¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

ENERGY was on the agenda at a packed Labour Party annual conference in
Blackpool. I warned delegates that as much as we might like windmills to
generate our electricity rather than nuclear power stations, it just wasn’t
practical. It would, I said, take 35,000 windmills—spaced out for
aerodynamic reasons—to match the output of just one medium-sized nuclear
power station. My warning received loud catcalls from the Green contingent in
the audience, but louder cheers from delegates of the Amalgamated Union of
Engineering Workers, who represented many nuclear power workers.

That was, of course, in 1980. A recent news item on an all-weather windmill,
has made me think that perhaps today’s windmills and nuclear technology might
yet march together (¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ, 14 July, p 20). It seems that
Bernard Frankovic and Ivan Vrsalovic, engineers at the University of Rijeka,
Croatia, have enclosed a windmill’s turbine blades in a vented cowl. Their
prototype can generate three-and-a-half times as much electricity as
conventional windmills of the same size.

Brian Wilson, the energy minister, tells me his officials are keeping a
careful watch on the Croatian technology. He adds that programme managers at
ETSU, the Energy Technology Support Unit, Harwell, are monitoring developments
with considerable interest.

Clearly, any advances that make windmills more productive should be made a
priority. I shall ask ministers to report on progress in a few months.

LONG ago, the local police asked my elderly mother to pick out a thief in an
ID parade—he had previously been a lunchtime guest in her home. Alas, she
fingered the wrong chap and chose a trusted and respectable local bank clerk.
Embarrassment knew no bounds.

¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ recently reported that British courts are looking into
using video line-ups as a means of saving time, money and avoiding possible
wrongful imprisonment
(8 September, p 8).

John Denham, the Home Office minister with responsibility for criminal
records and much else, tells me that it can be a headache setting up and finding
somewhere to hold an ID parade and speedily getting enough people together who
resemble the suspect to constitute a fair parade. He agrees that such
difficulties could be overcome if a video alternative was the norm.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) specifies a range of
procedures which the criminal courts recognise, he adds. An ID parade is the
first option and preferred procedure. But the act allows that when this is not
practicable—say, because a sufficient number of people resembling the
suspect cannot be found—a parade need not be held. The police must then
consider other forms of identification. They can show a witness a video film of
a suspect—this is especially helpful if the suspect refuses to join an ID
parade, said Denham.

The minister added that codes of practice under PACE are now being reviewed.
His department is keen for video identification to be used instead of the
traditional parade. Police forces now have guidelines on the scope for video
parades. Denham hopes they’ll be encouraged to use them more widely even before
the codes are changed.

These are positive developments, that can limit delays while still offering
an effective test of evidence that is fair to all parties involved.