The Court of Protection – Who Does It Protect?

Up to two years ago most members of the Exeter branch of the British National Party would probably never have heard of the Court of Protection (CoP).  However, that was to change when a certain John Coles approached our ReferendumNow petition signing stall held in the St. Thomas’s area of Exeter.  He was pleading for help in his quest to visit his ailing wife who had been incarcerated in the Greenslades Nursing Home, and he has been banned by the CoP from having any contact with her.  As local members will know, we have been supporting John’s campaign for the last two years and have become only too aware of the draconian power that the CoP has and how difficult it is for ordinary people to challenge the injustices of its rulings.  Over the past six months there has been more articles written in the newspapers concerning the secrecy of the CoP, and the injustices of many of its decisions.

What is the Court of Protection?       

The Court of Protection in English law is a superior court of record created under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  It has jurisdiction over the property, financial affairs and personal welfare of people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.  Among its various roles the CoP is responsible for determining disputes as to the registration of Enduring Powers of Attorney, and Lasting Powers of Attorney, appointing new trustees, authorising certain gifts and making statutory wills.  Examples of personal welfare issues determined by the court are decisions about where protected persons live, who they see and how they are cared for.  The offices and full-time Judges of the CoP are located in the Thomas Moore Building at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, London.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) categorises vulnerable adults, over which the CoP has jurisdiction, as groups including: people with mental health problems, dementia, substance abuse problems, brain injuries and learning difficulties.  The court’s powers cover a variety of contentious issues such as compelling individuals to undergo abortion and/or sterilisation, the administering or removal of feeding tubes, and the management of property and financial assets belonging to vulnerable adults.

Individuals who are reluctant (or who outright refuse) to make a decision regarding specific aspects of their lives because of their political convictions are not recognised as a group under the Act.  This relegates them to the status of ‘lacking mental capacity’ which allows swift and convenient decisions to be reached. (Could this be used to suppress members of the BNP from expressing their points of view?)  

The functions of the CoP are briefly outlined on the Devon County Council website; an edited extract is detailed below: 

What is the Court of Protection?

·       The Court of Protection is a superior court of record. It has the same rights, privileges, powers and authority as the High Court.  It is able to establish precedent – that means it can establish case law which gives examples of how the law should be put into practice.  The Court of Protection has been established to build up expertise in matters relating to capacity.

·       The Court of Protection follows the statutory Principles of MCA in all its work.

·       Before MCA came into force there was a Court of Protection which dealt only with the financial affairs of people who lacked capacity to manage their own affairs.  The new Court also deals with serious decisions about health and welfare.

·       The Court of Protection is the ultimate decision maker.  If it is not possible to make a decision about someone’s best interests or if someone wishes to object to a decision made under MCA, the Court of Protection can make a decision. The Court of Protection should be the last resort for any such decisions.

·       Decisions concerning people aged 16 or 17 who lack mental capacity can be heard in the Court of Protection or in a court dealing with family proceedings.  A Court that has powers under the Children’s Act can transfer cases to the Court of Protection and vice versa, depending on the situation.

Court of Protection declarations:

·       The Court of Protection can make declarations – a court determination about one particular decision.

·       The Court can make a declaration about someone’s mental capacity.  This rarely happens: it would be relevant if the person wants to challenge a decision about their mental capacity, or if professionals or family members cannot agree about someone’s mental capacity to make a serious decision.

·       The Court can make a declaration about the lawfulness of a specific act.  This will usually refer to a proposed form of serious medical treatment where there is doubt or disagreement over whether the treatment would be in the person’s best interests.  Decisions involving the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from people in a persistent vegetative state, organ or bone marrow donation by the person who lacks capacity, non-therapeutic sterilisation and other situations where there are ethical dilemmas must be referred to the Court.

·       The Court can make a decision about where someone should live or what care they should receive if other decision making processes do not apply.  If a proposed action (e.g. to move someone out of their home) will deprive them of their liberty, this cannot be agreed under the MCA.  The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards do not always apply (e.g. if the person is to move into a Supported Living placement).  The Mental Health Act (MHA) may apply if the person is suffering from a mental disorder, but someone may lack capacity and not be suffering from a mental disorder, or the MHA may not be relevant.  In such (rare) cases the only legal way to undertake the act is after a declaration made by the Court of Protection.

