* * *

THE CHAIRMAN of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Sir John Wheeler,
has been asking ministers about the arrangements for conducting DNA tests.
The Minister of State at the Home Office, John Patten, told him that so
far as criminal cases are concerned, Cellmark Diagnostics (a subsidiary
of ICI, which holds world rights on DNA profiling techniques) is contracted
by the Home Office to deal with tests in criminal paternity cases and cases
involving the mass screening of large numbers of individuals. The Home Office’s
forensic science service and the forensic laboratory of the Metropolitan
Police deal with all other criminal cases in England and Wales.

For my part, I would like to report that the way in which DNA profiling
is helping to resolve civil paternity cases is delighting MPs. Such cases
used to be a nightmare at our surgeries, when constituents would expect
us to help with the complexities of the 1969 Family Law Reform Act. Among
the uncovenanted benefits of DNA tests is the saving of MPs’ time!

* * *

JOHN McFALL became MP for Dumbarton in 1987. Given that his constituency
includes the submarine base at Faslane, he is understandably concerned about
the safe decommissioning of nuclear submarines. In a recent debate in the
Commons, he accused the government of prevaricating about how to set about
this, and of resorting to a position of ‘wait and see’.

For the government, Alan Clark, the defence minister, responded by outlining
the virtues of playing for time. However, readers of 91av might
be interested in the end of the exchange, when Jonathan Sayeed, the Conservative
MP for Bristol East, asked Clarke: ‘Is it correct that we have been unable
to find a safe way of cutting up the reactor compartment of a submarine
and burying it without exposing workers to a considerable radiological hazard?
Is it correct that it is much safer for people for the reactor compartment
to be encased in concrete and the submarine buried in a deep-sea pit?’

Clark replied: ‘The reactor would not be cut up and the work force would
not be exposed to radiation because we would take care to ensure that the
exposure was kept to the minimum.’ He added that, the longer a submarine
is stored, the simpler it will be in future to dismantle the reactor compartment
in the way that Sayeed described.

I suspect that the government would like to sink the reactors in deep
ocean, along the lines I described in Thistle Diary some time ago now (22
October 1988), after talking to Steele, the director of the Woods Hole Laboratory
in Massachusetts.

* * *

I ATTENDED the funeral at Golders Green of Brian Ponsford, head of HM
Inspectorate of Pollution. He was an old and valued friend, who had started
his Civil Service career as the late Dick Crossman’s assistant private secretary.
Subsequently, there was speculation in the press about a recruitment crisis
within the inspectorate. So I raised the matter with Chris Patten, the Secretary
of State for the Environment. Patten replied: ‘We have recognised that there
have been problems in bringing the number of professional staff in the inspectorate
up to the approved complement. This reflects, inter alia, the limited pool
of necessary specialist skills and experience, and market rates of pay.’

Patten tells me that the inspectorate is undertaking a recruitment round
offering exceptional salary increases of 28.5 per cent over those offered
in the last round. These improved salary scales, he says, are ‘a measure
of our resolve to see that the inspectorate is adequately resourced to carry
out its job’. He adds that the response to recent recruitment advertisements
has been better than in the previous round, and that interviews will be
taking place shortly.

In answer to my queries, Maclean referred to a survey by the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, into mortalities among imported birds
during 1988. The survey covered deaths on arrival at quarantine premises
and during the statutory quarantine period, and was the first of its kind
in Europe. Broadly, it revealed that, of 185 000 birds, 5000 were dead on
arrival and that a further 21 000 died in quarantine. The average mortality
was 13.7 per cent.

Maclean says that he shares the widespread concern about deaths among
imported birds, and that he will be taking steps to improve the situation.
These include: visits by officials of the MAFF to the major exporting countries
to determine how effectively they fulfil Britain’s certification requirements,
and whether those requirements need to be tightened up; a review of the
conditions that are imposed after birds reach Britain, such as the stock
rates in quarantine premises; meetings with representatives of the bird
trade to discuss the implications of the results of the survey; and consideration
of whether any further welfare safeguards are needed to protect birds during
transport by airlines.

Maclean adds that measures to deal with the high mortality found among
imported birds are not going to be effective on a national level. He proposes
to raise the issue for discussion with the European Community and intends
that Britain should ensure that the Community ‘fully recognises the seriousness
of this welfare issue’. I hopeit does.

