Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66: 66: Clause 9, page 7, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert— ““(2) The court must have regard primarily to the welfare of the offender, in accordance with section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. (3) The court must also— (a) have regard to the aim of preventing offending (or re-offending) by persons aged under 18, and (b) have regard to the purposes of sentencing mentioned in subsection (4), so far as it is not required to do so by paragraph (a) above.”” The noble Earl said: One must thank everybody for taking part in this debate. The cliché ““wide-ranging”” immediately springs to my lips. There is still confusion of purpose at the heart of the Bill. The clause is not well enough written. As my noble friend Lord Kingsland suggested, we must try to put together this purpose and the original purpose of punishment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. I accept, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, that there must be an element of punishment, but we do not always know what punishment means. These questions become deeper and more complicated the more one thinks of them. We can but struggle. I give the Government, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, credit for trying to get their heads around the matter and to do something about it. It is horribly complicated and difficult, and the crimes will be here generation after generation. I hope that I will get together with other noble Lords. [Amendment No. 66 not moved.] [Amendment No. 67 not moved.]