Schedule 1 - Betting: Prize Competitions: Definition of Payment to Enter

Part of Gambling Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:45 pm on 11th November 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Richard Caborn Richard Caborn Minister of State (Sport and Tourism), Department for Culture, Media & Sport 2:45 pm, 11th November 2004

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.