Inside The Lords: football, mental health and Trump

Claire Fox reports from a week inside the House of Lords.

Inside The Lords this week was recorded on the afternoon of the sentencing of Axel Rudakubana, the Southport murderer. So much has been said about that unspeakable act that I won’t add much. But one thing that did annoy me about the commentary around the murders was that every minister in the House of Lords seemed to mention ‘lone-wolf terrorism’ as if it were a new phenomenon. Despite politicians knowing that Rudakubana was in possession of an Al-Qaeda handbook and some quantity of the deadly poison ricin, anyone in public who reasonably speculated on the issue of terrorism, or even asked questions, was told off and accused of spreading disinformation. Ironically, withholding information was exactly what led to a more febrile atmosphere, and an understandable feeling that there was some sort of cover-up.

This has all given a very grim backdrop to the week, especially as discussion about the grooming gangs continues. So it feels odd to now tell you about our discussions relating to the Football Governance Bill, but such is life in parliament. Since being completed at committee stage, the Bill now goes to report stage where amendments can be added.

Why does this Bill matter? UK football is possibly one of the most essential community, grassroots organising forces - you can’t underestimate its importance for millions of people. And yet, this government is bringing in legislation that threatens to crush that community spirit by empowering a government-imposed - they say ‘independent’ - regulator to have power over fans and clubs. UEFA, football’s governing body in Europe, has even suggested that the Bill might break its rules, meaning there would be no UK teams in European competitions. There is a letter from UEFA to the Government, but ministers just point blank refuse to publish it. Again, withholding information from the public can only stir up suspicions.

I made a few speeches about the cost of all this new legislation and regulation for clubs, and suggested a review of the costs and a sunset clause to assess whether the Bill is working as the government intended. Both suggestions were thrown out.

I’ve also been involved in discussing the Mental Health Bill - which is primarily about who can be incarcerated by the state on the grounds of mental illness. The problem is, like a lot of legislation, it’s become a Christmas tree bill, in which lots of broader issues are tacked on. I wanted to talk about the overmedicalisation and pathologisation of normal behaviour as ‘mental health’. We did have some specific discussions - and I changed my mind on Community Treatment Orders and whether or not they’re appropriate. Have a watch below:

I also seem to have caused some upset with my speech on mental-health provision, which rather unusually got picked up by the media, with quotes used out of context. 'Not ill at all' young people getting diagnosed with 'fashionable' ADHD, peer claims, declared MSN. Young people demand mental health medication despite being ‘not that ill’ – peer was the headline in the Independent. In the speech, I argued that a huge increase in the diagnosis of, for example, ADHD was limiting resources for those who really need it. While actually what I argued received some support in the Lords, the newspaper coverage has received a lot of backlash. To be clear, of course there are people who have serious conditions and need drugs and intervention to make their lives bearable. My point is that a promiscuous approach to diagnosis means that these people can’t access what they need.

You can sometimes feel like you’re being gaslit in the House of Lords. There was a question about 8chan (a ‘dark web’ messaging board), demanding that the government target smaller organisations and forums online that aren’t picked up by the regulator. Inevitably, this spiralled into a discussion about online safety and I intervened to make a point about the endless drive for censorship online. I even had the temerity to mention Mark Zuckerberg’s change of heart on the levels of moderation and censorship on Facebook and Instagram. The casual way that free speech is assaulted in parliament, always under the guise of safeguarding, should concern us all.

It is also galling when panics about the online world are often used to avoid having the tougher, bigger discussions about social issues. For example, Keir Starmer has expressed the need to get serious about understanding what happened in Southport. What does the Labour Party do? Go on and on about Amazon and why Rudakubana was able to buy a knife on there, as if that were the main issue.

Not only that, but the minister replied to a brilliant speech from the opposition front benches by telling off the speaker for his tone - so I made an intervention on tone policing. Whether it’s the grooming gangs or the murders in Southport, we need to resist any attempt to censor or silence public discussion about these issues.

I also asked a question on the Higher Education (Free Speech) Act, specifically on the betrayal felt by rank-and-file students (quoting Student Academics for Academic Freedom) over the government removing any anti-cancel-culture obligations on student-union bureaucrats. That matters because student unions are often at the vanguard of hounding and silencing their own members.

The new vibes in America – whether on free speech, gender ideology or EDI – haven’t ruffled the Palace of Westminster – as yet. But a couple of media appearances this week allowed me to discuss the beginning of a second Trump presidency on Sky News and on LBC’s Cross Question, making the point that there are some things in Trump’s initial speech that are promising. I also made the point that we’re now in a position where I don’t have to shoehorn British Israeli hostage Emily Damari’s name into my speeches anymore because she is free - thanks, at least in part, to Trump. For Trump to say things like ‘there are only two sexes’ shouldn’t require applause, but it is worth celebrating. And I suspect the impact of the Trump administration is likely to become more of a feature in debates in parliament in coming weeks. See the media clips below: