I will demand praise for completing this epic journey in less than three hours, while blaming myself for never having ventured this way before I’m only human, after all. Clearly, if I am ever to scale the peak of true enlightenment, I still have a long way to go.Frank Partridge paid £799 for a two-week package with Kuoni (01306 744444), staying in three-star hotels A single room supplement cost a further £140 Low season prices (June to November) start at around £499. Sri Lanka Tourist Board: 26-27 Oxenden Street, London SW1Y 4EL (tel 020 7930 2627).. Britain’s most senior judge has called for the setting up of a special court to protect the environment in the wake of growing distrust of Whitehall’s scientific advisers. Britain’s most senior judge has called for the setting up of a special court to protect the environment in the wake of growing distrust of Whitehall’s scientific advisers.Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, said the BSE crisis, GM food trials and the foot-and-mouth epidemic had created a “perception that politically expedient decisions” were taking “priority over what is really in the interest of the public and the environment”.He said the lack of public scrutiny had caused “a vicious spiral of secrecy leading to suspicion, and sometimes irrational hysteria about the environment”.A new court, staffed by specialist judges and backed up by a regulatory body to oversee the work of scientists, would help protect the environment and public, he said. A proper regulator involved in the BSE crisis at an early stage might have averted the catastrophy by “demanding tough action”.Lord Woolf’s comments put him on a collision course with the Government, which has already rejected its own report recommending an Environmental Court.A study commissioned last May by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and undertaken by Professor Malcolm Grant, concluded there was an overwhelming case for a new court.Professor Grant found there was a “lack of access to environmental justice” and a lack of expertise in magistrates’ courts to handle complex criminal prosecutions. But in October the Government decided the reform was unnecessary.Lord Woolftold an audience of environmentalists and lawyers that Britain should follow countries like Australia and New Zealand, which have developed expertise in this field of law.

He also pointed to India, whose written constitution grants citizens protection from environmental pollution.He said the kind of issues raised before the new court might include the quality of scientific advice that ministers had relied upon when making a decision. He suggested that “undue weight” given to the economic arguments in an environmental case could be called into question by those using the court. He saiddecisions should be subjected to proper scrutiny because scientists were “rarely able to advise us of activities or products which are either 100 per cent safe or 100 per cent dangerous”.Lord Woolf added that the law should ensure the policy-making process was of the highest standard: “I suspect that one of the reasons there appears to be a growing public distrust of scientists today, particularly official scientists, is because they were treated as infallible in the past.”Deliveringthe Environmental Law Foundation lecture in London on Thursday, he said the public had a right to know that the Government was making policy on “sound” scientific advice and hoped the Human Rights Act would be used to protect the environment.. The BSE crisis, controversy over GM food trials and the policy of mass slaughter employed in the foot-and-mouth epidemic has spread deep-rooted public distrust of ministers and their scientific advisers.

The BSE crisis, controversy over GM food trials and the policy of mass slaughter employed in the foot-and-mouth epidemic has spread deep-rooted public distrust of ministers and their scientific advisers. Now judges want to call policy makers to account in a court of law where they will be asked to justify their decisions and present the science for all to see.The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, told environmentalists last week that a series of environmental crises meant public unease had reached “exceptional heights”.Under the Woolf proposals an environmental court would handle a broad range of cases where all interest groups would have their say. The scientific evidence would be in the public domain and specialist judges would be able to highlight the risks and the benefits of taking forward controversial policies.The court would also be backed up by a regulatory system which could evaluate the work of scientists as well as giving them “due recognition”.Lord Woolf’s estimation of growing public concern in this area is mirrored by research published in The Ecologist magazine last month. It showed that the exposure of Whitehall’s incompetence during the BSE crisis together with vast public opposition to GM foods and anxiety about the foot-and- mouth epidemic, has caused 72 per cent of the public to disregard ministers giving reassurances of public safety.The Centre for the Study of Environmental Change at Lancaster University said last year that “controversies of the GM kind arise because of reasonable public concerns about areas where there is sensed to be no knowledge.”And a 1998 Royal Commission report on environmental pollution concluded that there was a need for “transparency and openness” in all aspects of environmental management and that there should be opportunities for the public to “exert an influence on that process”.

The feeling that matters of national environmental safety have been decided in secret by ministers with access to unbalanced scientific advice has added to the public’s sense of distrust. When governments want to show the public they have nothing to hide they set up inquiries chaired by judges. So it seems a natural progression to ask the judiciary to help open closed-door policy-making.The BSE inquiry was led by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Master of the Rolls, who is a close friend of Lord Woolf. Lawyers believe Lord Phillips’ experience in charge of the inquiry has shaped the Lord Chief Justice’s views on the environment.In his report, Lord Phillips saw the need for open government so there would be no repeat of what he suggested was an honest scientific mistake about the infectiousness of BSE, combined with bureaucratic incompetence and bad PR.Lord Woolf believes there is a similar fear about GM foods and the “mass production of food for our tables”.He said last week that a recent Commons committee report on agriculture illustrated the problem when it found that its “prime concern” was to ensure that farmers and consumers were able to make “informed choices” about GM foods.Lord Woolf told his audience: “In the present technological change, described by some as second industrial revolution, perhaps we need the courage to stand back and question our past assumptions as lawyers.”Whether it is the danger of cancer from mobile phones or noise from a new airport terminal, the seemingly endless acceleration in the development of science and technology brings with it novel challenges to society.”. Sixteen people, including two youths, were arrested after police raided a cockfight, the RSPCA said yesterday.