Part 4 – Safer Nuclear Power using Molten Salt and Thorium Reactors

 Molten salt reactors mean inherently safe nuclear electricity

In view of their potential safety issues a shift away from PWR’s and fast breeders, designed in the 60's and 70's, towards new inherently safe plants would be very welcome.  Ideally these should: 

• operate at atmospheric pressure and so couldn’t explode; 
• be unable to overheat or meltdown; 
• be designed to be walk-away-safe in the event of power failure; 
• have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity: meaning that as the reactor temperature increases its output reduces;
• allow load following and rapid output changes;
• produce much less waste with a much shorter radio-active half-life. 

Of the various proposed Generation IV nuclear reactor designs there is one which fulfils all of these criteria, the liquid fuelled thorium reactor (LFTR).

On 14^th July 2011, thanks to Ken Pottinger (now sadly deceased) of French News Online, I became aware of an alternative to current PWR technologies, which is based on liquid fuelled thorium reactors LFTRs and the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. In this context a salt is the chemical term for a compound of a metal and a halide such as a fluoride or a chloride e.g. lithium fluoride. At the time I had no idea that nuclear reactors could have many design variants and even work in the liquid phase.  I spent several days researching the topic and wrote this piece on my blog summarizing my findings. 

The molten salt reactor experiment

A prototype molten salt reactor, operating at atmospheric pressure, ran at Oak Ridge National Nuclear Laboratory (ORNL), Tenessee in the 60’s and 70's.  The film below, made at the time, shows how this pilot scale plant was designed,built and operated.

The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) ran for more than 13,000 hours at full power, without significant materials problems, and successfully demonstrated the viability of the concept.  At the weekends, when they didn’t want to have staff on duty, they used to turn off the power, the fan cooling the freeze valve below the reactor vessel would stop, the plug of solid salt would melt and the reactor contents would drain by gravity into storage tanks. Since these did not contain a moderator to slow down the neutrons the chain reaction would stop. It was truly walk away safe!

To turn it into a commercial product there is more development work needed on the optimization of the waste processing stages, and also on the materials necessary to resist the high temperature and intense radiation environment over the long term. At the time that the project was shut down, ORNL had already started to work on these areas. We are fortunate that the work on the MSRE at Oak Ridge was very fully documented and these documents are in the public domain.

The fuel used for the MSRE was Uranium 233 produced in a reactor at Hanford. It was intended that at a future stage the reactor design would be modified to work as a breeder reactor producing U233 from Thorium 232 in a self-sustaining way. This would require the development of a chemical process to separate the U233 formed in the blanket and send it to the reactor. Unfortunately the project was shut down before this was fully progressed.

Kirk Sorensen has been actively promoting this technology and he explains in this video how he came to rediscover molten salt reactors and Thorium as an alternative fuel.

What about nuclear waste?
But the specific concern of many people is with the management of nuclear waste. 

The composition and quantity of nuclear waste depends on the fuel used in the reactor and the degree to which the fuel is burned.  Pressurised water reactors running on the Uranium 235/238 fuel cycle can only burn about 4-5% of the fuel contained in their fuel rods, which deteriorate and have to be replaced every 18 months.  During this operation the reactor is taken out of service.

Liquid fuelled reactors can burn a much larger percentage of their fuel than solid fuelled reactors because, by bubbling inert gas through the molten salt, it’s so much easier to remove gaseous fission products like Xenon 135, which poison nuclear reactions by absorbing neutrons.  Also, by incorporating a side-stream, carrying the molten salt fuel for waste removal and fuel addition, there is no need to shutdown the reactor for these processes. Therefore, for the same amount of energy generated, molten salt reactors can produce 35 times less waste. 

LFTR versions running on Thorium also produce waste with a much shorter half-life of 300 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years.  This very clear video, again from Kirk Sorensen with others, explains how fission products are created and what they can be used for.

 In this rather more detailed video Kirk Sorensen projects forward the results of radioactive decay over time on waste from the Uranium 235/238 fuel cycle.  He expands on the idea of recycling nuclear waste and asks, is it really all waste? 

But as Kirk Sorensen says in an earlier video, you can also dispose of waste from PWR’s using liquid fuelled waste burning reactors, which also generate power and this is described more fully later.

