Proposition 52K1992

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 7 mai 1999 sur les jeux de hasard, les établissements de jeux de hasard et la protection des joueurs, en ce qui concerne la commission des jeux de hasard.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

May 15, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Internet game of chance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

July 15, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Ms Marghem and Lahaye-Battheu. The word is to Mrs. Marghem.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, we decided, Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu and I, to share the task. I will speak about the general discussion and I will report on it while my colleague will report on the discussion of the articles.

The Justice Committee examined this bill during four meetings, one of which was very long, on 10, 16, 23 and 25 June 2009. First, it was a matter of settling a procedural problem since at the end of Article 1, this bill was to be dealt with according to the mandatory bicameral procedure under Article 77 of the Constitution.

The committee questioned this qualification and the point was referred to the meeting of the Parliamentary Coordination Committee on 18 June 2009, which decided after deliberation, first, that the rapporteurs would make a single report on the discussion of all provisions of the bill deposited by the government, while some of the articles of this bill referred to or were subject to Article 77, while others were subject to Article 78; second, that there would be a single vote on the entire bill in committee – what was done – vote which should nevertheless be considered as a vote on the two bills and, third, that there would be two texts adopted in committee, submitted to the plenary session, which is now the case. Each of these projects will have a separate title and a separate article 1.

On 16 June, the commission decided to hold hearings on 23 June. I will summarize the work of our committee during these four meetings regarding the general discussion.

The Secretary of State at the Coordination of the Fight Against Tax Fraud here present first explained what it was about this project, indicating that it was an adaptation of the Act of 7 May 1999 on gambling.

(Brouhaha is)

Colleagues, you are not required to be present in the plenary session, but when you are there, you are considered to have attention, first before the rapporteur and then before the debate.

The aim is to regulate in a coherent way the legislation on gambling and to extend the scope of the Act of 7 May 1999 relating to the same gambling, to take into account the evolution of these practices, taking into account the development of the information society, including the Internet, and the games and bets offered in the media.

The idea is to channel the sector and propose a policy of controlled licenses. Like the current law of 7 May 1999, the draft new gambling law is based on the principle that the exploitation of gambling is a priori prohibited. Exceptions may, however, be provided by a licensing system to a reduced extent, taking into account the limits laid down by law.

For the granting of licenses, the existing situation of each of the operators already in possession of such licenses shall serve as a starting point as far as possible. These are issued by the Gambling Commission. This policy of controlled licenses, which is quite consistent with what is desired on the European level, must prevent the exploitation of gambling from taking place outside of any public control and without the slightest protection of players, which is the second very important aspect of this bill.

The third aspect is, in addition to a criminal aspect already existing, an administrative aspect that allows the Gambling Commission to apply administrative fines in which appeals are provided and of course the rights of defence can take their legitimate place.

The wider scope of application concerns betting, gambling offered through new information technologies and media games. As for Paris, there were not many shadow areas. The bill uniformizes regulation by integrating betting, as a whole, into the new gambling law. In this way, the competence to authorize or control such bets will fall under a single body, namely the Gambling Commission.

With regard to gambling offered through new information technologies, such as online gambling, the development of electronic means of communication, such as mobile phone, interactive television and especially the Internet, has allowed to develop significantly the organization of gambling and betting.

It is also for this reason that this project, which came urgently at the start of the plenary session, was dealt with, without excessive hurry, but within the time limits of the urgency, precisely to deal with this anarchic, uncontrolled development, which is brought to light by the development of new communication techniques: interactive television, internet and others. Indeed, the proposed threshold for the online offer through these media is very low and thus allows younger players, who are therefore not protected, to engage anonymously in unlimited games, which poses a societal problem that must be channeled and controlled.

To this end, online gambling will be reserved only to operators, who already operate gambling in the real world. This means that the license will be granted to those who already have a license by offering games in the real world.

The Gambling Commission will also monitor the proper development and organization of gambling in the virtual world. Indeed, through the granting of these licenses, it will have a global view of the people who exploit or not in the real and virtual world the proposal of games in our society.

The Gambling Commission may, on the other hand, exercise effective and effective control over organisers who already offer in Belgium real-world gambling or betting and whose server is established in Belgium.

Some in the committee raised the question of whether it was possible to control servers outside Belgium or operators that offer gambling outside Belgium. Unfortunately, for now, the answer is negative. Nor can this be resolved through Europe, whose basic principle is to say that it is appropriate to leave the freedom for the operation of this type of games within the European Union. States must take measures within the margin that is subsidiarily reserved for them. These provisions must, of course, take into account the free movement of services and goods within the Union and must be within the framework of this freedom proclaimed and controlled by Europe.

