Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

ON 1 April 1981, Margaret Thatcher reiterated what she had told me in
1979, namely, that in appropriate cases she would play a coordinating role
on science policy. To the best of my knowledge this is still the position.
So it seemed reasonable that I should ask her to comment on New Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ’s
editoral of 12 August, ‘Sovereignty in science’, which discussed funding
of the next stage of the Framework programme, and suggested that, once again,
Britain was dragging its heels over a European initiative on research. In
particular, I asked her to respond to the editorial’s assertion that Britain
is making an effort ‘to cut every scientific budget in sight’, and to the
suggestion that some power over the implementation of Framework ought to
be given to MEPs. I have now received her reply.

The Prime Minister tells me that she read the editorial ‘with interest’.
She goes on: ‘The assertion that Britain is making an effort to cut ‘every
scientific budget in sight’ does not square with the increased provision
we have made for basic and long-term strategic research by the universities
and the research councils. As a result of this, the DES science budget has
grown by 15 per cent between 1988-89 and 1989-90.

‘As regards the implementation of Framework, the delegation of powers
to the Commission and the relevant procedures within the EC for coordination
and cooperation are clearly set out in the Single European Act and subsequent
decisions by member states.’

Now, the Prime Minister and I have failed to see eye to eye on various
issues in the past. Even so I find her response a little curt. More importantly,
however, she has not addressed the main point of the editorial: that the
funding of European science is getting tangled up in squabbles about sovereignty.
I would have thought that, as a former research student of Dorothy Hodgkin,
and having taken on responsibility for coordinating science policy, she
could have provided a more constructive response.

MPs thought before the summer recess that part of the government’s ‘green
package’ might be a tax on nitrogenous fertilisers. I now understand from
agricultural ministers that consideration has been given to the proposal,
and it has been booted out of the window. They say that the chief drawback
is that the proposal would apply to all users of nitrogenous fertiliser,
‘irrespective of whether they were contributing to a nitrate problem’, and
would not affect major and possibly more important, sources of nitrate-leaching
such as the ploughing up of grassland, and leaving land bare in the autumn.

I have to accept the latter point. However, we should be careful about
making the good the enemy of the best, and I still think it would be a good
idea to impose a gentle tax on nitrates, if only to make those who want
to use them think twice before doing so. It might not be the epitome of
equity, but then the pursuit of equity may prove to be an enemy of improving
the environment.

I RAISED with Treasury ministers, who are responsible for Customs and
Excise, the issue of punishment for plant theft, so carefully outlined by
Stephanie Pain in her article ‘The case of the stolen slippers’ (New Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ,
24 June). I told them that I was appalled by the way in which the excellent
work of Customs and Excise, in relation to the smuggling of rare orchids
by Henry Azadehdel, had been undermined by the Court of Appeal’s decision
to reduce Azadehdel’s sentence.

Malcolm Caithness, the Treasury minister responsible for such matters,
replied: ‘Customs tell me that they share your own disappointment at the
recent Court of Appeal decision in the case of Henry Azadehdel. They have
assured me, however, that they will not be deterred from instituting proceedings
in any further suitable cases. I am satisfied that, within the limits of
their resources, Customs are doing everything possible to counter illegal
importations of any endangered species, not only plants.’

I am thankful for the assurance that they will not be deterred.