Yemen

Debate between Kevin Foster and Graham P Jones

Thursday 12th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Graham Jones]

That is a valid point. The United Nations has had trouble, and no one the in Chamber thinks that either side of the conflict is right. Both sides are killing people. That is what needs to end, and that is we need to focus on rather than blaming individual nations.

Let me set the record straight. I come to this debate frustrated, because 2016 was the year of false truth, false fact and fake news. It was a terrible year for Britain and for the world, in which moderate people in a democracy lost arguments to extremists—Breitbart on one side and The Canary on the other, or the alt-right versus the hard left of the Labour party. Yemen is being used as the next vehicle for the advocating of some lunacy, rather than the principled position of those who ask, “How can we help these people?” It is about time that moderate Britain fought back against some of those who pursue such extremist views.

We must not allow this to become an Iran versus Saudi conflict, because if we do, the situation will indeed become intractable. I accept, however, that all the reports show that there is a mass of complications on the ground. It is not simply Iran versus Saudi, because we have not reached that stage yet, but we ought to be exceedingly mindful of the possibility. We have Saleh, the guy who robbed Yemen. According to the UN, when he was President and also an arms dealer, he was buying bullets for 50 cents as an arms dealer and selling them to himself as President at a dollar a time. He was buying Kalashnikovs and other guns for $150 as an arms dealer, and selling them to himself as President for $600. The UN describes this man as creaming off the whole Yemeni state. At one depot, there were 1,500 troops; he had an invoice for 80,000. There are nine teachers for every child in Yemen, if we believe ex-President Saleh. Of course, he wants his old position back, and he wants to use all the money and assets that the United Nations is trying to freeze to fund a war in which ordinary people are being mercilessly killed.

Let us face some truths. The biggest donors to Yemen over the years, which have, in the past, prevented the humanitarian crisis from being what it is today, have been the Gulf Co-operation Council and Saudi Arabia. Because of the Houthis, the aid tap has been turned off. Worse than that, however, because the Houthis want to fight Saudi Arabia on the border, foreign workers from Yemen can no longer work in Saudi Arabia, which is logical, so all the remittances have dried up. No wonder the country is in poverty—and we are allowing these people to get away with it. It is obvious why Security Council resolution 2216 pins it all on the Houthis, the people who started this in an alliance with the person whom they were formerly fighting, President Saleh. Therein lies the problem, and the reason for resolution 2216.

We must try to deal with the situation, but that will mean building bridges. According to the UN reports, the GCC has tried—twice in Geneva, and also through the Muscat principles—to bring the two parties together for a peaceful settlement. Which party is resisting the peace talks? It is the Houthis, who will not allow a peace delegation to fly to Geneva, and will not allow the UN panel of experts to go in and observe the situation on the ground. This is a group of people who to my mind—I say this to the people in the Labour club in Accrington—are just trying to rob the state. They are not interested in a peaceful settlement, and that makes things very difficult, but we should never abandon the principle of trying to build bridges, and that includes trying not to upset or destabilise the GCC or the Arab League.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I am enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he agree that one of the things that shows these people’s intent is that the coup disrupted a constitutional process that was in place in Yemen to try to bring in a lasting and stable Government?

[Graham Jones]

I wish this debate were longer, as I could speak for two hours on this issue. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby is right; I have had a good go at going for three hours. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) is right, however. The proposal in that constitutional settlement was for a six-state federated Yemen, and President Saleh walked away from that; he walked away from the talks at Geneva because he did not want a federated state. He wanted to do what he was doing before: milk the state for himself. That is the problem, and all the while the people are suffering.

The Saudis are trying to get aid in. We have donated £100 million, which I am pleased about, but that is a fraction of what Saudi Arabia donates, yet we are trying to castigate the Saudis.

This conflict has been presented as Saudi Arabia against the people of Yemen: what an absolute load of garbage. The Saudis are operating under a UN mandate; five members of the GCC and four members of the Arab League are operating under that mandate, and Saudi is one component of that. It is the biggest component; I do not deny that. The Saudis are also guilty, it appears, of doing some awful things, and they should be held to account; nobody is saying anybody should be exempt from the law. But we must never take our eye off the ball: people are suffering in Yemen, and we must try to get to the end result of relieving that suffering. That is the primary purpose, and I am never going to slip away from that. I am not going to be taken on to some hard-left, loony left or right-wing bandwagon about arms sales to Saudi Arabia if that impacts negatively on the people in the region. I stand here unequivocal: I am here to help the people of Yemen, and I want to see the best outcome for them.

