Dave, Nick and Ed - thanks for nothing!

I am, I suppose, a bit of a liberal interventionist. I believe in a model whereby the international community defines certain behaviours as unacceptable, agrees on a range of possible sanctions, and then enforces them based on principles of evidence, justice and international law.

It's the word 'enforce' that presents us with the tricky bit. Enforcement means action, because unless you actually demonstrate that you really mean it, those minded to break the rules are encouraged to believe that they might well get away with it.

Last night, the Government showed poor judgment in calling a fairly meaningless, and probably unnecessary, vote on potential future action against Syria, a motion which positively invited a 'political' Opposition amendment, and was then lost to a coalition of the Labour Party, government rebels and minor parties.

In doing so, Parliament has effectively, although perhaps accidentally, turned its back on the cause of liberal interventionism in the case of Syria.

Oh yes, we've hardly been consistent in our approach. We only tend to engage with the approval of the US, but someone has to lead, and big countries with sufficient military capacity are required to demonstrate the existence of a big stick.

But, as a liberal, albeit perhaps an old-fashioned one, it's no good talking about the rights of man if, when push comes to shove, you only mean it when it's easy or convenient.

So, perhaps now would be a good time to take stock of our place in the world, and our obligations towards it?

Syria: an opportunity lost, an opportunity gained?

Parliament has spoken. And whilst it isn't entirely clear that what it appears to have said is actually what it meant to say, there are some serious questions that follow on from the outcome of last night's defeat for the Government.

Is the 1925 Geneva Protocol a dead letter, if nobody is willing to enforce it?

Written during the time of the ill-fated League of Nations, the Protocol outlawed first use of chemical weapons, and is still being ratified in various places - Syria ratified it in 1968, Moldova in 2010. It was widely accepted as applying to use anywhere, including domestically, although some signatories weren't entirely happy to share that view.

The Protocol was written in a simpler time, when technology limitations meant that access to chemicals was restricted, the means of delivery were few, and pretty obvious, and the idea of using such weapons against your own citizens was almost unthinkable. Besides, they weren't very accurate, being vulnerable to wind shifts and the like.

The world is a much more complex place now, and delivery of chemical weapons much simpler, so the idea that only sovereign nations might use them is a flawed one. That has implications for enforcement, and I'm not convinced that existing international bodies are best suited to dealing with the new environment.

So, if it is to be assumed that last night's vote rules out British involvement in Syria in the near term, does this mean that we have effectively chosen not to enforce the Protocol?

I hope not. But perhaps if the United Kingdom finds itself in a position to bring the UN Security Council together to address the question of treaty enforcement in an era where sovereign states are not the only players, this may be an opportunity gained, rather than one lost.

Of spurdogs and the Common Fisheries Policy

One thing about following Ros about the place is that it can be surprisingly educational. On previous outings, I've discovered what makes a successful in-house waste disposal and recycling programme (Teignbridge), what colour plants you should use in a care home for Alzheimer's patients (red and yellow) and at what point a modern pharmaceutical plant becomes profitable (10% of capacity, if it's in Pune, India). Last Friday saw another of those trips.

In Ros's new role as Chair of a sub-committee of the EU Select Committee, she is heading up an enquiry into the new Common Fisheries Policy, and I wondered out loud as to whether or not meeting some fishermen might not be interesting and informative. After all, Lowestoft isn't that far from home, and I'd never been. Ros agreed, and a meeting with the Lowestoft Fish Producers' Organisation was arranged.

The sun was shining as we headed for the coast, and we arrived in good time to meet the Chief Executive and the Chair at their office, filled with pictures of trawlers and of the port in its heyday. Then, the dock was crammed tight with fishing smacks, and fresh fish was distributed far and wide from the railway depot across the street. Now, sadly, there are just a dozen or so trawlers using Lowestoft as a base.

A number of local fishermen had come to meet Ros, who was keen to talk to them about the impact of the proposed discard ban. The more we talked, the more it became apparent that the mechanics of combining a discard ban with quotas are potentially very difficult, and that for smaller vessels, matters could be very tricky indeed. The science of fish survivability rates remains uncertain too, as factors such as technique used, water depth and air temperature all impact.

There was talk of spurdogs (spiny dogfish), which cannot be landed, but are very difficult to safely return to the sea alive, and the problems caused by bans on the catching of some types of skate but not others. It began to feel as though, in an attempt to address the problems created by huge seaborne fish processing factories, the European Union and the member states are applying an inflexible regime.