·       The Court can make a declaration where there is a major disagreement about a serious decision – for instance about where someone should live. This might apply if all local attempts to resolve a family dispute had failed.

·       The Court can make a declaration if it is suspected that someone who lacks capacity may be at risk of harm or abuse from a named individual.  The Court could make a declaration authorising the local authority to stop contact between the named person and the person who lacks capacity.

·       A declaration from the Court of Protection should always be the last resort; after all other means of making a decision have been exhausted.  If you think Court of Protection action may be necessary make sure you have legal advice from the relevant legal team and make sure you have advice from the local Safeguarding Adults Team and/or MCA Lead.

Court Appointed Deputies

·       The Court of Protection also appoints and monitors the work of deputies. These are people appointed to make decisions about someone’s property and affairs or welfare.

·       A Property and Affairs Deputy should be appointed when someone has savings and/or property or their financial affairs are complex, they do not have capacity to manage their own affairs and have not appointed a LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney) or EPA (Enduring Power of Attorney) to do this for them.

·       Anyone can be appointed as Property and Affairs deputy by the Court.  This can be a family member or friend, a solicitor or the local authority.

·       Advice about the appointment of a Property and Affairs deputy is available in Devon from the Court of Protection Team.  In Torbay, contact should be made with the Client Proxy finance Officer.

·       Welfare deputies are rarely appointed.  The Court prefers that each individual decision is made using the best interest’s procedure.  If court action is necessary the preferred route is to make one decision, rather than appoint a deputy.

·       If any statutory agency receives a referral requesting the appointment of a Welfare Deputy, this matter should be passed to the Safeguarding Adults Team and/or the MCA Lead.

·       A deputy is appointed by the Court of Protection after a court hearing. It is always necessary to have a medical decision concerning someone’s capacity if a deputy is to be appointed.

The Court of Protection and LPAs

·       The Court of Protection is ultimately responsible for the appointment of LPAs and EPAs

·       The Court can give directions to an attorney

·       The Court can cancel the appointment of an attorney if there is evidence that the attorney is not acting in the best interests of the person.  The Court might decide then to appoint a deputy to take over the role.

This appears to be all very commendable, which is designed to protect the weakest members of society from exploitation and abuse.  So what can possibly go wrong with a court system which is designed to be benevolent towards the mentally and physically incapacitated members within our society – quite a lot in fact! 

Does the Court of Protection Function as Intended?      

There have been many complaints over the years concerning the secrecy in which the workings of the various courts are carried out.  Considering that the Court deals with some of the most politically and ethically controversial issues of marginalised and silenced people in our society, the CoP is rarely reported on.  This blackout is, in large part, due to the many barriers people face when trying to investigate its actions.   As a general rule, cases are heard in private, but the Court of Protection Rules of 2007 do permit the media to attend hearings and to publish information relating to proceedings.  The application process, however, is complicated and expensive, often involving many hearings so that a judge can decide whether there is “good reason” to allow press attendance based on the competing interests of Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  If authorisation is given for media to be present, further decisions then need to be made for subsequent reporting and the extent of such reporting; decisions often include restricting the publication of any information which leads to the identity of the parties being revealed, and in some cases, mentioning that the order exists.  This is so even for politically sensitive cases which trigger public interest.

In a majority of cases the Courts function as intended, with most vulnerable people given the protection that they deserve.  But what has happened over the past few years is that its power has been exploited by service providers who wish to use the Court’s power to protect the anonymity of a vulnerable person to conceal malpractices within its own organization.  Those organizations with a vested interest in using the CoP can include the care-home providers and County Councils who pay for the vulnerable people under their care.         

How Does the Court of Protection Deviate From its Prime Purpose?      

How can the CoP’s duty in protecting vulnerable people be exploited by persons or organizations to further their own interests?  The following are a list of examples by which the CoP deviates from its prime function?

Abuse by Local Authorities and Care-home Providers

By promoting the concept of acting in the best interest, an unscrupulous care-home owner can use the CoP to prevent the vulnerable person’s relations from visiting them or acting on their behalf.

