Westminster
WHEN I was first elected to the House of Commons, in May 1962, the essence of my election campaign was to address 46 public evening meetings in towns and villages around this part of Scotland; six pit-head meetings at local collieries, which I repeated not only for their second shifts but also for the night ones; five meetings at local foundries; 15 lunch-time meetings at factories; and a huge mass meeting at the British Motor Corporation, in Bathgate, which was then the largest machine shop under one roof in Europe.
Now, thirty-five years later, many high-tech firms in my constituency, such as Motorola, Hewlett-Packard and Sun Electronics, tend not to countenance political meetings on their premises and, in any case, many of their employees come from far afield, from other constituencies if not other countries. And when people are confronted by a surfeit of politics on television they tend not to want to go to political meetings in the evening, other than for a 鈥渜uestion time鈥� event in which candidates meet under the auspices of a church or community group.
Advertisement
Party leaders, of course, have access to television, but for the rest of us campaigning means 鈥渙peration shoe leather鈥� through door-to-door canvassing. With the aid of two or three different helpers, depending on their availability, I swear I knocked on more than 10 000 doors, Monday to Saturday over the six weeks leading up to the election itself. Consequently, the electorate was able to question me on all kinds of policy matters and to air its concerns and grievances. In the memorable words of Lyndon Johnson: 鈥淭here is no real substitute for `pressing the flesh鈥�.鈥�
ARE North Sea cod stocks spiralling into catastrophic decline? They may not have been a major election issue but it was one topic about which I was questioned on many doorsteps while electioneering. A recent report from the House of Lords fisheries subcommittee, chaired by Lord Perry, claims that the demise of the tasty cod is all too likely. And even the previous ministerial incumbents of the Scottish Office were wont to admit that the risks to cod stocks were real.
So, as Lord Perry tells me: 鈥淧oliticians had better understand, and rapidly so, that if drastic action is not taken, valuable and familiar fish such as cod, sole and turbot will no longer be appearing on any fishmonger鈥檚 slab.鈥�
Although the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has recommended for many years that cod fishing efforts be reduced, Conservative fisheries ministers were doubtful that these risks would actually lead to catastrophe. After all, Robin Cook, a marine biologist at the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen, had found that the pattern of decline of cod stocks was a progressive one which did not suggest any imminent collapse, as Fred Pearce recently reported (This Week, 8 February, p 6). Optimistic ministers were quick to reassure enquirers that effective remedial action was still possible.
ICES had advised that if fishing was reduced systematically over a number of years, cod stocks would increase significantly. If 20 per cent fewer cod were fished, ICES claimed, there would be a 95 per cent probability of stocks recovering in the medium term to well above its basic viability level鈥攖he so-called minimum biologically acceptable level (MBAL). In fact, recovery to the MBAL threshold could be achieved in as little as two years, ICES added.
Under the Conservatives, the fisheries ministers were disparaging of the view held by Lord Selborne, eminent chair of the House of Lords science and technology committee, that fisheries managers were taking advantage of 鈥渟cience鈥� to set total allowable catches (TAC) at too high a level.
Ministers asserted that Britain had sought to apply responsible quota limits; and that the North Sea TACs agreed between the European Community and Norway in recent years was in line with scientific advice. For example, they said, the 1997 TAC for North Sea cod precisely applies the 20 per cent reduction in fishing mortality advocated by ICES to aid the stock鈥檚 recovery.
BEFORE the election, Ian Taylor, the science and technology minister in the outgoing administration, offered an addendum to my recent piece on the problems faced by Russia in maintaining its space programme and Spike Gerrell鈥檚 delicious accompanying cartoon of a harassed Russian with a placard saying: 鈥淲ife, six kids, and space programme to support鈥� (15 March, p 48).
Taylor said that the European Space Agency (ESA) has kept a close eye on the financial situation in Russia and its contributions to the International Space Station (ISS). As part of this, ESA and NASA signed an agreement in principle on 5 March under which ESA will provide NASA with additional hardware and services for the ISS鈥攁s part of a deal in which the European laboratory module would be launched on the shuttle. This will allow important equipment for the ISS to be delivered quickly and on time, and help keep the station鈥檚 assembly on schedule.
Clearly, there is a determination to keep the momentum going.