I shall not respond to that.
As I was saying, the classic three-card-trick sting is an example of fraud that is often presented as a game of chance. The 1968 Act regulated that as gaming and the Bill does the same.
Amendment No. 77 tries to remove prize machines requiring only skill from the definition of gaming. That is quite unnecessary, because a machine that requires only skill, such as an arcade video machine, is not caught by this clause. Gaming does not cover contests of skill. The machine must involve a degree of skill and chance to be a gaming machine, so the amendment would serve no purpose.
Amendment No. 88 is wholly unnecessary. Lotteries are defined in clause 14, and clause 16 deals with their overlap with gaming, so the amendment is redundant. I therefore ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire not to press it.
Amendments No. 90 and 103 are, again, wholly redundant, although I understand their motivation. The clause does not and cannot, in the light of what we have been saying about the powers of the Secretary of State, allow her to designate something involving pure skill as a game of chance. She would be acting outside the scope of the clause if she tried to do so. If hon. Members are concerned, they can rest assured that the clause delivers what they seek. Therefore, the amendments would serve no useful purpose.
Amendment No. 132 refers to the new sports conceived to avoid controls on gaming. There is no intention of using that for the sake of safety. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.