Proposition 50K1339

Projet de loi relatif à la rationalisation du fonctionnement et de la gestion de la Loterie nationale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

July 5, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

game of chance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• José Canon (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Jef Tavernier (Groen) abstained from voting.
• Annemie Van de Casteele (N-VA) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 9, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you the additional report of the discussion of the bill for rationalization of the operation and management of the National Lottery.

The bill was discussed in the Committee on Finance and Budget on 5 December, 12 December and 18 December 2001 and this after Mr. Marique, Chairman of the Commission on Gambling, in a letter of 22 November recently spontaneously informed the Chamber of the concerns of the members of his committee. That day, the plenary session decided to send the draft law back to the committee. At its meeting of 5 December, the committee granted the report of Mr Marique the status of official opinion of the Gambling Commission.

In his presentation before the Committee on Finance and Budget, Mr. Marique was surprised that the government had submitted a bill under which the National Lottery may organise gambling without mentioning wager or loss per hour. He considers that this is contrary to the objective of the legislator to also combat addiction in the Act of 7 May 1999 on gambling, gambling establishments and the protection of players. In that regard, Mr Marique further points out the system of the Metrological Service of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, which may impose technical restrictions — in the present case a maximum hourly amount — on the producers of slot machines. Then Mr. Marique has serious concerns about the possibility for the National Lottery to participate in other companies and to offer games on the Internet.

He argues that the bill discriminates against other gambling operators for the reasons mentioned above, and furthermore he argues that the Gambling Commission is the appropriate body to check the integrity and legality of the gambling games offered to the public by the National Lottery. He advocates for equal treatment of public and private operators. In that context, he points to the plans of the company Telenet to organize, in cooperation with a foreign company or not – according to Mr Marique, ⁇ the National Lottery itself – so-called casino nights.

Mr. Marique’s presentation gave rise to questions and comments from various members. The rapporteur asked the following questions.

First, how was the Gambling Commission involved in the drafting of the bill?

Secondly, why did an earlier version of the preliminary draft law provide for the establishment of a committee at the National Lottery, with control powers, also in respect of activities currently within the competence of the Gambling Commission?

Third, how are betting organised in other countries through the new means of communication?

Fourth, how does the Gambling Commission deal with the possibility given to the National Lottery to take advantage of electronic lottery machines?

Furthermore, your rapporteur laid down the lack of personal and material resources of the committee and pointed out the restraint of municipal governments towards slot machine halls, referring to the refusal of municipal governments to conclude an agreement with the operators of a class II gambling establishment. The rapporteur also encouraged existing cooperation between the Gambling Commission, on the one hand, and the Computer Crime Unit, on the other hand, and referred to the illegal nature of online gambling sites, which is also recognised by the Minister of Justice. He called for the exchange of information between the Gambling Commission and the prevention services of the communities.

Mr Marique responded to those questions and comments that the Gambling Committee was not kept informed of the work of the Committee on Finance and Budget and that after reading the report of the work, he took the initiative to draw up a report and forward it to the Chamber so that the latter would be informed before the plenary discussions of the fact that certain provisions of the Act of 7 May 1999 were amended without prior advice from the Gambling Committee.

Mr Marique also mentioned the unanimous rejection by his committee, in July 2000, of the plans of the National Lottery to place electronic lottery machines in beverage lotteries. If the Government permits this, the number of permitted gambling may not exceed two amounts, in accordance with Article 39 of the Act of 7 May 1999. He also called for the control power of the Gambling Commission, assisted by the Metrology Service of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

He also complains about the shortage of permanently appointed personnel, the slow and logging procedure for the recruitment of statutory employees and the lack of a well-performing database. He notes a growing trend towards liberalization of gambling and online betting, and considers it possible that lotteries and games will be considered services in the economic sense of the word within three to four years. Mr Marique confirms the refusal of many municipalities to conclude agreements with the operators of a slot machine hall, on which a systematic non-suspending appeal is filed with the State Council.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Maingain, asks whether the Gambling Commission wishes to extend its control assignments to some products of the National Lottery. Mr Marique responds that he is in favour of a control by an independent body, such as the Gambling Commission, on the activities of all operators, including the National Lottery.

Mr. van Weddingen points out that the bill provides sufficient guarantees for the Gambling Commission to exercise control over the future activities of the National Lottery. In this regard, he refers to Article 21, § 1, second paragraph of the draft. Mr Marique responds to this with the notification that in the serious consideration of the National Lottery to set up electronic lottery devices in cafes, the advisory power of the Gambling Commission under Article 21 is insufficient.

Your reporter indicates that the control power of the Gambling Commission can only be extended after a government agreement. He once again pleads for the involvement of the Gambling Commission in the preparation of the bill. Finally, he asks whether, before the approval of the present draft, the National Lottery has already concluded agreements with suppliers of electronic slot machines. Mr Marique replies that, at the request of the Minister, after an initial informal consultation, he was denied access to the subsequent meetings and was informed orally through a representative of the Ministry of Justice. The Gambling Commission received only a request for advice. He confirms that the National Lottery does not deny that an initial advance of 300 million francs has already been paid for the purchase of electronic lottery machines.

The Minister responded as follows to the various questions and comments.

The Minister says that Article 20 of the Act of 7 May 1999 did not make the request for the opinion of the Gambling Commission mandatory. The Government did not consider it necessary to formally consult the committee concerned in view of the President’s involvement in the work of the Ministerial Working Group responsible for the draft and the position of the Gambling Commission, which was sufficiently known, among other things, thanks to its Annual Report 2000. Nevertheless, he claims to be pleased that the opinion was transmitted to Parliament by the President.

The Minister emphasizes that in his policy note only the possibility that the National Lottery in the future will receive the legal authorisations to exploit electronic lottery machines. Those authorizations are not yet there, because the minister is discussing the royal decree that would ratify it.

Furthermore, the Minister confirms that the National Lottery, in accordance with the Royal Decree of 13 January 1999 determining the forms of public lottery and organized by the National Lottery, has ordered fifty machines for testing. However, according to his information, no payments have yet been made in this connection.

The Minister does not consider that the interests of the Gambling Commission in the bill are compromised, given the expansion of its powers. After all, the National Lottery may only organize gambling games after the advice of that committee in accordance with Articles 3, § 1, second paragraph. In addition, he recalls the positive right of injunction granted to the Gambling Commission by means of Article 21, § 1, second paragraph, which allows it to draw the attention of the Government to a number of activities of the National Lottery which it qualifies as gambling. It may, with the consent of the Government, submit those activities to its control.

The Minister reiterates that the Government has chosen to pursue an embedding policy by allowing the National Lottery to continue its existing activities and submitting the organisation of gambling to the supervision of the Gambling Commission, although it could also have ⁇ ined the provisions of the Act of 22 July 1999. This would allow the National Lottery to offer gambling games without any control of the Gambling Commission. The Minister says he understands the concerns of the private gambling operators about the future competition due to the National Lottery, but claims that this is consistent with the goal of implementing an embedding policy.

Furthermore, the Minister indicates that the objective of the draft is within the framework of a strategic plan to rationalize the sector and implement an integration policy and therefore there are no financial motives.

