UK Borders Bill

I thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely explain why people vote for the BNP, as opposed to justifying it. The issue affects communities. For example, in Bradford the local authority has had to build four schools because of the growth of immigration into the area. An answer to a parliamentary question said that 31 per cent. of the new houses to be built would be required simply to deal with the levels of immigration into this country. Given that that is about the proportion that has to be built on green belt land, we could avoid building almost any houses on such land if immigration was not such a big issue. There is no doubt that immigration also places huge pressures on the national health service and social services. The Bill strikes me as being typical of this Government: it contains lots of powers and lots of laws, but no policy and no strategy. It is no good having levers to deal with problems if the Government do not know what the solution is. I venture that having a limit on the number of people coming into this country might be a good strategy that would work with the Bill. The Bill itself gives the Government no strategy whatsoever. Like many Members of the House, I do not understand why automatic deportation applies not to anybody who comes into this country and commits to a crime but only to those who have a committed a crime that justifies 12 months’ imprisonment. Given that magistrates courts can impose a maximum sentence of only six months in prison, and the vast majority of offences are dealt with by magistrates courts, it seems that very few people will be automatically deported, contrary to what we were led to believe when the Bill first appeared. Much of the problem relates to the Human Rights Act 1998, and I reiterate the point made by other Members during the debate, that any effective legislation to tackle large-scale immigration has to deal with that Act. That is why I think that it should be abolished.