Evidence of this abuse is evident in the case of John Coles, who was prevented by the CoP from having contact with his wife at the Greenslades care home in Exeter.  They made false allegations against John so that they could gain control over his wife’s care and affairs – so preventing John from moving his wife to a different care-home and protecting the council grant of some £40,000 per year for her care.  

Quite often the County Council is likely to collude with the unscrupulous care-home owner to preserve the availability of their care facilities for an ever expanding elderly population suffering from dementia – as in the case of John Coles’ wife.

As Devon BNP members will know, we have been involved with John Coles for the past two years, and even produced a leaflet for him to distribute around Exeter; as shown below:

The full story was displayed on the website, such that it could be down-loaded and printed out in PDF format.  However, the solicitors for Greenslades managed to get a Judge in the USA to issue a subpoena against the website provider to close the site down.   

Often it is local authorities who wilfully abuse their powers to get a vulnerable person’s disability rating upgrade from challenging behaviour to extreme challenging behaviour.  In cases of extreme challenging behaviour it is the NHS that foots the bill, not the local authority.  This became very apparent in the case of Steven Neary, who was a mentally disabled young man and lived with is father.  When his father became ill Steven was temporarily sent to a care-home where he had stayed on many previous occasions.   At the end of that first day in the care-home the staff felt themselves ‘unable to cope with Stephen’; so the care-home transferred him to the ominously named ‘Positive Behaviour Unit’.  Now the Positive Behaviour Unit is a mighty politically-correct place.  Tap someone on the shoulder to attract their attention, and they don’t think ‘that is how Steven has always attracted my attention since he was a child’ – they say – ‘he touched me, that’s an assault’ and promptly record it in their daily log.   

When Steven’s father went to collect him after three days, the Positive Behaviour Unit had logged many such ‘assaults’ – and announced that they were retaining Steven for ‘assessment’.  No! His father couldn’t take him home. 

The longer they kept Steven away from his father, the more upset he became, and the more people he tapped on the shoulder to ask when he might be allowed home again.  Eventually the Positive Behaviour Unit had logged 306 such incidents over a seven month period, and decided that Steven’s behaviour was ‘so challenging’ that he could never be allowed to return home.  Despite the fact that by this time the unhappy Steven had been assessed as ‘extremely challenging’ – too ‘dangerous’ to be returned to his father’s care. 

Steven, unattended by these ‘professional behaviour managers’ managed to slip out of the Unit, in his pyjamas, and attempted to return home.  Now comes the interesting bit!  Whilst Steven lived happily at home, he had the support of professional carers from the ‘Trinity Noir’ company.  Steven’s father was very happy with the level of support and had no complaints.  The Local Authority (Hillingdon in London) footed the bill, as is their legal duty.  Changing Steven’s diagnosis from “autism, severe learning difficulties and challenging behaviour”, to “extreme challenging behaviour, learning difficulties and possible autistic spectrum disorder” may seem very trivial, but on such finite definitions rest the liability to pay for Steven.  The new diagnosis would shift the responsibility for care onto the NHS Primary Care Trust – so the local authority would be rid of the burden for Steven’s care. 

Fortunately, on appeal a Judge ordered that Steven be released from the Positive Behaviour Unit in time for Christmas 2010.

Abuse Due to Unnecessary Secrecy

It seems incredible that virtually every decision made by the CoP is subject to secrecy.  Once John Coles’ wife came under the protection of the CoP it became an offence merely to state that she was resident at the Greenslades nursing home.  Why should that be?  She was in no danger; and from whom did she need protection – certainly not from her husband?   Furthermore, virtually all the court hearings are held in chambers (behind closed doors) with only the Judge, the care-home’s lawyer and the defendant present.  On leaving the chambers the defendant is not allowed to speak to anybody concerning the Court’s decision – hardly open and transparent justice.

Clearly, an unscrupulous care-home owner will use the CoP to silence anyone who has witnessed malpractices within the home by getting an injunction against them on the grounds that it is in the best interest of a particular resident.   

Below are details Wanda Maddocks, whose treatment by the CoP is similar to that of John Coles.  She was concerned at the standard of treatment her dementia afflicted father was subjected to, and decided to take him out of the care-home and look after him herself in the family home.  

