Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 61, page 25, line 26, leave out third 'A' and insert 'B'.

The amendment is very simple. It is one of a string of amendments and its argument is that, as we have no research evidence to convince us that category A machines will either provide enormous regenerative benefits or lead to a significant increase in gambling problems, we do not bother to introduce them into the country.

In earlier exchanges, particularly our rather abortive discussion about clause 7 and the proliferation of regional casinos, the Minister gave a clear assurance that he would table amendments that would stop a proliferation in the pilot period. I assume that we will receive confirmation before too long, but we understand that there will be a limit of only eight regional casinos. During the discussions, I asked the Minister whether he would put a similar cap on the proportion of category A machines in the regional casinos.

Bearing in mind that the Government have already said that the industry has advised them that only 10 per cent. of category A machines are likely to be in a regional casino out of a maximum of 1,250, it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to put a cap of 10 per cent. on them. I would prefer none at all, but given that I have not received an assurance about a proposed cap, I ask the Committee to listen to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.

Mr Malcolm Moss (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us where the figure of 10 per cent. came from. Was it in the debate on Second Reading? From my contact with those involved, I think that 10 per cent., or whatever, would constitute unlimited pay-outs and the rest would still be category A machines.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman asked me where that information comes from, but I cannot tell him. However, the Government say that they have it. My conversations with a wide range of organisations lead me to believe that nobody really knows the answer—but the Government do.

My point is simple. These are highly addictive machines that will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in problem gambling in this country as people

seek to chase their losses. The current chairman of the Gaming Board has referred to such machines as having

''special dangers . . . because of their potentially addictive characteristics.''

The Government discussed the introduction of fixed-odds betting terminals with the bookmakers, which were initially going to be similar, but decided not to do so because of real concerns, and clear limits were placed on them with a maximum pay-out of £500 for a single transaction.

The Government recognised the dangers of unlimited pay-out machines in discussions with the bookmakers, but they do not seem to accept the problems in relation to regional casinos. I should like to see whether the Minister has something interesting to tell us about a planned limit, the rejection of any category A machines, a limit on the maximum pay-outs, or anything like that.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right about category A machines, which have the high pay-outs. The operators run around 10 per cent. and they determine what the pay-outs will be and whether they want more, or fewer, pay-outs from their machine. They must have the input before the output. If the output were one big prize, they would want a lot more input. That is proven not just for category A machines, but for category B machines—with the £2,000 prize—because the pay-out is limited and therefore there are more pay-outs. That is just part of the marketplace. It is not a Government statistic; it is a reality of operation. However, the hon. Gentleman will probably know that from speaking to some of the operators.

On amendment No. 5, the Bill states that category A machines will be permitted in regional casinos only, which will offer a mixture of gambling and other leisure activities. Of course we need to make sure that category A machines are carefully regulated in the public interest. This category will be subject to controls over things such as speed of play and on-screen information and to stringent standards of supply, maintenance and, for the first time in British law, manufacture. However, not permitting category A machines would undermine the modernising principles of the Bill and deny customer choice. There is a market for machine gambling, subject to the tight controls that we are placing on the machines.

If category A machines could not be offered as part of the British gambling package and experience, it is likely that casino operators—be they British or from overseas—would be far less inclined to make the substantial investment necessary to set up regional casinos. In turn, that would mean that the potentially significant benefits from regeneration, to which several hon. Members referred, and job creation would be lost. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Don Foster (Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport, Culture, Media & Sport; Bath, Liberal Democrat)

I am staggered by the Minister's response. He tells us that people want customer choice, and therefore we have the unlimited-prize category A machines, but makes no reference at all to his thoughts about what impact that might have on problem gambling. When he talks about customer choice and says that if there were not unlimited-prize machines, investors would be unlikely to come in and generate regional casinos, there is no thought given to the existing British industry, which is desperately concerned about the uneven playing field that is being created.

I am surprised and disappointed. However, Mr. Pike, you will have noted that we have had a relatively brief debate at this stage and no doubt there will be an opportunity to return to this issue at a later stage, because amendments have been tabled. Bearing in mind that I wish to return to this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 62 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.