Through this legislation, our State takes measures aimed at broadening the scope to extend control, protect consumers and provide for sanctions, in a view consistent with the spirit of subsidiarity that I just talked about.

Effective and effective control will have the effect that in Belgium, only sites authorized by the Gambling Commission will be accessible via the Internet. This will establish a negative list that will determine who cannot be addressed and who has not obtained a license to obtain Internet access. It will then block access for players.

As for media games, at present, television gambling, which constitutes what is called a "complete program", is not regulated by law, but only by royal decree. Therefore, the draft new law on gambling provides that a license is required both for the games offered as part of a full television program and for the various other games in which one can participate via radio, television, newspapers or periodicals.

The bill also recalls a very important, heavily discussed element: recreational gambling and betting remains excluded from the scope of the new gambling law. These are games operated by forensics and card or company games in which the challenge and potential gain must, however, be and remain limited.

Games organized by a social or philanthropic social or philanthropic association are no longer considered to be gambling if they are organized occasionally and no more than four times a year.

I come to a particular point that has been heavily debated by some commissioners, namely the maintenance or not of Article 1965 of the Civil Code. It is clear that the gambling exception contained in the Civil Code is there to protect the consumer by prohibiting that a legal action may be brought to recover a gambling debt or debt following a bet.

Some have developed the argument that my colleague will probably go deeper with regard to the discussion of the articles, in this case Article 7. Some have thought that the bill removes from its substance the exclusion provided by the Civil Code, while in our sense or in the sense of a majority, there is nothing. The new bill reprises, in reality, while tightening the prohibition provided for in the Civil Code knowing, furthermore, that the Gambling Commission can not only give rise to a repressive information with a criminal penalty at the key that would be pronounced by the judicial authority or imposed when the judicial authority has decided to classify without succession administrative fines with possibility of appeal.

I will now address another point that has been discussed regarding the Gambling Commission. It should be noted that some have criticized the sui generis nature of this Commission which, in the course of legislation, establishes itself as an exclusive authority in the game, if I can afford the expression, namely that it is she who exercises control, who grants or refuses licenses, who creates the negative list that will prohibit some from offering online services to players, and who also imposes administrative fines when she does not file a complaint or initiate a criminal procedure against an operator.

Some have considered that it was delicate, or in any case that it posed a problem, to have an administrative authority that can thus develop a panel of actions and sanctions without actually knowing who to address when there is a need to bring a appeal.

It has been reminded that in terms of criminal law, the prosecutor is of course the master of the game. From the moment the criminal procedure is initiated and it results in sanctions, the general judicial organization and the general criminal laws in this matter obviously take the lead.

When the Gambling Commission imposes fines, withdraws or suspends licenses, it acts as an administrative authority. For administrative fines, the appeal before the local court of first instance is the appeal imagined by law.

With regard to measures to protect players and bettors, under the current gambling law, a player may, on his own request, be denied access to certain gambling establishments and more specifically to casinos and gambling rooms. The new gambling bill extends this possibility to any interested person, such as the player’s family or those in charge of a support mission. Furthermore, the bill makes this right also applicable to online gambling.

Credit card payment, which remains limited to casinos, is also a way to protect players from abuse of bets offered, for example, in bookstores or other gaming rooms that do not work with the credit card. This obviously allows you to debit your wealth or bank account to a lesser extent and to sort in terms of the age of the players.

With regard to the age of the players, a question was asked in order to know why two different ages. In fact, it is forbidden to play under the age of 21 in casinos and under the age of 18 in farms of other categories, namely gambling rooms, bookstores, betting offices and others.

It was answered by the majority of the committee that the age difference was not significant: in some countries it is possible to play in all categories of operations from 18 years old, while other countries show themselves to be more stringent and only allow gambling for slightly higher ages, but that in reality, this age difference does not play a great deal on consumer protection. Rather, it would be the fact of forcing the consumer to use his credit card and to prove that he was the age required to do so, having to present his electronic identity card to be allowed to enter the establishment and indicating that he corresponded to the age category required to access the casino or gambling room. In other cases, if the electronic identity card cannot work, the player will be required to be registered and receive a gambling authorization so that operators can verify that the age requirement is met.

As I promised, I will not be too long. This is therefore only a overfly; many other things could be said.

I conclude my summary with consumer protection because it appeared that one of the major themes of our discussions during these four committee meetings was to find a balance between the legitimate and commercial exploitation of gambling in all forms taken in the classes provided by the bill, and already earlier by the law of 1999 – it ranges from the largest gambling operators to the smallest, such as bookstores and others –, and the consumer who is faced with this temptation, ⁇ not permanent but present, with the problems that gambling can cause for his psychological health and his property and, beyond, for his family.

