UK Borders Bill

Conservative party policy is that we will replace the Act with a Bill of Rights. In future, it would probably be worth the hon. Gentleman’s while directing his questions on Conservative policy to Front-Bench Members. I speak from the Back Benches and represent my constituents, as opposed to always representing party policy. Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), clarify a point on veils when she responds to the debate? In a briefing to regional journalists the other week, the Home Secretary made a big point of saying that the Bill would deal with the issue of people escaping from this country disguised by a veil. It is difficult to see what element of the Bill would prevent that, unless it is the clause that says that an immigration officer"““may search the individual for, and retain, anything that might be used to assist escape””." That is the only part of the Bill that I can find that could relate to veils. Given that one of the suspects for the murder of Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford fled the country disguised in a veil, my constituents would be interested to know whether the Bill deals with that issue. I understand that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said that immigration officers already have the power to ask somebody to remove their veil. Well, we all have the power to ask people anything that we like; surely the power should be to insist that they remove the veil. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), clarified whether the power already exists, as most people think it should, or whether it is included in the Bill, as the Home Secretary said when he briefed regional journalists last week. I particularly praise the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who is a very brave lady when it comes to the issues that we are discussing. In the past, she has bravely taken up many of the concerns raised today, and she is hugely respected, not only in her constituency but in mine, for all the work that she has done on the issue of forced marriages and immigration more generally. I certainly support her call to raise the minimum age at which people can be brought into the country for the purpose of marriage from 18 to 21. I also support her call to make it a requirement that people should be able to speak English before coming into the country, rather than sit a test once they have entered. That brings me to a big problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) made a great speech, but there was one part with which I disagreed. He celebrated the fact that 93 different languages were spoken in Peterborough. I think that we should not celebrate that, but should instead be very sorrowful about it, because I would much prefer us to all speak one language—the English language. That would do more to enhance community cohesion than having 93 different languages spoken.