Inside the Lords: against proscribing Palestine Action

Claire Fox reports from a controversial week in parliament.

It seems an age ago since Rachel Reeves cried in parliament, it was only a week ago (Ella Whelan describes the incident brilliantly here) – but it, alongside the debacle around the welfare Bill – is symptomatic of the mood in parliament, with a government seeming to mishandle everything from U-turns on cuts to their own internal squabbles and rebellions. Such is the drive to save money, we now hear cuts in the courts may lead to a reduction in jury trials - a serious attack on civil liberties and an insult to a very important part of democratic trust in the people.

But for all the dour mood, there was a bit of glamour and excitement - Emmanuel Macron was in the House of Lords. We were asked if we wanted to apply for tickets - I didn’t bother - but there was something of a buzz about his visit, not least because of the thorny issue of resolving small boats arriving daily from Calais. Ironically, across the corridor from the state visit, at exactly the same time, the government tried to push through its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. It was interesting being in the chamber discussing this feeble and technocratic Bill, with Lib Dem Lords and Labour backbenchers calling on international conventions and laws to further water it down, at the same time as the Prime Minister is making a show of trying to Do Something about immigration with his talks with Macron. But what was most disconcerting was that the minister was keen to assure everyone that everyone who gets in a small boat is a victim - it’s the gangs who really are the problem. What that really means is that there can be no criticism of anyone trying to enter the country illegally. (You can see two of my speeches from the Bill discussion below.)

There is a danger when international law is used to undermine national priorities (a serious threat with UK Attorney General Lord Hermer, who has handed himself an ‘effective veto’ over government policy, adding 23 references to international law to guidance that will be issued to lawyers on how they should advise elected politicians). More generally, the government’s inadequacies seem to know no bounds. It’s come to light that the Home Office doesn’t check that people who have come on perfectly legal work visas have gone home again when their paperwork runs out. However grand the meeting with Macron was, there is obviously something seriously wrong with government’s approach to this issue.

I’ve been involved in some quite controversial issues this week - including debates on the proscription of Palestine Action. I don’t think that they should be proscribed, and I know that some of you will disagree with me. On the statute books there are plenty of laws to deal with their actions - and I have no sympathy whatsoever either with their motives or tactics. Two things happened this week; Baroness Jones put in a regret motion to say that we shouldn’t proscribe Palestine Action, and there were various attempts at interrupting, heckling and intimidating her. Despite disagreeing with Jenny on almost everything in other areas of politics, I got up and defended her right to speak.

I then spoke in defence of her regret motion - because proscription is a major threat to free speech, meaning you could have up to 14 years in jail for merely voicing support for PA. Proscribing the organisation might make the government feel good, but their actions in relation to Israel reveal their real allegiances. We need to tackle the politics of groups like PA, who present Hamas as merely a group of victimised freedom fighters - as such, something like the October 7 attacks are seen as liberatory action rather than barbarism. The problem with proscription is that we have now strengthened this victim status. Not only that, we are weakening the specificity of what terrorism is.

On a more internal note, debates continue on the government’s plans to reform the House of Lords. But what the government has actually done is cheated - getting rid of the hereditary peers, the low-hanging fruit, backing off from further reform. Indeed, they’re even stuffing the House with Labour lords. The idea that a hereditary appointment is far more egregious than a political one is a fantasy - both are bad for democracy.

Hours of parliamentary time has been taken up with this navel gazing in the Lords. One suggestion was to give power to the House of Lords Appointment Committee to decide who would be given a peerage, rather than the prime minister. But this is even less democratic - at least the prime minister is an elected politician. I argued against this quangocracy in the speech below.

Talk about disingenuous debates - at one point this week we had a Question Time debate on Index on Censorship’s report which claims that LGBTQ books are being removed from children’s libraries, and that this amounts to terrible censorship. As a big free speecher I was keen to look into it. But I found that the report entirely focused on the concerns of parents about age-inappropriate books being available in libraries, with books on chest binders or transitioning. Isn’t there something different about banning books and being concerned that young kids don’t read things that are too old for them? When I pointed out that things weren’t quite what they appeared to be, there was lots of tutting.

Next week we’ll be voting on amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, which is a very important piece of legislation. There are some key issues for employees relating to fire and rehire policies, for example. But this Bill is not for workers - it is a regulatory, bureaucratic nightmare written by every TUC and quango available. It could mean huge job losses, as well as strangling workplaces with pages and pages of new regulation. The report stage has been rushed through and the feeling is that we have to get it done. Why? So that Angela Rayner can hand it as a gift to the Trade Union Congress. Not only that, the government has committed to doing consultations on the Bill after it has been passed. What’s the point of that?

That’s it for this week - the only last thing to tell you about is to catch up with Iain Dale’s Cross Question on LBC, where I ranted on about the economy, small boats and other issues. See you next week.