Changes in US Immigration Policy

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Yvette Cooper

Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a whole series of unanswered questions about what happens not just in the case of dual nationals or UK citizens, but EU citizens and other nationals who may be resident in the United Kingdom and want to travel to the United States.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon described his personal experiences. I know that everyone in the House would want to stand with him against any sense of discrimination that he feels and wrongly faces. I think he would agree that, as he said powerfully, this is not simply about the rights of British citizens—it goes so much further and wider. It is about the shared values that have underpinned generations of co-operation between this country and one of our closest allies. Under our democracy and our common humanity, we have both built into our written and unwritten constitutions a condemnation of discrimination. We have worked together, over very many years, against prejudice and hatred, so it is deeply immoral for this ban to target Muslims in this way, and we should not be afraid to say so.

We have also worked together on international policy on refugees—to support the Geneva convention and the UN’s work, and to resettle refugees, including Syrian refugees from all over the world. The US has always played a historic role in resettling those refugees. For the United States to, in effect, pull out of the Geneva convention and that international co-operation is deeply damaging to a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme that all of us should want to champion. We should be prepared to speak out about that.

The ban also threatens our security. It is immediately counterproductive to prevent from entering the US those Iraqi citizens in the Iraqi Government and armed forces with whom the US may need to work in the fight against IS. Inevitably, the Iraqi Parliament has responded by saying that American citizens will be prevented from entering Iraq. We need these countries to work closely together, and with us, in order to defeat terrorist extremists. We should be fighting against them together, and not be divided.

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

Obviously, most people in this country are appalled by the actions of the President of the United States in relation to the Muslim community. Having said that, on immigration, only about 15,000 refugees have been taken by the United States, so it is not as though it has been swamped.

[Yvette Cooper]

It is true that, as a proportion of the United States population, the number of Syrian refugees who have gone there is relatively small. However, as a proportion of those who need support and resettlement, that contribution has been important, so it is very damaging to our international support for refugees for the United States to pull out of that co-operation. That is why the United Kingdom Government have a responsibility, not to just say a few words under pressure in this House, but to raise concerns directly with the US Administration, and why so many Members are concerned and frustrated. The Government delayed making any response or criticism. We hear now that the Prime Minister was told about the ban before it happened on Friday, yet she did not speak out about it, even when the Turkish President, standing alongside her, was prepared to do so. The British Government were prepared, rightly, to raise the issue of human rights with Turkey, but they did not raise concerns about what President Trump was doing.

There are limits to what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are prepared to say, even now. When I asked the Foreign Secretary directly whether he had urged the US Administration to drop the ban, he refused to say. Frankly, from everything he did say, we can only conclude that the UK Government still refuse to ask the US Administration to drop this ban, abandon this targeting of Muslims and do their bit again to help refugees. I hope that the Minister will put me right and say that we have got it wrong, and that Ministers have, privately behind the scenes, been urging the US Administration to change their policy. It is crucial that they do so. That is the point of having a special relationship and a good friendship: being able to speak the truth to power and say the difficult things. If Ministers are not prepared to do that, what does that say to British Muslims and others around the world who feel targeted? And what does it say to those whom President Trump may target next? This could be only the start—we do not know. This is what President Trump has done within just a few days of taking office. Where will he go next? What will it take for us to be prepared to speak out, if our Government are not prepared to speak out yet?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

In which case perhaps the hon. and learned Member should stop intervening and let me get on and speak about the amendments.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

One thing that has bedevilled these debates is that neither the Home Secretary nor anyone else has made it clear which countries are prepared to co-operate, particularly with Turkey which sends different signals.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and by the time the Bill gets to Committee, the House needs to know whether there have been discussions with other countries, how those countries will respond, and what the level of co-operation will be.

My second question concerns what happens if the Home Secretary wants someone to return and be required to co-operate with the Channel programme, but does not want to delay their return. At the moment it appears that the order must be served and a permit applied for, and then the Home Secretary has to issue a permit, potentially introducing delays during which someone might abscond again. Is there any way to place requirements on someone once they return, without having to go through that further bureaucratic process at the airport? It appears from the Bill as though the Home Secretary cannot compel people to go to appointments at the police station or to comply with the Channel programme unless she also introduces bureaucratic delays with the application for a permit at the foreign airport. It would be helpful to know whether she has the power to allow someone to swiftly board the plane and also to introduce those powers.

