of the way in which NRPB provides advice, concentrating on the absence of convincing evidence, but failing to acknowledge uncertainties or give guidance on how these might be approached in risk management. Professor Clarke feels that whilst a minority might be critical, the majority of people contacting NRPB for advice appear to be satisfied with the response they receive.

NRPB has been conducting a public consultation exercise. This is part of a strategic review of NRPB activities that had been initiated by Sir Walter Bodmer when he became Chairman. Rather than looking at the work of specific departments, this review seeks to examine a number of topic areas, one of which is communications. This topic is being examined by a subgroup, chaired by Professor Baddeley, which would report to the Strategic Review Committee in the summer of 2000. Following approval it is expected that the report would inform the planning process relating to the future work of NRPB. The subgroup has sent out a questionnaire to a wide range of interested parties, including individuals and Government departments. Professor Baddeley has provided Professor Clarke with some preliminary results in February on the basis of the 40% of responses that had been received at that time. Both Government departments and the media had commented that technical reports could be complex. However, the media has been very supportive of the briefings they receive, and tend to refer their readers to NRPB for authoritative independent advice. Pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are generally very supportive of technical work from NRPB; in the past the Director has organised Environmental Fora to bring together representatives of NRPB, environmental pressure groups and the Environment Group of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Professor Baddeley's preliminary analysis identifies a need for a clearer remit in relation to communication with the general public and suggested that the NRPB remit could usefully be broadened to deal with this.

Although communication with the public is not specifically part of the NRPB remit, it does address the issue within the constraints of the limited resources available. The At-a-Glance leaflets and the website are seen as an effective means of communication with the public; interest in the website appears to be increasing rapidly. NRPB is aware of an increasing need for communication and is keen to explore how it could do more. A strategic aim of NRPB is to be a resource for Government, so NRPB could take on a bigger communication role if that is required. It is necessary to develop a clear strategy, in consultation with Government, in order to inform the commitment of resources.

There is interest in how NRPB assesses the public need for information. One way is from an analysis of the requests made to NRPB. In addition, it is possible to judge public concerns from Parliamentary Questions and fromletters sent by Members of Parliament (MPs) asking for advice on behalf of their constituents; correspondence between MPs and Government departments is also indicative and could be used to inform the process. In addition, issues raised in the media are a useful guide.

The Group noted that there has been limited data available on exposures from base stations and that, unlike some other countries, it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons with other sources of radiofrequency radiation (RF) such as television and radio transmitters. This appears to limit the information that could be made available to the public. This had been identified this as an issue at least two years ago. However, it takes time to acquire appropriate instrumentation and develop protocols. Professor Clarke feels it would be useful to have a national database of measurements around base stations; NRPB is now equipped to perform this type of measurement from all three of its sites. Most of the measurements made to date have been performed under contract. Nevertheless, NRPB has taken the initiative to obtain permission to place these data in the public domain.

The Chairman of NRPB had been charged by the Minister with seeing that IEGMP was set up. The report, together with a covering letter from the Chairman of IEGMP, would go to the Minister via the Chairman of NRPB. The report would not go to the Board for approval. The issue of possible health effects related to the use of mobile phones would also be addressed by the Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) in due course. This Group had been set up by Professor Clarke to bring in outside expertise, and now reports to the Board. Reports of AGNIR are submitted to the Board prior to publication but are not altered by it. The Board uses these reports for the development of formal advice; a number of the AGNIR reports have formed the basis of short statements by the Board. Professor Clarke uses these as guidance on the appropriate response for staff. Recently, the Department of Health has been encouraging the Board to become more involved in the work of the organisation and take more responsibility.

Summing up, Professor Clarke feels that NRPB could play a greater role in specific areas, such as communication with the public and assessments of base station exposures. However, NRPB would still have a responsibility to advise Government and would still need to bring in external expertise to help in the development of that advice. NRPB has always been very proactive with Government and has not hesitated to recommend lower dose limits for ionising radiation exposure in advance of international consensus. It has examined the recent ICNIRP guidance. However, the Government has made it clear that it expects advice to be based on scientific evidence and that the decision on whether to take other factors into account rests with Government. This effectively restricts advice on non-ionising radiation to risk assessment and excludes risk management. This is not the case with ionising radiation, where NRPB has been actively involved with risk management. Here the evidence on health effects and dose-response relationships is clearer.