And yet, small trawlers offer relatively high levels of sustainability and low levels of discards, something to be encouraged, not buried in regulation and hedged in by unnecessary restrictions. In ensuring the survival and regeneration of fish stocks, we risk killing off an industry as a by-product.

All in all, it was a very enlightening meeting with a group of people I might never have met otherwise, on a subject I knew virtually nothing about previously. It does make me think that supporting a local industry by buying fish from local suppliers is worthwhile, and encouraging supermarkets to do the same might help. But, most of all, designing a fisheries policy towards sustainability of both fish stocks and local, small vessel, fishing fleets, might be the greatest thing of all.

CPI - another bank scandal... and five more years of texts and robocalls

Ros reminds me that, two years or so ago, she received a phone call from a financial institution that shall remain nameless, offering her protection against identity theft. At the time, she questioned its necessity and rejected their 'generous' offer.

And now, it turns out, it was fraudulent. The cover merely duplicated that already offered in the event of theft from a bank account. The expected cost of compensation? £1.5 billion.

A dozen or so banks have signed up to the proposed settlement scheme, evidence of the scale of the mis-selling. And this leads one to ask the question, "At what point are bank executives going to be held personally liable for their misconduct?".

This mis-selling scandal overlaps the PPI debacle, and it seems obvious to me that, having discovered the scale of that, a functioning management board of a major financial institution might reasonably ask the question, "Is there anything else that we're selling that is suspect?". There is, so far, no evidence that I'm aware of that says that they did.

As a start, Companies House should be considering action to bar some, or all, of those responsible from acting as directors in the future, and then we should start prosecuting people for fraud if provable.

Clearly, these people do not learn, and perhaps five years of having to compensate us every time we get a stupid robocall or annoying text from one of those leach-like 'compensation factories' might be justice for the rest of us.

Creeting St Peter: a little more on that solar farm proposal

I've not heard anything more about the solar farm proposal but, over dinner with a friend who has a renewable energy business, I took the opportunity to ask how many homes could be supplied with energy from an 10 MWp solar farm. His answer? About 3,650 households, or a county council division in these parts.

Now, of course, there are caveats, I presume - average levels of sunshine and of downtime, probably. I'm also guessing that the payment to the farmer for the rent of his land is equivalent, or more than, the expected profit that could be made from farming it, and certainly reduces the risk.

That leaves the question, does the perceived cost to the community overcome a broader need for secure supplies of energy? With the apparent crisis in energy supply looming ever larger, to what extent should local concerns trump a possible greater good?

These are difficult questions, especially for small communities, where any such debate can become potentially rather personal. We can only wait and see how it will turn out...

Is it still possible to have online debate without abuse?

I've spent the last day or so in a blizzard of moderation over at Liberal Democrat Voice for having the temerity to suggest that, rather than rush to judgement, it might be better to wait for the facts to emerge. As for the suggestion that the media might not always be unbiased or even factually accurate, and that a range of sources might help in reaching one's opinion...

And yet, in the real world, plenty of people are perfectly capable of jumping to a conclusion based on something which fits with their biases, conscious or sub-conscious. That is, I suppose, normal. After all, in our busy lives, who has time amidst work, families, housework and all those other things to find out more? We effectively trust our media to be reasonably accurate, even as we acknowledge their biases.

Except that we don't, when asked the direct question about levels of trust in journalists. Depending on which polling company is asking the question, only about 1 in 5 of us trust them. So, why is it that too many people who comment on political websites will start from the presumption that the story they have read, or use in support of their argument is true, accurate and without spin? And why are they so dogmatic about it, to the point of surprising levels of anger, aggressiveness and downright rudeness towards anyone who might have the audacity not to agree with them?

It seems to work for them, I must say. That said, whilst they tend to dominate any debate in which they participate, they appear increasingly to be talking to (shouting at?) just each other.

I also find myself bemused by the persistence of non-Liberal Democrats who seem to have remarkable amounts of free time to find Liberal Democrats to abuse. I understand that they're angry, but given their assumption that we're all morally bankrupt and operate in an ethical vacuum, what makes them think that we're suddenly going to conclude, "You know, Steve's right, I am ethically and morally loathsome, I think I'll give up any interest in society and play gin rummy and engage a seven year old to clean my chimney instead."? It seems somewhat unlikely, wouldn't you say?

I'm not under any illusion as to the popularity of liberal democracy as a political philosophy. It is, self-evidently, demonstrated by the absence of a wholly Liberal, or Liberal Democrat government since 1911, and the status quo has some pretty enthusiastic, and motivated, supporters.

