Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I, too, support the amendment, and shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, which are grouped with it. I absolutely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is astonishing that there is no presumption in Schedule 1 that children are entitled to publicly funded representation in criminal proceedings. In paragraph 19 in Part 2 of the schedule, a young person can be legally represented before a local authority residence or fostering requirement can be imposed under a YRO. However, no legal representation is required before any other version of the YRO can be imposed, including even the ISS. This astonishment was echoed by the JCHR, and so it should be by the rest of us when the outcome could be so serious, and with the long-standing implications of which we are all aware. Furthermore, the best interests of the child are the primary consideration, as required by the CRC. As it happens, provision is made in the Bill for when a fostering requirement is being considered, and quite rightly, but why not for when all the other requirements, which have similar important implications, are being considered? What is the logic for excluding the other requirements for legal representation, in particular the ISSP, which may be imposed as a last resort before custody? What could be more serious for the future of a child than that? Indeed, a breach of the YRO may result in custody. It would be contrary to Article 6 of the ECHR, which says that legal representation is required for children to have a fair hearing. The court must be in a position to have all the circumstances of the child explained to it, particularly if the suitability and proportionality issues are to be properly addressed and if the child is to have all decisions properly explained to him or her. I understand that the Government regard the ““interests of justice”” test as a safeguard under the Access to Justice Act 1999, with consideration given to the age and ability of the defendant to understand what is going on. I also understand that the Government have concerns, as we have already heard, about the potential costs of such representation for children in criminal proceedings. That is simply not worthy of the Government on such an important issue; I want to rap them over the knuckles for that. I also know that, because of costs, there is a risk that the children may get poorer representation. Neither of these possibilities is acceptable; rather, they underline the importance of explicit, statutory representation for children, unless in the unlikely event there happens to be an ““informed waiver of representation””. It is inappropriate to argue, as the Government do, that legal representation would be unavailable to a child who was refused it, who failed to apply for it, or who behaved badly, given the potentially life-changing outcomes of the proceedings. Clearly, it must be in the best interests of the child that there is a general right to legal representation, and we wholeheartedly urge the Government to support our amendments.