Energy cheaper than coal

But without internationally agreed and binding carbon taxes, which would make fossil fuels more expensive, safer nuclear power just won't happen unless it’s cheaper than other options. 
Robert Hargraves develops the argument that in order to replace fossil fuel burning power plants you must be able to generate electricity by low carbon methods at an overall cost less than that of fossil fuels. 
In this detailed talk he examines the costs of generating electricity from different sources including wind and solar.  He also proposes using liquid fuelled reactors and points out that the higher operating temperatures of such reactors offer higher power generation efficiencies as well as various options to use the high temperature heat to directly drive chemical reactions.

And cheaper than unsubsidized renewables

At the beginning of the next video Ian Scott of Moltex Energy reaffirms the importance of radical innovation to enable new nuclear power investment to find a role in a commercial environment where the penetration of renewables is significant.  This means finding ways to reduce construction and regulatory costs by modularisation and factory production techniques so that new nuclear plants can still be profitable at 50% utilisation factors. In this video he describes the Moltex Waste Burner which is being developed in New Brunswick, Canada by the North American incarnation of his company, with the full support of central and local government.

If you’ve got this far you are probably suffering from information overload but congratulations on your persistence! 

Why haven’t molten salt reactors been developed before?

When I first researched liquid fuelled reactors burning thorium (LFTRs) I found it hard not to think that there was something that was being hidden from me.  Such as some reasons that explained why such obviously better technology hadn’t been developed! Finally I was convinced that there isn’t anything of the sort, and the reasons why it has languished for 60 years are almost entirely political in origin.  This Google Tech Talk, again by Kirk Sorensen, explains the background. 

Where will safer nuclear power happen first?

Nuclear power is, a complex subject difficult to explain to non-specialists, or the general public, and it can’t be fitted into a few tweets for people with short attention spans or other priorities.  Unfortunately it’s much easier to invoke fear among the public of accidental releases of radioactive materials; so a sustained campaign of education is required to overcome decades of nuclear scepticism and deliberate misinformation that has stuck in the minds of the public.  The success or otherwise of such public education will be a factor in determining where new nuclear power will be developed.

Western European countries especially France and the UK have the necessary infrastructure, but I doubt that they have the political will and in the case of the UK, the resources, to take any sort of lead in developing new nuclear designs beyond the feasibility stage. Luckily other countries are better placed. The following is by no means an exhaustive list but only a selection of the most likely candidates to take new nuclear designs to full scale commercialization.

The United States

There are many opportunities for the US government to fund research into up-scaling advanced nuclear reactors and their much safer technology. 

For example, the US Department of Energy DOE is financing research into several initiatives intended to enable cost reductions in nuclear construction projects. 

In June 2021, in response to the announcement by the Biden-Harris administration of their policy to aim for net zero carbon emissions by 2050, the Office of Nuclear Energy has requested 1.8 billion dollars from Congress.  To quote from their press release,

 Quote <<“The expansion of nuclear power will be critical to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 and there’s an urgent need to bring new clean energy technologies to bear.  This budget request puts a tremendous emphasis on scaling up the commercial deployment of smaller and more flexible advanced reactor designs, and to the advanced fuel that will be required to operate them.” >> Unquote

 Let’s hope that this request will be granted and the money wisely spent.

 There are also numerous privately funded companies which have announced programmes to develop liquid fuelled reactors.  It remains to be seen whether this multi-pronged effort can surmount the burdensome costs and difficulties that will arise when they submit their designs for approval by regulatory agencies which are unfamiliar with this technology.  In this context governments can really help to advance the approval of innovative technologies by questioning and revising approval procedures, clearing pathways and providing seed funding for research. 

 The cost of approval and licensing

In the case of the USA, a few years ago, it seemed to me unlikely that these companies could persuade regulatory agencies to reduce the one to two billion dollar cost and ten year timescale that the US Government Audit Office estimated in July 2015 that it would take to certify and license a fundamentally new design. At present the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires a fully developed design to review, so that companies would have to spend a very large amount of money upfront. Faced with this situation private investors just won't bother or they will migrate to jurisdictions which are more welcoming and which proceed by a staged approval process.