The Minister points out that the draft law provides for the preparation of a management agreement. That management agreement will define the tasks of the National Lottery, which it must perform within the framework of the embedding policy. It will also set out the policy on gambling addiction to be carried out with the financial support of the National Lottery.

The criticism of the Gambling Commission on unfair competition discourages the Minister from referring to the judgments of the International Court of Justice of the European Communities on the Schindler case and on the Ladbroke case. It states that the right to free competition does not apply to the organization of lotteries and gambling.

Regarding virtual gambling, the Minister notes that the Minister of Justice, in response to a question from your reporter, indicated that the law of 7 May 1999 does not explicitly prohibit virtual gambling. Furthermore, according to the Minister, the monopoly granted to the National Lottery for the organization of lotteries and gambling, betting and competitions is perfectly in line with the extension of the embedding policy desired by the government.

The statements of Mr. Marique and the responses of the Minister were followed by a general discussion. I will give a brief overview of the most special statements in the general discussion.

Your reporter highlighted the contradictory statements of the Minister of Justice regarding the illegality or legality of virtual gambling. According to the opinion of the State Council — there is a document with references in this regard — games offered on the Internet are not allowed. With the present draft law, the National Lottery now creates the possibility to do so without punishment, according to your reporter. He reiterates his desire to take note of the position of the Minister of Justice on the present draft, as well as of the criticism expressed on the functioning of the Gambling Commission.

He also mentions that the Chance Play Commission only approved its annual report on 25 April 2001 and thus could have had a remarkably large contribution in the preparation of the present draft law, through its annual report. He also suggests hearing the top of the National Lottery on this subject, in order to know what the concrete plans of the National Lottery are to plunge into the market of electronic games and bets.

Your reporter also suggests hearing representatives of associations committed to fighting gambling addiction. He regrets that the declining revenue of the National Lottery is one of the main drivers behind the design.

Collega Gobert notes that the National Lottery intends to develop an attractive gaming offer of interactive games or very frequent lottery drawings in places easily accessible to the public. He finds that worrying, an opinion shared by your reporter. Mr. Gobert calls for a debate on the products of the National Lottery.

He also lacks that the National Lottery, as a public-law non-market company, will not be subject to any external control, since the law of 7 May 1999 gives the Gambling Commission only the authority for gambling establishments of classes I, II and III and the National Lottery offers gambling activities outside those establishments.

He questions himself about the need for the likely drastic change soon at the top of the National Lottery.

Mr. Bacquelaine points out that the whole discussion revolves around reconciling two goals. On the one hand, the National Lottery must play an important role as a supporter of social, cultural and scientific initiatives and projects. On the other hand, it should give sufficient strength to the fight against gambling addiction by public authorities. He also sees gaps in government control over the gambling that the National Lottery can develop in the future.

Mr. Tavernier claims that the reform of the statute of the National Lottery can lead to an increase in commercial pressure, although that pressure, he says, is already present, given the financing by the National Lottery of numerous projects.

Mr Tavernier also raises questions on whether or not the opinion of the Gambling Commission is binding and on the grounds for the fear of the installation of electronic gambling devices in public places, without prior binding opinion of the Gambling Commission, by the National Lottery. The Minister acknowledges that there is no need for a binding opinion in this regard.

Mr Maingain, chairman of the committee, stresses the need for a strong public body, which is in any case better controlled than the private sector.

Mr Van Campenhout stated that there are sufficient safety valves to prevent gambling addiction by products of the National Lottery.

During the article-by-article discussion, an amendment number 46 was submitted by Mr. Van Campenhout, Dufour and van Weddingen which aims to otherwise formulate article 39 which incorporates an article 3bis in the law of 7 May 1999, and to clearly indicate which articles of the law apply to the gambling games developed by the National Lottery. Of all the amendments submitted, that amendment was approved as the only one. The amended bill was adopted with 6 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 2 abstentions.

I conclude by emphasizing that I have only explained the discussions held in the Committee on Finance and Budget following the referral of the draft on 22 November 2001. For the first part of the discussions in the committee, in this case the meetings of 25 September, 16 and 24 October and 7 and 8 November, I refer to the excellent report of the services.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we are therefore brought today to examine the law concerning the rationalization of the operation and management of the National Lottery. by

The National Lottery constitutes a not negligible contribution in the realisation of the state budget. It also defines itself as the country’s first messenger. Thus its profits are allocated: - to the financing of programmes of aid to developing countries and for public utility purposes, among which, in particular, the aid to the social sector (handicapped, elderly, abandoned youth), to the cultural sector (arts and literature, music, museums and libraries, cinema and multimedia); - to the aid to sport, to tourism, to the conservation of the historical, artistic and scientific value of monuments, sites and buildings classified, to the protection of mothers and children, to the protection of nature and the environment, to the scientific research, the reception, the integration of legal immigrants and recognised political refugees; - and finally to the activities in the broad sense in the social, family, humanitarian, patriotic, scientific, cultural and sports field. by

In order to enable the National Lottery to develop sustainably and in an optimal working environment for its staff, the Socialist Group considered that a reform of the National Lottery was necessary. In this regard, on behalf of the Socialist Party, I would like to express to you, Mr. Minister, my satisfaction in this matter. In particular, I will mention a few provisions to which we were ⁇ attached. by

First, respect for linguistic parity in each of the governing bodies of the society, in particular within the board of directors. Next, the National Lottery’s information and prevention mission on the economic, social and psychological risks associated with gambling addiction. The appointment by the King, by decree deliberated in Council of Ministers, of the delegated administrator and of a number of ordinary members proportional to the right of vote attached to the shares held by the State. Similarly, the possibility for the members of the executive board and the members of the staff of the department in charge of the operations referred to in the Law of 22 July 1991 on the National Lottery which, on 1 September 1991, were part of the executive board or of the staff of the department in charge of the operations referred to in the Law of 6 July 1964 on the National Lottery, and who were appointed definitively on that date, to reintegrate their original administration for a period of one year.

Let me finally communicate to you three major concerns of the Socialist Party. by

First, the transformation of the National Lottery into a public law company must enable sound and transparent management.

Secondly, the National Lottery must remain an institution at the service of the country, continuing through subsidies and sponsorship to grant financial aid to events and other associations working for the purpose of public utility, including assistance to the social, family, humanitarian, patriotic, scientific, cultural and sports sectors. by

And thirdly, as has been reaffirmed in the Committee on Finance and Budget, the transformation of the National Lottery into a public law company must be done with the maintenance of the contractual regime, the remuneration and the old age of the staff members engaged under the regime of an employment contract for an indefinite period within the public establishment National Lottery referred to by the law of 22 July 1991.

You can count on the support of the Socialist Party.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, as an introduction, I refer to the social interest of the present draft. It is about money. Money is always a matter that brings problems, including in terms of morals. This is about a lot of money. It is about dreaming of happiness, winning the great fate, so that one can organize his life as relentlessly as possible. For the modal resident of our country, the National Lottery is a very important institution. It is estimated that 140 to 160 billion will be spent on games and betting. The National Lottery takes about 40 billion of this — in recent years the share has dropped slightly — for its account. The phenomenal amounts indicate that the incubation policy referred to by the Minister in the committee is very important.