I'd like to think though that, given the chance, and a fair hearing, people could lend us their support. I'm not likely to achieve that by standing on doorsteps, aggressively challenging people's integrity and morality.

So, why does the internet seem different?

The four-step approach: something to ponder over, perhaps?

According to Professor Veronica Hope-Hailey, Dean of Bath University’s School of Management, leaders need to demonstrate four key characteristics to really establish and maintain trust.

• Ability - demonstrable competence at doing your job.
• Benevolence - a concern for others beyond your own needs or motives.
• Integrity - adherence to a set of principles, such as fairness and honesty, that are acceptable to others.
• Predictability - a consistency of behaviour over time.

And, thinking about it, that seems like a pretty fair set of criteria for would-be political activists.

There is, however, a catch, in that they need to be accepted, and understood, by journalists and voters. After all, if you assume the basest of motives in all politicians, you're rather encouraging them not to adhere to them.

I can see that we're going to have a problem with this in some quarters...

Happy birthday, @BaronessRos

Yes, it is that time once again when we celebrate Ros's birthday.

Naturally, I have found an interesting and thoughtful gift to present to her, although that gets a little harder each year - we're at an age where we have most of the things that we want, and there isn't really much more room in the house. But, most of all, we have a pleasant day in the country planned, a nice dinner sitting in the refrigerator awaiting its turn in the oven, and the sun is beginning to break through.

So, happy birthday, my love...

Creeting St Peter: exactly how ugly is a solar farm anyway?

No sooner do I retire from the Parish Council fray than a front page headline appears in the Bury Free Press referring to a proposed solar farm on the south east edge of the parish. Apparently, an open house meeting had been held in the village to allow residents to find out more, but residents living near the proposed site were interviewed by the newspaper, voicing their concerns. And, according to the representative of those behind the project;

On Thursday July 25, MS Power Projects met with members of the local community and delegates from both Creeting St Peter and Creeting St Mary Parish Councils at a public exhibition. All the members of the local community and delegates of the respective councils were invited to attend the public exhibition, which was held at the Church Hall in Creeting St Peter.

This was, I admit, news to me, so I did a little research. There was some information on the Creeting St Mary parish website, with a helpful and quite interesting FAQ, but nothing on the Creeting St Peter site. The company behind the proposal, MS Power, on the other hand, has remarkably little information on its website, but appears to be credible enough.

The proposal itself provides an interesting dilemma. There is no doubt that our dependence on fossil fuels is a threat to our energy security as a nation, and sustainable renewable energy offers a means towards ensuring that we can generate our own power in the future. And when there are suggestions that capacity may be overtaken by demand within just two years, a project that could be up and running relatively quickly would appear to be a good thing.

There is, of course, an immediate impact on those people who live within close proximity of the proposed site, and I am sympathetic, to some extent. The views in this part of Suffolk, whilst not spectacular, are quite pleasant, whereas a solar farm, with two metre security fencing around it, might not be so attractive.

So, some obvious pros and cons to be considered. Fortunately, they'll be considered by someone else...

Parish Councils: not necessarily a place for this political activist

It has been four years since I was first co-opted onto Creeting St Peter Parish Council, and I have since survived an election. Throughout that period I have consistently used this blog to fret about issues of financial control, accountability and communication, mostly without any sense that I can actually do anything to improve matters. And I have come to the realisation that this isn't working as I had hoped it might.

Like many small, rural, parish councils, mine is non-party political and, in truth, non-political in any sense that I recognise. In some ways, that presents no problem as most of our duties are obligatory ones - the grass must be cut, the street lights lit, that sort of thing. It isn't very exciting, but then the life of most elected officials isn't exactly glamorous.

However, there is the question of how a council operates, how it communicates and how it is accountable. This, to my mind, indicates the expression of an underlying philosophy about how a representative democracy works. And this, for anyone with a political philosophy, offers an interesting challenge.

As a liberal, I believe that I should be able to express my personal stance on any salient issue in my capacity as a councillor, respectful of the will of Council and of the decision of the majority. After all, every four years, I will be up for re-election and, potentially may have to compete to retain my seat. My electors have a right to know what I have done and why, should they be interested enough. That isn't a view that some elements of Parish Council are comfortable with, and they have made that abundantly clear, as is their right.