* * *

I HAVE followed with interest the debate in 91av about the
conservation needs of Angkor Wat and other ancient monuments in Cambodia
(‘The battle of Angkor Wat’, by Russell Ciochon and Jamie Jones, 14 October;
Letters, 25 November). So I raised the matter with Lynda Chalker, the minister
for overseas development.

Chalker reminds me that, as she told MPs in November, the government
has decided to increase its humanitarian aid inside Cambodia. It is offering
a further Pounds sterling 250 000 to UNICEF and will support more new governmental
projects under the Joint Funding Scheme. She says, however, there is ‘no
possibility, in present circumstances, of our starting a normal government-to-government
aid programme there, as we have no dealings with the Hun Sen regime’.

Chalker shares my concern for the monuments, but regrets that it would
not be possible for Britain to offer assistance to Cambodia for their conservation.
She adds: ‘In practical terms, I also fear that at present it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to ensure the safety of conservation experts
working at remote sites in Cambodia.’

* * *

I AM uneasy. At the fag end of the session, when Christmas was on the
mind of MPs, Lynda Chalker answered a planted question by Brian Key, who
is a parliamentary private secretary. She told us that the government has
decided that it would be right for the Overseas Development Natural Resources
Institute to become independent of the Overseas Development Administration
and for it to become an executive agency. Ministers believe that ‘the freedoms
and disciplines which agency status will bring will further enhance the
institute’s contribution to the British Aid Programme, and development of
poorer countries, and will reinforce its position as an international centre
of scientific excellence’. I wonder. The ODNRI will become an agency on
1 April. The present director of the institute, Anthony Beattie, will be
its chief executive. He might be wise, unless he has already done so, to
talk to Abdus Salam, about the Trieste experience in Third World physics.

Jackson says that it is no longer the case, as 91av’s article
reported, that European funding for a human genome mapping programme is
tied up in debate in the European Parliament. The European programme, apparently,
now includes among its objectives the organisation of networks, and coordination,
on a European and international scale, of researchers from all disciplines
working in this field. These plans, Jackson says, involve close association
with both Japanese and Americangroups.

I am glad. This is one of the great frontiers of the late 20th century.

* * *

I HAVE been puzzled for some time about where responsibility resides
for coordinating government policy on conserving seed varieties in gene
banks. Now I know – the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and
an ad hoc working group.

It was the helpful Lady Trumpington, parliamentary secretary at the
MAFF, who responded to my concerns on this issue, generated – if that be
the appropriate phrase – by an article by Omar Sattaur in 91av
last summer (‘Genes on deposit: saving for the future’, 5 August 1989).

Lady T (not to be confused with Mrs T, the minister for coordinating
science policy), points out that there is a legal obligation for breeders
to deposit seed varieties entering the National List with the authorities,
and to replace that material, if and when requested to do so. She says that
seeds are regularly tested to ensure that they remain true to type. If a
variety is removed from the list, seed is still retained in the reference
collection, and if it had not already been obtained by the gene bank it
would be made available to it.

Lady Trumpington assures me that there is no threat to the collection
of wild KK species held by Kew. As an MP, I get the impression that the
situation has been improved by the concern generated as a result of Sattaur’s
article, and hope that he and others will maintain a vigilant interest in
this important field.

* * *

I WAS interested to go to a meeting, chaired by Michael Marshall, the
Conservative MP for Arundel in West Sussex and a former industry minister,
and addressed by David Baldwin of Hewlett Packard. The subject? The effect
of taxation on charitable giving.

Baldwin pointed out that, on a Pounds sterling 900,000 gift to a university,
his company paid Pounds sterling 135,000 in tax. In Italy, West Germany,
and the US the tax system was much more advantageous to educational gifts.
Deliciously, Baldwin told us: ‘The French are flexible in such matters.’

In which countries, therefore, will great multinational companies spend
most of what they have earmarked for worthwhile charity? The question is
rhetorical. The answer is: ‘Well, preferably not in Britain.’

This is serious. Gifts are a good way of helping universities, polytechnics
and schools to come to grips with technology. And the relationship formed
between donor and recipient is valuable in itself.

Marshall and other senior MPs are approaching the Treasury. They should
understand that arrangements for giving money between corporations and universities
are increasingly complex. Companies are not altruistic, but I believe that
people give most abundantly, usefully and wholeheartedly to other people.

The society is concerned about the release of genetically engineered
organisms. Brian Gowenlock, Professor of Chemistry at Heriot-Watt University,
and a former member of the University Grants Committee, points me to the
statement in the Lords by Professor Lord Lewis, Chairman of the Royal Commission
on the Environment. Lewis said: ‘I maintain it would be a serious blow to
the thoroughness with which proposed releases are assessed, and hence to
the safety of the environment, if the expertise currently available through
the NCC were put in jeopardy by the proposal to split it up into three parts.’

As far as I know, there has been no response to Lewis’s statement. I
hope that he and the many other peers with redoubtable expertise in the
area covered by the NCC use to maximum advantage the opportunity offered
them by the fact that the ‘green bill’, to which the proposal to split the
NCC has been quite improperly tagged on, will be debated in their Lordships’
House first.

* * *

I ASKED Virginia Bottomley what she thought, as incoming health minister,
about the delicate moral and ethical issues involved in the so-called abortion
pill, RU486. Her considered reply is of concern and interest to many, beyond
those working in this field: ‘The criteria for regulation of medicines are
set out in the Medicines Act 1968 and in EEC Directives. At present Roussel
are carrying out clinical trials on mifepristone (also known as RU486) with
progesterone, for abortion in very early pregnancy. These trials have been
approved by the Department of Health’s Medicines Division under the Clinical
Trial Exemption scheme, after scrutiny of evidence about the safety, efficacy
and quality of the drug and the possible risks of the proposed trial. Further
rigorous scrutiny of evidence from clinical trials would be needed before
a product licence could be granted to allow mifepristone to be marketed.
The Committee on Safety of Medicines would have to be satisfied that mifepristone
is safe, efficaceous and of good quality when used by doctors for the purposes
set out in the product licence.

‘Unless the requirements of the 1967 Abortion Act are complied with
it is an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to procure
an abortion. This is true whatever the method by which an abortion is procured,
whether surgical or medical. It follows, therefore, that abortions procured
by the use of mifepristone, KK whether in the course of clinical trials
or if the drug were to be subsequently licensed for general use, are, or
would be, subject to the Abortion Act to the same extent as abortions performed
by the methods currently in use.’

To my mind this makes it the more outrageous that Sir Geoffrey Howe,
as Leader of the House, has allowed the issue of abortion to intrude in
the discussions on the Embryo Bill.

* * *

BILL BOURNE, an ornithologist at the University of Aberdeen, has been
concerned about the effects on wildlife of grass-burning in the Falklands.
So I raised the matter with Tim Sainsbury, the Under Secretary of State
at the Foreign Office. Sainsbury reassures me:

‘Today such fires are comparatively rare because very few farmers practise
burning and do so occasionally rather than regularly. In addition there
are fewer unsupervised visits to small off-shore islands. Nevertheless,
the Falkland Islands Government is aware of the dangers to neighbouring
farms and to wildlife of uncontrolled burning. It is reviewing the situation
and will, if necessary, set up a working party, including representatives
of both farming and wildlife interests, to consider all aspects of the matter
and to make recommendations.’

Sainsbury’s reassuring tone is apparently born out by a report for the
Falklands Islands Government from Ian Strange, a well-known local naturalist.
In his report, Strange states that ‘burning does not endanger the population
of any of the (bird) species now found in the Islands’.

I have the impression that the change in attitude is partly due to many,
many scientists making their views known to MPs, and also to powerful letters
from the disabled and infertile, and those who represent them and their
interests. My guess is that those responsible for introducing television
cameras into the House will concentrate much time on the Committee Stage
of the Embryo Bill, first in the Lords, who I hope will chew it thoroughly,
and then in the Commons. When the public sees the scientists’ case discussed
on television, MPs will be more confident in resisting the mailbags of postcards
representing other points of view. For my part, I found 91av’s
leader of 2 December, ‘Embryonic journey’, so valuable, that I have copied
it and sent it to any constituent who writes to me about embryo research.

* * *

AT LAST there is action on nutritional labelling. David Maclean, parliamentary
secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, tells me:
‘We are taking an active part in negotiation of the European Commission’s
nutrition labelling proposals and hope that a common position will be reached
soon. The proposals are similar to the ministry’s Nutrition Labelling Guidelines
and provide for a voluntary system of nutrition labelling with a mandatory
format so that consumers can compare products more easily.’

