It is so important that the pilot is finished and these are rolled out right across the country for all the reasons I have acknowledged.

The Garda hopes to have that analysis done by the end of the year and then, obviously, it will look to what will be needed beyond that. The new digital evidence management system has to be developed to be able to back up all of this information. It is a huge amount. We have a budget of €155 million for ICT alone this year. That is assisting in the development and roll-out of the body cameras we have, but also other technology. Every Garda member on the beat has a hand-held device that is very like a phone. It is, i…

I believe these will be a game-changer. In the short space of time in which we have seen them rolled out, the positive feedback has been exceptional. I have had no negative feedback. There have been no incidences that I have been told about or made aware of where cameras have not worked or have been defective. They are very different, however. Some of them can actually show the picture and the person can see themselves in it while others do not have that visibility and they use different technology. Obviously, the …

I thank the Deputy. I acknowledge and thank him and the members of the committee for waiving pre-legislative scrutiny and acknowledging this is very specific and very much responding to the High Court ruling and the need to ensure equality between children and children who have aged out when it comes to the sentencing and the timeline. There are two elements to the amendment. The first is imposing a sentence as it considers appropriate, and the advice I have clearly outlined is that is already open to the court to …

To the second point, the amendment itself specifically references the aged-out child and references murder. Again, the legal advice I have is the Children Act 2001 disapplied any specific sentence specific to murder. While there may be a general sentence, there is no specific statutory sentence for children relating to murder, whereas this would place a specific statutory sentence on the books for aged-out children.

The discrepancy we are trying to remove inserts this on the other side. There is a second element to this. There is a Supreme Court case which is looking at murder as it applies to a child. Apologies that I did not say this earlier but this particular case has the potential to require further changes in legislation. The Children Act is being worked on at the moment, and there is an amendment Bill separate from this one, which is emergency legislation, in which I believe we would be able to explore this further, to …

The objective of the Bill is to provide that level playing field and that equality. Where the 2001 Act is silent is specific to murder, so by including the amendment, where we are specifically referencing murder to the aged-out child, where it is not specifically referenced to children in the 2001 Children Act, and I appreciate this is where we are talking about-----

There is no specific reference. The 2001 Act is silent on murder.

It is the use of that. It does not exist, so to disapply it for the aged-out child brings it onto a level playing field and brings it back to where it was. I am not saying we should not have on the Statute Book something specific about murder as it relates to children but it does not currently exist. Applying the amendment as it stands inserts something specific to murder for the aged-out child where it does not exist for that child at the moment. It is not to say our objective is not the exact same, and the object…

By using and specifically referencing murder where it does not exist at the moment, there is the potential to put in place a discrepancy on the other side of things. Our objectives are the same, but the legal advice I have is to comply with the High Court ruling. We need to change it.

The fact that it is silent on the type of offence in the 2001 Act, by disapplying it to aged-out persons they automatically fall under that category. However, by inserting the words "when he or she committed the murder", there is a specific-----

By disapplying the mandatory life sentence of murder to this person, the person automatically falls back under this.

It is going back to when the crime was committed, not when the person is being sentenced. That is what it is looking at.

The amendment specifically refers to murder, which is not referenced in the 2001 Act for children. Deputy Howlin's amendment would include that where it is not included at the moment.

The amendment refers to it. That is the challenge here.

The amendment 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 sorry, I was looking at the wrong section. It still applies in the same way because it is silent to murder. There is no need to change it because it already applies. When it is disapplied, it will apply to the child because the offence was committed before the child was 18. This is the very clear advice I have.

It disapplies it. The same approach will be applied.

It will revert to the same common law that is used by the Children Act. It would be the same approach.

By disapplying it, it will revert to common law which is exactly-----