The intention of the committee was, both sides confused, to take into account that the consumer is protected as much as possible while leaving the possibility for the player to retain an individual freedom, as long as he is in the legal conditions to do so, to devote himself to the game.

Some colleagues may be dissatisfied, but I will not go further on the intentions because each of us will be able to intervene politically on this report. In my opinion, this summary shows that the committee worked objectively on these two important elements, respecting the European framework, to ultimately result in the vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the report and, above all, react to Mrs. Marghem’s conclusion. If we have not reached a full consensus on the intention to protect players, we are very satisfied with the outcome.

All amendments proposed by our group were rejected. Ms. Marghem suggests that there is a broad consensus in the assessment of measures to be taken to protect players. I would like to state here that this consensus does not exist and that the divergence of views between the members of the committee was significant. This is one of the reasons why we will not vote on this text tomorrow. I will return to this later in my speech.

You will soon intervene on the ground. Mrs Marghem, on the other hand, has read her report!

Mr. Speaker, if I allowed myself to intervene, it was because the report did not fully reflect the content of the discussions, in particular the different points of view of the Commissioners present.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, now that my good colleague Marie-Christine Marghem has explained the general discussion, it is up to me to report on the article-by-article discussion and the vote on this draft. The government had requested urgent treatment, which is reflected in our long and intense work. I want to clarify them to you.

The committee initiated the article-by-article discussion on Tuesday 7 July at 14:15. At around 19.45, we suspended our work for twenty minutes, after which work continued until after one hour at night. Then we came to Article 35. On Wednesday, 8 July, further discussion of Articles 36 to 74 was held from 14.15 to about 19 hours. On Thursday 9 July, during the afternoon, an article-based vote was held and yesterday we voted on the whole in the morning. Following the discussion of this draft, no less than 119 amendments were submitted. I think, Mr. Secretary of State, that you can be satisfied with our work in the committee.

I now come to a few articles where I would like to stop for a moment. In Article 1, Mr Landuyt stated that he opposes the decision of the Parliamentary Consultation Committee in connection with Articles 77 and 78 of the Constitution. He also asked the State Secretary the question of what is the status of the Gambling Commission: whether or not an administrative jurisdiction? The Secretary of State responded that the Gambling Commission is an administrative government.

Chapter 2 of this draft contains Articles 2 to 62 and deals with the actual amendments to the Gambling Act of 7 May 1999. It is that law that we are changing, a law that is ten years old.

In connection with the proposed definitions, there are interventions of Renaat Landuyt and Bert Schoofs. Amendments are submitted by colleagues Terwingen, Landuyt, Schoofs, Hamal and De Schamphelaere.

Article 6 refers to the prohibition of exploiting a gambling game without prior authorization of the Gambling Commission, of participating in it if one must know that the gambling has not been authorised, or of participating in it if one can have a direct influence on the outcome. This article also gave rise to questions, comments and amendments.

Article 7, to which my college Marghem already referred, is the article in connection with the principle of the exception of the game, the articles 1965 and 1966 of the Civil Code. There was an amendment from colleague Van Cauter and myself. The amendment was supported by the Secretary of State, as well as by Mrs. Déom, who had a comment on the accountability of the amendment. She did not fully agree with that responsibility.

Articles 8 and 9 relate to the introduction of a class IV for the places of acceptance of bets. At several questions about how the class IV gambling establishments will be restricted by the King, unlike the classes I and II whose number is stated in the law, the Secretary of State replied that class IV will be restricted at the moment when one has a better view of the existing situation. The Secretary of State indicates that today, hic et nunc, it is not possible to attach a number of them already. The Secretary of State also emphasized that municipalities will be involved in the concrete implementation of the restriction for Class IV.

On Article 9 relating to the maximum amount of the bet, loss and profit, there was an intervention by Mrs Smeyers with the question whether this article does not concern the taxable matter, so it must be adopted by a special majority.

The Secretary of State responded that tax matters are not included in the draft law and thus answered the comment.

Articles 10 to 24 regulate the organization of the Gambling Commission itself. At the beginning of the discussion, colleague Landuyt asked that the chairman of the Gambling Committee and the experts should leave the hall, as these articles directly concern them. They responded to this question, after the Chairman specified that he was not involved in the drafting of these articles.

Several amendments have been submitted to these articles. In connection with the procedure for the submission of defence remedies against administrative fines, Mr Landuyt points out that this is the first time in our Belgian law that electronic mail is recognised as a means of sending a defence document. In the process of sending emails, a number of questions were asked. According to the representative of the Gambling Commission, the main concern is that the person concerned is given the opportunity to communicate his comments to the committee as easily as possible.

