Coroners and Justice Bill

I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl but, with great respect, we ought to deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, which the noble Earl has already mentioned. New subsection (1)(a) in Clause 42(1) makes it absolutely plain that one of the requirements is a recognised mental condition. Does the noble Earl agree that if an adult is suffering from a recognised medical condition which in an adult may be evidenced by developmental immaturity, that will avail the adult, but that, as the clause makes clear, if a child under 18 is suffering from developmental immaturity, that will not be a recognised medical condition that will avail the child? With enormous respect, that is the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Berwick, on this rare occasion, has not quite got altogether. Does the noble Earl agree?