As can be seen from the details above, there is no evidence that Wanda mistreated her father.  In fact the secrecy within the CoP was not to protect her father, but to protect the interests of the care-home, local authority and the various legal aid funded lawyers.  

In both the cases of John Coles and Wanda Maddocks there was no need for secrecy, in fact it would have served justice better if all the facts were put into the public domain so that folks could make up their own minds as to where the malpractices occurred and who was to blame.  But of course, the CoP, is more interested in promoting the powers of the judiciary and legal profession over the general public, rather than serving the interests of the common people.    

Abuse by Solicitors and Local Authorities with Powers of Attorney

If a resident in a care home is suffering from dementia the CoP has the authority to appoint someone, or some organization, as Property & Affairs Deputy with Powers of Attorney to handle the resident’s financial affairs.  Normally this would be a family member, but often no family member is available; consequently a firm of Solicitors or the local authority is appointed as the Property & Affairs Deputy by the CoP. 

Very often the resident’s next of kin is working overseas or for some reason is unable to immediately take on the role of Property & Affairs Deputy; in this situation a solicitor or local authority will be appointed to the role.  There have been many cases when the next of kin is available to take on the role they have found that the resident’s assets have been plundered by the appointed Property & Affairs Deputy on grossly over inflated legal costs or other maintenance costs.  In many instances the CoP refuses to appoint a family member as Property & Affairs Deputy, and the resident’s assets are often seized without their knowledge or consent.  

A typical case is that of Neil Barker who ten years ago suffered a motorcycle accident that left him brain damaged and temporarily mentally incapacitated, and the CoP appointed a firm of solicitors to act as the Courts Property & Affairs Deputy with power of attorney to handle Neil’s affairs.  Now a huge sum of his compensation money is lying in a State bank account controlled by a hidden corner of the legal system: the astonishingly powerful Court of Protection, which has decreed that Neil’s accident means he lacks the mental capacity to handle his own financial affairs.  Neil has an IQ of 125 and runs a successful computer consultancy and property restoration business without any help from the State.  Yet the CoP will not surrender the power of attorney from the Property & Affairs Deputy back to Neil who has been mentally able for some considerable number of years since his accident.

Clearly, the lawyers involved in Neil’s case have too much to lose if they surrender their powers of attorney as the Property & Affairs Deputy.  This is clearly a case of corruption within the legal profession, and one is left with the impression that the judiciary are only too willing to collude with these crooked lawyers as it gives more power to their cronies in the legal profession.

What Can Be Done To Combat Institutionalised Corruption Within The Court of Protection’s Remit?      

The cases detailed above are only the tip of the iceberg, with many cases being withheld from the public domain as a result of the CoP’s inherent obsession for secrecy; in fact it is even an offence, subject to imprisonment, to openly discuss the case with other people.  However, there are now numerous groups in existence who are prepared to challenge the CoP on abuse within its scope of responsibilities, and where appropriate publish details of these abuses regardless of the legal consequences.   A few of these groups are:     

Families Against Court of Protection Theft (FACT) represents those who have had problems dealing with the Court of Protection.  The group argues that for the CoP to justify itself as a democratic institution, cases should be held in a far more open manner.  FACT has stated that there have been over 15,000 recorded complaints alleging abuse, fraud and corruption on the part of the Court itself, the police and the Houses of Parliament between 2001- 2010.  In 2007-2009 a total £3.2 billion of assets were seized from thousands of elderly and mentally impaired people.

The Alzheimer’s Society has been campaigning strongly for a change in the law to give family members of an Alzheimer sufferer more power over the CoP in deciding what is best for their ailing relative.    

In an interview in 2011, Sir Nicholas Wall, Head of the CoP, called for public debate on opening up the Court to public scrutiny: “It seems to me a matter of public interest.  The public is, after all, entitled to know what’s going on….we don’t want people quietly locked up in private.” Understandably, some decisions – such as a plea for a sister’s right to die after suffering severe brain damage – are deeply personal and private to the family whose wishes should be respected in such instances.  The problem, however, is differentiating between these cases and those with a strong public interest because they throw up wider questions of politics, policy and broader society.