I make a little cynical side jump. Not everyone is lucky enough to win the National Lottery. Everyone seeks happiness in their own way. Not everyone has the opportunity to seek happiness and seize the poon by, for example, acquiring a position in a cabinet or in an institution where one can structurally win the great fate through his position or the possibilities offered to cross procedures and shut down legal provisions. The actuality requires me to refer to this. There are employees in a number of cabinets that are close to the minister’s heart, who don’t have to play Lotto.

You are not talking about me?

For now, I’m not talking about you, nor about your cabinet. I give that as an example to show that having money and material comfort are important drivers to play Lotto. Money and material comfort drive people to do things that are on the brink of acceptable. The society and its politicians must ensure that the excesses of gambling, such as buying lots and playing in the grey zone, are stopped and an embedded policy is implemented. That embedding policy is also necessary for other activities that are based on the drive of more money.

I have a number of criticisms on the present bill.

According to the memorandum of explanation and the statements of the Minister, among others in the committee, the draft law aims at the embedding policy, even more, it is strengthened by it. The CD&V group believes that this is not the case. In fact, that design leads to an increase in the supply and possibly also to an increase in the demand that can be triggered, and in fact also to a limitation of the free provision of services. Indeed, we can ask ourselves questions — in the article-by-article discussion we will go deeper into it — about the compatibility of the draft with European case-law. European jurisprudence states that for lottery games and betting, an exception can be made to normal competition legislation. The government may install a monopoly if that monopoly is motivated by the embedding policy and the supply and thus also the demand for gambling opportunities are limited in the long term. This is not the case with the present draft law.

There is not even a coherent policy, because in our country the hybrid model continues to exist where, on the one hand, the private operators in the sector play and betting are subject to an official, public control by the Gambling Commission, and on the other hand, a public institution is not subject to an independent control but must act self-regulating and self-controling. The CD&V group is therefore not convinced that the design makes it easier to incorporate the excesses of gaming activities.

Our second criticism is socially less important, but it shows the history of the draft and the vast majority that that draft law will undoubtedly get at the vote. Despite my questions in the first and second reading of the text in the competent committee meeting, I have still not received any responsibility from the Minister — thanks to such a second reading it becomes clear that there are no answers — for the fact that more members should be eligible for appointment to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of the National Lottery increases from ten to fourteen members and there are two Government Commissioners appointed by the Minister of Public Enterprises, respectively by the Minister of Budget, Mr Vande Lanotte. Unless the Senate does its job properly, this is the last chance to answer my question why the number of members of the Board of Directors should be increased from ten to fourteen. Ironically, I refer to a promise from some colleagues in the committee meeting, who publicly predicted that the new members of the Board of Directors of the National Lottery would be appointed. Per ⁇ those fourteen positions have already been divided.

Mr. Minister, the powers of that board of directors are narrowed, including in terms of profit distribution. Why should the number of members of the Board of Directors increase by four? This may have to do with the wider composition of the current coalition.

The entire control system of government commissioners and auditors is also becoming more complex. It leads to more jobs coming, so you can round up more appointments.

I have recently discussed our third criticism. In Belgium, the so-called hybrid model continues to exist. There are different models in the European Union. The CD&V group is in favour of that — and we believe that is also the will of those who contributed to the establishment of the law of 7 May 1999 — as the National Lottery may carry out more extensive activities than was provided in the existing framework of the lottery, it should therefore be subject to the control of the Gambling Commission. In one of the first versions of the preliminary draft, which was discussed during inter-kabinet consultations and reached us through a favorable wind, there was a National Lottery Commission that would control the National Lottery in addition to the Gambling Commission. This model already exists in Britain. With the draft now presented, the Gambling Commission will control all private operators on the basis of the law of 7 May 1999, which has been worked with great diligence in the Chamber and Senate.

In addition, there is the National Lottery that controls itself. In our view, this is not a healthy situation, which, by the way, goes against the European lottery model. No one can convince me that the right of injunction provided for in Article 21 will be sufficient to resolve the Cold War between the two institutions.

Mr. Speaker, as a parenthesis, I refer here to the unprecedented way in which Chairman Marique of the Gambling Commission was treated by the Minister and some members of the majority and even almost physically removed. They are going to amend the law of 1999 and they do not want to ask the Gambling Commission for advice. If the man then proprio motu gives a opinion to the people's representation, he is treated "like a piece of dirt" during the explanation of that opinion. Mr. Minister, you said yourself that Mr. Marique could follow the session from another bench. Until there is my parenthesis.

Next, I want to cut down the whole problem surrounding the Internet. After all, this design makes it possible for the Lottery to offer gambling opportunities on the Internet, which until now was prohibited by law. I will briefly address this aspect here, since in the article-by-article discussion with the Minister of Justice I would like to exchange thoughts on the open contradiction between Annex 2 to the Supplementary Report as advice on the criminal sanctionability and the prohibited nature of the offering of gambling opportunities on the Internet, on the one hand, and the Minister’s answer to oral questions of your servant, on the other. I have repeatedly asked the Minister of Justice to exchange opinions on this subject, but eventually he submitted an Annex 2 which contradicts his previous statements in this Chamber. I think it is important to know what the exact position of the Minister is. In fact, it is about whether the casinos offered online from Aruba, the Seychelles and Australia in our country are in violation of the law. A fortiori is the question of whether a Belgian operator or server is criminally detectable and punishable.

My fifth point of criticism is about the increasing influence of ministers. The hybrid lottery model is indeed against corporate governance, about which you wrote a free tribune in a financial business newspaper at the beginning of your term of office. Well, also in this matter, you continue to choose a position in which the government acts as a regulator both as a shareholder. Their

The same still applies to the telecommunications sector and the postal sector, although I know there are initiatives coming up. With this bill, however, you structurally consolidate the double position of ministers. In addition, the Minister will be given even more arms for the destination of the National Lottery winnings.

I come to the sixth important element, namely the polemic surrounding the electronic lottery machines, in which you have had to participate very actively and which arose in the summer of 2000. I would like to point out that the decision ab initio...

You are in a Latin mood, Mr. Leterme, and that pleases the President.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge you, but you do not interfere. As captatio can count that, right?

Captatio benevolentiae, Mr. Leterme, but no one knows how it was pronounced in Rome.

Mr. Minister, the commitment regarding the electronic lottery machines is contained in the Royal Decree of 13 January 1999. That commitment involved the supply of 100 test devices. You are not responsible for this, because the previous government has granted permission for a hundred test machines, I thought on the initiative of the Minister of Finance. These are machines that would be distributed, even in postal offices, in cafes and in all sorts of places. The scratch notes would be replaced by actions on those slot machines.