This brings me to Articles 24 to 37 of this draft. These articles concern the contribution to be paid by the license holders. Four additional types of permits and three additional permits are allowed. There is an additional condition for class A license holders with regard to the fulfilment of their financial obligations, and the conditions for licensing must continue to be met. In these articles there were interventions of colleagues Landuyt, Terwingen, Schoofs, Laeremans, De Schamphelaere and Van Cauter. Several amendments were submitted.

Articles 38 to 41 add a new Section IV concerning betting and gambling: Class IV gambling establishments.

During the discussion of these articles, there is an extensive exchange of thoughts, among other things, on the mutual bets on horse racing abroad, the authorization to the King, the newspaper stores. The Secretary of State concludes the discussion by emphasizing that the current draft is a draft framework law. Literally he said: “Given the complexity, it is impossible for the legislator to regulate all aspects himself.”

Article 42 introduces a separate chapter on supplementary authorisations. Only those who are allowed to offer real-world betting or gambling can also apply to do so in the virtual world. On this amendment, Mr Schoofs submitted an amendment. He wanted to remove the article as his group, following the German example, believes that betting online, via TV and GSM should remain prohibited. During the discussion, expert Callu specified that the number of players on the internet is estimated at 100,000, with an annual turnover of 98 to 100 million euros per year.

Article 43 relates to media games. By article 44 the staff of the Gambling Commission is housed in a separate chapter. For Articles 44 to 51, I refer to the written report.

As regards the minimum age referred to by colleague Marghem, Article 51 provides that this minimum age is 18 and 21 years. Amendments were submitted by colleagues Landuyt, Schoofs and Gilkinet. Article 54 relating to the granting of loans also led to debate and amendments.

Article 56 changes the maximum amount of 50 euros per week for possible gifts to 400 euros every two months. There were questions from colleagues Laeremans and Schoofs and an amendment from colleague Van Cauter.

For the rest, I refer to the detailed written report on the draft.

The draft was approved yesterday with 10 votes for, 1 against and 4 abstentions.

On the question of the services, I point out the fact that there will soon be an erratum on the banks. On Article 23 there was an amendment by the majority, which was adopted. By mistake, a paragraph was deleted too little, which is corrected with the erratum. I insisted to point you to this.

Ms. Smeyers has the word.

Mr. Speaker, can I know why there is a derogation from the usual procedure for the largest opposition party to speak first?

I take the speakers in order of registration. You are not on the list of speakers.

No, Mr. Schoofs has registered as a member of the largest opposition party.

Mr. Schoofs is not on my list.

Even not . Something must have gone wrong. There is no problem.

I will write to Mr. Schoofs. I give the floor to Mrs Smeyers, ladies first, and then I give the floor to Mr Schoofs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me, a member of a small opposition party, the first word. It is a small opposition party, not a small party.

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. The N-VA agrees with this. Therefore, my group was also of the opinion that a collection movement was needed. Phenomena such as internet gambling and internet poker are currently insufficiently and poorly regulated.

During a visit by the Justice Committee to the Gambling Commission, we were able to determine how easy it is to transfer money from one account to another via the Internet. Thus, it was clear how easy it was to manipulate a game of internet poker with a few computers. Such things are a dream target for people who practice money laundering practices.

The fact that companies that offer online gambling spend a lot of money in defense of as mild as possible legislation should not discourage Parliament from putting in place solid legislation that governs the sector in a clear way.

We believe that the gambling sector will also benefit from such legislation. A transparent operation of the gambling is good for the image of the gambling.

In addition, better regulation also aims at better consumer protection and this was for us the guideline in the assessment of the present bill: transparency, optimal information and the protection of participants.

Since the present bill increases the control over the providers of gambling sites and increases the certainty for the player that he has to deal with an approved provider of internet gambling, we support – in this regard – the bill. The so-called channeling idea, in which the illegal supply is addressed by allowing a limited, legal, controlled supply through licenses, is, in our opinion, the most appropriate way. A total ban on gambling via the Internet is impossible. Thus, the idea of channeling is the best way.

The integration in the gambling legislation of media games such as ringing games on radio or television, has also been an explicit question for us.

The exclusion of betting from the Gambling Law was strange and paradoxical. Call games were excluded from the Gambling Act although they actually perfectly matched the definition of a gambling, namely gambling in exchange for a bet with a view to a certain profit. The inclusion of call games in the Gambling Act now gives the Gambling Commission the opportunity to take appropriate measures in the event of irregularities.

Our draft law linked to the draft had the same objective. We have no complaints with our N-VA group in this regard about the design. An integration into the gambling legislation brings the credibility of gambling a big step closer. Our country thus finds attachment to other countries such as the Netherlands, for example, where abuses are no longer treated since 2006, but there is still strict and correct action against malafide practices.

