Journalists and Media Workers: Safety and Security

Baroness Mobarik Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Mobarik]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, as a member of the Media Freedom Coalition, to ensure the safety and security of journalists and media workers worldwide.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise the important and pressing issue of the safety and security of journalists and media workers worldwide. Of course, the UK is a member of the Media Freedom Coalition and has a sincere commitment in this regard, but around the world there are more and more examples which illustrate that we are collectively falling short.

We live in a world where anyone can potentially be a target for those whose political views may differ. Politicians can be sanctioned by hostile actors, and many colleagues in this House and the other place would testify to that. Charities are de-banked, businesspeople are falsely maligned and individuals are intimidated and silenced the world over by autocratic regimes, and even by so-called democratic allies, often with little between them in the way of tactics. That is the chilling reality of today’s world. So one can imagine the strength of character and courage required to be a journalist or media person in a conflict zone, striving to discover the real facts of the situation on the ground.

Brave men and women risking their lives for the truth should be both honoured and protected, for freedom of the press is not merely a democratic ideal but a cornerstone of democracy. It is a guardian of accountability, a check on power and often the only voice for communities in conflict and crisis that might otherwise go unheard. Yet, around the world, that voice is increasingly under threat. The 2024 World Press Freedom Index paints a stark picture. Journalists are being silenced at an alarming rate: they are harassed, intimidated, detained and even killed simply for doing their job.

The United Kingdom, a founding member of the Media Freedom Coalition, has both a moral duty and a strategic interest in defending global press freedom. We must not only continue to champion media freedom globally, but redouble our efforts, especially as autocratic regimes and armed actors increasingly view the press as an enemy rather than a custodian. Here, I offer just a few of the many examples shared with me by Internews Europe, an international NGO I am happy to support.

In Afghanistan, since the fall of Kabul, there has been an escalating wave of repression. Dozens of journalists have been arrested, tortured or forced into hiding by the Taliban. In 2021 alone, Internews evacuated and helped to resettle 62 journalists and media workers facing extreme risk. In Sudan, since civil war erupted in 2023, Sudanese journalists have faced harassment, detention and exile. Yet they offer the most vital of lifelines, for in times of conflict, access to accurate, timely information can mean the difference between life and death by helping people avoid danger or find safe passage.

In Myanmar, local journalists have been eternally enterprising, committed and resilient in their efforts to bring information to the people of Myanmar. Yet 35 were imprisoned in 2024, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. With international media banned and internet shutdowns frequent, these individuals continue to do brave, risky and vital work, such as reporting on the recent earthquake.

The UK can make a meaningful impact in four key areas. First and foremost, there is diplomatic pressure, where we have some influence. The global media freedom initiative, launched with Canada, is commendable, but diplomacy must be matched with consequences. When Governments jail journalists or shut down media outlets, they must know that it comes at a price. Targeted sanctions and co-ordinated international condemnation must be tools we use more frequently. Will the Minister tell the House what specific diplomatic actions the UK has taken in the past 12 months against Governments known to be suppressing the media?

Secondly, there is giving direct aid where needed. Noble Lords will be aware that legal intimidation, dubbed “lawfare”, is now one of the most pervasive threats to media freedom. Journalists are being buried under lawsuits intended to drain their resources and silence their investigations. These strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—affect all of society, but especially journalists. Anti-SLAPPs campaigners want a change in the legislation to stop such actions. A change in the law received backing from the previous Government but failed to make it through Parliament before the election last July.

Online harassment, especially against women journalists, is another growing front. Will the Minister explain what the Government are doing to expand support for legal defence, cyber protection and emergency relocation through the Global Media Defence Fund and what plans there are for revisiting the legislation that would have been introduced had there not been an election?

Thirdly, there must be a long-term investment in healthy information ecosystems because access to high-quality information for all citizens underpins our own and international development success. For organisations such as the BBC World Service, adequate, long-term, sustainable funding at the forthcoming spending review is critical to enable it to continue its crucial work.

Fourthly is the issue of accountability. More than 80% of journalist murders go unpunished. It is a statistic that should shake us to our core, but it seems these days to be merely a footnote. I repeat: 80% of journalist murders go unpunished. This impunity emboldens perpetrators and corrodes international norms. It must end. We must strengthen international mechanisms for investigating and prosecuting these crimes and ensure that those who seek to silence the press through violence are brought to justice. In accordance with the recommendations from the Netherlands feasibility study, we should support the creation of an international investigative standing body to combat impunity for crimes against journalists.

We cannot afford to be passive. Reporters Without Borders found that more than half of the journalists murdered in 2024 were targeted in conflict zones. Additionally, 550 journalists are currently imprisoned globally, a 7% increase from 2023. This trend is a clear and chilling signal of escalating repression. In Gaza, the Israel-Hamas war is also a war on journalists. According to the Guardian Media Group, since October 2023, at least 170 to 232 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza, the vast majority of them Palestinian. More than 380 have been wounded and at least 84 have been arrested in an unprecedented attack on journalists’ ability to do their job.