Colleagues, the Minister’s policy note states “that it is possible that the National Lottery in the future will receive the necessary legal permits to take advantage of electronic lotteries.” Mr. Minister, when discussing this bill in the plenary session of the House, I would like to know how far you stand with the file and what you will do if the bill is approved here and in the Senate. Tell us now whether or not you will give permission. Do not do as with the Financietoren and BIAC: after the vote immediately publish in the Official Gazette and give permission. If that is the case, at least have the courage to tell the people’s representation what your plan is about the electronic lottery machines. This is important because — I repeat — the Gambling Commission is competent for machines in the establishments of classes 1, 2 and 3, as mentioned in the law of 7 May 1999. However, it is not competent for these machines, which would be installed on the initiative of the National Lottery or its subsidiaries.

So my sixth criticism is as follows. We are against electronic lottery machines. Moreover, the situation has changed since the law of 7 May 1999, when there was a broad majority in the House and the Senate who wanted to respond to the social demand to reduce the risks of gambling addiction. As a result, many municipalities have refused to grant a license to slot machine halls. Let us respect that social support and limit and avoid the possibility of multiplication—if you would penetrate what you have subsequently insinuated—the possibility of multiplication.

I come to my seventh criticism, concerning the situation of the staff. Mr. Minister, the approval of this draft will result in the National Lottery having staff with three or four different statutes. That seems to us too much of the good. Article 35, § 1, provides for the possibility of recruiting personnel outside the staff framework and other conditions than the Staff Statute. This is contrary to the consideration of good management in that institution. At the instigation of a part of the trade unions, an amendment was submitted by the majority, in particular with regard to the current article 35, § 3, which allows statutory officers to be recruited in a different way. This leads to the fact that in the National Lottery there will be at least three, maybe four types of statutes.

My last criticism should be very close to your heart. The criticism of the Union for Self-Employed Entrepreneurs, which my political family, recently, has nothing to do with. The Minister wants to interrupt me.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the opposition is becoming very realistic in support within the civil society.

Mr. Minister, I intend to leave this pleasure to you for once. We are in a good mood. It has been enough. You will have the pleasure of making that joke.

Unizo, faced with a bill that provides the possibility to come to other distribution systems under the National Lottery. 40 billion revenue per year, most of which is achieved through distribution in newspaper stores, by self-employed, by small stores. That is nothing. Part of the bread-growth of those shops is accompanied by this. One can ask himself socially whether it is not more interesting for people to go to the store for a lot or that they must operate themselves with an automaton in a station or in a post office. I have heard indirectly that the Union of Independent Enterprises (Unizo) would insist on structural consultation with the independent sales points in the privatization process. Privatization made possible through this bill. They would like to participate in the organization of the distribution by the National Lottery, preferably by the patronage of a advisory board. Also in the future. The Union for Independent Entrepreneurs rightly demands that they receive guarantees for the merchants regarding profitably lasting margins in the distribution and the structural involvement of merchants in the commercial future strategy of the National Lottery.

Mr. Minister, my main and last criticism concerns the role of money. People who suddenly want to play a lot of money either on the Lotto or on the National Lottery. That is a possibility. Another possibility is on a cabinet with things happening in the margin. It is crucial to know that one of the main drivers of this reform is the expansion of the product range, the privatization that follows from the National Lottery and also the expansion of subsidiaries and so on, is related to money. Their

Mr Anciaux explicitly stated on 17 January 2001 in an hearing in the Infrastructure Committee that the national lottery’s turnover was reduced due to the sluggishness of the political government, the uncertainty surrounding the future structures and the limitation of the lottery’s supply possibilities. You have, among other things, been visited for this, as well as the Parliament. It also mentions the product that can be distributed in a socially sensible and meaningful way. Their

They wanted to get this bill through to ensure that the National Lottery would gain a greater market share. That is not a problem of what is going on in the sector of lottery games and betting in our country. In addition, it also generates more turnover. The main driving force of this bill is also to solve this financial issue, ensure that the lottery can continue to grow financially, that one can offer more lots, more products, low threshold products to the bedroom via the Internet to ensure that the turnover of the National Lottery grows. Mr Anciaux has acknowledged it with so many words in the Infrastructure Committee. This is one of the main drivers. It is important to emphasize this. As far as we are concerned, this is not a good driving force, that embedded policy. The National Lottery plays a crucial role in this. But the supply opportunities are expanding, including in domains where the grey zone, from the private sector, is not played in at the moment. To give the lottery the opportunity to do so at that time. We believe that expressing this is a wrong assignment and a wrong assignment under the National Lottery. The fact that the bill does this is not good for us. That is one of the reasons why my group with great conviction will vote against this draft and will try between now and the moment of the vote, there have already been moments of vote, Mr. Minister, you never know what will happen tomorrow, we experienced that on 22 November 2001, to bring you and the majority that would support this through proposed amendments to better insights.

Mr. Leterme, you had it just in your presentation about the presence of the Minister of Justice. I do not know if you insist on this for your amendments. This is important for planning. You have seen that the bill was signed in the main order by Mr. Daems and in the additional order by Mr. Verwilghen. It is a matter of timing.

Mr. Speaker, I told Mr. Leterme in the committee very clearly that I had contacted the Minister of Justice. He was prepared to give an explanation on this particular point in the plenary session. I talked about it with him this morning. He is prepared for this. He must be notified in due course, since he is currently in the Justice Committee. If one could set a fixed hour, for example, 16 hours, and one warns him, then that must succeed.

I will ask the services to warn Minister Verwilghen so that he can be present here around 16:00. Mr. Leterme, we can then address your amendments. Then we have no problem with demanding a minister who is willing to come here.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the draft law that is the subject of discussion this afternoon poses some fundamental problems related to the organization of lotteries and gambling by public authorities. The exposition of the motives proceeds from a postulate, the existence of a gambling instinct in man, and from a social goal, the channeling of this gambling instinct to those organized by the public services. by

The basic idea is, therefore, that public lotteries should be attractive enough so that the public is not oriented towards clandestine gambling. In addition, the profits of the National Lottery are devoted to public utility purposes. very well . One can, I think, estimate that so far, the National Lottery, in its present form, has correctly fulfilled this mission. Even though we sometimes find practices that I consider to be at the limit of ethics in the field of marketing (for example, radio spots on the "win for life", proposals to bet on the Lotto by bank domicile that the National Lottery addresses to individuals). by

The new project completely changes the situation. Under the motive of limiting gambling, the new project extends the missions of the new National Lottery to betting, competitions and gambling. In order to fulfill its new missions, the Lottery will be able to take shares in companies and transfer a part of its shares to the private sector. In the philosophy of the project, the new structure of the National Lottery will allow for greater management flexibility, greater freedom in applying public procurement legislation and will also allow for greater appeal to the capital market. by

The new proposed framework is therefore part of an extension of the missions of the Lottery and, on the other hand, a logic of privatization and a call to private capital. So how can we believe that the goal is actually to limit the game? What will ⁇ happen in the coming months? We will witness a considerable increase in the offer of various products: electronic lotteries, player-clubs, lottery via the Internet, lottery via teledistributors, deployment of gaming terminals in public places such as service stations, large stores, post offices, automatic washing machines, ...

