My own MP later obtained a similarly meaningless response from Charles Wardle MP, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the DTI.I then wrote to John Collier, chairman of Nuclear Electric (a friend and ex-colleague since the early 1960s), who excused his paucity of response for reasons of security. From Mr John Byfield Sir: In his article "Brent Spar: a hollow victory" (23 June), the director- general of the British Nuclear Industry Forum writes about the need for better communication between the nuclear industry and the public. Having retired from many years' professional employment on reactor operation and safety in the UK Atomic Energy Authority (when I was privy to the most sensitive information), I have for a considerable time been attempting to ascertain from friends and ex-colleagues how the increased threat in the last decade (ie, post-Cold War) of UK nuclear installations being bombed has been evaluated. My first shock was to learn from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) thatthe danger of a nuclear power station being bombed in a terrorist attack, causing releases of radioactivity to the atmosphere, falls beyond our remit [my italics].My inquiry was passed by the NII to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) from whom a completely uninformative reply was received, couched in terms which, in my former employment, would have been derisory as a safety justification. Equality in negotiations comes only after establishing equality in strength on the battleground.Yours faithfully,Salah EzzOxford24 July. From Mrs Sandra Harris Sir: I hope no one sitting in the proposed plush new surroundings of the Royal Opera House needs urgent medical treatment. With so many central London accident and emergency departments closing down or suffering crippling cutbacks, they may well wish the lottery money had been put to better use - caring for the needs of many not the entertainment of the chosen few.Yours faithfully,Sandra HarrisEdgware, Middlesex. This is evident by the fact that only in government- controlled areas can one find Muslim-Catholic-Orthodox co-existence.Finally, Mr Tintor's call for pressuring "all parties in Bosnia to negotiate directly with each other on equal terms" is mischievous. There are no "equal terms" when one party, with a gun held to its head and its women either raped or waiting to be raped, is pressured to "negotiate".

The Bosnian government has always objected to being labelled "Muslim" and insisted on being referred to as "Bosnian", serving Bosnians of all religions. From Dr. Salah Ezz Sir: George Tintor's statement (Letters, 24 July) that "the Bosnian Muslims, not the Serbs, have initiated all the recent fighting" is ludicrous. By systematically blocking aid convoys of food and medicine to besieged "safe areas", it was the tactic of Radovan Karadzic's Serbs to starve the population into submission, a tactic which drove the Bosnians into desperate attempts to bring in relief. His claim that it was the Bosnians' aim "from the start .. to draw Western forces into the conflict" is a distortion. The Bosnian government asks nothing more than the implementation of UN mandates.

It made it clear "from the start" that it wants no foreigner to die for Bosnia.His reference to "Muslim-ruled Bosnia" echoes the poisonous propaganda coming from Pale. In preferring the bleached and dilapidated remnant of Augustus Pugin's factory to the elegant and striking icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary by John Hayward - Sherborne's choice for the new window - Mr Fenton is, well, just wrong. Yours sincerely,Andrew DuffLondon, SW125 July. From Mr Andrew Duff Sir: In attacking the "vandals" of Sherborne, James Fenton ("Old, faded - but no, vicar, not throwaway", 24 July) is guilty of breathtaking metropolitan arrogance. In seeking to turn this wonderful early English perpendicular church into a museum for Victoriana, he is perverse. None of them has the luxury of a civil service pension, most of which would cost between pounds 250,000 and pounds 1m if they had been purchased in the private sector.They are hard-working people who have taken risks which they hope will pay off.

Sadly, for some, they won't and their share options will be worthless. However even those with worthless options will at least have had the satisfaction of knowing that their employer, encouraged by the Government, had given them the chance to gain capital and increase their ownership of the nation's wealth. For those employees whose share options do become valuable, there is the satisfaction of knowing they have achieved financial security for themselves and their families.This widening of ownership forms a significant theme in all the Prime Minister's philosophical speeches - I cannot find one that does not mention it.Indeed, the concept of further widening ownership was forcefully pressed upon the nation in the last Conservative manifesto, which specifically mentioned how in 1992 we had improved executive share-option schemes as well as encouraging the less-popular SAYE share-option schemes. That manifesto was supported by 14m voters - the highest vote for a political party in the history of the UK.These share-option schemes have become a great success - more than 6,000 companies have one. They carry no certainty of profit: not only must the beneficiary work hard to succeed but so must everyone in the company. Share options also have the advantage of developing a mutuality of interest between shareholders and employees, which certainly does no harm to the UK's business environment.So why change all this? And who determines Conservative Party policies? Is it the Inland Revenue or is it ministers, MPs and our manifesto commitments to the electorate? These are the questions I am hoping Mr Clarke can answer today.The writer is Conservative MP for Dover..

Share options provide an opportunity for many to mitigate the associated personal financial risks and provide for their family's future. Hardly any of these people are wealthy and few, if any, were born with wealth. Many people do not work in the traditional large companies but in smaller and medium- sized companies - perhaps four or more over their lifetimes. Work patterns have changed significantly in the past 10 years. There were suggestions yesterday that the Chancellor was retreating from his ill-judged decision to tax share options.