On Friday, I reported that the Conservative Party’s local government representatives on the European Union Committee of the Regions had refused to follow the official Cameron line and pull out of the European Peoples Party grouping.

Over the last few days, however, the position has changed and they are now going to try and form a European Conservatives and Reformist Group on the CoR.

When asked whether he was being bullied by the national Conservative Party, Councillor Gordon Keymer, Leader of the UK delegation, as well as the Tory group on the delegation, to the Committee of the Regions, refused to comment, saying “It’s an internal matter”.

Thumb-screws all round?  Or was it the threat of knee-capping?

And what did Roger Evans, Leader of the Conservatives on the London Assembly and one-time novellist, have to say about the matter?

I see that the Conservative local government representatives on the European Union Committee of the Regions have refused to follow the official Cameron line on Europe and pull out of European Peoples Party Group.  They say that to have left the EPP Group would have been “impractical”, that to do so would have made it “much more difficult to work effectively” and would have taken them out of a grouping that “Commissioners actually pay attention to.”

So now we know: Tory local government politicians are more sensible than their national leadership.  Of course, this may not be saying very much ……

I have been catching up on the latest news of defections and deceit in my former bailliwick of Haringey from a coffee shop in Vancouver, where I am speaking at a conference (in the city, not the coffee shop).
I gather that Councillor Brian Hailey, who was not reselected by his branch to stand as a candidate in May, has defected from the Labour Group on Haringey Council and joined the Liberal Democrats. This reportedly followed a meeting with Nick Clegg. (Apparently, there was also a meeting with David Cameron. However, Hailey decided not to follow in the footsteps of another former member of the Labour Group, Alan Dobbie – who was allegedly suffering from a form of post-Mayoral syndrome/folie de grandeur – and join the Tories. Apparently, Hailey found Cameron ‘unimpressive’/was not promised enough.)
I am told by an impeccable source that this is not the first time that Hailey has contemplated defection to the LibDems. He had discussions some years ago (that in itself ought to have resulted in his deselection). Apparently, on that occasion Hailey walked away when his request for a safe Parliamentary seat was spurned. Presumably, this time he has been told that they will meet his demand to be an MP. This in itself is interesting: the LibDems are notoriously ultra-democratic and the centre cannot foist a candidate on a constituency party, so if the offer was made they must have lied to Hailey and he must have been extraordinarily gullible to have believed it.
But what does it say about the LibDems that – irrespective of false promises made – they will accept as a member someone so unprincipled that they are happy to be in any one of the three main political parties and is prepared to join the one that bids highest?

According to Local Government Chronicle, a slip of the tongue by Deputy Mayor Sir (rumoured soon to be Lord) Simon Milton has suggested that Mayor Boris Johnson only intends to serve one term in office and will not run on his record (or otherwise) in 2012.  Listening to the slip, it sounds to me like a genuine slip of the tongue, but psychologists claim that such slips are more revealing than one might think ……

Certainly, Londoners will expect more of a coherent vision from a Mayor seeking re-election than they got in 2008 and is so far apparent from the incumbent, so may be there really will be no appetite for a second term.

There is always a surreal air about aspects of the Annual Dinner hosted by the (unelected) Lord Mayor of London in the City’s Mansion House for the (elected) Mayor of London and the “Governing Bodies of London”.  And tonight’s was no exception.

The surrealism began with a Grace from the Lord Mayor’s Chaplain that seemed to be based entirely on a song by Noel Coward – an innovation too far even for the New Model Conservative Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham, Stephen Greenhalgh, or at least for his phone which warbled its protest whilst the Chaplain was speaking (Greenhalgh tried ineffectually to silence it..).

Meanwhile nearby, discontent simmered amongst Mayor Johnson’s Deputy Mayors about the seating arrangements: why had (unelected) Deputy Mayor Sir Simon (rumoured soon to be Lord) Milton been given such a prominent seat allocation, compared with the two other (elected) Deputy Mayors?  (Milton was at the centre of the top-table at the left hand of God himself or more precisely at the left hand of  Stuart Fraser, the (unelected) Chairman of the Corporation’s Policy and Resources Committee.)