Not everything, however – and now I play the opposition role – to the design is perfect. Whoever says a, must say b, and whoever says that the protection of the players must be an essential starting point, must also act according to that. It was the majority itself that, with an amendment, initially gave the good example by banning the use of credit cards in casinos. A really good initiative in our opinion. Reducing credit card use reduces the likelihood of social dramas. Very quickly a broad consensus was formed in the committee on this principle, but one came out deceived. The majority withdrew the amendment shortly before the vote on this amendment. As the text now suggests, credit cards remain a means of allowing players to play in casinos without any money concerns, with all the harmful consequences thereof.

In our opinion, there has also been no unambiguous answer to my question to the Government following a technical comment we made in connection with the determination of the taxable matter of gambling in new class 4 gambling establishments. The question was whether the draft law as such does not affect the taxable matter by defining the class IV gambling establishments as an establishment where only gambling is allowed where it is established that the player can suffer an average of no more than 12,5 euros per hour loss. A class IV gambling in which it is established that the player can suffer an average loss of more than 12,5 euros per hour is prohibited by law and therefore, according to the code of taxes equated with income tax, gives rise to an off-off charge of 5,000 euros per device.

A device which determines that the player may suffer an average of less than €12.5 per hour loss is permitted and is taxed according to the classification and scales contained in Articles 79 and 80 of the same Code of Income Tax and Equivalent Taxes. These vary depending on the region.

In several opinions, the State Council has made it clear that the competence of the Regions does not extend to the determination of the object of taxation, of the subject matter subject to taxation, which has remained a federal competence, but that its exercise requires that the legislature acts with a special majority.

I asked this question in the committee and received an answer. However, our group continues to doubt whether or not the new provisions of the bill will become taxable when they prohibit certain games – with more than or less than 12,5 euros per hour loss – by law.

The same applies to the resulting consideration of whether that provision should not be adopted by a special majority, as the State Council requires. There was no response to this in the committee.

That being said, it will be possible in the future to offer moves, meals, drinks or gifts to casino customers, worth 400 euros every two months, while this until now remained limited to an amount of 50 euros per week.

Why this amount had to be increased by factor 8 is not clear to us. I can’t help but have the impression that the casino lobby has done its job very well in creating this bill.

The response of the government in the committee to this passage did not convince us. Again, those who want to counter gambling – and that is the main purpose of this bill – should not allow the casinos to spend a bunch of money to attract wealthy foreign customers, because that is what this passage of the bill is all about. Apparently, the economic aspect is still being valued higher than limiting the gambling enthusiasm of the players.

For these three different reasons, the N-VA group, which has always acted constructively by approving many provisions of the bill, will abstain at all, especially also because of the withdrawal of the amendment submitted by Open Vld, and for which there was a broad support in the committee, aiming to ban credit cards in casinos.

I found this a regrettable performance in the committee. For this reason and due to the persistent uncertainties in the bill, my group will abstain tomorrow at the vote.

The floor is yielded to Mr. Schoofs.

I would also like to thank the reporters for their report.

Let me fall into the house with the door. This bill gets from the Flemish Belang a large insufficient, and it is for three reasons.

First, because online gambling is not completely prohibited, although there are technical possibilities for this. Secondly, because the casinos remain largely out of shoot and they remain the sacrosancte super-game halls. Thirdly, because a number of illogical provisions have been and remain in the draft, which we have not been able to obtain this time. This leads then to a fourth point, namely the fact that consumer protection is not the first priority in this bill.

Let me start with online gambling. It is said that it will take place in a secure environment and that abuse on the Internet and the like will have to belong to the past from now on. That is all good and well, but it is still allowed to play with payment cards. The Flemish Belang is on the line of Germany, which is resolutely in favor of a total ban and does not allow itself to be influenced or pressured by the European Union.

Let us be clear, my colleagues. Either security is almost impossible and then the so-called channeling through a secure environment is too. In fact, all the effort is for nothing. Either it is perfectly possible to technically install a secure environment on the Internet and then one can just as well exclude the payment cards. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to work with profit or loss. Then online gambling can remain limited to a game on the Internet. Therefore, it is not yet innocent. It would be a game on the Internet, in which, in any case, no financial loss can be suffered, but to which people can become addicted, as they can become addicted to all internet games, gaming consoles and the like. The experts have assured us that it is technically certain that it is possible to fully secure and completely exclude it. Therefore, we propose to remove the payment cards. Then those games would no longer be accompanied by a significant loss of family income. With this design, the internet gambling addiction, involving financial loss, will not be helped out of the world. We think that is a missed opportunity.