Public scrutiny of the Court’s moral and ethical remit would require a radical shift in mentality, policy and law.  Without this, the politics of the CoP are nothing more than the centralisation of power, impinging on basic human rights and freedoms; where the vulnerable are further denied an audience and a voice.

It was noticeable that when scanning the internet for a means of resolving the problems associated with CoP practices, it was overwhelmingly solicitors who claimed to provide the solution.   Surely the secret workings of the CoP, together with the possibility that they may get powers of attorney over a vulnerable person’s estate are the very reason that solicitors should be the last people to be consulted over a person’s mental capacity.What can the BNP do to help victims of CoP maladministration?  Not a lot really.  There are other organizations with greater expertise and experience in handling these situations then the BNP.  The Exeter branch only got involved with John Coles because he approached us directly, pleading for our help – which we rightly offered.  Let’s hope that John finds such an organization that is prepared to lobby for changes in the way that the CoP’s operates, and that our contribution will be recognized.

What Should the Future UK's Energy Policy Be?

Introduction

One of the most serious problems facing the UK in the near future will be the provision of energy to power industry, commercial facilities, transport and homes.   Throughout the later half of the 20^th century Britain has relied on coal, nuclear energy, North Sea gas and plentiful supplies of petroleum products mainly from the Middle East.  As a consequence of the cheap availability of these energy sources folk developed a lifestyle that used these precious energy sources in a wasteful and frivolous manner, with the assumption that cheap energy will be with us forever.   The British National Party must have an energy policy that: provides affordable energy for our future needs; reduces our overall energy use by elimination of wasteful practices and initiating energy saving schemes; changing peoples life-styles so that it is less reliant on the private car and unnecessary journeys.  The following sections of this paper examines the current state of Britain’s electrical supply industry and how it should be developed to meet our future needs

How did Britain’s Energy Supply Industry Develop?

The only energy available to our early predecessors was muscle power, so the amount of work undertaken, or distance travelled, was limited to their strength and stamina.  Probably the first source of energy available to mankind was the ability to harness fire to cook food and keep warm, so maintaining and preserving the energy stored in his body for future use.  As mankind started travelling over water it must have soon become apparent to them that utilising the wind would greatly ease the burden of paddling the boats manually.   Using nature’s resources reached its peak in the early 1700s with windmills being used to grind corn, and the more reliable and powerful watermills being used for the more heavy industrial work like powering spinning and weaving mills.

Steam Power

In the early part of the 19^th century Thomas Newcomen of Dartmouth developed a steam engine that was used for pumping water out of mines.  Newcomen’s engine operated on the principal that a reduction in pressure occurred when the steam within a cylinder was condensed causing the piston to be sucked downwards; consequently its efficiency was very limited, and it could only be used cost effectively if located adjacent to vast supplies of cheap coal.  However, it was truly the first steam powered machine capable of doing effective work.

James Watt’s improvements to the Newcomen engine, and the mechanism to convert reciprocal into rotary motion resulted in a steam engine that could now power mills and foundries.   This enabled fabrics and steel products to be manufactured more efficiently than had been possible when the whole process was done by manual labour.

Electric Power

Steam engines provided the energy to power industry, shipping and the railways; but its power source was coal which was extremely labour intensive to extract from the ground.  Consequently, in the early days of steam power the average person saw very little benefit as they were mostly engaged as virtual slave labour working in atrocious conditions and living in abject poverty.  It wasn’t until Michael Faraday’s scientific discoveries in electro-magnetism with the electric motor and generator that the general public were to get the benefits of energy production delivered directly to their homes.  However, much work had to be done by engineers and scientists before an efficient electrical generation and distribution system was feasible to supply a complete town.  The early generators were DC (direct current) machines which were suitable for use in a small localized area, but were impractical when power had to be distributed over large areas.  The development of AC (alternating current) generators and transformers permitted AC electrical supplies to be transformed up to a high voltage, so reducing power loss in the distribution cables and then transformed down to a low voltage for use in domestic premises.  

