Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)

As background, because the then relevant Minister was indisposed, I had to move the Third Reading of the Bill that became the Trading Schemes Act 1996, which included proposals on the chain-gift scheme. I seek clarification on how the clause interrelates with that Act, and on whether legislation already covers any proposed offence. We must leave aside the fact that the drafting that covers the chain-gift scheme seems to be open to abuse. For example, it seems that one could avoid prosecution—under clause 3(a), which refers to section 6—if one were to offer a small gift in return for payment.

Obviously, the avowed intent of the 1996 Act was to deduce a widening of the definition of goods to

''property of any description and a right to, or interest in, property''.

Guidance on that Act on the Department of Trade and Industry website states:

''Goods include the rights to property of any kind. This means that schemes which do little more than circulate money between the members of the scheme are subject to the controls.''

The guidance goes on to say:

''In a legitimate trading scheme, payments are linked essentially to genuine selling of goods or services to end users.''

I assume that the reasoning behind the clause is driven by the various scams that have taken place, such as the ''Women Empowering Women'' scam. The DTI eventually got around to putting out advice that the original ''Women Empowering Women'' scam

''does not appear to contravene current UK legislation on pyramid schemes or multi level marketing because it does not involve any trading of products or services nor any form of company structure or control.''

That seems directly to contravene the paragraph that I have just quoted about the amended definition of goods. May I persuade the Minister simply to compare the clause with the 1996 Act and to conclude whether the proposed offences are already offences under the Act? I am sure that he has the answer at his fingertips,

but in order to speed things up, and as he is a reasonable person, perhaps he will consider the matter and, if appropriate, table some amendments later.

Mr Richard Caborn (Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Sheffield Central, Labour)

We do not believe that there is any overlap. We would not need the clause if the current laws were adequate. Its purpose is to put it beyond any doubt that the type of pyramid selling that the hon. Gentleman describes is banned. We hope that we will see an end to chain gifting. We gave clear assurances on the Floor of the House about that. The clause is drafted in a way that covers all eventualities. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and if we need to reinforce the wording I will return with further amendments. There is no disagreement between us on the end objective, and we believe that we have achieved that, but we will review it in light of what has been said in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.