Nutrition labelling will be compulsory only when a nutrition claim is
made, Maclean says. There is provision for a three-year lead-in period to
allow labels to be changed and, given the close resemblance of the MAFF’s
guidelines to the European Commission’s proposals, he hopes that manufacturers
and retailers will provide as much nutrition information as possible according
to the MAFF’s guidelines until the Community’s legislation is in place.

* * *

BE PREPARED to hear more and more about the Human Frontier Science Programme.
The HFSP – we live in a world of acronyms – was first suggested by the Japanese
Prime Minister at the 1987 Venice Economic Summit. The content of the programme
now agreed upon relates to research into two areas: brain functions and
biological functions, studied at a molecular level.

I am told that Robert Jackson, the minister for higher education, must
take a good deal of credit for pushing the concept in the past 18 months.
Jackson tells me: ‘There is to be an initial experimental phase of three
years, 1989-92, to permit the start of scientific activity and the development
of the new non-profit private organisation that will be established to administer
the programme. The major activities of the HFSP will consist of research
grants, fellowships and workshops with the aim of promoting basic research
into the complex mechanisms of living organisms and making maximum benefit
of the results.’

The programme will be administered from Strasbourg. I wish it well.

* * *

AT THE beginning of the parliamentary session, I learnt from a government
back-bench friend of mine that the government really was considering organic
farming seriously, so I asked David Curry, the new under secretary at the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, about the position of organic
farming in relation to the European Community’s ‘extensification’ scheme,
that is, a scheme aimed at reducing agricultural surpluses by promoting
less intensive methods of farming.

Curry told me: ‘The Community rules for extensification require output
on participating farms of a surplus product to be reduced by at least 20
per cent over five years. Member states may apply this obligation by requiring
participants to adopt a changed method of production, and for this purpose
I am at present considering offering as an option within the future British
arrangements a switch to organic farming of some or all of the products
covered by the scheme.’

I now hear that plans are well advanced, and that they have Downing
Street backing. Good.

Members were appointed for the expert advice they were able to give,
he said. Mellor’s view was that any involvements they might have in research
sponsored by the pharmaceuticals companies helped them to keep in touch
with important aspects of drug development. By following the ethical standards
set by the code of practice on declaration of interest, members were able
to avoid conflicts of interest which might otherwise impair the objectivity
of the advice which they gave. I strongly support the Department of Health’s
view: the best advice will come from those with day-to-day involvement in
rapidly developing expertise and business practice.

* * *

‘THE GOVERNMENT will not do for us what it has done for the much larger
NHS groups which happen to enjoy a higher public profile.’ This is the understandably
angry reaction of Roger Dale, director of the Department of Radiation Physics
at Charing Cross Hospital in London, concerned about the pay of scientists
in the National Health Service. Not only Opposition MPs, but government
supporters, such as Matthew Carrington, the Conservative MP for Fulham,
have expressed concern. Given that nurses have already accepted in excess
of 9 per cent this year, and are submitting a claim of between 12 and 24
per cent next year, the medical scientists think that the loss of parity
is set to increase further.

Given the diminishing size of the labour market, it is difficult to
see how graduate scientists will be attracted to the NHS, when other organisations
are able to offer much more attractive salaries. Reflective MPs of all political
parties fear that a rundown in the scientific services within the health
service could reach a point which puts the future quality of health care
in very serious jeopardy.

* * *

ONE OF the key issues in front of the Antarctic Conference in Paris
has been kicked into touch: the question of liability if something goes
tragically wrong, such as a spillage.

Tim Sainsbury, the minister involvedin the negotiations, has told me
that it was agreed in Paris that a meeting should be held next year to explore
all proposals relating to the Liability Protocol required under Article
8(7) of the Antarctic Minerals Convention. In my opinion, a sensible agreement
on liability would do more to protect the Antarctic than any number of declarations
about wilderness.

* * *

AS ONE of the slain 21 – seven MPs, seven peers and seven clerks of
Parliament – who were summarily despatched by Gary Kasparov when he was
our guest for a simultaneous chess match in Westminster Hall recently, I
was thrilled to see that my conqueror also managed to conquer Deep Throat
– sorry Deep Thought – Carnegie-Mellon University’s previously unbeaten
chess computer. In the opinion of the Daily Telegraph, this was the triumph
of mind over matter.