In short, the project allows a considerable development of the offer of various games, lotteries and betting, but these new products will go to meet consumers. We will find consumers where they are available and where they have in principle free time (the rows of major stores or the washing machines). However, if the supply increases, the demand will necessarily increase as well, since we proceed from the postulate that there is at first a gambling instinct. Behind this extension of the supply, it is obviously the whole problem of gambling addiction and its corollary, over-indebtedness, which must be evoked. by

I would like to quote the psychotherapist Serge Minet, affiliated with the psychiatric department of the Brugmann Hospital and specialized in the problem of gambling addiction: “Some statistics speak of 100,000 problem gamblers. It is generally said that three out of five people who enter a casino are at risk of becoming addicted. This is a real societal problem, like alcoholism or drug addiction.” The expert concludes: "with this project, we will create new dependencies" (interview with "Soir" of 10 December 2001).

I believe there is therefore a clear signal, sent by people specialized in the problem of gambling addiction, compulsive gambling and addiction.

Certainly, the discussions in the committee allowed to strengthen certain safeguards and to establish controls. Thus, it is true that on my initiative, the lottery will have to clearly inform the public of the real chances of winning and will have to take into account the prevention and information of players about the risks of addiction. On the other hand, it is true that the role of the Gambling Commission is strengthened through the amendments but it can only intervene in the establishments of class 1, 2 and 3 provided for in the Gambling Act of 1999. All this remains insufficient in the face of a project that offers us, in reality, the promotion of a "casino" company.

Mr. Minister, during the discussions in the committee, some colleagues and myself have repeatedly insisted on obtaining information on the concrete projects of the new National Lottery. You have answered me several times that it would be the new instances of the Lottery to do so and that nothing was known so far. The only project in progress, you specified, is the replacement of the Lotto terminals.

However, "Le Soir" of this Tuesday reveals different information related to this renewal. The four thousand five hundred terminals are replaced by six to eight thousand new. This will result in an increase of 75% of the terminal park. This is obviously much more than a mere replacement of the offer, which confirms the idea of an extension of the offer. Then, the terminals would become the bridge heads of e-government — payment of fines, fishing permits, public transport tickets, etc.

To make things clear, I will quote this article: "The G-TEC terminal allows the use of a small flexible card — dubbed "Aladin" — in the bank card format but re-printable at will. After being processed by the merchant’s Lotto terminal, it will be transformed into a fishing license, a prepaid GSM card, a theatre ticket or a subway ticket. At the Lottery, it is not excluded that the company can be approached to offer services of this type. In the cabinet of the Minister of Public Enterprises, Rik Daems, this vocation for e-government of the Lottery network is confirmed. “As soon as the terminals are installed, at the end of 2002, the Lottery will be preparing to launch its first public services with the “Aladin” card. Discussions are already underway with the SNCB to allow the renewal of subscriptions via the Lotto terminals. Then it could be the turn of the TEC.”

This information poses two problems. First of all a form problem: why were these projects not discussed in response to the many questions of committee members during the debates on the National Lottery and requests for information on the projects?

Second, a fundamental problem: that the National Lottery becomes the bridgehead of e-government only confirms and reinforces my fears in the field of gambling addiction! Creating confusion between gambling and public services, using the same access channel, is unacceptable. I can understand that different public services fit into a logic of decentralizing their points of sale, which is a good thing. But for ethical reasons, I cannot admit that the same terminal allows you to both buy your fishing license, renew your public transport subscription and play the Lotto.

Mr. Minister, can you tell us about these specific projects that the National Lottery plans to develop according to this article of the "Soir"?

Shouldn’t we eventually go back to commission for a much more thorough explanation in order to better understand what this network of 8,000 terminals will become, which is much more than the whole banking network and the number of post offices? This corresponds to five times the number of post offices and three times the number of bank terminals. We will have a huge, fully computerized network of which we know nothing, Mr. Minister, since you have not told us anything about this in the committee.

I look forward to your response, Mr. Minister. I think the conclusion of my speech is clear. The vote of our group will be in line with the critical logic of the vote that we expressed in the committee.

Mr Goyvaerts, you are expected in the committee. How much time do you have?

Mr. Speaker, I would be called when my question is addressed. As long as I don’t get a phone call, I assume it’s not my turn yet.

Will you make a long presentation?

My speech will last approximately 10 minutes.

Ladies Van Campenhout, Goyvaerts and Borginon, you are not expected in a committee? (No to)

Mr. Goyvaerts, if a problem arises, I will try to find a different solution.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this bill has two important objectives. On the one hand, the draft aims to transform the National Lottery into a public-right company and, on the other hand, to regulate the ratio between the gambling and lotteries offered by the National Lottery and by the private sector. In addition, it is also intended to regulate the supervision of the Gambling Commission.

The purpose of the transformation of the National Lottery into a public law NV is that the National Lottery should be able to participate in other enterprises or should be able to set up subsidiaries or joint ventures. Within the current legal framework, this is currently excluded. In order to meet that objective, it is necessary to adjust the statute of the National Lottery to create greater management autonomy, greater flexibility in the management of personnel and greater freedom in the field of public procurement legislation.

This reform also meets the provisions of the Government Agreement concerning the modernization of public enterprises. Their

The main reform concerns the statute of the National Lottery which needs to be adjusted to give this greater management autonomy without affecting the public character. The National Lottery is therefore transformed in this bill into a public-right company. In order to ensure the execution of public service contracts, systematically and by analogy of the autonomous public companies, multi-annual management contracts will be concluded with the National Lottery.

Mr. Minister, I have already told you in the committee that precisely in these management contracts a structural control of the Parliament on the activities of the National Lottery should be included. This seems to me to be much better than letting this bill depend on the ad hoc projects that exist at the National Lottery. The Government shall, in accordance with the modalities of the management contract, determine the advance deduction on the tax profit that will be used to finance the objectives of the general interest, the monopoly interest rate and the special contribution.

The National Lottery will retain a limited possibility to realize profits. However, the purpose of this will be determined by the government as shareholder. The National Lottery will also be able to generate profits through its subsidiaries.

The benefits of this reform include the consolidation of a strong structure, greater transparency, the application of the rules of corporate governance and a more comprehensive supervision. There are sufficient safeguards to limit the influence of the private sector. At least 50% of the shares are reserved to the federal government. Employees may participate without the shares being entitled to vote. With regard to the staff, the NV will act as a legal successor so that the rights of the staff members are not compromised. In a subsequent phase, several subsidiaries may be established, with or without additional capital input.

In the committee, the discussion was mainly about how the National Lottery will be able to behave in the new form in the market of the lotteries and gambling and the role of the Gambling Commission in it. As part of the consolidation of national competences in the European context, further accountability is needed.

