Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Is the Queen’s speech in mid-November likely to contain any reference
to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the government?
It would, to put it gently, be a pity if Britain were not to be ‘an original
party’ to the convention which it has done so much to develop and support
since 1968. I understand that no such inclusion is intended. Why on earth
not?

* * *

I am amazed that people seem to think they have a right to transplants.
The truth is that expectations have exceeded what is possible. And hopes
are raised even further when one reads that researchers at the American
Red Cross in Bethesda, Maryland, have developed a sophisticated mixture
of formamide, dimethyl sulphoxide and propylene glycol (the so-called ‘antifreeze’
in the blend) with which it may soon be possible to preserve human organs
outside the body almost indefinitely (Technology, 31 July).

Justifiably, Tom Sackville, the junior health minister, is being cool
about cryopreservation as we are still some way from its ‘clinical application’.
Presently it is used to preserve simpler tissue such as heart valves. If
research progresses to a stage where its wider use would be appropriate,
the Department of Health, Sackville said, would ‘facilitate’ its use in
organ transplantation. He emphasised, though, that this decision must be
initially taken by the medical profession. In the meantime, the desperate
search for organs continues daily while many suitable ones go up in flames
in the crematorium incinerator.

* * *

Price Waterhouse, at the behest of the Department of Trade and Industry,
is reviewing the position of the Patent Office after its three years as
a government agency. The aim is to determine whether other forms of ownership
and management might be better value for money and enable the office to
offer a better service to its customers. It comes as no surprise that the
office’s trade unions are opposed to privatisation either in whole or in
part. Kevin Etheridge, the vice-chair of the Patent Office Trades Unions,
has sent me their submission to the review team. They point out fairly that
whichever body administers or helps to administer the patent, trade mark
and design systems must have no interest in industrial property as a provider
of services and the like. Otherwise the body might act to the detriment
of others in a matter in which it had a vested interest. Clearly, we don’t
want company X, owning trademarks, a public trading style and possibly patents,
being involved in the decision whether or not company Y should be granted
a patent or trademark. The unions believe this rules out franchising or
partial privatisation of the statutory functions of the Patent Office. The
office must be free to make all its decisions purely on their legal merits
‘without fear or favour’.

* * *

When New Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ claimed in ‘Sites of special lack of interest’ (Comment,
7 August) that the government was half-hearted about the implementation
of the European Commission’s habitats directive, and that no new legislation
was planned, I put the criticism to Tim Yeo, the junior environment minister.
He replied that there was already in Britain a strong framework of policies
and legal provisions for the conservation of nature. To a large extent,
the obligations imposed by the Commission’s Habitats Directive, he said,
are no more than Britain had accepted under existing policies. There is,
however, a requirement to transpose the specific obligations set out in
the directive into law.

At the beginning of October the Department of the Environment published
a consultation paper on the matter. This invites comment on the DoE’s proposals
for implementing aspects of the directive and outlines the legislative
measures the government thinks will be necessary. The government, said Yeo,
expected to present draft regulations in the autumn to amend legislation
relating to land use planning and development control. He emphasised that
the government was committed to pursuing its conservation aims by voluntary
means backed up by statutory powers, but added: ‘We are anxious to avoid
the introduction of over-prescriptive legislation.’

I hope readers will take the opportunity to comment on the consultation
paper.