More recently in the USA there has been a change in the mood and, helped by international pressures and extreme weather events around the globe, there is renewed impetus towards addressing the climate crisis and a political will building around the development of carbon free energy from innovative nuclear technology.

Small modular reactors - Executive Order 13972

One of the last actions of the outgoing Trump Administration was to persuade him to sign Executive Order 13972 of January 5, 2021.

Promoting Small Modular Reactors for National Defense and Space Exploration”

 This order, among other things, specifically mandates the Secretary of Defense to look into:

Quote <<Sec. 3. Demonstration of Commercial Reactors to Enhance Energy Flexibility at a Defense Installation. (a) Micro-reactors have the potential to enhance energy flexibility and energy security at domestic military installations in remote locations. Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense shall, within 180 days of the date of this order, establish and implement a plan to demonstrate the energy flexibility capability and cost effectiveness of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed micro-reactor at a domestic military installation.>> Unquote

A few years ago Kirk Sorensen was hoping to bypass national nuclear regulatory procedures by installing an LFTR on a military site but unfortunately this order invokes the NRC licensing process.  Assuming that the order progresses through the Biden Administration, perhaps Kirk can find a way to speed up and simplify certification.

Canada

As a result of its history of nuclear innovation, and years of operational experience with CANDU heavy water reactors, Canada has an industrial, intellectual, regulatory and political infrastructure which is favourable to advances in nuclear power.  Its staged regulatory process is particularly helpful to innovative technologies.

 This is already being demonstrated in New Brunswick by Moltex with their –waste burning, molten salt in tubes - reactor concept and associated GridReserve storage technology.

  

Quoting from their press release of Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Quote <<Moltex Energy is delighted to have completed Phase 1 of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC) Pre-Licensing Vendor Design Review (VDR) for Moltex’s 300 MW Stable Salt Reactor – Wasteburner (SSR-W). The CNSC concluded that Moltex has a clear understanding of the Canadian regulatory requirements and expectations. >> Unquote

 

Terrestrial Energy, another Canadian-based company, is developing a Denatured Molten Salt Reactor (DMSR) design called the Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR). The IMSR is designed to be deployable as a small modular reactor (SMR). Their design currently undergoing licensing is 400MW thermal (190MW electrical). With high operating temperatures, the IMSR has applications in industrial heat markets as well as traditional power markets. The main design features include neutron moderation from graphite, fuelling with low-enriched uranium and a compact and replaceable Core-unit. Decay heat is removed passively using nitrogen (with air as an emergency alternative). The latter feature permits the operational simplicity necessary for industrial deployment.

Terrestrial Energy completed the first phase of a pre-licensing review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in 2017, which provided a regulatory opinion that the design features are generally safe enough to eventually obtain a license to construct the reactor.

Indonesia

Thorcon has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Indonesian Defence Ministry to study the development of a 50MW thorium molten salt reactor. 

Thorcon have already done a conceptual design of a 500MW system, based on thorium molten salt reactor technology, but built in a similar way to a large cargo ship. The basis of this interesting concept is to use a modular approach with each module being fabricated in shipyards and joined together prior to transport to the chosen permanent site.

This video summarises very clearly the background to and the conceptual design of the Thorcon system. (Sorry about the adverts).

Indonesia has the fourth largest population in the world at over 273 million and, like all developing countries, it has an expanding need for clean and cheap electricity.  Currently this is being supplied by coal fired power stations and the aim is to compete with coal by using ship building techniques thus reducing construction costs and time to completion.  Compared with Light Water Reactors, Molten Salt Reactors do not need heavy reactor vessels or containment buildings able to resist the pressure exerted by a rupture of the 300 bar pressurized reactor vessel. They are therefore a good fit with steel modular construction.

This detailed video from Lars Jorgensen gives a full explanation of the design concept.

This project is in its preparatory stages but the concept appears to have been well considered. Thorcon appear to be successfully navigating their way through any difficulties that might occur in securing the necessary funding and approvals. There appears to be a sense of urgency on behalf of both the Indonesian clients and Thorcon itself. 