As a seasoned committee hand, I strongly believe that advance notice of council business makes us more efficient. It isn't mandatory that an individual councillor read their papers, but that by doing so, meetings can be more efficient and decisions made with the benefit of reflection. Again, that isn't to say that they will be, but it certainly can't hurt. The idea that I can turn up at a meeting, be presented with a list of cheques to be signed without any meaningful context in terms of in-year spending does leave me a bit nervous.

I do also believe in communicating with those who fund the activities of the Council. Our website states that meetings take place on the second Tuesday of every other month, except that they mostly don't, and no notice is given of them other than a notice on the Parish noticeboard. Given that 25% of the households in the Parish don't live in the village, and mostly have no reason to enter it, they are effectively excluded. Meetings are not announced on the Facebook page, the Twitter feed, or on the website. I am actively discouraged from distributing newsletters that are not official publications of the Parish Council, even if it is clearly stated that they are issued by me in my personal capacity.

In other words, Creeting St Peter Parish Council is not a place for someone with a philosophical world view like mine. That isn't to say that my colleagues are wrong, or stupid, or any other pejorative you might think of. We just don't agree and, as a democrat, I respect that.

So, what do I do? Do I continue in post, simply occupying the position rather than carrying out my duties and obligations as I perceive them, or continue to try to improve the way that the Council functions? I'm not minded towards the former, as it feels wrong to do so, and I'm weary of trying the latter. And 2015, when the next elections take place, is a long way away.

Life is, I've always felt, too short to be spent being even mildly frustrated, especially when there are plenty of other things to occupy my time that bring me satisfaction, or entertainment, or both. And so, earlier today, I tendered my resignation as a parish councillor. As a result, how replacement street lights are funded, or how the budget is balanced, or the minutiae of planning applications that Mid Suffolk's planning department will never enforce anyway are no longer my active problem, unless I should choose to take a casual interest. What I won't know won't annoy me.

Now, where are those barbecue tongs?...

So much for the Coalition packing the Lords then...

One of the low spots of attempts to reform the House of Lords was the claim that the Coalition was packing the chamber. It wasn't true, especially given that there had only two lists of new creations since the General Election, and one of those was Labour's Dissolution Honours List.

However, we now have some data. At the end of the 2007-08 Parliamentary session, there were 733 members of the House of Lords, excluding those on leave of absence, disqualified, retired etc. At the end of the 2012-13 session, there were 763. That represents an increase of just over 4%.

Interestingly, there were very few creations by Gordon Brown in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 sessions, just five (four Labour, one Conservative) in total, plus a Law Lord. In fact, there were more (six) crossbench appointments by the House of Lords Appointments Commission in that period.

Since the General Election, there have been 129 appointments, made up as follows;

• 58 in the Dissolution Honours List (29 Labour, 18 Conservative, 9 Liberal Democrat, 1 Democratic Unionist and 1 Crossbencher)
• 57 in the Winter 2010 list (28 Conservative, 15 Liberal Democrat, 10 Labour, 1 Plaid Cymru, 1 Ulster Unionist and 2 Crossbenchers)
• 8 nominated via the House of Lords Appointments Commission (all Crossbenchers)
• 6 appointed separately - three appointed directly to Ministerial office (all Conservatives), the former Head of the Civil Service, the former Governor of the Bank of England and the former Archbishop of Canterbury

And so, with another list apparently due to be published, the number of eligible Peers will increase, obviously. Well, not exactly. Since the beginning of 2012, twenty-nine Peers have died, so a list of roughly that length would merely replace losses.

So, not significantly more Peers, which leads you to wonder why the place is so crowded these days...

Might Claire Perry versus Guido Fawkes be a bit of a mismatch?

I don't know much about the Conservative MP for Devizes, whose campaign against the easy accessibility of internet porn has brought her to the attention of internet freedom campaigners and civil liberties activists - amongst others. However, there is more than a hint that she doesn't really 'get' the internet from her comments thus far.

That's fair enough, I suppose. After all, I have an awareness of the value of the technology but, if you asked me to explain how it works, I'd be fairly clueless. I like to think of it as witchcraft that doesn't require burning at the stake.

But her latest sally, against Guido Fawkes, appears to be a foolish and wholly unnecessary one. It does trouble me that she doesn't appear to understand that making unsubstantiated accusations about named individuals, even if they are the Guido Fawkes collective, is a rather dangerous game. I particularly dislike the threat to talk to the Editor of the national newspaper for which Paul Staines writes a column.

Now, I'd be one of the first to note that Paul and his minions have done plenty to coarsen political discourse in this country, assisted undoubtedly by some of those who hold public office, but it's still a fair way from there to criminality, especially without evidence.