Probably the intention is to seize the government’s income from what is wasted with a payment card on the Internet. In fact, it is the tax system that will eventually get better out of this. It is notable, by the way, that electronic payments except at the casinos – at that point they remain completely out of shoot – are made possible on the Internet via debit cards and the like in an uncontrolled environment. So there is no social control over young people who take away their parents’ identity cards and thus go gambling on the internet or who just sit in their room and play for hours. There is no such control at all. Social control is the smallest when it comes to internet gambling and yet the bank card is allowed here. We do not understand that the correct conclusions have not been drawn here and that there has not been a total ban as in Germany.

For all clarity, the Flemish Belang is also opposed to all forms of calling games of all kinds on television, with GSM and the like, because we find that there too the social control is very low. We really want to limit it to those physical environments, not the virtual environment, where there is often already enough of it and where there is often already more than enough addiction.

A second point that I have already cited from matters we are charging with regard to the bill, is the fact that casinos remain gambling temples. I will clearly give you the position of the Flemish Interest. Let us be clear: we advocate a smoking ban in playrooms. A separate smoking room may be allowed, but in playrooms this must remain prohibited. There must be a prohibition on the granting of all kinds of benefits in nature, credits and the like. We are also not in favour of beverages or food and ⁇ not alcoholic beverages in playrooms, nor of exhibitions, shows, all kinds of entertainment or congresses in casinos. We believe that such structures should be separated and that the recreation through gambling should be completely separated from the recreation on other social domains, which is much more innocent.

A visit to the casino in Brussels and the huge investment that is planned there with the new casino immediately deprived me of all hope and immediately made me clear why the casinos have almost not come into this discussion. They do not have to lobby. They were hardly heard in the committee and hardly heard in the committee. This made it clear that one is targeting the casinos, but then from the majority, not to limit the activities, but to give them as much free hand as possible.

Open Vld has attempted for a while to cancel the credit card for casinos, which is exclusively reserved for casinos - based on a proposal from Vlaams Belang that we had already submitted much earlier. In the committee, however, the representative of the MR was awakened two articles later – the article-by-article discussion had actually passed but apparently the man was awake or he had received a mail on his laptop – and suddenly Open Vld had to crawl back as a panty animal. There has still been a majority consultation organized, but there Open Vld has taken full backseil.

The result of this, for example in the coastal province of West Flanders, is that the gambling halls – a form of gambling that we think is sufficiently controlled – will be completely crushed by casinos. Therefore, there is a far too large gap between casinos on the one hand and all other forms of gambling and betting that must be taken over in society, in particular the gambling establishments 2, 3 and 4 on the other. It is then about the play halls, the bingo devices and the betting offices. That gap is far too big and we find it unlogical, unreasonable and ethically and socially unacceptable that casinos get so much free bracelet.

It was the Francophonie in general that has been able to push that through, especially to protect the casino of Brussels where many foreigners apparently come to pay with credit cards. Apparently, the Francophonie has been able to take its battle home. The casinos of Spa and Namen will of course benefit less from this rule but they will still have a lot of advantages. Apparently, the casino of Brussels should continue to strain the crown. Thus, the mondaine francophonie has been able to strike at home in the case of the MR.

When we compare that to the horse racing in Flanders, a predominantly Flemish sport, we see that any form of expansion of betting has been stopped, although the committee said it is the least addictive form of gambling. The Flemish horse races are literally put at the box. It was Open Vld who submitted the amendment and it was the MR who stopped it, probably along with CD&V as I told me. There were manoeuvres in the walks. The CD&V’ers, with the exception of the secretary of state, did not want the Denys amendment as it was called to be approved. It may soon be possible to organize goat treats in West Flanders. At CD&V, we have specialists in this field.

Finally, there are still illogical decisions in this bill. In fact, they already existed in the previous law. I explain myself more closely. The age limit to be employed in a casino is 18 years, but a player in a casino must be 21 years old. They educate young people into croupiers, security people and the like. They work in casinos and need to be aware of the game. However, the game can only be played from 21. We have said that it is not discrimination if in this case the age limit is set at 21 years. When cleaning or maintenance work needs to be done or when the casino is closed, it’s all no problem. However, we find it illogical that the age limit to be employed in casinos is 18 years while a player must be 21 years old. I compared it in the commission with a driving instructor who is not allowed to buy a car.

You are too young to buy a car, but you can be a driving instructor. Then it comes down.

Finally, the law states that sports practice is not a chance game. This is an open door entering. Any form of sports or gambling practice that does not involve a win or loss is, of course, not a chance game. A football game is not a chance game. My first reasoning is "qui this trop, this trop peu".