China

Due to the language barrier, and the Chinese tendency to be cautious about public announcements, it’s difficult to accurately follow China’s progress towards implementing molten salt reactors. Western press reports are often sketchy, inaccurate and journalistic, but it does seem that they are making good progress towards starting up a molten salt reactor at their research facility in the desert region of Wuwei very soon.

In January 2011 Chinese Academy of Sciences initiated a thorium molten-salt reactor research project.  A 100 MW demonstrator of the solid fuel version (TMSR-SF), based on pebble bed technology, was planned to be ready by 2024.  Initially, a 10 MW pilot and a larger demonstrator of the liquid fuel (TMSR-LF) variant were targeted for 2024 and 2035, respectively.  China then accelerated its program to build two 12 MW reactors underground at the Wuwei research facilities by 2020, beginning with the TMSR-LF1 prototype. The project sought to test new corrosion-resistant materials.  By 2021 China stated that the Wuwei prototype Molten Salt Reactor could start-up in September. We are waiting to hear what they have achieved.

As a result of that investment, and less lengthy certification requirements, China is most likely to be the first to recreate the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment and develop it further to a commercial design for completion in 2030.  They will then patent their designs and sell them internationally. 

I wish them every success!

 

Hi Michel, 

please see below my reply to your email,

 I am delighted that you have put an emphasis on the excess mortality, something I believe to be an important (and perhaps the only reliable) measure of what's going on. Perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion on this common factual base and its progression, and its significance.

I’ve quoted excess deaths back to you because you don’t trust official statistics regarding infections based on the PCR test. The problem is that excess deaths are a lagging statistic and can’t be used for predicting the future and taking decisions. Covid deaths occur at least two to three weeks after infection and deaths up to 28 days afterwards are also counted. Collating statistics on deaths from all causes takes time as well.

 I have been monitoring this statistic. Its growth, albeit a long time after the dramatic rise in so-called cases, is concerning. My difficulty is in whether the size of it warrants the reaction we have seen. Such events occur regularly - more or less annually with the flu-

The definition of “excess mortality” is the number of deaths that is higher than is normal for the time period in question. “Normal” is established by taking an average of “normal years“.  Unless there’s a new strain of flu virus, annual deaths from this cause would be considered normal and would be included in the average.  If there is an unusual situation like we have now, such as a new virus or a major heat wave, then, as you know, the excess deaths are calculated by taking the totals over a chosen period of time and comparing them with averages from ”normal” previous years. Therefore annual seasonal deaths from flu would not be counted in any calculation of excess deaths.

 - they come and they go, and we do not see fit to bring the economy to its knees, or to cancel normal human contact.

For me it's a question of proportion, and a question of individual responsibility.

I disagree with this. It isn’t just a matter of individual responsibility because there will always be reckless and misguided people who choose not to take simple precautions and therefore present a risk to others. Look at the crazy situation in the USA!  In spite of the best efforts of some politicians, like Nigel Farage, to stoke distrust in government, in Western Europe people expect their leaders to act in the population’s best interests. Can you imagine the outcry there would be if governments did nothing and hospitals were overwhelmed with ambulances queuing outside and people dying on trolleys in corridors.

 If we find that the virus starts killing vast quantities of young fit people, that would alter my perspective.

You are focussed on deaths because they are counted and reported but you’re ignoring the debilitating longer term effects that many people, including younger fitter ones have experienced with Covid 19. These are much worse than being “confined” for a few weeks. Recent estimates put the number of such cases at 10% of those infected. Furthermore there’s no way at present of predicting who will suffer “long Covid” and who will breeze through it with no long term effects.

 But while this concerns largely the old (of which I am one) and sick, I prefer to privilege the lives of the young and the economy which will have to pay for their health in years to come, and I want people who feel themselves to be at risk to take suitable precautions. 

As I’ve stated before and supported with a reference, there cannot be a normal thriving economy if a serious public health crisis is rampaging through the population. People will take action to avoid catching the virus and reduce their risk of exposure. So some sectors of the economy will suffer as a result. The only way of avoiding this without lockdowns is to reduce the circulation of the virus by vaccination. Fortunately early trial results are showing several vaccines to be over 90% effective. But less encouragingly in Le Point of 29/12//2020 there’s an article which states that only 40% of the French population would take up the vaccine! 