After the match, which took place in July, I had dinner with Kasparov,
along with Michael Stern, who had organised the match, Jonathan Speelman
and Raymond Keene, the chess correspondent of The Times. I was amazed by
his knowledge of British history, and his passion, as an Armenian Jew, about
the Russian Establishment. Quite simply, I thought I was talking to a genius
and not a desiccated calculating machine, concerned only with chess.

As to Parliament, the last time it had a visit from the world chess
champion was in 1919, when two MPs managed to draw against the Cuban, Capablanca.

Maclean suggests that compulsory labelling is unlikely in view of proposed
legislation within the European Community. At present, the European Commission
is proposing a voluntary system that will provide for a basic declaration
of energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat content; a more detailed description
of these components; and additional information about sugars, saturated
fats, fibre and sodium. Further information could be given where appropriate.
Although labelling will be voluntary, where information is given it will
have to be provided in a standard form.

The commission is also proposing that labelling should be compulsory
where a nutritional claim is made (low fat, for example), and where medical
evidence suggests that it is necessary to protect or enhance the health
of consumers.

Maclean tells me: ‘It is already clear that there is no support among
member states for general compulsory labelling; indeed there has been a
very sceptical reaction to the second directive which would enable selective
compulsory labelling. In these circumstances we firmly believe that it is
in the best interests of consumers to have a voluntary system which encourages
as many manufacturers and retailers as possible to give nutritional information
on their foodstuffs. This information is better than nothing.’

As for the pictorial representation of nutritional information, the
European Commission is proposing that this should be banned except to show
the proportion of the recommended daily amounts of vitamins and minerals
in a food. Maclean tells me that Britain and other European states are opposing
this provision because, he says, ‘We consider that graphics may be helpful
to consumers and that manufacturers and retailers should therefore be free
to add graphics if they wish.’ That said, he adds that the government recognises
that it will be difficult to ensure that consumers will not be misled by
different forms of graphics, and suggests that it would be difficult to
reach agreement on a harmonised system of graphics which would truly benefit
consumers.

All in all, Maclean makes it clear that compulsory labelling is out.
I think he is right. I rather dread a world in which everything we eat will
tend to be tagged. Chacun a son gout!

IT IS a cause for some alarm that the number of biochemistry students
starting postgraduate teacher-training courses continues to fall. In 1988,
34 biochemistry students, representing 2 per cent of the total, went in
for teaching. Six times as many biochemistry students moved out of their
subject altogether. I predict that the lack of attractiveness of the teaching
profession – a national disaster, in my opinion – is going to be a dominant
theme in the coming session of parliament.

A FEW weeks ago, 91av reported some terse comment from John
Collier, speaking as Chairman of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, to the
effect that he made no secret of his deep anxiety about the implications
for strategic energy R&D of the government’s decisions to cut back on
the Fast Breeder Programme (‘Europe could rescue Britain’s fast breeder’,
This Week, 12 August). As a supporter of Dounreay, I raised the matter with
ministers. Michael Spicer, the junior energy minister, replied:

‘Fast reactors may be an important component of nuclear generation in
Britain in the latter part of the next century, but it is unlikely there
will be a commercial requirement for them in this country for at least 30
to 40 years. Government policy is therefore to maintain a position in the
technology whilst reducing the R&D effort to a level more appropriate
to the presently foreseen timescale of the potential benefits. The government
therefore decided to maintain a ‘core’ R&D programme of Pounds sterling
10 million a year starting in 1990/91. The UK remains a member of the European
fast reactor collaboration; this is the best way of maximising the returns
on the considerable investment we have made in the development of the technology.’

Spicer says that the government will continue to consider the size and
scope of the core programme in the light of future developments, such as
the pace of K K nuclear development worldwide; should this pick up, it might
affect the timescale in which fast reactors could be introduced commercially.

‘As a general rule,’ he adds, ‘the government would expect the privatised
electricity supply industry to fund nuclear R&D. However, under the
Electricity Act 1989, the Secretary of State has a duty to use his powers
under the Science and Technology Act for the purpose of promoting such research
into, and development of, new techniques relating to the generation, transmission
or supply of electricity as appears to him to be necessary in the national
interest. The government might therefore undertake itself R&D that is
not being pursued by the privatised industry. It might not, of course, be
necessary for this to happen. If events unfold so as to make the earlier
introduction of fast reactors necessary, then it may well be that for commercial
reasons the privatised industry would pursue in their own interest the development
of fast reactors.’