Now, 18 months on from the start of the war, almost all international journalists remain blocked from independently reporting on the conflict from inside Gaza, leaving local reporters as the only source of on-the-ground information. As has been said before, when journalists are silenced, so too is the voice of the people. A free and independent press is not only a fundamental human right but a necessary condition for peace, stability and prosperity. In a world increasingly defined by crisis and conflict, can the Minister assure me that His Majesty’s Government will rise to meet this moment by investing in the safety and resilience of journalists who risk everything to keep truth alive?

I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to working with colleagues in this House to ensure that our commitment to the safety and security of journalists remains unwavering.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Mobarik Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Mobarik]

90E: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Life peerages to be nominated by party groupsOn the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must recommend to His Majesty the King that—(a) 46 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords,(b) 33 individuals nominated by the House of Lords Appointment Commission to sit on the crossbenches,(c) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Labour Party in the House of Lords, and(d) 4 individuals nominated by the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party in the House of Lordsbe granted a life peerage under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Prime Minister to give groups in Parliament the ability to nominate individuals to be appointed as life peers to replace the number of hereditary peers in their group. This could include reappointing some hereditary peers as life peers.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their support.

My amendment proposes the nomination of life peerages equivalent to the number of hereditary Peers, split proportionally between the parties and groups affected. I shall speak to the detail of it shortly. I came to this conclusion after a number of conversations and considerable thought on how to resolve this matter in a way that reflects the disposition of our House: of respect, courtesy and consideration towards our colleagues —something that one should expect in any place of work.

When I spoke at Second Reading, I expressed the view that current hereditary Peers should be awarded life peerages if this Bill removes their ability to sit in this House as hereditary Peers. It was a wish to protect valued and respected colleagues from eviction from this House, prompted, as I said then, by a feeling that there may be an element of discrimination or prejudice at play. I hope, having been sensitive to such things from a young age and from experience, that I will always stand up to prejudice no matter from where it comes or to whom it is directed. It is simply a principle that I wish to uphold.

Having listened carefully to the debates on this Bill over these last weeks, I am still trying to understand why it is being brought forward by the Government when there are so many other more pressing issues for them to address. Nevertheless, if noble Lords will indulge me with their attention for a little longer, I will share some more background to this amendment.

I came to this House just over a decade ago and was introduced by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, a pre-eminent hereditary Peer and former Leader of this House. I knew my noble friend from serving on the Strathclyde commission, which he so ably chaired, and was hugely honoured that he agreed to be one of my supporters.

During my first few weeks here, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, another hereditary Peer, became my mentor. I do not think there could have been anyone kinder and more conscientious. He did everything he could to ensure that I understood the workings of your Lordships’ House. Several months on, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, then Chief Whip, asked whether I would consider being a party Whip. I said yes. My group, or flock as we called them, had something in common—they were all Scots, and a fair number of them were hereditary Peers.

If anyone is concerned about representation of the regions, Scotland is very well represented by our hereditaries. I will mention just a few of those in my old flock. My noble friend Lord Lindsay currently serves on our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and has been president of the National Trust of Scotland and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My noble friend Lord Caithness, the chief of Clan Sinclair, currently serves on our procedure committee and the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee. He has also been a Minister of State in no less than five government departments: the Department for Transport, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Foreign Office. My noble friend Lord Dundee is the royal standard-bearer for Scotland. He is a farmer who runs two charitable trusts that he founded, and he has served for many years on the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. He has also been a Government Whip and government spokesman for education, Scottish affairs, home affairs and energy. All of them made me feel so welcome and showed me the utmost respect and kindness. I could not have asked for better colleagues looking out for me when I joined this House.

What I am trying to say is that the people affected by this Bill are our friends. Not only that: they are distinguished parliamentarians who contribute so much to this House to which we all belong.

A more recent colleague and friend of mine in this House is my noble friend Lord Minto. He has served as a Minister of State in the Department for Business and Trade and as Minister of State for Defence—both unpaid positions, might I add—and we have regular catch-ups over tea. On our very first meeting, my noble friend and I discovered some common threads: the family of a very close friend of my late father, an eminent gentlemen by the name of Shaharyar Khan, a former ambassador of Pakistan to the United Kingdom, had a strong connection to my noble friend’s grandfather. Historical photographs and information were shared, but that is where the cozy backstory ends.

My noble friend’s grandfather was the viceroy of pre-partition India. I have rather a dim view of empire, as noble Lords would expect, but I do not choose to see my noble friend through the lens of history. When we enter this place, those strange concepts of class and privilege are left outside. We are here as equals—as Peers. The clue is in the name but, to be clear, I do not argue for the hereditary principle. It belongs in the century before last. The point is that if we do not believe that someone should become a Member of this House because of who their parents were, surely it is not right to remove people from this House because of who their parents were. With that in mind, I come to my amendment.

I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House—the Leader of our whole House—knows that I hold her and her Front-Bench team in the highest esteem. She has told us that this Bill is not a cunning attempt at gerrymandering, and we should believe her. My amendment follows on from that understanding. If this Bill is not about gerrymandering then on the day that it passes into law, which it will, as it was a manifesto commitment, the Prime Minister should at that point recommend to His Majesty that life peerages be granted to replace the number of hereditary Peers who are to be lost.

