President Trump: State Visit

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Stephen Doughty

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

It is not an easy job to be Prime Minister and to deal with Governments. The nature and difficulties of diplomacy mean that we often have to have contact, for wider national and global interests, with people with whom we fundamentally disagree, but herein lies the fundamental point. This is not about whether Donald Trump should be banned from coming to this country or whether our Government should have contact with him—indeed, it is absolutely right that the Prime Minister meets the President to discuss matters of mutual interest. We choose whom we honour, the way in which we honour them and the way in which we negotiate. I note the comments of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond): we choose how we engage. Prime Minister Trudeau has shown a very different way of dealing with President Trump and has maintained his integrity while retaining contact.

The fundamental issue is that we have rushed into offering the Palace, the Mall, the razzmatazz, the champagne and the red carpet. Even if one were the ultimate pragmatist for whom the matters of equality or of standing against torture, racism and sexism do not matter, giving it all up in week 1 on a plate with no questions asked would not be a sensible negotiating strategy. How can that make sense to anybody—even those who argue that we should have a strong relationship with the United States?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Obama was invited here—people should not forget that he was the first Afro-American President—but he stood for something totally different. Donald Trump so far does not seem to share our values, so we should have waited at least two years to see how his presidency pans out before we came to a judgment.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed. That is why I have spoken out so strongly on using the Palace of Westminster, and particularly Westminster Hall, given that that is where President Mandela and President Obama addressed us, where Pope Benedict came and where Churchill lay in state. It is a rare and special honour, and I am absolutely delighted that this is the most signed petition of this Session and that it has support from all parts of the House.

We need to look at the issue of state visits again. Many people have rightly pointed out whom we have offered state visits to in the past and asked whether that was right. There were protests when President Xi was here, and I strongly disagree with much of the way we have fawned over some of the monarchies in the Gulf. That does not mean we should not have diplomatic relations and strong relationships with them, but I am concerned about the way we seem to have turned a blind eye to a whole series of issues. We need to look very carefully at how we choose to use what ultimately is a significant amount of taxpayers’ money, and at the categories and types of visits we offer and how we offer them. Many of us question whether Aung San Suu Kyi should have addressed us, given some of the concerns we have about the Burmese Government’s policies at present. We can have great hindsight, but just because we have got things wrong in the past does not mean we should not get things right in the future.

We have a special responsibility when it comes to the special relationship with our greatest ally and friend. We cannot accept the denigration of the free press, the judiciary, women and religious minorities, the banning of refugees and the advocacy of torture as the new normal. It would not be acceptable from any country, and it is certainly not acceptable from our greatest ally and one of the countries that has frequently stood up for the values of liberty, equality, democracy and the rights and equality of all before the law. That is why we have a special responsibility in this House to speak out.

Ultimately, I have great faith in the way the American constitution was set up. In 1788, James Madison said:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one…in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

We, too, should check and balance our ally, but offering up a state visit and all these honours in week 1 of Donald Trump’s already turbulent presidency is not the way to do it.

Asian Restaurateurs (Immigration Enforcement)

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

First, is not one of the problems that, certainly in my experience, some restaurants have difficulties in finding trained staff? That leads to all sorts of other problems, so it should be looked at. Secondly, there have been too many changes to the immigration law—in fact, some of it is getting confused with terrorist law. It is an area that really should be sorted out, because there have been wholesale changes to immigration law over the years.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have made it clear to businesses in my constituency that a shortage of or challenge in getting labour is in no way an excuse for flouting immigration laws, and I do not in any way get a sense that any of them wish to do that. In fact, it is quite the opposite: there is wide concern on the issue of the immigration of skilled migrants to this country and ensuring that we have the right laws in place.

I want to concentrate on the two issues I mentioned near the start of my speech. A few themes have come out relating to the conduct of operations. Raids have occurred during busy periods, with diners being disturbed. Equipment has been left operating and staff have not been allowed to switch it off. I have heard of staff not being allowed to switch off woks, tandoors and the gas. Of course, significant stigma and embarrassment is caused, even when no offence has been committed. I am sorry to say so, but it appears that some very heavy-handed tactics have been used, and there have been repeat raids, despite the fact that the operations are supposedly intelligence-led.

I want to mention an example from my constituency about which I have been in dialogue with the Minister for Security and Immigration. Following an enforcement visit to a restaurant in my constituency on 7 November 2013, I was contacted by a number of concerned constituents—including members of my staff—who witnessed the events. I have since been engaged in to-and-fro correspondence with the Home Office that has not resolved the matter to my satisfaction, or, indeed, that of the business.

There was an operation by immigration officers at the premises at around 7.30 in the evening. As well as the restaurant, three of my constituents contacted me to share their concerns about how it was carried out. I would like to read out a couple of their statements. One said to me:

“I am currently sat in the restaurant and the Border Control burst in and told the manager to sit in the public seating area and not move. They then went into the kitchen and made the staff come into the public areas to interview them about their legal status. I think this is disgusting. The staff should have been afforded privacy and been interviewed with dignity. They disrupted the business and then left empty handed.”

Another witness said:

“Immigration officers entered the buildings and gathered the staff at the waiting area at the front of the restaurant. This took place while the restaurant had three or four tables occupied on a Thursday evening. What seemed particularly humiliating for the staff was the fact that they were interviewed in the shop window, so that passersby would be able to observe.”

That was despite there being

“a large number of telephone orders to be collected, and…a queue of customers lined up opposite the waiting area watching the interviews. I understand fully the seriousness of the operation, but I do not believe that questioning people in front of the public in this manner was acceptable and must have caused them much embarrassment.”

That is one of many examples that have been drawn to my attention and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Another, which I will keep anonymised, involved 13 immigration officers and two police officers attending a restaurant in which I have eaten a number of times. They were there from 6.30 to 9.30 in the evening. Allegedly, people were detained in a corridor and not allowed to switch off the gas, while a pencil was taken from a staff member with the suggestion that it might have been used as a weapon. Another allegation was that handcuffs were used. I have no way of independently verifying that but, unfortunately, given the number of examples cited, I am worried that there appears to be a trend in such operations. The witnesses I know are certainly absolutely truthful and would not want to mislead the House or, indeed, the authorities.

For the record, the dialogue with immigration officials in Cardiff to date has been welcome. Many of the restaurant owners and associations wanted that on the record, but the cancellation with a day’s notice of the attendance of senior officials at a meeting with me, other Members of this House and more than 30 restaurant owners from throughout Wales has not done a lot to continue that good and fruitful engagement. Despite repeated attempts, I have been unable to make contact with the officers who were due to attend.

In conclusion, I have three key points for the Minister to address: first, the conduct of the operations; secondly, the support for restaurateurs to help them to comply with the law, as they wish to; and, thirdly and most crucially at this time, reassurance that neither the sector nor specific restaurants are being targeted in any way.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Stephen Doughty

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My understanding from the evidence presented is that the Church of England, as the established Church in England, has special requirements to marry people who come to it. It has other statuses under canon laws. The situation of the Church in Wales is different—it is disestablished, but also has special provisions. Other religions will not be compelled by the law to marry people if they do not want to do so. As has been made clear at numerous points, the Bill is a permissive Bill that will allow those who wish, such as liberal Jews, the Unitarians, the Quakers and others, to opt in, and others to do so in time if they so wish.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I wanted to emphasise that point. I agree with my hon. Friend. Other religions can opt in if they so choose. On the other hand, they are not forced to do anything.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes the point perfectly.