By removing clause 27, I hope we are not sending out the message that the offence in question is not a serious matter. People should not assume that because we are not seeking to escalate the fine, this is not serious. The police have a range of powers and we work with them not only on training, but on revising existing guidance. The powers are there to be used, and we want to ensure that they work.

Hon. Members referred to prevention. They asked, why cannot we do more to prevent young people from getting into this situation in the first place? I hope the impression has not been created that not a lot is happening. We need only look at the work done as part of the youth crime action plan and the diversionary activities that the Government, through local authorities and other bodies, pay for, particularly for Friday and Saturday nights. In the more serious cases, there are family intervention projects as well. If children are regularly brought home and parents are indifferent to that, there is good cause to hold them responsible for what their children are doing.

On the ages of the young people in question, we should not forget that the police asked for the powers that we are introducing. Because they sometimes have to deal with groups of people of mixed ages, they wanted to ensure that they had the powers to deal with all of them. Some situations can be particularly difficult for them, and they have to have discretion. The position we have arrived at is the correct one.

Mike Penning mentioned proxy purchase. We do not agree that such a measure would not be enforceable, but addressing the problem can sometimes be disproportionately resource-intensive. The Bill does, however, make it harder to sell alcohol to young people and for them to drink in public, which is welcome.

I welcome this broad range of measures, and I hope the House will support the amendments.

Lords amendment 25 agreed to.

Lords amendments 26 to 29 agreed to.