Most people are generally hopeless at assessing risk and it seems that the vaccination sceptics are more afraid of a vaccine than a potentially dangerous illness! Perhaps they just don’t want to be “Un des moutons de Panurge”. If more than half of the French refuse to be vaccinated then there will be no herd immunity and it’s time to say a fond farewell to communal life as we used to know it and buy shares in undertaking firms.

 I find in any case that people are responsible, and are busy taking their own decisions - I don't know a single person, old or young, who follows the restrictions to the letter - we each find our own level of compliance, even if we count ourselves more or less in the camp of accepting the government response. 

Actually we do know several people who are following the rules even if we aren’t completely. This lockdown episode is a bit of a joke anyway because there is so much activity it’s hardly a lockdown at all. I would, however, like to have a haircut before Christmas.

Whatever this latest rise in mortality is, it is not the same as the first wave. There has been more than a 2 month delay, rather than the 2-3 week delay we saw at the outset. That might in fact be a very bad sign indeed - if the dramatic rise in cases that started 2 months ago is reflected in the death count now and in the weeks to come, that will be horrific, but it will take its course whether we lock down or not. I suspect that that will not be the case, but as you said before, we'll see.

In my opinion in March there were many many more Covid 19 infections than were ever recorded and reported. We know three people who caught it just before lockdown and never went near a doctor. They were lucky and had mild-ish versions.

It’s not possible to know how many people were actually infected in March, but as an illustration let’s assume it was ten times as many as the official test results showed. The death rate per thousand infections would therefore be a tenth of the rate calculated based on positive test results in March. 

If one now takes the numbers of positive test results in October/November, and applies the same death rate per thousand, you would get a much lower number of deaths than in March/April. This may be an explanation for the apparently lower severity of the virus in the second wave.  There is also, this time round, the availability of therapeutics and better knowledge of how to treat serious cases.

Personally, I’m already waiting for a flu jab and as soon as a vaccine for Covid 19 is available I will have one!

 

 

A Second Wave in Europe

After a quiet summer Covid 19 infections are rising again and there is a surge in reported positive test results. In many countries in Europe restrictions are being progressively introduced which limit rights of assembly and affect businesses.

There are people, including some politicians and experts, who believe that this surge in reported cases is a result of the increased availability of testing, and still others who think that the tests used are too sensitive. They consider that the current tests over-report the incidence of the virus. This opinion has been picked up and amplified by social media to support the view that the measures taken to limit the spread of the virus are an over-reaction.

The surge is accompanied by an increase in hospitalizations and an as yet smaller increase in deaths associated with the virus, but since these are bound to take longer to become evident, they are not increasing as rapidly.

The PCR Test

The most commonly used test for Covid 19 is the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test. This amplifies any virus RNA found on samples by going through numerous cycles of replication. The outcome of this process is that the tests are very sensitive and will detect very small amounts of virus. Some experts have been mis-quoted as saying that this results in 90% false positives and therefore the overall numbers of people testing positive is greatly inflated.  This is incorrect, but there is an ongoing debate among experts as to how many cycles should be employed before declaring a test positive or negative. 

False Positives

By definition if the test finds Covid 19 viral RNA it is a correct positive result regardless of the initial quantity of virus present and the number of cycles of replication. What the PCR test can’t do, however, is to determine whether an individual is infectious. This is done by clinical examination to try to ascertain whether an infected person is displaying symptoms that have been found to be correlated with infectiousness.  So since there is no test which predicts a patient’s response to infection by the Covid 19 virus and their infectiousness, anyone testing positive is advised to self isolate and wait out the course of their illness.

The Rate of Increase of Cases

It's obviously important for individuals who think that they are likely to have been infected to know their test status; so that they can take the steps necessary to protect their families, friends, colleagues and others. However, on a larger scale the exact total number of positive tests doesn’t matter.  It’s sufficient to see the exponentially rising trend, which is currently showing itself in several European countries including France and the UK.

