The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has just issued a report lambasting the government for its timid stance on airport body scanners, which the committee says are essential to fighting the threat of terrorism. The report accused ministers of taking a laissez-faire attitude to security and 'waiting for terrorists to demonstrate their new capabilities before implementing improved security measures.'
The danger of terrorist attacks against commercial airliners is omnipresent. This was demonstrated again last Christmas when a Nigerian extremist tried to blow up a flight from Europe to America. The urgency – some would even call it hysteria – that surrounds the debate about keeping us safe in the air have further fuelled calls for body scanners to be used at airport security. However, I'm not convinced that they are the panacea that many claim them to be.
At the moment there are two types of body scanners available for walk-through in airports: the millimetre wave scanner that uses terahertz radiation and the backscatter system that uses X-rays.
As a former NHS doctor I am well aware of the risks of regular exposure to X-rays – particularly for pregnant women and children – and I cannot see how such scanners comply with the public authorities' duty to avoid causing harm to people. I also believe such scanners may violate EU law under the Euratom treaty, which forbids the use of compulsory ionising radiation for non-medical purposes on humans. Certainly the European Parliament has rightly resisted attempts to introduce body scanners on an EU-wide basis.
Meanwhile, the effects of terahertz radiation, although non-ionising, are less well-known but potentially no less damaging. These scanners create a full image of the naked body, thereby potentially violating a citizen's right to privacy under EU law. On the same day that the select committee's report was published, newspapers reported that an airport worker had received a police warning and faced disciplinary action for ogling a female colleague as she passed through a body scanner.
Moreover, scientific experts have expressed concerns that repeated exposure to terahertz radiation may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication. You don't have to be a Nobel Prize winner to understand how serious that could be when an entire population is being exposed.
Personally I believe that airport body scanners should not be introduced until more research has been done on their safety. We should also wait until scanners become available that do not use electromagnetic radiation but instead rely on much safer ultrasound technology. Body scanners remain potentially an important tool in the fight against terrorism, and no-one more than me wants to see that fight succeed. But it's unlikely that terrorism will ever be completely defeated, and we know how resourceful these fanatics can be. They will start to ingest or insert explosives in their back passages!
One particularly alarming development I read about was the case of a Saudi prince who narrowly escaped being blown up by an al-Qaeda terrorist who had swallowed a tiny amount of explosive and was able to detonate it with a mobile phone. This demonstrates the chilling reality of terrorism, whose proponents will always find new ways of killing. How long before their cunning renders body scanners obsolete?
To my mind, the safest way of checking an airline passenger at security remains an individual full body search (i.e. more than a pat-down if necessary) by a security officer. When I say I think it's the safest way, I mean that it's the safest way for the passenger and also the most likely way in which anomalies can be discovered and acted upon.
Body scanners, if proven to be safe and legal, could be a voluntary option alongside the alternative of personal body searches. Perhaps passengers could be processed through security more rapidly if they voluntarily opt for a body scan rather than a personal body search. But we should always have the option of whether to enter a body scanner: they should never be compulsory. Passengers should be informed of the theoretical small risks associated with body scanning. The government's outrageous no-fly policy for those who refuse a scan should be categorically rejected.
The Conservative Party in recent years has sought to position itself as the party that defends civil liberties. Personally speaking, I hope that if we return to government at the forthcoming election we will manage to retain a sense of proportion about body scanners, and that we can hold up this issue to scrutiny from perspectives other than that adopted by the select committee.
Finally, notwithstanding concerns about civil liberties, we should be prepared to adopt a more realistic and less absolutist approach to the idea of intelligent profiling and full risk assessment of passengers. This rigorous method has been proved to be effective and is employed by El Al, which, despite being a major target for terrorists has managed to avoid an attack for several decades. A Conservative government might wish to reconsider this option.
