The Last Ditch by Tom Paine

Question 1: Do you agree that there is a gap in the proposed legislative framework for
people with mental capacity, which this power would address?

No

Question 2: What are your views on the proposal that there should be a new power of
entry, enabling the local authority to speak to someone with mental capacity who they think
could be at risk of abuse and neglect, if a third party prevents them from doing so?

I strenuously object to the creation of any such power. In fact I would welcome the
abolition of most existing such powers.

Question 3 (for care and support professionals working in adult safeguarding): How many
times in the last 12 months, have you been aware of a situation where, had this power
existed, it would have been appropriate to use it? What were the circumstances?

N/A

Question 4: What safeguards would we need to ensure local authorities use such a power
effectively and appropriately?

Any such safeguards would merely raise the question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
There is no appropriate use of such a power. A person with legal capacity should never
have his or her choices second-guessed by the state. This is a dangerous, immoral
(perhaps even amoral) proposal incapable of being ameliorated by safeguards.

For example, would the following provide adequate safeguards?

• A warrant would be applied for from a Circuit Judge (e.g. a nominated judge of the Court
of Protection).

This would only help if the legislation granting the powers was clear (as it could not by
definition be) that the state has no right to interfere in the life choices of those with legal
capacity. Since the intent of the proposed legislation is precisely to create such a right, the
judge would have no ability to restrict such action and the warrant would merely use the
judiciary as camouflage, further soiling its reputation for independence in the process.

• The local authority would present the court with evidence of the need for the warrant.

See above.

• The local authority would ensure that there is a process by which the occupiers of the
premises understand that they can complain about the way in which a power has been
used. The local authority would have to verbally inform the affected persons how they
might access that process

See above. There is no point in a right to complain about such a loss of liberty, if it is
backed by law. One wonders, by the way, how they would inform anyone other than
"verbally". Draw them a picture, perhaps?

The British State is too powerful. After decades of growth to the point where it now
consumes the majority of national resources and is strangling to economic death the
nation it purports to serve, it is unsurprising that it attracts employees who have no
sympathy with personal liberty. In my view, no-one who respects our right to live life as we
please would wish to be part of such an aggressive apparatus. Once the state is staffed by
substantial numbers of such people, proposals like these are to be expected and it is the
job of government, as the people's representative, to oppose not promote them.

No further extension of the state's already-excessive power can possibly be justified. Any
government worthy of the names "conservative" or "liberal" or "democrat" would be
slashing its powers in order to set the British people free not listening to calls to authorise
meddling in the lives of those with legal capacity.