Whilst one can argue about whether tests are correct or not, eventually the real world will intervene. We know that the rising rate of infections is already leading to a rise in hospitalizations. As an example, in Paris  at the 10^th October 2020, the rate of tests returning positive results is 15.27% and the occupancy of intensive care beds is 39.1%. The latter is predicted to be at 100% by the end of October. There will inevitably be, in my opinion, a rising death rate in the near future as well as further restrictions.

One can only hope that improvements in the knowledge and treatment of Covid 19, and the availability of therapeutics, will reduce the incidence of severe illness and death for those unfortunate enough to have caught it. One can also hope for the early availability of effective vaccines which give long term protection, but regrettably we don’t know yet how long any immunity conferred by a vaccine, or even a previous infection, will last.

Is it time we learned to live with the virus?

When the Covid 19 virus first appeared almost everyone was unprepared. Some governments like China, South Korea and Germany did better than others; they reacted quickly and took control. The result was that they had fewer cases, fewer people with serious illness, fewer deaths and less severe economic effects.  Other states like Italy, Spain, the UK and France had leaders who were slower and less capable of reacting to the situation before they had a severe outbreak resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. Still others, like the leaders of the USA and Brazil, refused to take the disease seriously and actively attempted to minimize its impact and consequences. In some cases this was in spite of their knowledge of the true facts. They preferred to prioritize the politics of the pandemic rather than listen to their scientific advisers and we can now see the results of that in death rates.

Following the example of China, Western governments almost universally instituted drastic confinement measures to slow down the transmission of the virus and prevent a situation in which hospitals were overwhelmed and people were dying on stretchers in car parks. On the whole and despite the high number of deaths this was a qualified success. It reduced infections drastically and people did comply with the draconian restrictions, in spite of the very severe economic consequences.

The second wave.

Then, as the virus declined in Europe in the summer, we all relaxed and started mixing normally, crowding onto beaches and having parties. So of course the virus came back and is now circulating freely and reproducing exponentially in many places, including France and the UK. Whilst infection rates are high, death rates are low at the moment, but they will increase after a lag period of a few weeks.

Fortunately, and although it is less than perfect, as a result of the increased availability of testing we now know much more than we did before about the geographical spread of the virus, and can identify hotspots where infections are spreading more quickly than in other areas. This allows politicians to try a more graduated and localized response. It remains to be seen whether recent relatively minor restrictions, like restricting social events and closing pubs and bars at 10pm will make any difference. It should be said that the rate of testing is very much higher than it was in March and April and so many more active infections are now being identified and reported.

Whilst the UK government appears to be reacting on the hoof to day to day changes and not communicating clearly, France has set out an alert system, based on infection rates, which will trigger progressive local restrictions decided by the Prefecture of each Department. At the same time, under their new Prime Minister Jean Castex, they seem to be downplaying the extent of the rise in infections and prioritizing keeping open schools and the economy.

Is it time we learned to live with the virus? 

In my opinion that's exactly what we are in the process of doing now, and only time will tell if less restrictive measures than were applied earlier in the year will be effective. So what is there still to debate?

Some people resent the restrictions on their freedoms to circulate freely and carry on as before. Others are very cautious about social mixing. Some people deny the existence of the virus altogether! Still others are concerned about the damage done to individuals and the economy by movement restrictions and lockdowns.

An impossible balance.

In my view the choice between voluntary or compulsory measures comes down to politicians attempting to strike an almost impossible balance between the needs of individuals to maintain their freedoms; the need to allow economic activity to continue; and the need to protect vulnerable people at greater risk of severe illness or death. Also let’s not forget that even young and fit people can find themselves incapacitated and unable to work months after overcoming the original infection, the so-called Long Covid.

It is the mindset of the individual which determines whether they value their own freedoms to such an extent that helping others to stay clear of infection by accepting constraints is much less important to them. Individuality versus Solidarity. In consequence there will always be people who are dissatisfied with any restrictive measures that are imposed or who consider that they have not been taken early enough.

Striking this balance also concerns the perception and evaluation of risks, about which most people are highly irrational. I’m glad that I’m not a politician charged with the task of weighing all these considerations. Sometimes I almost feel sorry for them, but not for long!

I have no time whatsoever for people who deny the existence of the virus altogether and prefer to believe in a worldwide conspiracy theory to explain the deaths and testimony of victims. Unfortunately there is a significant number of them!

