¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

Last week Britain went to the polls. Now it’s time for our chosen party to
get down to business. Next Wednesday that government must decide what aspects of
its election manifesto it will attempt to implement in the first parliamentary
session. Because it was a summer election, the first session will run for 13
months—far longer than is normal. The government will clearly be aiming to
include those issues that it considers to be of the highest importance.

Given the dreadful times that farmers have suffered—what with foot and
mouth disease, BSE and swine fever—and the restrictions to roam large
parts of the British countryside, rural issues will loom large, as also will the
cost of petrol at the pump. But when it comes to global warming, will the
government take decisive action?

ANYONE who contracted measles as a child knows it’s no joke, and the
complications can be even worse. As ¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ reported recently,
measles is still the big killer of children, especially in poor countries where
vaccination is limited
(14 April, p 3 and
p 12). Nearly a million people die
from it each year, and many of those who survive are left brain damaged. In
1990, the UN set a target of 90 per cent of all children in the world to be
vaccinated against the disease by 2000. But only 75 per cent have been—
even though the cost per head is only a measly 26 cents.

Yvette Cooper, who was the public health minister until last week, tells me
that the World Health Organization (WHO) views the global burden of measles most
seriously, and several WHO regions—notably the Americas, the Western
Pacific and Europe—have already set goals for eliminating it. The Americas
are now close to interrupting measles transmission throughout the region.
Britain has been especially active in developing an anti-measles strategy at
WHO, she said, and the strategy within the European region is closely modelled
on the British programme.

This is good news indeed, but I gather we still face contentious issues such
as mutation of the measles virus which would make present vaccines
ineffective.

THE Council of Europe says that the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD) has no business promoting nuclear power in Ukraine
(¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ, 24 March, p 55).
I think this is silly, and said so to Peter
Hain, the minister for energy and competitiveness in Europe in the last
government.

Hain replied that Britain backs loans for the completion of Ukraine’s two new
nuclear reactors, subject to Ukraine meeting the conditions laid down by the
EBRD—such as reform of the energy sector and improved nuclear safety. The
EBRD loan has been agreed in principle, but some conditions have still to be
satisfied.

Hain went on to say that neither the EBRD nor the wider international
community is in the business of promoting nuclear power in Ukraine. The bank’s
decision to offer loans reflects the conclusions of an extensive analysis of
Ukraine’s long-term energy requirements, as well as its government’s desire to
complete the new reactors. These are already some 80 per cent built and do not
have the safety defects of the Chernobyl design. As part of the 1995 memorandum
of understanding between the G7 group of leading industrial nations, the
European Union and Ukraine on the closure of Chernobyl, the G7 undertook to work
with Ukraine and international financial institutions to find loan finance for
the completion of the two new reactors.

It would be folly not to help Ukraine now that it is widely recognised that
nuclear is the greenest form of energy.