'The Gambling Commission will liaise with the Office of Communications (OFCOM) on all issues relating to the internet and all other communication media over which OFCOM has a remit, to ensure that there is no regulatory gap between the Commission and OFCOM.'.—[Mr. Hawkins]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this we may discuss the following:

New clause 5—Information about internet sites.

New clause 4 is an attempt to include in the Bill something that clarifies the need for the gambling commission to liaise with Ofcom on all the issues relating to the internet and other communications media that Ofcom has a remit over to ensure that there is no regulatory gap between the gambling commission that the Bill creates and Ofcom. There has been a lot of concern that there might be opportunities for unscrupulous promoters of material on the internet to find loopholes and a gap between the two regulatory bodies. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Bill includes provisions that avoid such a gap. I tabled the new clause to flag up the concerns that have been expressed to me by a number of organisations and individuals in the broadcasting world and by those involved in the reputable side of the gaming industry.

New clause 5 raises a different point, which the hon. Member for Colchester mentioned when talking about kitemarking. His suggestion was that we might use three cherries as a kitemark of a safe gambling site. In new clause 5, my concern is that those who are providing sites that are based on UK companies should not be prevented by European Commission rules from doing that. In one of our debates before Christmas, the Ministersaid, if I understood him correctly, that if the Government provided a facility for a company to say, ''We are proud to be a British company, operate to the highest standards and are licensed by the new gambling commission'', some bureaucrat in the European Commission might say, ''Oh, that's illegal.''

It seems to me that that would be yet another erosion of our sovereignty, one among so many that I and those on the Conservatives Benches who share my views constantly complain about. There are some brave Government Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who share my concerns that the sovereignty of this country is constantly being eroded. There is a proud tradition of a small number of Eurosceptics on the Labour Back Benches. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is another who frequently raises those issues. It is sad that none of those hon. Members is on this Committee. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will find a way to stand up for Britain.

Mr. Caborn: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's attempt to ensure that there are no gaps in the regulations between the remit of the Gambling Commission and that of Ofcom. The principle is sound. However, the hon. Gentleman appears to be confused about the remit of Ofcom. It does not generally regulate the content of the internet services. During the passage of the Communications Act 2003, the Government worked closely with the industry to ensure that broadcasting regulation was clearly distinguished from the internet.

It may be helpful to repeat the example that just because football is shown on television, it does not mean that Ofcom is responsible for regulating football. Perish the thought. The same is true for gambling. It is clearly the responsibility of the Gambling Commission. Furthermore, the Bill already explicitly requires the Gambling Commission and Ofcom to work closely together on regulating the broadcasting of gambling advertisements. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

We all know of the hon. Member's scepticism about, or indeed disapproval of the regulations emanating from the European Union. He holds these views honestly and sincerely, albeit wrongly. On this new clause I must disappoint him yet again. The lawyers tell me that it is unlikely to achieve his aims. Perhaps, more importantly, I can reassure him that internet operators regulated by the Gambling Commission will be able to promote that fact. Nothing can stop operators publicising their licensed status. That is important. It is clearly in their interests to do so. For legal reasons, we are unable to set up an official accreditation scheme run by the Gambling Commission itself. That would be contrary to European law. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find sufficient comfort to enable him to withdraw the motion.

I am more comforted by the Minister's reassurance on new clause 4 than his reassurance on new clause 5. As he has said that there will be at least some kind of opportunity for British   sites to point out that they are approved by the Gambling Commission, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.