I'm opposed to this proposed amendment put forward by Mr. Davies. It appears to me that the purpose of the bill...and as Mr. Davies outlined in his dissertation or his comments, every case is very specific, and there's a whole list of factors that may be considered. Not all factors are going to be relevant, even remotely, in all cases.
One of the factors that has been included in this new legislation is, for example, the health of the offender and whether that offender may need treatment. That's not going to be relevant in, I would suggest, most cases. So I think the discretionary “may” is more appropriate than the mandatory “must”, and I'll be encouraging members on this side of the table to vote nay.