I do have to admire Guido's response though, albeit in a 'from behind the sofa' kind of way. Holding a public poll to determine whether or not to sue her for libel is certainly entertaining, whilst giving her plenty of opportunity to withdraw her comments and apologise, should she deem it wise to do so - and it's the course of action that I'd recommend, frankly.

There is, of course, a degree of irony here, in that it is virtually impossible to hold the Guido Fawkes collective accountable for any libel they might commit, due to their entirely legal corporate status. So, before engaging our learned friends, Paul, Harry and Alex might wish to consider whether or not a level playing field is appropriate.

Just a thought, gentlemen...

Internet: freedom, and liberalism, lies bleeding...

So, if David Cameron and the Conservatives are to be believed, we are about to have an opt-in provision for 'adult content' on the internet. Strike another blow against freedom, I fear.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly wild about some of the impacts that the internet has wrought - it has increasingly allowed the coarsening of political (and other) debate, amongst other things, and the easy availability of online pornography may well have had a negative impact on the way some people interact sexually - but in part that comes down to the way people use what is, otherwise, a tool for good, or change, or both.

The beauty of the internet is that it gives people access to information, be it frivolous or vital. It gives the vulnerable a means to discover that they are not alone, it provides a route for those who are, in their own eyes, unusual, or outside of the mainstream, to meet others like themselves. It is, in short, a critical building block for a properly liberal society.

And yes, it does need to be policed against illegality - I'm perfectly relaxed about that - and we need to educate society about its impact and how best to take advantage of the opportunities it offers. But an opt-out option is far better than an opt-in strategy.

The definition of 'adult content' is a vexed one. Various 'minority' communities are rightly concerned that they will be impacted, and that entirely legal, consensual material will be included, as well as critical support material for, for example, the LGBT+ community will be covered. And who, exactly, decides what will be included, and how will they cover every potential website? Is such a project even possible?

It would surely be better to police the internet for criminality, and to educate, rather than to presume criminality and block material pre-emptively based on a set of contentious criteria. But, it seems, something must be done, and this is something, so it must be done.

In a society where we are increasingly taught to be scared of things, it was inevitable that, at some point, the internet would be targeted by people who either don't get it, or have a material interest in not getting it. I would have expected it from Labour, but assumed that, given how loudly Conservatives proclaim their love for freedom, that they might be a bit more sensible. It seems that I was wrong... again. I'm afraid that it's still true that Conservatives still mostly believe in the freedom to do whatever they approve of.

But will Liberal Democrat parliamentarians, given the chance, be any better? Or, in a vain effort to appease the Daily Mail, will they just roll over?

Regardless, I don't have a good feeling about this...

The bureaucrat lives to study another day...

It's been a trying week or so on Planet Bureaucrat, as I had a notoriously tricky exam nearly two weeks ago, and have been waiting for the result since then. But, on Friday, the waiting was to be over.

The result was to be sent to my work e-mail address, so I caught my usual Suffolk Links bus to Stowmarket, found a seat on the 8.11 train, and sat back with a good book as we trundled through the mid-Suffolk countryside on a sunny morning. All was well, at least until the point where the train stopped in the middle of a field.

Time passed.

Eventually, an announcement. A trespasser at Ipswich station meant that all trains were at a standstill, but it was hoped that we would be on the move shortly.

More time passed. I was, at least, enjoying my book...

10 a.m. came and went. I rang the office to let them know what was happening and, as I ended the call, there was another announcement. It seemed that there was someone on the roof at Ipswich station and that the electrical supply had been switched off in that area. Accordingly, we would be returning to Stowmarket, where buses would be available to take us to Ipswich and/or Manningtree.

That turned out not to be entirely true. Yes, there were buses, but only six of them, and none of them were anywhere near us. Eventually, a bus arrived, but it was women and children only. The sun beat down.

By 11.45, another two buses had arrived, but both required a 45 minute break to remain within legal limits. I had almost, but not quite, forgotten that a career-defining exam result was awaiting me.

A train arrived, and it was announced that it would be travelling to Manningtree and Colchester only, and most of the increasingly impatient crowd headed to the platform, leaving about a busload for Ipswich, who boarded a suddenly available bus, and we were off.

As we pulled into Ipswich, I spotted the man behind the chaos, still on the roof after five hours in the sun. It would be fair to say that he wasn't entirely popular, although I did think that shooting him - the most recommended solution - was a mite harsh.

So, I headed to the office, opened my e-mail, and found the notification.

