Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

For the reasons given by noble Lords in this discussion, I strongly support the amendment. I would like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has just said. First of all, for everybody—or nearly everybody—going into court is quite a frightening experience. For most children, it must be very frightening. They do not necessarily have family with them; they do not necessarily have family at all. It is a huge injustice to a child to ask him or her to go into court without anyone who can tell them how to behave and what to do or to alert the court to what is needed to be known. I really feel that this country is in the state of being unjust to children on this matter. It is also counterproductive—to use that appalling word—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has already said, children or other people who are not represented waste the time of the court. I know that from my own experience. It takes longer for cases to be heard; judges and magistrates fall over backwards to try to help the children, and cases that could be disposed of quickly, sensibly and to the best advantage of the administration of justice as well as the best advantage of the child drag on because the child is not represented. There are good, practical cost implications. Of course, legal aid will be a concern, but, if legal aid is seen in the light of the cost of the administration of justice, an area at which, it seems to me, government almost never looks, we can see how much can be saved by spending legal aid.