In one respect, I can agree entirely with my noble and learned friend and that is that I am wholly dissatisfied with his reply, as he expected. If we are helping those who need help most, who could be possibly be higher on the list than somebody who has been detained and is therefore incapable of conducting his case effectively? As I said—my noble and learned friend did not address this point—how does he get in touch with witnesses and how does he get the money for the telephone calls, for duplicating of papers and for all the rest of the preparatory work that needs to be done in formulating a proper appeal?
Nor did my noble and learned friend address my point that there were likely to be more cases where a person was unjustifiably refused if he did not have representation—and that comes from the figures. We know that in other types of case there is a much higher percentage of success where the appellant is represented than in cases where he conducts the case himself. The same figures would be seen if it was possible to distinguish between the two categories in immigration cases. Therefore, it follows that if people do not have representation when they are in detention, more of them will unlawfully be sent back to the countries of their origin. I think that my noble and learned friend missed the point that I made in relation to the case of the Dutch citizen of Somali origin who was threatened with deportation but was able to get representation. The solicitor showed that it would have been unlawful to report him because he was not a Somali citizen but a Dutch citizen of Somali origin. If he had been able to appeal only against his detention, it would have to be a two-stage process. Would my noble and learned friend not agree that he would first have to obtain his liberty and then get a solicitor to point out to the tribunal that he was not liable to deportation because the UKBA had falsely assumed he was a Somali citizen?
I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for the amendments. As he said, there is a complete mismatch between the facts that a person can obtain legal aid for his detention but not for the underlying reasons for the detention in the first place. I see that we will have to return to this subject on Report and I shall have to discuss what we do about it with ILPA and our other advisers. For the time being, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 68 withdrawn.
Amendment 69
Moved by
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Avebury
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 18 January 2012.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c674 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:53:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801739
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801739
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_801739