Deep breath...

I had passed.

Well, that's another three months of study to look forward to...

David Milliband: now right, but not apparently sorry...

It was a Saturday in mid-July. The sun beat down upon middle England out of a clear blue sky on the sort of day which usually sees Englishmen unveil a dress sense to horrify Frenchmen, Italians and, in truth, anyone with an eye for fashion. Barbecue and cold beer weather or, for those with a more genteel disposition, a glass of something red and full-bodied. And there I was, in a suit, heading for something best described as the political equivalent of LinkedIn for people who really don't need a computer or social media.

Ditchley Park is a country house and estate north west of Oxford and about two miles from Charlbury, and is probably best known as being the home of the Ditchley Foundation, an organisation with a goal of advancing international learning and to bring transatlantic and other experts together to discuss international issues. It is, if you like, a garden party for the great and the good with a lecture attached.

It would be fair to say that this is not my obviously natural territory, but given what Ros does, it is hers, and where she goes, and they'll have me, I go too. The main attraction, a speech by David Milliband, billed as being his last major political intervention before going to take up his new role as CEO of the International Rescue Committee in September.

The entertainment came in two parts - a formal speech and a question and answer session. The speech has already been published by the New Statesman, and covered by the press. The Q&A session was, and will remain to some degree, off the record - I cannot believe for one moment that it won't be leaked, such is the world we live in - and I will respect that injunction, although I wouldn't say that it was particularly revelatory.

His speech was about intervention by the 'Great Powers', in particular with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. He noted;

Iraq and Afghanistan have occupied American and other western troops for longer than World War 2, at enormous not to say inordinate cost, human, financial and political. And the longer we have been in these two countries, the less clear it has been not just who has won or even is winning, but also what winning looks like. Alliances shift, local politics intervenes, recent promises are trumped by old hatreds, my enemy’s enemy turns out to be mine too.

And yet, given that he was Foreign Secretary from 2007 until 2010, he seemed remarkably coy about his responsibility, both individual and collective, for what happened in both theatres. He had, however, drawn four lessons;

• clarity and legitimacy in post-conflict power sharing arrangements needs to be front and centre in any diplomatic or military endeavour overseas 
• without the support of regional actors fragile states can never be stabilised 
• mobile terrorist groups add a whole new dimension to instability in fragile states through their ability to hijack local grievances 
• the phrase “war on terror” had the dangerous consequence of uniting under a single banner a series of disparate and sometimes localised grievances, so language is important 

Now, to be honest, I'm not that impressed. In 2006, I was designing an American policy for intervention - multinational, supported by the United Nations or the appropriate regional body, backed with prior congressional approval and with stated objectives - and I didn't have an entire bureaucracy behind me.

In fairness - and I'm a pretty fair person, usually - it was a well-constructed speech, awash with interesting points, most of which merited further development but never received any, the sort of speech that is interesting but, when pondered over afterwards, leaves you wondering what it was he actually said.

But for me, his most interesting, and somewhat depressing, comment, seemingly almost slipped in was this;

Ten years on, Saddam is gone, and the Kurds are safe, but the country is afflicted by violence and fissures. The overall reckoning is strongly negative. There were no WMD, and if we had known that in 2003 then there would have been no justification for war.

Well, David, that's fine as far as it goes, but if you recall, there were many saying just that in 2003. You, and your colleagues of the time, ignored that view, doctored your evidence, and used it to justify intervention.

It would have been nice if you could have found it in you to apologise... 

My day as a zookeeper - O is for Otter, R is for Red River Hog

I only got a relatively fleeting look at the smooth-coated otters at Otter Creek, as time was short, and they can't entirely be trusted with non-keepers, playful little scamps that they are, but there was time to find out a bit about them.

I got rather more time with the red river hogs though. They have the misfortune to be at a relatively remote corner of the zoo, and don't get as many visitors as, say, the meerkats. I like them though, and got to get fairly close to them.

Not happy, not happy at all...

My job was to feed them an assortment of apples, carrots, broccoli and other healthy stuff. The hitherto dominant male wasn't entirely happy, having been recently castrated to prevent the group from getting any larger, but he was still content to eat apples from my hand.

He couldn't have everything though, so I was obliged to give the fruit and vegetables some air. The downside of this was that some of the hogs were in receipt of glancing blows to the head from low-flying fruit. They seemed to take it in good spirit though.

And that left just one more animal, also beginning with R...

Social media and councillors - thank you to Auntie Helen...