One wants to absolutely encapsulate the athlete in the law, but in fact one says too little. I think, for example, of tree-stumping on the Scottish parties in Bilzen, which is actually also a sport, but this may not fall within and therefore can be considered as a chance game. The definition is either too broad or too narrow.

As a conclusion, I can conclude that the protection of the consumer in this case is subordinated to the financial interests or what was called the viability of the sector, that the protection of the socially weak and/or ⁇ the potential gambling addicts is subordinated to the potential government seizure for the purpose of tax receipts from the State and finally that, once more, the interests of the Flemish players in the field, I mean then the organizations that generate profits from this, is subordinate to the considerations of the Francofonie.

The Flemish Interest will not approve of this.

However, I would like to end with a light point. I would like to thank my Limburg colleague, Hilâl Yalçin, for her bill that clearly puts her finger on the wound regarding gambling and betting offices in immigrant neighborhoods. All-morning youths come over the floor in the gambling offices operating in gray zones. Ms. Yalçin has rightly sought to put a stake and a stake on this. It flirts with the boundaries of political correctness. I know that the hair will not always be taken in gratitude in her community, much more because she is a woman, but she has yet dared to submit this bill and confirm it again in the newspaper last week.

Colleagues, ⁇ my colleagues from the Flemish Interest, "une fois n'est pas coutume", but if someone from the majority deserves an applause, it is Ms. Yalçin for her proposal.

The bill that is being submitted to us today is ⁇ important. It must of course be taken into account in relation to a social phenomenon that concerns us all and all, that of the game.

I will divide my exhibition into three parts. The first is titled, “The game, a phenomenon of society.” The second is dedicated to the importance of gambling in Belgium and I will finish with the considerations of the MR group in relation to this project.

As for the game itself, it should be remembered that this social phenomenon constitutes a playful behavior that is part of the psychology of any individual. It is affirmed in the natural course of the child and flourishes in the adult. It is characterized by a notion of challenge in relation to yourself or in relation to one or more partners. This usually results in the fact that the personal satisfaction of winning is challenged without any other challenge. This behavior is as estimable as the search for other satisfactions that require personal commitment, such as athletic performance, address play, concern for knowing, etc., and to which any notion of money is foreign.

Thus, many forms of play can usefully satisfy the player because his behavior is rational. The individual tries to exceed its limits in a form of exploitation. Eventual failure leads to little bitterness or special regret, but on the contrary! While these forms of play require a share of chance, they primarily call for intelligence, know-how, training and tactics. Behavior in the cases described above is primarily generating personal satisfaction, or even jubilation. Isn’t that Madame Marghem?

However, this innate tendency to the practice of gambling can also lead to a betting problem. If, beyond this personal satisfaction, a problem of money is envisaged, that is where the problem comes in. One can indeed very quickly overflow at the level of all these gambling games, whatever they are (paris, games) on the problem of compulsive behavior. Compulsive behavior is the fact that a person no longer controls the money they are able to spend, from the moment they started playing. Whatever the game he engages in, the player does it unreasonably because his behavior is irrational. In case of compulsion, the player’s fundamental search leaves the path of the rational register to promote the emotional.

This compulsive side will obviously lead to personal bankruptcy, especially on the moral and psychological and material levels at the level of his property, to a relationship bankruptcy towards his surroundings and mainly the family, and to a bankruptcy from an ethical point of view because, sooner or later, in the absence of means, the player will be tempted to go to get the money where he is by theft, theft, scam.

I was still reading at the moment an article in the newspaper “Le Soir” which refers to a person who has been up to withdrawing all the savings of his children from their deposit booklet to settle his taste for the game.

Gambling is a social problem that can lead to the last ends. It should be known that today, according to some studies, there would be between 100,000 and 150,000 compulsive gamblers in Belgium.

The second point of my speech concerns the importance of the gambling phenomenon in Belgium. Some figures are worth mentioning: for the lottery games (Lotto, Joker, Keno, Euromillions), there are 1,222 million people playing it today. There are 382,000 poker players, 374,000 card players, about 340,000 bettors on horse, dog or other animal races, 300,000 online players, 300,000 online sports betting fans, 300,000 card players, 106,000 regular bingo players in cafes and 283,000 gaming enthusiasts in slot rooms.

It should also be noted that one in five consumers has already participated in gambling. Since 2007, the number of players has increased by 3%. The player spends an average of €46.8 per month but can bet up to €500 at a time. The attractiveness of the game leads some players to spend 57.6 euros in a day maximum from 58.4 in 2007. However, players report spending 46.8 euros per month, twice as much as in 2007. The average age to start playing is 29 years old but 4% of players had started before 18 years and 3% before 16 years old. Compared to 2007, players are older when they start playing (29 years instead of 26) and those who start before 18 years are only 4% instead of 9%.