The National Lottery should offer responsible public lotteries and gambling, with the main aim of optimizing the government’s betting policy in this sector. This applies to the player and the government. Their

Indeed, the technical evolution of the lottery and gambling sectors requires a more coherent policy of government control to channel activities that, whether desired or unwilling, come back and forth, through the government as much as possible. The National Lottery is best aligned with the legitimate betting policy of the government by the fact that the proceeds derived from the activities entirely defined by the government go entirely to the government to be used in the general interest. Given the need to better apply European jurisprudence, the best solution is that the government directs the betting policy — the aim of embedding the gambling drive — from a national lottery by giving this institution more autonomous betting power and by expanding the functions of a national lottery, though within the existing and strictly controlled legal framework. It was also our concern that this would not result in a situation in which the National Lottery would obtain the exclusive right to exploit gambling without being subject to external control. I think the amendments have effectively led to this concern being fully addressed. Their

The VLD therefore fully agrees with the new text of Article 39 of the draft law, which unambiguously defines the scope of the law of 7 May 1999 on gambling, the gambling establishments and the protection of players with regard to the activities of the National Lottery. I think this is very clear: when the National Lottery enters the gambling market, it is subject to the same rules and restrictions as the private sector. It is also provided that the chairman of the Gambling Commission and the delegated director of the National Lottery meet at regular times to consult on the application of the law to gambling, in order to coordinate the public policy on gambling and on the National Lottery. As mentioned, the National Lottery will also inform the general public about the real winning chances that each type of product that is proposed can bring. It will also launch information campaigns on the economic, social and psychological risks associated with gambling addiction. Together with other stakeholders, it will develop an active and coordinated prevention and reception policy on gambling addiction. Their

For our group, it can be concluded that the present bill provides the correct answer to the question of the role of the National Lottery in the organization of the lottery and gambling sector in our country. By transforming the National Lottery into a public law NV, the institution will gain greater management autonomy and greater flexibility in the management of personnel, as well as greater freedom in the field of public procurement legislation. This balances between the need to monitor the performance of public service contracts and the autonomy that the National Lottery needs to ⁇ its social objective as efficiently as possible. Furthermore, the necessary measures were taken to enable the National Lottery to offer responsible public lotteries and gambling, with the intention of optimizing the channeling policy of the government in this sector with full respect for the provisions of the Act of 7 May 1999 on gambling, gambling establishments and the protection of players. For these reasons, we will approve this draft law in its entirety.

First of all, I have a comment. If there are four people present at plenary meetings and six cameras, you will get a problem with public opinion.

Mr. Goyvaerts, I visited the Dutch Parliament, which was erected in 1991, almost around a TV studio. There are also interruption micros. When four people stand at the microphones, only those four people are shown and not the empty spaces for them. This is the Dutch institution, Mr. Goyvaerts.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the proposed bill aims to transform the National Lottery into a NV in which the government is currently – which may be of a temporary nature – the sole shareholder. This transformation — or rationalization as the title indicates — aims to lead the National Lottery as a private enterprise to the analogy of other companies such as De Post and Biac.

The Post was also a state-owned company that was converted into a NV with an independent board of directors and with the aim of providing the management with all possible opportunities without the risk of government interference. This means, according to liberal standards, without political interference.

Mr. Minister, in the wake of your structural reforms of a whole series of state-owned companies, we have seen quite a few companies pass the review in recent months. Worse, several state-owned companies came explicitly into the news and this in a little optimistic atmosphere — if I can euphemistically express myself. The most noticeable fact was, of course, the debacle surrounding The Post, more specifically the situation with regard to the delegated director, the discouragement of the strategic plan, the sick atmosphere surrounding the communication, the exorbitant bets of the directors and the increasing urge by which the board of directors has again come into the grip of politics. If this should also become the new corporate culture of the National Lottery, we are — to use a popular expression — not yet to the “new potatoes”.

In the committee we held a discussion on the draft on whether or not to involve or exclude the Gambling Commission, as well as on the role of the committee in the entire event around the gambling. Lotteries and betting are both gambling. This is beautifully removed in the present design under the pretext that the National Lottery only intends to commercialise lottery products. This is farmer fraud.

In your commentary on the draft, you said that the main purpose of the private gambling operators is to make as much profit as possible, this in contrast to the National Lottery. This should be contradicted if one sees that the National Lottery has a turnover of about 25% of the 160 billion francs or 4 billion euros in the sector of the games, the betting and the lottery. In addition, the National Lottery annually makes a profit of 14 billion francs or 347 million euros, of which a subsidy of approximately 8,5 billion francs or 210 million euros is distributed. It is difficult to maintain that the National Lottery is a charitable organization and does not foster profit ambitions.

The purpose of your reform is that it should lead to more independence. Strangely enough, we note that the grip of politics on the companies is increased by, among other things, an extension to 14 members of the board of directors.

This creates additional space for political loyalty. This is an euphemism for parachuting political friends.

Furthermore, two government commissioners are named. Per ⁇ one to oversee the policy and the other to oversee the distribution of profits used to sponsor all kinds of social projects, grants and other purposes. I will return to this later in my speech.

It is also strange, Mr. Minister, that you want the National Lottery to function as much as possible as a private company, while we must note that the ties with the administration are further cited by the hiring of officials and that guarantees must be given to the dispatched staff members. For the PS, this is an important point, as evidenced by the committee discussion.

Another peculiar element — apparently the second goal of the National Lottery — is that players should be moderated and that gambling addiction should be countered. Given the social aspect of gambling, it is observed that there is an increasing restraint in the public opinion regarding the award of gambling. That restraint is undoubtedly driven by the increasing social sensitivity to the problem of gambling addiction. In this context, I think of the television programmes of the past months, now referred to as indicative programmes, in which, among other things, electronic slot machines and their detrimental influence on, for example, school-aged youth, were expressed in a screaming way.

Strangely enough, the new National Lottery wants to respond smoothly to new trends by using the tools of the information society such as the Internet — currently ⁇ the most well-known — and in the near future undoubtedly also of the interactive television, with the ultimate goal of moderating gambling for the sake of the threshold lowering effect.

Since it is clearly the young people who are attracted to the use of the Internet in this form of gambling, I escape the logic of the whole scheme and I ask myself a number of questions regarding the protection of the players in the above cases.

Rather, it seems to me to be a nice explanation to allow the National Lottery to monopolize an attractive hole in the gambling market, including through the internet and soon through interactive television.

This is also linked, of course, with the problem of the channels through which the new National Lottery will reach its new target groups. Per ⁇ this will not happen through the traditional channel of, for example, the newspaper stores.

To what extent will the independent sellers of products of the National Lottery be involved in this rationalization? In other words, to what extent will the new National Lottery in the future still take independent sellers into account in the development of the commercial strategy, especially since the independent shoppers account for more than 80% of the National Lottery’s turnover.

Mr. Minister, since you are also competent with regard to SMEs, you are of course wearing different hats. You must not only create clarity in this regard, but also ensure that it remains viable for the merchants to sell products of the National Lottery. In this regard, the present design does not offer any guarantee.

Finally, I would like to come back to the distribution of the profits for the social purposes about which I asked you about half a year ago. You may still remember that. In essence, it concluded that the matter of profit distribution, in addition to a financial technical aspect, also has a political dimension. I do not claim that the organizations, institutions and foundations did not take praiseworthy initiatives, but there are still some questions about the politically coloured organizations.

You will also remember that we must have seen in the budgeting of the year 2000 that the funding of the Centre for Combating Racism — the center of Father Leman that was until then part of the services of the Prime Minister — was removed from the federal budget and transferred to the distribution of the profits of the National Lottery. On that occasion, the dotation to the centre was also increased from about 80 million francs to 165 million francs, without any further parliamentary control.

