CONFISCATION OF ALCOHOL FROM PERSONS UNDER 18 (Hansard, 29 January 1997)

§ Mr. McFall
I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 57, line 42, after 'shall', insert 'where there is no byelaw in force prohibiting the public consumption of alcohol'.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also No. 141, in page 57, line 45, at end add 'and where there is a byelaw in force prohibiting the public consumption of alcohol it shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale for a person not so to comply with a requirement made under subsection (1) or (2) above'.

§ Mr. McFall
A similar amendment was debated in Committee. The clause allows a police officer to take liquor from an under-18-year-old and to take that individual's name and address; and to take liquor from over-18s if the officer believes that they are supplying under-18s with liquor. A new crime is created, of failing to comply with a police officer's request to surrender the 437 liquor or of not providing a name and address. That would incur a fine of not more than level 2 on the standard scale, which is £500.
The amendment is designed to increase the penalty for failing to meet police requirements when a local authority byelaw exists prohibiting consumption. We are concerned here not with the drinking but with the possession of the liquor and the failure to comply with the police request. We want to send out a message to those involved that what they are doing is unacceptable, and that we take the matter seriously.
The official Opposition are extremely concerned about the issue. We have co-operated with the Government in the matter of byelaws. The amendment would ensure that there was a penalty regardless of whether a byelaw was in place. We urge the Government to take the matter seriously.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
The amendments replicate amendments that we considered in Committee. I said at that time that I would consider further the level of the penalty. I recall that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that it would be absurd if someone were fined £2,500 for not giving his name and address. I agree in this context, and I believe that we should not go down the road of increasing penalties merely for the sake of presentation. Penalties should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Having reconsidered the matter, we are still of the view that anything above a level 2 or £500 maximum fine for the offence would be disproportionate.

§ Mr. Gallie
Has my right hon. and learned Friend any guidance on why Opposition Members are taking this line? I hear repeatedly of their dismay that people are sent to prison for not paying fines. A fine of £2,500 would be well beyond the means of the majority of people who would be affected by the clause, and it would be nonsense unless they were sent to prison for non-payment.

§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
It would not be appropriate to get into the business of sentence-gazumping proposals. For a variety of reasons, we think that the amendments are unnecessary.