Lockdown versus freedom and a thriving economy

Presenting free movement and lockdown as alternative responses to the pandemic is, however, a false comparison. I don’t think that a nation can have a functional and thriving economy in a situation where a dangerous illness is circulating freely. People will seek to avoid and minimize their risks by working from home; by not using public transport; by not going to concerts, the theatre or restaurants; and by stopping unnecessary shopping trips and travel. Various sectors of the economy, and their employees, will suffer severely as a result. This is continuing to happen even though lockdown was lifted long ago.

The Swedish example.

The experience of Sweden, which with some restrictions kept everything open, can be quoted to deny this viewpoint, but Sweden is a country with a high standard of living. It’s not overcrowded and has notoriously reasonable inhabitants who have a high level of trust in their government. It’s very different from the overcrowded cities of Southern Europe, South America or India. Even so up to the 22^nd September 2020 Sweden had a total number of deaths of 5,877 for their 10.23 million inhabitants compared with a total of 1,253 for their neighbours Norway, Finland and Denmark who have a combined population of 16.76 million and followed a lockdown policy. Is that a success? I suppose it depends on what value you put on human lives compared to economic losses.

Conclusion

In my view, both from a health and an economic standpoint, it’s in everybody’s interests to reduce the circulation of the virus. So if that means accepting restrictions on my freedom to travel and socialize that's fine with me!

Roll on the availability of an effective vaccine!

 

Unanimous Supreme Court decision against Johnson

Lady Hale President of the UK Supreme Court

R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)

On appeals from: [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB) and [2019] CSIH 49

JUSTICES: Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

In giving the judgment of the Court Lady Hale said:

We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a “one-off”.

Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen’s Speech on 14th October. The Prime Minister ticked ‘yes’ to that recommendation.

On 27th or 28th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates. On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly. A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet “up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.

Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October.

On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect. Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.

The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, “the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”. The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

 The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

NOTE: This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at: www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html

Boris does his best Boris tribute act for the Tory conference

Bumbling, hair tugging and lectern thumping all feature in Johnson’s greatest hits show

‘This was the golden ticket. A message of hope for the hopeless.’
 Photograph: James McCauley/Rex/Shutterstock

Say what you like about Boris Johnson, he delivers a second-rate speech better than most other second-rate politicians, many of whom have been on show at the Tory party conference in Birmingham this week. But the bottom line is that Boris is essentially still second rate. A man who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill, but is nothing more than an ersatz Donald Trump with little to offer other than his own narcissism masquerading as cheap populism.

Yet in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, and Johnson is what passes for stardust in the Brexit circles of the Tory party. A faint flicker, raging against the dying of the light, as he struggles to avoid being sucked into the black hole. And for his one scheduled appearance at a fringe event, hundreds of delegates were queueing outside the 1,500-seater hall some two hours before he was due on stage. This was the golden ticket. A message of hope for the hopeless.

Shortly before the start, the usual VIP suspects began to fill the front row. David Davis, Steve Baker, Priti Patel, Owen Paterson, Andrea Jenkyns, John Redwood and Andrew Bridgen. The same crew that had been at almost every “Chuck Chequers” event. None of whom most sane people would trust anywhere near government. The scene was set. This wasn’t going to be a serious speech so much as an act of communion for the already converted. A greatest hits rally at which Boris would deliver his own Boris tribute act.

Johnson bumbled on to stage. Bumbling was what people expected of him – his trademark trope – and he didn’t want to disappoint. The audience rose to give him their first standing ovation and he relaxed a little. He still had the magic. “It’s great bumble bumble to be bumble bumble in Birmingham bumble bumble,” he bumbled, before insisting that he was standing before everyone “with all humility”. Always good to get the first lie in early. Boris has never done humble in his life.

 'Chuck Chequers': Boris Johnson attacks Theresa May's Brexit plan – video

After that he was straight on to autopilot. A lot more bumble bumbling, a bit of hair tugging and the occasional thump of the lectern to suggest he actually cared about what he was saying. Pretty much the same speech he had given the time before and the time before that. The same feeble gags about Toblerones and bus shelters that never failed to get a few desultory laughs from people starved of genuine humour. The same sob story about how he had once felt sorry for a couple in a Wolverhampton council house. The same lies about things the EU had never done and what the Labour party planned to do. Always the lies.

