Mr. Caborn: Amendments Nos. 66 and 59 seek to insert a requirement that payment must be made to the promoter or associate of the promoter. I can see no good reason for such a requirement. Paragraph 7 in both schedules covers people who have not yet paid anything, who are told that they have won a prize—typically left vague—and who are then asked to pay to collect it. There have been several schemes of that kind, at best dubious, in the past. People are told that they have won something, which sounds good, and then have to pay much more than the product is worth to collect it.
Against that background, we do not want to leave loopholes for the unscrupulous. I fear that the amendments would do exactly that. They would enable the promoter to set up an arrangement under which payment was not to him but to somebody else, and it would then be a job to prove that that somebody was indeed an associate of the promoter rather than in some other kind of business or relationship. Why make regulation harder than it needs to be? Therefore, the amendment adds nothing, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
On payment to take possession of a prize, someone who won a car could take possession of it even if they had to pay the car tax to drive it. That is an example of where that may have to be done.
Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister, but he did not deal with the other examples that I gave. Paragraph 7 simply refers to
There could be a wide interpretation of ''pay''. Who is being paid? That is the reason for the amendment's being specific.
Column Number: 109
Obviously, if the promoter of the competition scam is the one to whom one must give the money, we are quite happy for that situation to be caught in the legislation. However, in the other examples of payments being made, the Bill does not say to whom, it just says ''to pay''. Our amendment is more focused on the recipient of the extra money, who is part of a scam that states, ''You have won a worthless prize but to get it you have to pay a lot more money.'' We are obviously on the side of the Government in wanting to outlaw that practice, but currently valid competitions are running in which there will be a payment of some kind before the prize comes into one's possession. I am not sure that the Minister has addressed that point.
Mr. Caborn: We will reflect on that point, but if one pays to collect a prize, what matters to the consumer is the payment, not who gets it. The provision in the Bill is adequate to cover such circumstances, as well as those of a scam. If there is any validity in the argument, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. As the provision stands, it covers the scam and the genuine payment, but I will revisit the provision with my officials and come back to the Committee if we believe that it is faulty.
Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): Will the Bill outlaw the scam whereby to claim a prize people have to ring a premium rate phone number? Many of our constituents have complained about that, and it needs to be outlawed.
Mr. Caborn: Very much so. As my hon. Friend knows, the subject has been raised on the Floor of the House by a number of colleagues. It is, to put it crudely, a rip-off, and that is why the provision is in the Bill. I want to make certain that the wording covers both eventualities—genuine payments and scams. If we believe that it can be worded differently and more strongly to reflect the sentiments expressed by hon. Members, I will consider it.
Mr. Moss: The point is taken on board. We do not seek to allow such scams. We consider them to be covered under the heading of scam situations, and we want to see the Bill as tightly controlled as it needs to be. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will take another look at the amendment. It was the result of strong representation from the Advertising Association, representing a large number of members who want clarification. The words that we tabled on their behalf are a means of seeking clarification rather than changing the thrust of the schedule. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 68, in
Amendment No. 69, in
Column Number: 110
Amendment No. 60, in
Amendment No. 61, in
Amendment No. 62, in
Mr. Moss: Some of the amendments relate to schedule 2, but others refer to the wording of schedule 1. We feel the need to amend the first half of paragraph 8(1) in both schedules because we believe that it could fly in the face of the Government's intention to introduce the New Zealand model.
To reiterate, that model is one in which draws tied to a product promotion do not have to be free to enter so long as the cost of entering them is no more than the cost of the product. That is because nearly every existing free route could be regarded as less convenient than the purchase route. For example, returning home to register an entry by telephone, or going online to do so, will almost always be less convenient for the consumer than simply purchasing the product on the shelf in front of them. If judges took the same view, it could well frustrate, or even negate, the Government's intention to adopt the New Zealand model in the United Kingdom.
Removing the words ''nor less convenient'' would make the paragraph far more workable in practice, while still allowing the Government to achieve their objectives. An additional benefit of the amendment is that it is technology-neutral because it does not attempt to rank different forms of communication, such as e-mail or phone, by degrees of convenience, because those may well vary according to the individual concerned.
The second half of the paragraph should refer to participating in the arrangement, not entering the lottery, because, as we noted during the debate on an earlier amendment, the Bill will redefine the meaning of ''lottery''. It is therefore more appropriate to speak in terms of an arrangement, not least for reasons of consistency.
Mr. Caborn: Again, I cannot see real merit in any of the amendments in this group, which are designed to amend, to no good effect, schedules 1 and 2. Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 60 and 61 would strike out the provision under which a method of entry constitutes a requirement to pay if it is less convenient than entry with payment.
We know that pre-entry routes to competitions are a potential source of abuse. The organisers want people to pay because that is how they make their money, so they offer free-entry routes that are designed in such a way that they attract no one to use them. That mischief is dealt with by the words that the amendments would remove. For example, there could be an opportunity to pay a specific amount to enter a competition, or to deliver the entry by hand between 3 am and 3.15 am on a given day. For some people that might involve no extra cost, but it would
Column Number: 111certainly be less convenient than putting a letter in the post. The amendments would allow such scams to flourish.
Amendment No. 69 would add three words that make no substantive change to the clause and are completely unnecessary. Sub-paragraph (1) refers expressly to participation in an arrangement. It is therefore self-evident that subsections (1)(b) and (2) of clause 11 are concerned with the same issue. Amendment. No. 62 would change the word ''lottery'' to the words ''participate in the arrangement''—an unnecessary change. I therefore ask the Committee not to accept it.
Mr. Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|©Parliamentary copyright 2004||Prepared 11 November 2004|