Thirdly, what are the safeguards to prevent abuse? At the moment, temporary exclusion orders can be imposed by the Home Secretary on the basis of reasonable suspicion. That could include ongoing requirements for someone to attend regular appointments, or perhaps even to report daily to the police for two years after their return. There is no ability to appeal when someone returns—for instance, if they have been involved in humanitarian work in the region—and if the orders are breached, the penalty is the same as for breaching a TPIM. I think the Home Secretary should consider that further, because for TPIMs a judicial process rightly has to be satisfied. For a temporary exclusion order there is no judicial oversight, yet penalties for breach are the same. We believe that the powers need to be debated in detail in Committee to ensure they are effective, cannot be abused, and involve appropriate oversight. In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), we will be tabling amendments on judicial oversight.

Finally, I wish to raise an issue familiar to the House which was included in the original Communications Data Bill. That Bill was far too widely drawn, but there was wide consensus on the need for action on IP addresses, which had the support of the Joint Committee that considered the Bill. IP addresses are created and assigned automatically. Some companies retain those data, but some do not or routinely allocate multiple IP addresses to lots of people. That means that if an abusive image of a child has been sent from a particular IP address, agencies can struggle to discover who that address belongs to or where the child may be being abused. The Opposition support the principle behind that change, although I am sure it will need detailed scrutiny to ensure that the legislation does what is intended. We must be clear that simply having the technical and legal capability to do things is not sufficient as long as, for example, there are huge delays in the National Crime Agency investigating child abuse cases and passing them on to local forces.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Yvette Cooper

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I must say to the hon. Lady that we do not think that it is a muddle to have co-operation with European police forces to bring criminals to justice and to provide victims with justice. I know that the Fresh Start group, of which she is a leading member, thought that we should replace all of this with a new international treaty. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and many Government Back Benchers wanted to opt out and stay out of everything. The last time we debated the subject, a queue of Members stood up to say how much they wanted us to opt out and stay out of not just the European arrest warrant but all the major measures.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The Home Secretary has boasted a lot about giving the people a referendum, but up until the last general election, her party refused the British people a referendum, and we are the only political party that ever gave the British people a referendum on Europe.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend has a point, but it is not just about referendums; those on the Government Front Bench do not even want this House to vote on the measures that the Select Committees have proposed.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I need to make progress, as other hon. Members wish to make a contribution. However, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).

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

Something that I have detected in correspondence is a fear that, contrary to the assurances that we have been given, the Bill will, at a later date, be revisited and unpicked. What does my right hon. Friend think about that?

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that freedom of religion—an issue about which many hon. Members have expressed concern—is built very strongly not just into the Bill, but into our traditions and our long-term political history. It is something that we have always valued and I suspect that Parliament will always want to defend it. There are further safeguards in article 9 of the European convention. I agree with the Minister for Women and Equalities that it is inconceivable that the European Court would tell a Church or faith group to hold same-sex weddings. Despite the fact that many countries across Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Belgium, already have same-sex marriages, there have been no successful challenges in the European courts, and the Minister is right that the European Court allows a wide margin of appreciation.

We will want to discuss in Committee the issues affecting, for example, the Church in Wales. If it decided to support gay marriage in future, that could be subject to a veto by the Lord Chancellor and would require a separate vote in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that can be examined in Committee.

Religious freedom goes both ways. Churches that object should not be required to sign up to same-sex marriage, but nor they should be able to block everyone else doing so. Other people do want to sign up. Polling has found that a majority of people support same-sex marriage, and Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Jews all want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages. The Government originally ruled that out, but we argued that religious marriages should be included if organisations want that. I welcome the Government’s change of heart. Let us be clear: no one group, organisation, faith or institution owns marriage. Religious organisations should not be required to hold same-sex weddings, but neither, in the spirit of freedom of religion, should they prevent other religious organisations or the state from doing so.

Other objections have been raised. Some people argue that marriage by definition has always—for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years—been between a man and a woman and should remain so. For some people, that is their faith, and under the Bill their faith can be respected, but that is no reason not to change the law. It is hardly surprising that for thousands of years same-sex couples were not allowed to marry—they were not even allowed to exist. Same sex was illegal, never mind same-sex marriage. Legal sex by definition was between a man and a woman—that, too, was the case for thousands of years—but no one says that we should turn the clock back.

