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

I beg to move amendment No. 237A, in page 40, line 12, at end insert

'provided that such standards shall be included in the statement set out in section 22(1) and shall be not more onerous than is reasonably required to achieve the licensing objectives and shall distinguish between categories of machines as described in Part 10.'.

The explanatory notes to the clause are particularly helpful. They state:

''Without prejudice to other condition-making powers, the Commission may establish, or authorise others to establish on its behalf, standards in respect of systems and processes used for the manufacture, supply, installation, adaptation, maintenance or repair of a gaming machine. These standards must be consistent with the rules concerning gaming machines contained in part 10.'' 

They continue:

''The Commission can enforce those standards through licence conditions including the testing of the operator's systems on application and from time to time.''

The amendment is clear in its wording. The Committee will be aware that section 22(1) states:

''The Commission shall prepare a statement setting out the principles to be applied by it in exercising its functions under this Act.''

Clearly, there will be wide testing arrangements and the industry is conscious that it has well tried testing regimes for machines other than those in category A and B2. The existing system has been developed over many years and is believed to operate very effectively. A new regime could seriously damage innovation and the ability of manufacturers to meet consumer demand for new games. Experience from other countries, such as the Netherlands, shows that an onerous and disproportionate regime can prevent markets developments, and clearly the Committee would wish to ensure that that was avoided.

The amendment is designed to seek assurance that the new testing regime will be built on the successful system already championed by the Gaming Board and the industry. Therefore, it will not be too onerous or involve disproportionate cost.

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

My reply will require only a small card to Mrs. Foster. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to improve the clause. I agree that it is important for all standards set by the gambling commission to be objective and for them to be widely known. I hope that I can reassure him that the amendment will not be needed.

When the commission establishes standards under the clause, it is bound to publish them. If it does not, it will be impossible for the industry to comply. It is also likely that the commission will wish to consult on the matter and it may be that the publication will form part of a licensing policy issued under clause 22. However, we do not want to tie the commission to issuing standards under that clause because not all standards will require full consultation. Where they are technical in nature, it is likely that few sectors of the industry will be interested in their content.

The clause achieves what is needed to allow the commission to work effectively. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the commission cannot, and should not, set standards that did something other than pursue the licensing objectives, and it would be outside the scope of its powers to do so.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the manufacturing standards might confuse, or indeed undermine, the categorisation of machines under part 10. However, those standards relate to the technical specifications of the machines, such as how the random number generator is sealed in the unit to prevent tampering and what stake-acceptance technology is used. Clearly, standards that related to a particular type of machine would say so, but in many cases, they will apply to all machines, no matter what the stake or prize limit.

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

I am most grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply, and not least for his clear assurance that the testing regime will be no more onerous than is reasonably required to achieve the licensing objectives; otherwise, as he made clear, the commission would be going outside its remit. I entirely accept that it would be inappropriate to have full consultation on some small aspects and that it would therefore be difficult to include them all in the clause 22(1) statement. Given the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.