And then, of course, there was the speech from Mayor Boris Johnson himself.  Surreally praising those present for braving the snow and ice – the snow and ice itself being a tribute to the success of the team from City Hall that had gone to the Copenhagen to reverse global warming (“How successful they were and so quickly”).

He then moved rapidly on to an argument that the success (sic) of London in coping with the snow and ice was itself a metaphor for the success that London was having in weathering the recession(sic, sic).

This elided into a paeon of praise for the decision he had himself announced that in future all the data held by the GLA would be made freely available on the internet.  This in itself would transform the economic prospects of London (if not the Universe).

And then after a brief digression on how his heart goes out to those poor MPs caught up in the expenses scandals “for buying themselves a pepperami” (sic) and how the GLA decision, if adopted by Parliament, would have averted the scandal because the afore-mentioned pepperamis would not have been purchased.  At least, I think that was the argument.

Finally, the great champion of openness informed his audience that he could tell us that he had seen the proposed 2012 Olympics mascot but that he couldn’t tell us anything about it – we were not permitted to know whether it was an animal or not, what its gender was, or its sexual orientation.  All he could say was that it would be “a howling success”.  And what is more, if by the time it is unveiled in May, Gordon Brown has been sent to a salt-mine (there was a sub-theme of the evening relating to salt and grit) the Olympics mascot will be temporary Leader of the Labour Party.  Now as everyone knows, if the Leadership of the Labour Party becomes vacant, the post is automatically filled by the Deputy Leader of the Party until a successor is elected – so presumably this was Mayor Boris Johnson’s way of telling us that the 2012 Olympics mascot will in fact be the Right Honourable Harriet Harman MP.

As the Governing Bodies of London filed out of the Mansion House into the snow and ice (which amazingly still remained), you could hear the murmur of confusion/buzz of excitement about the sweeping vision of London’s future that they had just heard from Mayor Johnson.

I have been reading “Torture Team: Uncovering War crimes in the Land of the Free” by Philippe Sands, Professor of Law at University College, London (he is also a practising barrister at the Matrix Chambers and an Arsenal fan – although neither of these should be held against him).

The book describes in detail – on occasions meeting by meeting and memo by memo – how the use of “aggressive interrogation techniques” came to be authorised against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  This overturned existing US policy dating back at least as far as 1863 when President Abraham Lincoln issued the instruction that “military necessity does not admit of cruelty … nor of torture to extract confessions”.  Along the way, it was asserted that the Geneva Convention does not apply to those detained as part of the so-called “war on terror”.

The specific techniques included “water-boarding”, deprivation of sleep, maintenance of stress positions for long periods (the then US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, entered a caveat on the memo approving this, saying that he thought the restriction on standing for more than four hours was unnecessary as he personally often stood for much longer than that during the course of a day), humiliation, nudity in front of female soldiers, and exposure to extremes of room temperature.

In at least one instance, these techniques were repeated daily for more than seven weeks with a detainee who had already been kept isolated for many months.  It is apparent that no new information of any substance was obtained from this individual as a result of this “aggressive interrogation”.  (This echoes the remarks made to me by a former senior official of the Secret Intelligence Service: “Not only is torture illegal and morally wrong, it doesn’t work anyway”.)  The Bush administration eventually charged the individual with a list of terrorist offences including murder, only to withdraw the charges a few months later, admitting that the way he had been treated “met the legal definition of torture”.

Indeed, that admission of torture is significant.  Eventually, the Bush administration was constrained by proper legal process.  In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees were subject to Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention and had to be treated humanely.  And by then the various documents authorising “aggressive interrogation” had been revoked.

However, the process by which those documents had originally been produced is fascinating.  Legal advice was obtained, so that those acting on the authorisation could be assured that “aggressive interrogation” was lawful.  However, as Sands points out this advice was not authoritative and bypassed the proper channels (in particular, those lawyers within the military who would have challenged what was being suggested).