It seems to me that if such events do unfold, Britain will not be in
a position to take advantage of changing circumstances. We cannot have our
nuclear cake and eat it.

My question arose as a result of hearing an excellent radio programme
on the future of RAF Caerwent in Wales. During the programme, Lionel Kelleway,
the narrator, had asked the station’s commander whether the MoD would wish
to retain the site because of its conservation value if at any time it became
surplus to military requirements. The commander replied: ‘Frankly, no. We
are in the game of maintaining the defence capability of the nation, not
of maintaining nature conservancy, although clearly where the two can go
hand in hand they will. I think it is reasonable to expect that, were that
to happen and were this land to become surplus to requirements from the
Ministry of Defence’s point of view, then in selling the land, which they
would do, they would clearly take note of the nature conservancy value in
terms of whatever lease or sale agreement was issued.’

King tells me that the officer’s statement accurately reflects the MoD’s
policy. Where land becomes surplus to requirements, it is disposed of. He
adds, however, that ‘we always endeavour to draw the attention of prospective
purchasers to any natural history assets, particularly those covered by
the Wildlife and Countryside Act and related legislation to which the new
owner would, of course, be bound.’

Personally, I have a different perspective: where MoD land is valuable
in terms of conservation it ought to be retained by the Nature Conservancy
Council, as part of our biological heritage. I hope to raise the matter
in Parliament.

* * *

WHEN my local newspaper carries a letter from a well-respected doctor,
suggesting that the House of Lords be given considerably greater powers
and made more effective because of the favourable impression it has created,
members of the House of Commons might ask why. I could furnish a few answers
concerning the bear-garden that masquerades as Prime Minister’s question
time, a sham if ever there was one. However, there is another aspect: the
quality of the reports produced by the Lords’ committees. An example would
be the report Marketing and use of pentachlorophenol, from a committee chaired
by Lord Cranbrook.

The report was produced in response to a proposal from Europe to restrict
the sale and use of pentachlorophenol (PCP), a powerful poison with a number
of applications. Although the British government goes along with most of
the Community’s proposals, it seeks to postpone for three years implementation
of a ban on the use of PCP in treating woodrots.

As it turns out, Lord Cranbrook and his colleagues agree with the European
Community, and do not support the government. They say that an attempt to
postpone the ban would be unworkable. They do not accept the government’s
case that PCP is indispensable for the control of dry rot, as alternatives
are available.

Now Virginia Bottomley, the junior environment minister, tells me that,
after reading the Lords’ report, she has asked her officials to review the
government’s policy before negotiations on the directive begin in Brussels.
I applaud this willingness to think again.

The Net Book Agreement is an arrangement allowing publishers to enforce
a minimum retail price for individual titles. The aim is to encourage booksellers
to hold a wide range of titles, secure in the knowledge that prices will
not be undermined by competitors. Schools and public libraries can buy books
at a discount.

Some publishers fear that, without the agreement, the number of booksellers
would be reduced and fewer titles would be published. Specialist books –
including scientific titles – would be particularly affected. However, there
are some very determined interests in the mass publishing industry who would
like to see an end to the agreement, and who think that they are more likely
to get their way with the new Secretary of State at the Department of Trade
and Industry, Nicholas Ridley. My advice to Perutz and other people campaigning
on this issue is to be as vigilant as ever and to maintain their pressure
for the retention of an agreement that is of intrinsic importance to the
advancement of science in Britain.

* * *

A FIRM, based in Italy, is thinking about setting up a plant to extract
chemicals from waste products in my constituency. The local reaction has
been concerned but level-headed, and we all want to know exactly what is
at stake. I am interested to find that it is not the process, as such, that
is causing most acute concern; it is the transport of waste and the risks
of road accidents.

This is a subject which comes up time and again during meetings. For
example, at a meeting at Shotts near Motherwell recently, I was asked what
I intend to do about cobalt-40 being spilled in the village of Clelland
by Ministry of Defence vehicles taking nuclear materials between Derby and
Rosyth. I am glad to learn, therefore, that the United Nations Environment
Programme has invited representatives of the Environment Safety Centre at
the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s establishment at Harwell in Oxfordshire
to take part in informal discussions on future legislation to control movements
of waste across frontiers.