When reliable AC generators and transformers became available it was then possible to supply a complete city with electrical power.   The first city to have an electrical distribution system was Buffalo in the USA, which was supplied from hydro-electric generators located at the Niagara Falls.  The utilisation of hydro-turbines to generate electrical power was limited to those locations that had a suitable quantity of water situated high enough to provide sufficient kinetic energy to power the turbine.  So for most locations another form of energy had to be found as the reciprocating steam engine could not rotate the alternator fast enough.  The breakthrough came with the Charles Parson’s invention of the steam turbine in 1884.  It was initially used in ships of the Royal Navy, but as their power increased they were used to power turbine generator sets.  In the UK it was town councils or local private companies who provided electrical generation plants primarily for street lighting, but eventually extended their supply to feed trams, shops and offices; and finally for the lighting of private dwellings.

In 1915 there were some 600 electrical generation companies using a variety of power generation plants operating at various voltages.   The Electricity (supply) Act of 1919 merged these companies into more manageable units with a single power station supplying a large area.  The Electricity Supply Act of 1925 created the Central Electricity Board which established the National Grid (Operating at 132kV, 50Hz supply) that linked the larger generation plants throughout the country.   The Electricity Act of 1947 merged 625 electricity companies into twelve area electricity boards, much as we have today.  Practically all of this generation plant was coal fired, creating steam to power the turbines.  This dependency on coal was to prove disastrous during the 1970s as striking miners disrupted supplies.  A single energy source for power generation was avoided, after this period.   Nuclear generated electrical energy commenced in the 1950s with the building of the world’s first nuclear power station at Calder Hall, after this some twenty Magnox and AGR power stations were built.  The last nuclear power station to be built was the PWR, Sizewell C.  

What is the Current Situation with Regards to Britain’s Energy Requirements?

In the home the energy needs for heating is supplied by gas or electricity; with cooking, lighting and other utilities provided solely by electricity.  Most of our industries are powered by electricity through the National Grid, although some of the larger manufacturers produce their own electricity using diesel or gas generator sets.  Practically all of our commercial organisations are powered by electricity though.   Transportation is still reliant on electric traction and petrol or diesel power.

Power generation is largely produced by coal-fired power stations, with oil-fired power stations making a small contribution.  North Sea gas is used for a large proportion of power generation, but as North Sea production falls this is being replaced by imported gas.   Nuclear power is providing a diminishing proportion of our energy demand, with all the Magnox stations being decommissioned and the AGR expected to be phased out over the next twenty years that leaves only Sizewell C as a long-term energy provider.   Wind turbines currently make a negligible contribution to our energy requirements.

How Should Britain’s Future Energy Requirements Be Met?

Britain has a variety of options it can pursue to meet our future energy needs.  What follows is a list of the options available together with their feasibility, costs and practicality.

Coal will play a very important part in Britain’s energy demands for at least the next 30 years, when newer and more efficient power generation processes become available. Therefore it is essential that all existing coal-fired power stations are retained in reserve to cope with peaks of high demand, and as a safeguard in the event of possible oil and gas shortages.    

Mining coal may soon become redundant as another way of extracting its energy is by the method of Underground Coal Gasification.  Think of it as drilling for coal energy instead of mining for it.  It involves baking coal while it is still underground while channelling the CO₂ up through turbines to harness the fuel.  Using controlled fires and the pressure of gravity, experts predict that coal seams once deemed inaccessible can be turned into fuel.  To fill the holes left in the earth by once-present coal?  Miners would inject stabilizing carbon dioxide into the void. 

Oil and associated products are too important to be used as the base fuel for generating electricity, and should be reserved for transportation needs.  Oil should only be used for standby generators during mains power supply failure, or in providing temporary power supply back-up during periods of high demand.

Fracking is another method of obtaining gas, but there are problems associated with this extraction method (such as the creation of earth tremors and the poisoning of water courses) that need to be addressed before gas can be extracted.  Even if fracking is found to be a safe method of gas extraction, it is thought that the resources available will only last for 5 to 10 years; so it will not solve Britain’s energy requirement over the long term.   