It would be up to the leaders of the parties in the House of Lords or, in the case of the Cross-Bench Peers HOLAC, to replace the hereditary Peers they have lost with life Peers. There would be no back-room deals, a term used more than once during these debates; let us just be transparent. Here are the numbers lost and they should be replaced. If we feel that some, even most, of our hereditary Peers are worthy of being appointed as life Peers, then there really should be no objection; and where there are hereditaries who do not attend the House or who intend to retire, this will be a good opportunity to replace them with fresh talent. Some more women on these Benches would be a good idea.

In all cases, qualification for this House can and should be based on life experience, knowledge, commitment and a quality not often mentioned: wisdom. I really hope that we can overcome the prejudices that I fear I am detecting. We should judge each other on what we do and say, rather than on who we are and where we come from. We should respect the huge contributions that so many hereditary Peers have made over the years. We should allow for a smooth and fair transition to the next stage of our illustrious history, in readiness for the challenges and opportunities of a new and exciting age, by bringing with us the best of our talent and recruiting what more we need. I believe that my amendment addresses all these points, and I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, with regret, I oppose this amendment, despite the fact that I often agree with some of the views of some of its proposers. It seems to me to have at least three quite serious objections.

First, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the numbers in this Chamber—quite the reverse. Together with the numbers already appointed and those likely to be appointed, we will greatly increase the size of this House well beyond the 600 which has often been recommended as desirable.

Secondly and differently, it greatly enhances the influence of party leaders and I really do not want to do that. What if Mr Johnson was the leader of the Conservative Party now? I certainly would not want to give him these unlimited powers.

Lastly, and much the same, it does not address the concerns frequently expressed in this Committee as to the lack of any proper criteria to ensure that the individuals concerned are fit and proper persons or, for that matter, will participate fully in the business of this House. While I can understand the reasons that it is put forward, I think it is a thoroughly bad amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all those who have participated in this debate and shown their support for the intention behind my amendment. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, decided not to respond to the debate as such. I thought that that was the purpose of Committee stage.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am hesitant to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there is one hereditary Peer whom I do miss greatly, and that is the Countess of Mar. She would have jumped up many times and said, “Please, your Lordships, speak to the amendment” —and that is what I was trying to do.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

Thank you—I shall remember that on the next occasion.

There have been so many notable speeches today, but time does not permit me to mention all of them. I think that this debate has shown that we on these Benches, joined by others across this House, are not trying to hold on to the hereditary principle but want to hold on to our hereditary colleagues. I strongly believe that my amendment would provide a civilised, mannerly and appropriate way in which to manage ourselves, in keeping with the customs and courtesies of our great House.

There is clearly widespread support for some kind of transitional arrangement, and I sincerely hope from the bottom of my heart that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will reflect on this very carefully and take my noble friend Lord True up on his very fair and reasonable offer before Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 90E withdrawn.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Baroness Mobarik Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, considering the very serious challenges we are facing, both domestic and international, it is difficult to understand why this debate is taking precedence. If the House requires reform, then choosing to expel a small number of Members, regardless of their contribution or achievements, can hardly be seen as a positive step.

If the original purpose of the 1999 Act was to make this House a more diverse and inclusive representation of society at large, then this move is rather contradictory. Whatever the broader sentiment about the hereditary principle, I find it difficult to agree to evict respected colleagues. Most of the hereditary Peers make a huge contribution and have a strong sense of public service, born of history, so let us not do a disservice to this House by purging them. At the very least, we should consider that all noble Lords who are currently in this House as hereditaries be allowed to continue as life Peers.

We should be careful about tinkering at the edges of our democratic set-up. Other countries around the world are rather envious of what we have in terms of the stability that it has given us for centuries. The appointed, not elected, House of Lords is part of this arrangement and the hereditary Peers in turn have played a role. Change for the sake of it should be considered with caution, with checks and balances critically important. Is this group of Peers not delivering? Should we not require some quantitative evidence to abolish them? If so, what defines quality contribution here among us? Is it attendance? Is it voiced views? It is all rather problematic in the round. Once we have established what quality contribution means, then we must all be held accountable to those definitions.

The Prime Minister has articulated a desire to rebuild trust in politics. Any move to give himself more power would be against this stated aim. What material difference will this disruption make to the composition of the House? What material difference will it make to the quality of our debates and to our decision-making? I request the Government to articulate a clear plan for how this elimination will serve the nation better in respect of the legislative process, since the argument is that removing hereditary Peers will have a positive effect. Some would say that their offence is that they were born into it, and we live in a meritocracy. I get that. However, they have individually done an amazing service to this country over a number of years and generations. Here, then, the practice refutes the theory.

The sense of community and camaraderie within this House will be compromised by this act of ideological prejudice against a small group of long-standing Members. Practising intolerance is surely not the intention. It is seemingly uncomfortably close to ideology when who they are and not what they do is their greatest crime.