Sands draws a distinction between lawyers offering advice and those providing advocacy for a point of view.  The former must present the law clearly and indicate if their advice would be commonly accepted or is likely to be accepted by the Courts.  The arguments used as part of the advocacy of the latter is not the same as advice.

Sands concludes that the lawyers involved in the decisions to authorise “aggressive interrogation” are just as culpable as those who actually made the decisions.

Whether or not any of this leads to charges in the US or elsewhere for war crimes is one thing, but the lessons about advice are relevant to all politicians whatever the level of the decision being taken.

I remember as a local council leader often seeking advice on the legality of policies proposed.  While a legal opinion that supported the proposed action provided protection to those councillors making the decision, it was much more important to know whether the decision was sustainable (rather than arguable) if the matter was ever challenged in court.

What automatically guarantees a full Chamber in the House of Lords?  The answer is when Noble Lords an opportunity to talk about themselves.  (Debates on sex and in particular on what some peers regard as “deviant” sexual practices admittedly come a close second.)

Today, the House got on to its favourite subject within a few minutes of the start, when Baroness Deech asked “Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make proposals relating to the titles used by the husbands of women members of the House of Lords.”  This produced a typically self-indulgent exchange with a number of noble Lords speaking with a clear eye on getting mentioned in “Today in Parliament”.

Lord Willy Bach for the Government tried to play it straight, saying:

“My Lords, the Government have no plans to alter the existing arrangements in relation to the use of courtesy titles or styles for the husbands of women Members of the House of Lords.”

However, the exchanges that followed were in danger of getting out of hand with fond reminiscences of “frissons” in hotels:

“Baroness Deech: I thank the Minister for his Answer, albeit that it was disappointing. The Equality Bill is wending its way through this House. Does he accept that equality between the sexes should start in this Chamber? If a male Peer’s wife is always a Lady, why should not the same courtesy be extended to the husband of a woman Peer, who I am sure has done just as much to support their spouse? If the issue is trivial, titles should either be extended to husbands or confined only to the recipient.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is an anomalous situation whereby a woman takes her husband’s title but a man does not take his wife’s. I suspect that the reason is that the UK honours system of names and titles is complex and is rooted in history. In recent history, thankfully, the position of women has changed dramatically. However, notwithstanding that, I have to tell the House that the Government are not aware of any great anxiety or urgent desire for change in this respect.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when my husband was alive, he loved being called “m’lord”; he loved putting his drinks on my bill; and it added a certain frisson to staying in an hotel together?

Lord Bach: I am absolutely delighted to hear that story and I very much hope that other noble Baronesses will bear it in mind.

Lord Wright of Richmond: Is the Minister aware that the frisson must have been much greater when the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, was known as “Mister” in an hotel?

Lord Bach: The noble Lord obviously knows much more than I do.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, the House will be aware that the wives of Bishops need to be considered as well, as they do not have any title. If the Minister was minded to resolve the anomaly without addressing the concerns potentially of Bishops’ wives, he might have a deputation of them on his doorstep, which is not a prospect I should wish on him.

Lord Bach: The right reverend Prelate has scared me off already, so we will very much bear in mind what he says.

Baroness Sharples: Perhaps I may say that neither my second nor my third husband objected. I have had the same situation as the noble Baroness, when signing into an hotel did raise a few eyebrows.

Lord Bach: I thank the noble Baroness for that.

Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Deech in her suggestion, does this matter not go a little further than that? For example, is it not the case that the wife of a Knight Bachelor has the title “Lady”? Therefore, is there not an argument for the husband of a Dame of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire to have an equivalent title as well? While I understand the Minister’s statement that the Government have no proposals on these matters, might there not be a case to refer these matters to a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House?

Lord Bach: My Lords, there is always a case for referring any matter that is raised in your Lordships’ House to a Select Committee. I am not sure that this is the best case. The Public Administration Select Committee of another place looked inter alia at titles and name changing honours. While recognising that this issue was contentious, it recommended the phasing out of knighthoods and what it called damehoods. In February 2005, the Government’s response was that they did not believe that the case had been made for phasing out the awards of knighthoods and damehoods or knights bachelor. They said that they play a well respected, understood and valued part in our national life.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords—

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords—

Baroness Wall of New Barnet: My Lords—

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, if we are quick, we could hear from my noble friend and then the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, at one level of course this is an amusing topic and we can all have a jolly good laugh at each other’s expense, but the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has made a serious point. This is not an anomaly, it is discrimination. It is discrimination that a man may confer on his wife an honour that a woman may not confer on her husband. It is perfectly straightforward and I see many heads nodding in agreement. Does not my noble friend think that there is some way of addressing a discrimination that we practise and laugh about?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I actually agree with my noble friend that this is an issue that has a serious side to it. The Government are not going to act on it in the near future, but that does not take away from the fact that this matter is serious.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I get an even greater frisson than the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, in hotels. Is it not the answer to this that you can call yourself anything you wish? Earlier this year there was a Lord in the dock who got 10 years. But surely, after today’s debate, the husband of a lady Peer should be called the “honourable breadwinner”.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord asked two questions, but I am going to mention only the first. On “frisson”, I think that the noble Lord gives us too much information.”

The remark about the “honourable breadwinner” was, of course, a reminder that this exchange was but an hors d’oeuvre for the main feast of self-indulgence:  four and a half hours of debate on the proposals from the Senior Salaries Review Board to change the rules on the payment of allowances to Members of the House.

The SSRB’s proposals are not popular with many Members, in particular the changes proposed for those living outside London in respect of overnight payments.  It is clear that the SSRB’s report seems likely to create many anomalies and is not as well-grounded in evidence as might have been expected.

At one point the chorus of complaint – from all parts of the House – looked set to provoke a rejection of what the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Greaves described as “a shoddy affair”, saying:

“If it had come to me as a local councillor on Pendle Borough Council, I would have been rude about it. I would have said that it was a pretty shoddy affair and sent it back to be reworked. I am advised that calling a report shoddy is probably not the right thing to do in your Lordships’ House, so I shall say that I find it disappointing. A number of speakers have said that the report does not seem to be based on a clear and full understanding of the present position in the House—who the people are here and what we individually do. One thing that screams out to me from it is a series of assertions. The report says “We believe” in a number of places, which should be reserved for religions and not for reports of this nature.”

It took an intervention from the former Head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller, to remind the House of the context in which the debate was taking place, when she said:

“My Lords, I stand with some hesitation at this stage in the evening, when it is late and because I am a new girl in this House—or, I should say, a new pensioner. That gives me a fresh look at some of these issues, so perhaps I might get back from the detail and talk generally. Unfortunately, it is the case that this House appears to many citizens of this country to be comprised of elderly people who enjoy being photographed in fancy dress. Despite the excellent work done by the Lord Speaker and others, I believe that there is little appreciation of the meticulous work done here in scrutinising legislation, nor of the impressive work of committees. Debates are sometimes noticed, usually in comparison to those of another place. Even I, 30 years a public servant …. did not understand the vital work done here.

Therefore, when there are allegations that Peers have abused their trust—the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to 29, not a trivial number—and when it is known that the police have referred cases to the Crown Prosecution Service, this House is cut little slack by public opinion. I am not surprised by what has happened, which led to the remit of the SSRB. When I joined your Lordships’ House, I studied the guidance on what are variously called expenses, allowances and financial support for Peers. Those are different terms; to my mind, they mean different things. I found the terminology confusing, the definitions vague and the rules fuzzy. I was surprised that expenses could be paid without receipts; any public organisation with such practices in its handling of taxpayers’ money would be pilloried by the National Audit Office, not to mention the Public Accounts Committee in another place. Yet I came to understand that expenses had somehow mutated into allowances in acknowledgement of the substantial commitment made by Members of this House.

….  I thought that I was in a minority of one in thinking that the SSRB had not done a bad job, given its very tricky remit. I felt and feel that these arrangements have to change. I do not find its tone insulting; I do not regard myself as being entitled to use public money unless it is clear, accountable and verifiable. I know that there are concerns about the detail, and I have listened with interest to what Peers have said about that. Yet I still believe that the principles of the report are good, and I hope that the ad hoc committee can sort out some of the details, because I believe the allegations about the abuse of taxpayers’ money have eroded trust, not only in the Commons but here and in Parliament as a whole.