'Connected councillors - a guide to using social media to support local leadership' doesn't sound like the most exciting read in the world and, indeed, it isn't likely to be hugely sought after by the populace. However, it has suddenly become interesting, not because I have an urge to be difficult, but because I want to be absolutely sure that, as a parish councillor, I don't do anything stupid. But, having given some thought to my parish council's new social media policy, I wanted to know more about the background to such documents.

My first thought was to visit my District Council's website, on the basis that they probably have a policy for their councillors. Well, if they do, it wasn't easy to find, so I gave up. Instead, I typed 'social media policy for councillors' into Google and came up with the following link. Yes, once again, Liberal Democrat Voice, in the person of Helen Duffett, came up trumps.

Something to read on Thursday, I think...

My day as a zookeeper: M is for Meerkat

The country's most popular animal, entirely down, it seems, to the advertising genius employed by a comparison website was on my list of animals to see. What I hadn't expected was that I would be part of the exhibit...

The Suricata Sands exhibit is, naturally, one of the most visited attractions at Colchester Zoo, and I was to go and find out about what they eat, and how they are looked after.

Posing for the camera...

First, I was admitted into the enclosure to take a closer look, and to be introduced to the 'mob' and their environment. Naturally, as burrowing animals, the enclosure is, effectively, a concrete bowl filled with suitable soil, studded with rocks and logs, some hollow, for them to dig under, run through or stand on.

They all have names, naturally, and the group is led by the dominant female, who is usually pregnant. They're also incredibly inquisitive, and my presence didn't appear to bother them at all. It did, however, appear to confuse some of the visitors, who wondered what I was doing there.

We then returned to the inner sanctum, where it was time for feeding and simultaneous enrichment. My job was to pour mealworms and slices of banana into paper bags, scrunch them up into balls, and throw them into as many parts of the enclosure as possible. It seems that I'm quite good at it, although the meerkats were just as good, if not better, at finding them, shredding them and eating the contents.

And yes, they are just as cute in the flesh as they appear from television and adverts...

Ros in the Lords: Short Debate - Claims Management Companies

Here's another of Ros's interventions that I hadn't covered, from 29 May 2012...

There has, in recent times, been a lot of fuss about claims management companies. They aren't looked at with as much concern as payday loan companies, but they remain one of the more annoying things about modern life...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for securing today's debate. Topics such as this, which are limited in scope but of real importance to the public, are exactly the sort suited to one hour Questions for Short Debate. The noble Lord has done us a great service by drawing attention to the many problems which are being caused by poor practice and, indeed, often illegal practice, in this area.

I suspect that had the noble Lord tabled a Question for Short Debate on the level of nuisance calls from claims management companies, he would have been overwhelmed by speakers. The number of calls from companies selling their so-called services for payment protection insurance, utility deals, home insulation schemes and accident compensation has now reached epidemic proportions. Debt consolidation services are particularly perfidious, preying as they do on those who are already vulnerable. At home in Suffolk, I routinely receive two or three calls every day from such companies. On one glorious evening, I received five. These related either to PPI, which I have never taken up, to a loan which has never existed, or to some accident which I have never had. It is irritating enough for me, but for elderly and disabled people who physically struggle to get to the phone, this is a real problem. I am increasingly finding people who have turned off their landlines because of the intrusion of these calls. I recently moved to a new flat in London. I had a new phone connected and it was a mere 30 minutes before I received my first PPI call. When the claims management industry gets your number faster than your husband does, things have come to a pretty pass.

The Financial Ombudsman Service website states that when it investigates a complaint, it expects to see evidence that a financial business has carried out a reasonable search to ascertain whether there has ever been a PPI policy. If only the dozen or so companies contacting me every week would do so. As we have heard from the noble Lord already, the impact on the financial services institutions in investigating completely bogus claims is quite large. I ask the noble Baroness: what can be done to oblige companies to do this research before they start down this route?

Will the noble Baroness also raise with Ofcom the question of nuisance calling, particularly the effectiveness of the telephone preference service? Signing up to this service is often offered up as a solution, and millions have done so. However, complaints are simply passed on to the Information Commissioner, as the telephone preference service itself has no enforcement power. Can the Minister confirm that to date there has not been a single case of prosecution under the Act? Would she agree that the epidemic growth in these calls is a demonstration of the fact that the TPS system as currently set up is simply not working? Is she able to say, through work done by the Information Commissioner, what percentage of the problems is caused by overseas phone calls, which are, of course, outside the scope of the telephone preference service?