Now that the National Lottery is being transformed into a NV and consequently the distribution of profits comes under the authority of the Board of Directors, we are of course very curious about the transparency of the future financing of, among other things, the center of Father Leman. At the same time, there is some suspicion about this. We are also looking forward to the distribution of Community profits on scientific research. I have a strong impression, Mr. Minister, that in this whole construction one person will always win, without having to buy a lot or a scratch ticket, and that is Father Leman.

In any case, you have probably understood from my argument for a long time that your design has not brought us into confusion. You have not been able to convince us of your rationalization, to use your own words. Therefore, we will not approve the draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I must admit that I am a little struggling with the draft of Minister Daems. At first glance, I cannot take a clear position. I also feel that in the discussions it is quite easy to express mutual suspicions. I have also noticed this in previous designs on gambling. This is a certain veil that hangs over the debates. Their

I have for myself a few possible arguments for an assessment of this design to try to put on a row for myself. Their

In general, national lotteries will sooner or later also be subject to the European dimension. At that time we will be able to see a unification of the market and a wider competition. In that view, it is not illogical to try to make the National Lottery economically strong enough in time to stand up in a potential liberalization. That argument applies only to the extent that the activities of the National Lottery are subject to those European rules. I think I have understood that, on the basis of a number of judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lotteries are not subject to those Community competition rules. In fact, that economic argument is gone.

When I look at the problem of gambling addiction, I recognize three components. First of all, there are the classic, brave lotteries, which will always be there and which do not cause such great problems. Second, there are the public places where anyone can participate in gambling. In this discussion, I place the casinos, the gaming halls and the slots in cafes. A third category is often forgotten. I am talking about the more determined way to do gambling. These are the illegal gamblers and the online games. What is the difference between the second and third category? In the second category the threshold is still higher than in the third category. One must present itself to a number of living persons as a player who may be potentially subject to gambling addiction, while in a closed gambling venue or on the Internet no form of social control remains. I once had to defend someone who had committed several robberies to finance his gambling addiction in a previous career as a lawyer-internship. The impression I have of this is precisely that that third category, the illegal gamblers, are the biggest problem in the discussion around gambling addiction.

If I look at the social view of this problem, it is one with two faces: on the one hand, there is a policy, in which the government has removed the classic slots from the cafes and at the same time is conducting a rather hopeless struggle against illegal websites. On the other hand, there is a tendency to expand casinos and also with the lottery there is a tendency to go to automatic devices.

I have heard two different voices in the debate: the minister says he wants to conduct an embedded policy, in order to ensure that the one who has real control is strong enough so that there is less need for less reliable competitors; on the other hand, this draft achieves a greater self-reliance of the National Lottery, which makes the administration also less considering that public objective. It also contradicts in part the statements of the Minister.

On the other hand, for example, colleague Leterme says that the government should put the lottery under strict control. He is referring to the Gambling Commission. But when I investigate certain aspects of that Gambling Commission, I feel that there is redded in response to the eternal competition of the providers in the market, rather than from the fight against gambling addiction as such.

Therefore, Ment says: Don’t play on the Internet. I fundamentally agree with that, but in fact — since the internet is primarily a universal medium — one will never succeed in blocking access to foreign providers with illegal websites.

There is something to say about both, but I can also make some criticism on both points of view.

I personally believe that we should not put our heads in the sand and that carrying out a global ban policy is unrealistic. Furthermore, the social objectives should prioritize the financial aspect of the National Lottery. I think that channeling gambling should be central and above the financial output.

When it comes to automatic devices, placed in open spaces, a serious delaying element must be effectively incorporated, so that the slots are not re-introduced in any other way. I am also of the opinion that internet gambling conditions should temporarily be the ice box, not because I am convinced that internet gambling as such can be stopped, but because I wonder what the effect is when a semi-government offers such lottery or gambling systems on the internet.

I think there will need to be some research in this area. After all, the question arises whether there will be more gambling cases due to the fact that the government is doing so and the threshold to gambling on the internet will be lowered so that more people will be encouraged and subsequently potentially become more susceptible to the other illegal gambling sites. Their

I have no answer to that, and I am of the opinion that any scientific research on that question is appropriate before it is permitted to a pseudo-government.

When looking at this bill as a whole, by autonomous management, more competitive pressure is created, which is partly necessary for the preservation of the position, but which, in my opinion, at least is not sufficiently motivated by the fight against gambling addiction as such.

One, in my opinion, opens the door to some good internet applications without having sufficiently researched them. Without contributing to the major accusations that have flown over and over in the committee, I am inclined to say that my group is cautious against the draft. The overall balance over the design is, in my opinion, more negative than positive. Therefore, I do not understand why the rules need to be changed.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a number of interesting arguments that allow us to analyze the essence of the present problem.

I will outline the current state and the state after the approval of the design. The question is what will change. It is difficult to remain objective in the issue. Mr Borginon has, in my opinion, best represented the choices that should be made. According to current legislation, the National Lottery can currently organize lotteries, betting and gambling games without any form of control. That is the reality. Saying that the present design creates a problem is incorrect. The proposed draft envisages a scope of application that is currently not under the control of the Gambling Commission.

I have a little cynical comment. Mr. Minister, you will have to admit that it would be the first time that one of your bills solves more problems than it creates!

I repeat that at the moment the National Lottery can organize everything without the Gambling Commission exercising any control. This is the 1999 law. The present draft allows the Gambling Commission to have full control if the Lottery would launch a gambling. That is an important difference.

At the moment, the National Lottery has no mission of embedding or reducing gambling addiction beyond the mission of organizing games for the good purpose. That is the reality. The present draft not only makes it possible to rationalize by establishing a corporate form in which the government always remains in the majority. In particular, a management contract should be concluded that takes into account the objectives of embedding and restriction of gambling. That is the big difference! Today this is not the case. I have pledged that the management contract will first be submitted to Parliament. With a management contract, one can determine exactly the goals to reduce gambling addiction.

Those who think that the current situation serves the fight against gambling addiction better than the design, do not take into account the reality. On the field of the "games" only 25% is automatically channeled to the National Lottery. That is why the government considers the embedding policy so important. I know there is a big difference between a lottery and gambling. In a lottery, you know the outcome in advance; in a chance game, you can influence the outcome.

In this context, there are three elements of improvement in this bill. First, we may implement a betting policy to reduce gambling addiction, as we allow this through a management contract and structure, while this is not possible under current regulations. Second, we change the control of the gambling organized by a lottery. Today, these gambling are not subject to control, but after approval of the draft law. Third, we rationalize the functioning of the instrument so that we can ⁇ the objective of reducing gambling addiction alongside the objective of ⁇ ining a market share, but within a healthier context than a addiction context.

The key to the whole is the management contract. As an objective of the management contract, we have not predicted profit but rather the reduction of gambling addiction. Anyone who thinks that the problems can be reduced by closing the eyes and by not creating an alternative to gambling addiction within a good framework is mistaken. In the absence of a channeling policy, the problem is significantly aggravated.