* * *

THE anglers are upset. And no wonder. Once fruitful rivers are yielding
poor results. Seriously, as an MP, I am asked by constituents: ‘What are
you going to do to bring fishing back to what it used to be?’ And, if one
values the good will of one’s constituents, let alone their eventual votes,
you don’t sit on your backside and do nothing. Recently, I have become curiouser
and curiouser about the relationship between the planting of conifers and
the acidification of waters, which makes the breeding of salmon and sea
trout more difficult. So I approached my old friend Sir David Montgomery,
who has been a distinguished chairman of the Forestry Commission.

Montgomery tells me that the commission is at present collaborating
with the Welsh Water Authority in re-evaluating the results of a new study
into the phenomenon, surveying 140 upland Welsh streams which were first
looked at in 1984. The study will take into account additional information
on soil type, acid deposition inputs and the age of the forests. Montgomery
hopes that the analysis will answer the question of whether planting conifers
has made the problem of acidification of waters significantly worse than
it otherwise would have been.

I am glad that, while it awaits the outcome of the study, the Forestry
Commission is getting on with the task of establishing the most effective
way of ameliorating water acidity, by applying liming materials. Given its
good work, a free vote of MPs would be overwhelmingly against any proposed
privatisation of the Forestry Commission, which could be interpreted as
dismemberment.

Given the price of periodicals, let alone books, Pounds sterling 9 million
will not go far. Surely a rich country, such as Britain, can afford to do
better.

* * *

I AM rather puzzled about the government’s attitude to the future of
the National Fruit Collection at the Experimental Horticulture Station at
Brogdale in Kent. Although a final decision has yet to be made, the station
faces closure as a result of the government’s policy of getting industry
to pay for research that is deemed to be ‘near market’. David Maclean, the
new junior minister for agriculture, has just written to me outlining the
present position.

The training work at Brogdale involves the evaluation of different varieties
of fruit before commercial production. As such, Maclean says, the work is
undoubtedly near market, and of direct benefit to growers. Unfortunately,
he says, although the government has gone to ‘great lengths’ to encourage
fruit growing and retailing businesses to pay for the work, it seems unlikely
that the industry will oblige.

That said, Maclean goes on to tell me that the government is firmly
committed to ensuring that the fruit collection is preserved. As he puts
it: ‘We are very much aware of its national and international importance
as a source of genetic diversity and its unique place in our nation’s heritage.
This is why our decision on Brogdale is tied in with the consideration of
arrangements for the future of the collection currently based there.

‘This may well involve moving the collection to another suitable site,
a prospect which has caused some public concern. However, it is not always
realised that the collection has been moved successfully before from Wisley
to Brogdale, and that the trees and bushes are already regrafted onto new
rootstocks regularly in order to preserve their vigour.’

Maclean assures me that, if such a move turned out to be necessary,
great care would be taken to ensure that the collection was not damaged
in any way, and that the new site was suitable. He adds that the government
will not make a final decision until it is quite sure that its choice represents
‘the best security for the collection that can be achieved’.

I ask myself: can it be horticulturally or financially sensible to uproot
such a collection yet again? I am seeking advice from the director of Kew.

* * *

I RARELY recommend annual reports. However, I will make an exception
in the case of the informative annual report of the Science Policy Research
Unit at the University of Sussex, better known as SPRU. Among other matters,
what the unit says about technology and arms control is highly relevant
to the new ministers at the Foreign Office.

Crucial to the long-term stability of the chemical warfare disarmament
treaty will be provisions whereby states may assure themselves that manufacturing
and other capacities of the civilian chemical industry are not being exploited
for purposes outlawed by the treaty. Thus, says SPRU, further regulation
of the chemical industry by central government will be required to provide
the necessary controls, and there will be trade-offs between effective control
measures and freedom of industrial enterprise which will need to be indentified
as possible bases for negotiation.

Julian Perry Robinson at SPRU has characteristically touched on the
nub of the political question. Parliaments – Western, Eastern and Third
World – should be getting together and asking chemical industries (usually,
de facto, multi-national), what they are going to do. I hear that there
are moves afoot in the Inter-Parliamentary Union to address this problem.