Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 12: 12: Schedule 1, page 155, line 37, leave out from ““not”” to ““a”” in line 38 and insert ““make”” The noble Earl said: Again, I speak from the point of view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. When I discovered that it was not mandatory for children to be represented, I was completely horrified. That a civilised society could prosecute vulnerable, probably ignorant, deprived children, however brutish or unpleasant they might be in appearance, forcing them to appear before some court or other, without properly trained legal assistance, strikes me as abhorrent. I can put it no lower than that. It is almost certainly against Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, and it is against Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I saw the noble Lord’s private secretary before we came in, and I asked her to ask the Minister to find out what percentage of children did not have legal representation. If the numbers are low, there can be no cost implications at all. If the numbers are high, it is a screaming scandal and has to be put right. As noble Lords know, Cardinal Morton’s fork worked out for Henry VII, as he said, that ““if you do not look rich you are hiding your money, so I am going to tax you. If you do look rich, you have a lot to spend, so I am going to tax you””. On this issue, if there are none, it can be afforded, and if there are many, it must happen. I beg to move.