Of course, some decisions must be made. This government has decided not to install electronic devices. With all respect, but the previous government had taken all measures to put them in place. In this government, the Minister of Justice for the slots and I myself for the electronic devices have refused to carry out the royal decree and we will continue to refuse it. This is a concrete measure that reduces gambling addiction. Very concretely, we do not extend the market of gambling games, but on the contrary. In effect, according to the current law, the lottery can perfectly organize the games of gambling without control of the commission of the games of gambling. Par contre, demain, ce contrôle exists. Tomorrow, the commission may decide that it is a game of chance and submit it then to its control. You don't see why the Minister of Justice and myself, we don't leave.

What will happen when we decide that all games must be subject to the control of the Gambling Commission? In this way we will establish a perfect competition between the games. A channeling would no longer be possible since people would automatically choose the most interesting game. This is where the difference lies. While I am an advocate of pure and hard market liberalism, I believe that the market in question here is precisely one of those that should be controlled by public authorities through a channeling policy led by an entity that would in any case remain a public majority and by a management contract that would reduce the dependence on gambling.

Those who advocate the control of public power over everything would be responsible for the multiplication and not the decrease of problems. This is the reality, it is a consequence of the characteristic of this market, in which people would choose the most interesting game that would automatically be the most "dangerous".

As you pointed out, Mr. Gobert, we have improved the project by informing the public about existing establishments. It should not be forgotten that there are currently terminals in 7,500 settlements. The numbers are the same. When we talk about 6,000 to 8,000 establishments, it’s just about replacement. Some shops are closing, others are opening, but the number is the same, there are now 7,500. I do not want these terminals to be eventually used for other purposes. The only thing to do is to replace them. If the SNCB or other companies wish to use them, I promise very clearly to come before Parliament to discuss them. You are right to report that there could be confusion in the minds of people if the means of distribution was the same for games and for public services. Therefore, I pledge to come and discuss in Parliament if this possibility was considered. In practice therefore, until new order, the terminal can only be used for the sole purposes of the Lottery. Naar aanleiding van enkele opmerkingen van van de heer Leterme wil ik het volgende naar voren brengen.

Can it be the intention of the National Lottery to obtain a greater market share in the market of games? The market is currently 160 billion BEF or 4 billion euros in size. I think the ideal situation would be to shrink that market, because gambling addiction is also included. On the other hand, the market share of harmless games should be increased. That kind of accordeon should be achieved. If we do nothing, the market share of the malicious games increases, as the facts show. Doing nothing, therefore, means agreeing to an exacerbation of the problem of gambling addiction. In this context, the instrument of the management contract is of fundamental importance.

Mr. Leterme, you say that the Union of Independent Entrepreneurs is not bound to your party, but Unizo is also not bound to our party. Currently, about 12,000 newspaper stores, i.e. families, live from the distribution of the National Lottery's gambling games. We have no intention of changing that distribution channel. On the contrary, the new terminals are intended for newspaper stores that draw a significant portion of their income from the National Lottery gambling, in order to guarantee that income. That modernization ultimately guarantees those operators that they will be able to maintain that economic activity.

Regarding the distribution of profits, the rules of the corporate government have been followed, since that distribution has been made by the general assembly. It is also logical that politics determines which good purpose the revenue goes to, and not the Board of Directors. The latter must follow a management contract that includes an embedding policy and a reduction in gambling addiction. At the same time, it must also ⁇ results — not necessarily through an aggressive commercial policy — because at present a number of excellent initiatives in the amount of 12 billion are financed by the Lottery.

The ideal would be that there are gambling in a channeled way that finances the good purpose and at the same time reduces the field of gambling addiction. In addition, there must still be resources available to actively combat gambling addiction, which is not happening today.

Mr. Borginon, I realize this is a little confusing, but the market is in its own confusion. Continuing the current situation will only lead to the intensification of aggressive gambling addictions and the weakening of the instrument that does not adapt. That is exactly what I want to avoid.

In summary, for the first time, an embedded policy to reduce gambling addiction is carried out in a corporate form with a management contract in a market that without regulation would aggravate the problem. Secondly, the company is rationalized and the resources are released for the good purpose. Finally, unlike before, there is a greater control by the Gambling Commission. In the current context, gambling organized by the National Lottery would not be controlled at all.

Therefore, I think that the government will make the right choice and that practice will prove to be the ultimate test stone, but my commitment to first inform this Chamber of future measures should be sufficient as a guarantee. After all, the policy on slots and electronic games proves that this government, unlike the previous one, pursues a policy that counts gambling addiction. Otherwise, we could have also allowed the royal decrees to go through. However, we really want to combat gambling addiction with an appropriate tool.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I do not agree with the Minister’s response, but I do not want to go into it more deeply. Nevertheless, I would like to explain two points. First of all, I am satisfied with your conversion regarding the scratches. In the past, you were in favour of these machines, although you are trying to counter this with Slangenspeak.

I come to a second element. Mr. Minister, I remain once again hungry about the real reasons for increasing the number of members of the Board of Directors from ten to fourteen. Give me a reason.

Mr. Leterme, is one reason enough?

Contrary to what you said regarding the reduction of powers, the board of directors had only a number of assigned powers in the past. However, the company will now look completely different. For example, the channeling policy should be formed with the execution of the management contract. For this purpose, the Board of Directors will have to exercise control over the management. It also becomes a corporate form with corporate governance with a full control of the board of directors over the management as a result. Until now, we did not have that control. A board of directors with six members is also possible. However, let’s not forget that in practice in most state-owned companies a board of directors of fourteen or ten members is common. There are even board boards that are larger; I refer to Belgacom and De Post. Given the company’s sales, I don’t think there’s anything to look for behind it.

Mr. Minister, the most important thing is that you have admitted that ten or fourteen members do not matter. Therefore, there are other reasons than those you list in a touching way.

This is Belgian mathematics.

Mr. Speaker, a brief reply. I take note of the Minister’s commitment to ensure that the terminals, at first, are used only for the Lotto and that any extension is the subject of a debate in the House. Thank you for these clarifications.

As for the philosophy of the project itself, I think we remain on somewhat different logic. You say that the market will expand and that the national lottery anticipates to capture this new market; otherwise it will be the private who will take it. Basically, this is your reasoning.

I say that everything is based on this prediction of the expansion of demand that nothing proves at the moment. Finally, this possible extension of demand can be pretexted to justify an increase in supply. I remind you that the starting postulate is this idea of play instinct. If there is gambling instinct, logically, demand is necessarily potential and growing. If the supply is sufficient, it will automatically be met by the demand.

Maybe I expressed myself wrong. I do not think that the market, as such, will expand but that, if we do not provide modern means to the National Lottery, the private will expand into a market that remains identical and that at the expense of the National Lottery. As a result, the problem of gambling addiction will worsen. Therefore, it is necessary to do the opposite: give weapons to the national lottery to configure a channeling policy.

The idea is not to increase the offer of the National Lottery but to have a greater market share in a channeling context that diminishes the problem of gambling addiction. If you leave the free market, the problem increases.