Britain led the world in developing energy from nuclear power; however, over the past 25 years governments of all varieties have failed to invest in research and development (R&D) that would have maintained the UK at the forefront of this technology.  All of Britain’s nuclear and power station manufactures have been sold off to French (EDF and Alstom), German (Siemens) and Japanese (Hitachi) companies.  Consequently, all of Britain’s R&D, design and manufacturing capabilities (together with its patents and intellectual property) were sold off cheaply to foreign companies who in most cases closed down the manufacturing facilities and moved production to their own countries.  Until new sources of power generation become available, nuclear power is absolutely essential to meet our energy requirements for the next 50 years.

Wind power is a costly failure, promoted by the Blair government to tempt Green Party voters to switch their allegiance to Labour.

Solar power is certainly useful for some applications, such as lighting and remote telecommunication power supplies; but is not really practical for applications that require high energy demands, such as ovens and electric heaters. For domestic application it certainly needs to be backed up by the mains power supply. 

It’s unlikely that wave power will ever be a major provider of electricity in the UK, but in certain locations may provide a useful addition to our energy demands.  

The Severn estuary is the only real site where a tidal barrage can be erected, but this has been rejected by the government as it is deemed too costly, even though it will produce 5% of Britain’s energy requirements based on current population levels.  

This form of energy production must be the most environmentally damaging of all types currently in use.  It beggars belief that anyone could be stupid enough to believe that any form of power generation that burns wood could be carbon-neutral!   It should be noted that Britain was one of the few countries to sign the IPCC (Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change) protocol; China and the USA, both bigger polluters than the UK did not sign.

Apart from a few locations in Scotland and the Lake District, Britain does not have sufficient high altitude lakes to provide the power source for pumped storage hydro-electric power generation.  Consequently, hydro‑electric power generation will never be a major supplier of electricity within the United Kingdom; but it is useful in supplying peak-load demand for electricity.

Geothermal energy may prove to be a useful addition to Britain’s energy demands, but many more geological surveys are required to ascertain whether the costs involved make it a feasible option.  However, heat extracted could be used for area domestic heating schemes where high temperatures are not required.

Thorium must be the answer to Britain’s long term energy demands, and it is essential that money is spent on research and development (R&D), such that the technology and expertise remains the property of the British people, and is not sold on the cheap to raise money to cater for the welfare needs of the immigrants invading our country. 

If ever nuclear fusion becomes a reality it will certainly transform the world’s energy needs. Progress is being made in the development of this technology, but it’s unlikely to become a viable option within the next 50 years.  In the meantime progress continues on the research and development of nuclear fusion. 

What Should Britain’s Future Energy Policy Be?

The manner in which the labour government under Tony Blair destroyed the country’s energy generation capacity in pursuit of the green agenda will leave Britain facing frequent power cuts in the not too distant future.  Can this crisis be averted?  If so, then how?

The Actions that Must be Taken to Avert an Energy Crisis

·        Withdraw from the EU and declare as null and void any treatise concerning CO₂ emissions and global warming signed on Britain’s behalf by the Labour government of Tony Blair.

·        Re-instate all coal-fired power-stations recently closed or due for closure.

·        Build new British designed and manufactured nuclear power-stations.

·        Stop all new developments of wind turbines.

·        Set up a R&D establishment with a British workforce to design and develop a range of thorium reactors such that the building of new thorium power-stations can commence within ten years.

·        Continue with the R&D associated with wave and tidal-flow energy generation.

·        Fund R&D into geo-thermal energy extraction.

·        Continue with funding of R&D associated with nuclear fusion.

·        Investigate the extraction of gas by fracking to ensure that it can be achieved without polluting water supplies.   

·        Fund R&D into methods of storing energy, such that it can be used when energy demand is high.  

Other points that must be addressed concerns that of energy usage; which can include:

·        Loss of heat energy through poorly insulated dwellings.

·        Unnecessary use of private cars for pointless journeys; such as the school-run.  Children would be a lot healthier if they were made to walk to school.

·        With the internet more people can work from home, so saving immense amounts of energy on commuting costs – furthermore, people work more efficiently within their own homes without the distractions of open-plan offices.

Clearly, there is a lot that needs to be done to prepare the nation for the forthcoming energy crisis.  What has been detailed in this article high-lights only a few of the problems envisaged together with some of the recommended corrective actions that can be taken - whether this proves to be adequate, only time will tell.