Bumble bumble. Loud whoops from the audience. Bumble bumble. The same broken record of why Boris thought that Boris would make a great prime minister and couldn’t believe that the whole world didn’t agree with Boris. He ran through a totally uncosted housing programme; he did a drive-by shooting of Michael Gove; he boasted of his record as foreign secretary. That last bit didn’t take long.

Then Boris turned his attention to Theresa May and Brexit. Chequers was against the law – it wasn’t, but what the hell? – and Britain was being cheated. What was needed was someone like Boris who would bumble bumble, make Latin references, ruffle his hair and say that Britain could be great again if only we believed enough. Someone who lacked even the basic level of self-awareness to realise he had broken the system and had no real idea how to fix it. Someone whose only visible plan was to say sod off to the EU and that if it was very lucky we would let it trade with us again sometime in the future.

Same old, same old. A vision of the future in which Boris was prime minister and the country was condemned to a seventh circle of hell in which the same speech, the same jokes, the same Latin, would be played on a loop indefinitely. Then a rare moment of clarity. Pathos even. Boris looked down at the front row and saw just a handful of the same hopeful faces. He might have the numbers to stop Chequers, but he was way short of what he would need to become prime minister. His speech bumble bumble tailed off into silence. As so often, he had made a splash. But the waters would soon close over.

Reproduced, without permission, from an article by John Crace in the Guardian

 @JohnJCrace

Tue 2 Oct 2018 18.11 BSTLast modified on Tue 2 Oct 2018 21.05 BST

John Crace

Honesty in Politics

After weeks of clinging on Amber Rudd has finally resigned her post as Home Secretary! Her reason was that she inadvertently misled the Commons by denying that there were quotas for “illegal” migrants.

She should have also apologized for being incompetent and for supporting such outrageous policies in the first place.

Assuming that Rudd didn't know and approve of what was being done in her own department, soon after the stories in the press about the difficulties experienced by the Windrush migrants started to appear, anyone with an iota of humanity and empathy would have investigated and carpeted the Home Office civil servants concerned. To ask individuals who arrived as children to now prove that they have the right to live, work, rent a flat and get medical treatment in the UK or face deportation is outrageous. To set Kafkaesque requirements for documentation that officials know has been destroyed, or is impossible to obtain, such as to require four pieces of documentary evidence for each year since they arrived in the UK as children is preposterous, cruel and designed so that the applicant will fail to prove their right to remain. But Amber Rudd doesn’t seem to have any empathy, neither does Theresa May, whose policies to create a hostile environment for migrants, developed when she was Home Secretary, are at the root of the whole scandal.

But as well as being responsible for the formulation and application of such inhumane policies, both May and Rudd appear to be seriously lacking in the politicians’ basic skills of keeping in touch with public opinion and reacting appropriately. As late as two weeks ago May was refusing to see Commonwealth leaders to discuss the sorry affair!  They both thought that public opinion would back their hard line stance, but there is still a sense of decency left in the nation.

May demonstrated that she was out of touch with the real world during the last election campaign so I suppose that we should not be surprised that she continues to do so. As for Rudd, who was being touted as a future party leader, her performance has disappointed the more liberal wing of the Tory Party and outraged members of the public including myself. The current leaders of the UK, which was once known for its tolerance, justice and fair play are responsible for destroying that reputation with a series of badly conceived, populist and racist policies.

It’s time that May dropped her unrealistic immigration targets and admitted that her policies are misguided and their execution cruel. The Brexiteers' lies about migrants and tabloid hysteria; together with genuine concern about the pressure on public services caused by savage Tory spending cuts on schools, the NHS, local authorities and their social care budgets, have created the conditions for May’s "hostile environment" policies. History has shown us that it’s always easy to blame foreigners, or people with a different skin colour or religion, for your own home-grown problems: but it's not too late for some honesty in politics and a new more humane way forward for the Tory party. Otherwise the tag line “The Nasty Party” will stick to them until the next election!