One of the most worrying aspects of all this is that of data protection. There are many organisations-scandalously, these include public bodies-to which we give information in good faith, which routinely sell on this data. Once they have the details, they sell them on, so that it is impossible to escape from their clutches. I am sure I am not alone in being alarmed that not only my home and mobile phone numbers are used, but increasingly my parliamentary e-mail as well.

The Ministry of Justice website has a large section dedicated to claims management issues. I read with interest that companies should:

"not engage in face to face 'cold calling', or in any form of high pressure selling".

That leads me to reflect that either the companies which are doing the calling are not registered, or that they are registered and are flouting the rules. Perhaps the definition of "high pressure selling" needs to be tightened up. In any event, will the Government consider ways in which the public could more proactively report this kind of behaviour, enforcement could be made, and action could be taken when transgressions are found?

There is a trade body called the Association of Regulated Claims Management Companies, to which companies engaged in these activities can be affiliated. It offers a form of accreditation, unlike the Ministry of Justice, which simply registers companies and strikes them off if they transgress. The Motor Accident Solicitors Society has made the valid point to me that this is a complex area, and people often need help to make claims for legitimate injuries. It is entirely in the interest of good practice in the industry to weed out the bad people and ensure that they are removed. Can the noble Baroness say what sort of dealings the Government have with these trade bodies and how they might work more closely with them in the future?

Finally, will the Minister undertake to hold discussions with the Ministry of Justice to see how a higher profile might be given to how the public can deal with these issues? The MoJ website is highly factual, but does not go in for bold statements. Certainly, in this place, it is the personal injury sector which has been most complained about; however, it is actually the financial services sector which is really worrying the public. The financial services sector has less than a third of authorised businesses operating in this sphere, but it gets more than 90% of the complaints. Most of those complaints are about either cold calling or about up-front fees. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has already said, the MoJ report for last year records 3,213 authorised businesses in this field, an increase of 91 over the year. More than 1,000 were suspended or had surrendered their licences in some way.

This is clearly a sector in which there is a lot of churn. So while we absolutely need a robust regulatory framework, we also need real enforcement and bold public awareness campaigns about how to deal with claims management companies, right from that first call, through to the way that they use personal data and then on to the substance of how they conduct their business.

Creeting St Peter: more thoughts on a social media policy

Please note that this blog post refers to an item of Parish Council business and, accordingly, I must note that the views and comments that follow have been made entirely in a personal capacity, and do not, and should not be deemed to, represent  the official view of Creeting St Peter Parish Council or its Officers.

I've had a little more than a glancing view of  the document now so, what do I think?

Well, we now have 'approved social media' the official council website, Facebook page and Twitter feed, none of which I have operating access to anyway, so I suppose that I can't breach any agreed policy regarding them, at least.

There is guidance for Officers which, if my understanding of the definition of Officers is correct, doesn't affect me either - I'm a Member, not an Officer.

There follows a section entitled 'Usage of Third Party Media in your Official Capacity as a Parish Councillor', which tells me to do things that any self-respected, reasonable blogger should take for granted - try and avoid abuse, both in your posts and in any comments that might be submitted, ensure that you do not give the perception that you are representing the view of the Council (that's the Clerk's job), appropriate use of information only available to you through your position as a councillor.

It seems harmless.

We also have a protocol. It is called 'Internal Procedure and Protocol Blogging and Social Networking Policy for Parish Councillors'. This worries me a bit, especially as, to the best of my knowledge, I'm the only councillor in the Parish with a blog. One of my colleagues has had a Twitter account for slightly less than a month but, otherwise, that would be just me as well. It includes the following clause;

5.  Councillors must bear in mind that if they have a private blog, website, or social media pages and refer to Parish Council business on them, they will be viewed as acting in their official capacity.

Now, that does make me a bit nervous, especially given that my view on the role, responsibility and obligations of parish councillors has, on occasion, differed from that of some of my colleagues. I accept, freely, that my view is a minority one in some quarters, but there is reason to be concerned. Does this mean that, if we as a council decide to do something, and I decide to blog about it before the minutes are published as a thoroughly good thing, that I am in breach of the Council's Code of Conduct? Or, worse still, if we make a decision that I'm unhappy about,  that I cannot let it be known why I am unhappy until the minutes are published?

That isn't the case on most local authorities I know of, indeed I know a number of councillors who 'live tweet' their meetings. So, I'm going to have to seek clarification as to what the intention of the policy is before I draw any conclusions.

I have a nasty feeling that this isn't going to end well...