We cannot hide discrimination simply by calling it a definition. Marriage has changed many times over the centuries—and thank goodness for that. For hundreds of years, women were treated as property in marriage, handed from their fathers to their husbands and denied rights of their own. Until the 1990s, women’s bodies were effectively treated as their husbands’ property. If a husband raped his wife, it was not even treated as a crime. Civil marriage was introduced over 170 years ago and was pretty radical at the time, but now, every year, 160,000 of us get married in a civil ceremony. Marriage has changed before, and it should change again.

Some people oppose same-sex marriage because they believe that marriage is by definition about the procreation of children. However, that is not true of civil marriage, and that has been the case for over a century. Many marriages are childless, and we do not prevent people who are too old or too sick to have children from getting married. We do not do fertility tests at the altar. Yes, in vast numbers of families, marriage is an important starting point for a loving family bringing up children, but gay couples bring up children too. As people live longer, the family commitments involved in marriage are much wider than bringing up children.

Most MPs will know the sadness but also the inspiration they have drawn from visiting a long-married couple where, for example, the wife is struggling to cope, struggling to remember the world around her and struggling to recognise even the husband with whom she has shared decades of her life, yet he carries on: cooking for her, washing her, getting her up, putting her to bed, talking to her even as she becomes a stranger in front of him. That is marriage. But I have also visited a gay man, who died some years ago after a long illness during which he was cared for every day at home, in hospital and eventually in a hospice, by his long-term gay partner. I do not see why that cannot be marriage too. The idea that the biology of procreation should deny same-sex couples the respect that comes with marriage is to ignore the full richness—the happiness but also the tragedies—of modern family life. For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health: that is marriage.

Finally, with those who argue that extending marriage to include same-sex couples will somehow weaken or undermine marriage and stability for everyone else, I profoundly disagree. Marriage has changed many times before and society has not collapsed. Other countries are doing this and their Churches and societies have not fallen apart. Spain—Catholic Spain—has had same-sex marriage since 2004. Denmark, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Portugal, Argentina and South Africa all celebrate same-sex marriage. Only last week France passed the first vote on the way to same-sex marriage. The President of the United States is in favour of equal marriage too.

If the same-sex couples who have told me of their love for each other are able to get married, that will not weaken marriage; it will strengthen it. It certainly will not make it any less likely that the heterosexual couple with kids who live next door to them will stay together. If marriage is to stay relevant, to stay important and to remain a crucial part of our family and social relationships, it also has to remain in tune with the values of every generation, and that means that it should keep up with rightly changing attitudes towards homosexuality. The truth is that gay and lesbian couples have been locked out of too much for too long.

Government Reductions in Policing

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Yvette Cooper

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend is right. We had identified a series of areas where savings could be made while still protecting front-line services. It is true, as the lonely Liberal Democrat on the Benches today will concede, that the Liberal Democrats had called for 3,000 more police officers, rather than voting to cut 12,500 police officers in constituencies across the country.

The Home Secretary has tried a final line of defence. She hopes that the Merseyside force will come to her rescue as a character witness. She claims that if every force improved its visibility as well as Merseyside has done, more officers would be available. We agree that forces should increase their visibility, as many started to do when we introduced neighbourhood policing, and that they should learn from the best. But Merseyside’s testimony does not help the Home Secretary’s case, because it is losing more than 800 police officers, along with an estimated 1,000 staff. Its evidence shows that, despite its good work, it is already being forced to make cuts in front-line services, including to officers in visible jobs, who are already losing their jobs, and it is also cutting the antisocial behaviour task force.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for being a little late arriving for the debate. Is she aware that the second phase of redundancies in the West Midlands police force will cost an extra £10 million a year over the next two to three years?

[Yvette Cooper]

I was not aware of the further plans in the West Midlands police force. It is certainly true that many of the cuts in police numbers cover only the first year or two, and many forces are concerned about the consequences in future years as well.

Police

Debate between Jim Cunningham and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 2,000 police officers will go in the west midlands under the proposals?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: West Midlands police are being heavily affected and are set to lose a large number of police officers. That is already having an effect on communities across the area, with some police officers reporting considerable difficulties as a result of the recruitment freeze that has had to be implemented and the consequences that is having on their ability to go to neighbourhood meetings and to respond to concerns that are raised with them.