Under what?

I do not understand that.

I am not referencing murder at all.

Where in the amendment?

That is taken directly from the Minister's Bill. That is a simple recitation of section (2)(b) of the Minister's Bill, where it states: “(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to the sentencing of a person convicted of murder who was under the age of 18 years when he or she committed the murder but has attained that age on or before the date of such sentencing.”

I am restating the subsection the Minister has in the Bill in relation to a person convicted of murder who was under the age of 18. Whether my amendment is passed or rejected, that statement will be in the Bill and in the law. The only new thing is the new subsection which specifically states it will be up to the court to determine the order or sentence. The Minister said she cannot do that because it will create an inequality. She is now telling us, as I understand it but maybe I am dense and cannot follow what sh…

The Children Act cannot apply because it states that it applies to children under the age of 18.

The Children Act does not apply to anybody over 18. That is a simple fact.

That is a different thing.

I am just trying to understand the logic of it. Clearly, the Children Act does not apply to anybody who is over 18. The Minister's base point is, as I understand it, that anomalous category. My contention is that you cannot create a perfect equality between somebody aged under 18 and somebody aged over 18 because one is categorised as a child and the other is not. What the Minister wants to do is give discretion to a child who commits murder and is convicted but not sentenced until the child becomes an adult. You c…

Children cannot be sent to prison under the Children Act. The Minister is saying that children who have aged out and are now adults can be sent to prison.

No, the Minister is disapplying a mandatory life sentence but they can get a life sentence. That is what the Minister told us yesterday.

That is what I am saying. A child cannot be sent to prison. There is no equality there.

What is silent?

There is no reference to murder. Section 156 of the Children Act 2001 states: "No court shall pass a sentence of imprisonment on a child or commit a child to prison." That is what the law of the land states. A child who offends can be made subject to a detention order under that Act but, under the Minister's proposal, aged-out children can be sent to prison. Is that not a fact?

If I withdraw the amendment now, a court could impose a prison sentence on an aged-out child. The Minister told us yesterday that aged-out children could be sentenced to life imprisonment, in fact. I am trying to understand the Minister's own proposal. If I withdraw the amendment, what will be the state of the law? Will it be open to a court to send such an aged-out child to prison for murder?

The Minister's officials are saying "Yes", so it will be.

It is possible, then, to send an aged-out adult to prison. It is not possible to commit a child to prison. There is no equality.

I quoted the Children Act because the Minister said it would default to the Children Act in terms of equality. An adult cannot be treated as a child.

As would my amendment.