If we are to begin to regain that, we have little option but to accept the recommendations in broad terms…. Precisely because we have no constituents, we have to be sensitive to public opinion. I am not arguing that we should be led by it … but precisely because, for the moment at least, we cannot be kicked out of this House we must be sure that our rules on expenses and allowances are quite clear and fair, that they follow the principles of the diversity of this House, and that they are properly auditable. That is a basis for re-establishing confidence in this House’s key contribution to the work of the UK Parliament, and I will support the Motion on that basis.”

Eventually, the House agreed – without a vote – to accept “the principles and architecture” of the SSRB report.

A local Liberal Democrat councillor sidled up to me while I was waiting for a bus in Crouch End earlier today (side note: the wait was another example of the stealthy degradation of the bus service since the election of Mayor Boris Johnson) to tell me that he thought the Greens were doing very well in Stroud Green.  He confirmed what I have been hearing from other sources that the Green Party with its radical edge and apparent principled approach to policy is beginning to make Liberal Democrats in London very jumpy that they are being outflanked.

Apparently, their fear is that the Cameron-lite approach being adopted by Nick Clegg is turning off many people who might otherwise be their supporters and that the voters they are losing are turning to the Greens (paticularly now that climate change is so topical and becoming a more significant political issue).  This is clearly bad news for sitting MPs like Lynne Featherstone and Sarah Teather …..

I have attended many meetings and events in Portcullis House, the office block for MPs built at a cost of £2 million per office over Westminster underground station, during the last ten years.  However, the one I went to yesterday undoubtedly stands out as the most emotionally powerful of all.

The occasion was a performance by the Khayaal Theatre Company of its production “Hearts and Minds“.  This was sponsored by Phyllis Starkey MP, who is Chair of the House of Commons Select Committee on Communities and Local Government that is currently conducting an inquiry into the Government’s Preventing Violent Extremism programme.

The play addresses the issues facing young British Muslims, in terms of identity, citizenship, community cohesion and extremism.  It has been performed in numerous schools and colleges around the country and – no doubt because its content has been based on extensive discussion with young British Muslims and inspired by real events – has clearly struck a chord with its audiences.

Comedy alternates with raw emotion.  The interactions that young people of all cultures have with their parents, with their teachers and with each other are explored.  The conflicting feelings that the young protagonists have as they wrestle with the dilemmas that they face growing up in Britain today are laid bare in all their complexity.

If anyone believes that there are simple answers to how “hearts and minds” can be won over to reject violent extremism, what is needed to embrace a tolerant approach to difference or indeed what comprises “Britishness” and nationality, they should watch this play.

I am pleased that so many school-age young people have been given the opportunity to see this production.  The debates that it generates amongst them can only be helpful to sustaining a cohesive society in which difference is not only tolerated but valued.

My only regret was how few Parliamentarians were in the audience (and yes I know there was a lot going on with the PBR and all that) – apart from Phyllis Starkey and myself, I only spotted one other member of either House (a fellow Labour Peer).

Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member, Caroline Pidgeon, admitted to a Metropolitan Police Authority Committee this afternoon that she leads a very sheltered life.

This led to a collective sigh and sotto voce “Ah bless!” comments from her MPA colleagues and looks of complete bewilderment from the police officers present.

She was reacting to a report on the performance of the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department (the bit of the Met that polices the integrity of police officers).  The report mentioned in passing that in the last year a small number of officers had been investigated, successfully prosecuted and imprisoned for a number of offences, some of them extremely serious including blackmail, drug trafficking, theft and sexual offences.

Caroline Pidgeon told the meeting that she was “shocked” by this revelation – presumably she had managed to miss the fairly wide news coverage given to each of the cases concerned.

However, as she told us and she is after all a councillor in Southwark and LibDem Parliamentary candidate for Vauxhall, “These sort of things simply don’t happen in my world.”