Channel 4

Debate between Kevin Foster and Graham P Jones

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Graham Jones]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about standing up for democracy and for minorities against those at the top. That is an issue that we are both going through at the moment, in that we must have that conversation and support those within a pluralistic environment who wish to express a minority view. Of course, I am referring not only to Westminster and to the broadcasting ecology but to my own party. We must support pluralism, and Channel 4 does that. As mentioned by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), the Paralympic games this summer is a fantastic example of just what Channel 4 achieves; 66% of the on-screen talent and 15% of the production team will be people with disabilities. The coverage will be more accessible than ever for disabled viewers, and Channel 4 has even set aside £1 million to encourage advertisers to make their commercial airtime more inclusive of people with disabilities.

Channel 4’s success in representing people across the UK is no more evident than in its engagement with regional talent. Apart from the BBC, it is the only broadcaster with a specific commitment to invest in production outside England. Indeed, in the past five years Channel 4 has invested £720 million in content outside London. Last year alone saw Channel 4 spending £149 million on production in the nations and regions and broadcasting over 50% of its hours from those areas. It runs a dedicated nations and regions team in Glasgow and operates a growing sales team in Manchester, and it works with a range of production companies across the north of England and Scotland. Channel 4’s direct investment in those areas is equally impressive. From the Northern Writers’ Awards and its creation of regional hubs to its funding of the Leeds-based company True North, Channel 4 is at the forefront of promoting regional talent.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I wonder what impact people watching “Eurotrash” 20 years ago had on the referendum, but we will park that for one minute. He rightly referred to Channel 4’s work in the regions. What does he think of suggestions that the headquarters should move out of London?

[Graham Jones]

Any decisions specific to Channel 4 need to be thought through. I am not for immediately saying, “Oh yes, that’s a good idea,” but as an MP from the Manchester region, I would welcome investment in my region and taking the headquarters out of London, as was done with the BBC. Of course, every MP would want industry to be relocated to their constituency from somewhere else. If we are to move the centre of Channel 4 out of London, it has to be done in a reasonable, organised and logical way, but I am not averse to that argument.

Channel 4’s promotion of regional investment is impressive, and its model has produced a history of fantastic northern TV. As programmes such as “This is England” or “Phoenix Nights” testify, it represents a rare example of the Government’s so-called northern powerhouse at work. The nub of the issue is that privatisation would threaten Channel 4’s contribution to the economy and its success, and would certainly represent a threat to its model of promoting all these things.

Selling off Channel 4 would naturally transform its operational model from not-for-profit to for-profit. Its content would suffer as a result, since Channel 4 would have to cut its expenditure on programming by £280 million per year if, like ITV, it was to return a 28% profit margin to its shareholders. Channel 4 has a turnover of £1 billion—a 28% reduction would mean a huge cut in its commitment to regional programming, talent, supporting not-for-profit programming and all the good stuff that it does. Since the broadcaster is essential for sustaining the independent production sector, that would result in a reduction of funding for small and medium-sized enterprises and reverse Channel 4’s success in job creation.

A Channel 4 dictated by the needs of profit would also undermine its promotion of diversity. Under the current model, Channel 4 balances socially valuable but loss-making programming such as the Paralympic games with its more commercially successful broadcasting. However, under privatisation, programmes would be not only squeezed financially but determined by the shareholder, rather than societal value, as representatives from Sky and ITV have recognised. Channel 4 is distinct and different. That privatisation would be both economically nonsensical and socially irresponsible is made even clearer if we consider the country’s recent vote to leave the European Union, since Brexit has increased economic uncertainty and revealed stark divisions between our regions and nations.

Given that the UK requires economic stability and regional representation now more than ever, will the Minister press on with the privatisation of Channel 4, effectively destroying the organisation as we know it—one that has repeatedly weathered economic storms and helped to bridge the gulf between the capital and our regions—or will he put to rest rumours of privatisation and end a period of uncertainty that is having such a negative effect on Channel 4’s commercial activity? If he is going down the privatisation route, I will be very interested to know how he is going to do that.