UK Parliament / Open data

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the support expressed by other noble Lords for the amendment. I cannot say that I accept the logic that proxy purchase is an offence of such a different order from persistent sales to children as the Government suggest. I stress that I am not seeking to make the maximum fine the same, but just to apply the same principle of doubling that fine as a signal that the harm and potential harm behind that offence is recognised. I do not accept that my amendment would blur the distinction between the offences. However, I am encouraged by the Government's signal that the dangers of proxy purchase will be looked at again in the context of the revised strategy that we are expecting in the autumn and of a more widespread look at sentencing policy in general. Perhaps we can return to the issue, because it will continue to cause harm, and there is a higher incidence of proxy purchase than of persistent sales to children. The issue will not go away but, for the moment, I am content to withdraw my amendment. Amendment 240M withdrawn. Amendment 240N not moved. Clause 120: Early morning alcohol restriction orders Clause 120: Early morning alcohol restriction orders Amendment 240P not moved. Amendment 240PA Moved by
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
728 c893-4 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top