Favorite games remain largely lotteries and scratch tickets but, since 2007, interest in most gambling has increased and although the lotteries are still seeing the same success, scratch tickets, poker, SMS games, bets, address games, internet bets are seeing an increasing success. In total, it is now estimated in Belgium that 1,427 million people regularly play gambling in all its components.

Hence the need to intervene, to legislate in such a way as to frame, to regulate the game. We know that a legislation on this subject has long existed with a supervisory body which is the Gambling Commission. However, it was essential to intervene in such a way as to regulate more and to provide for additional shutdowns to take into account the evolution of online gaming, for example.

Over the last few weeks, the main concern of the MR group has been the protection of the player. The project does not constitute a revolution in the mechanism of permissions imagined during the drafting of the 1999 law, but the balance as it was advocated in 1999 by a channeling by means of legislation is ⁇ ined. Gambling remains prohibited but there are exceptions; there is a licensing policy. The goal is clear: to ensure public control of gambling and to implement a series of measures aimed at protecting players.

The rules currently applicable to economic actors in this sector, whether they are casinos, slot machines and drinks debits, are therefore not overturned. However, the protection of consumers, players, required a series of adjustments in view of current developments.

First of all, it was necessary to regulate online gambling. The phenomenon has increased considerably in recent years. The project thus provides for a mechanism for the issuance of additional licenses to the licenses granted for real games. Online gambling is prohibited in principle. However, permits may be granted, under strict conditions, to operators with a license allowing to offer the same type of games in the real world. For example, a casino will only be allowed to offer online games that are permitted in casinos.

In order to ensure effective control of gambling by the Gambling Commission, strict rules were therefore provided, including the presence of the server in Belgium, the registration and identification of the player, the age control and the regulation of games. The King will have to determine a number of conditions, such as creditworthiness, security of payment transactions, settlement of complaints, compliance with tax obligations.

Given the affairs that have shaken the betting industry in recent years, it was essential to clarify and frame the applicable betting regulation. The text adopted by the Justice Committee attempts, with one or another exception, to make a photograph of the current situation. As the objective is the channeling, the text has been drafted in such a way that the establishments in rule can continue their activities. However, the need to protect the bettor has led to the development of a new legal framework. The text is satisfying in this regard. It also incorporates the law on gambling while, previously, betting was situated in another type of legislation with a more fiscal character. We now have a comprehensive and coherent legislation.

Another gambling sector that has evolved in recent years and also requires an appropriate legal framework is gambling through the media. Until now, some of these games were regulated by the royal decree; others escaped any legal framework. The text of the preliminary draft remedies this situation and provides for a regulation of this sector.

It also proved necessary to better arm the Gambling Commission and allow it to impose administrative fines in case of unfollowed classification by the prosecutors. Currently, it can only withdraw or suspend licenses or even prohibit an exploitation. The mechanism conceived thus combines efficiency and respect for the rights of defence.

From now on, the player who participates in a gambling, while he knows that it is an illegal gambling not authorized by law, can be prosecuted. The potential player must be informed. The King must, therefore, determine by decision the modalities of informing the players concerning the legality of the games offered on the Internet in particular.

This addition has been intervened during the work of the committee and is indeed indispensable.

Another prohibition due to the affairs that have shaken the betting world in recent years: it is now explicitly forbidden to anyone who can have a direct influence on the outcome of a gambling, to participate in it.

But of course, and this is something important, the legislation provides for a number of measures to protect the player. Previously, only the player himself could request his prohibition. Today, any interested person, whether a family member or a relative, will be able to apply to the Gambling Commission for this ban to intervene in the context of access to casinos, slot machines, for example. Of course, the player will be heard by the Commission. Access may also be denied to persons for whom the application for collective settlement of debts has been declared admissible.

Payment by credit card remains limited to casinos, we have long talked about it. A minimum age is set for gambling about online gambling and betting. It’s about setting up a mechanism to control the age of online gamers, and we hope this will happen soon.

As part of the examination of the bill in commission, we were brought to know the opinion that was given by the European Commission. This is a circumstantial notice that asks the Belgian Government for a number of clarifications, such as the presence of the server on the Belgian territory, the need to take into account the requirements that must be met by an operator applying for an Internet license in its establishment, the incrimination of the customer of an illegal gambling establishment, the limitation of the number of betting agencies, etc.

So many questions were asked. The Secretary of State responded by a number and undertook to inform the Parliament of the progress of the procedure at European level. The MR group will not fail, in the coming weeks and in the coming months, to question him on this point in particular as part of the work in the Senate and, if necessary, whether this file would be returned to the House. We remind you that the text may also be finally adopted by the Senate, in this case, before the end of the procedure.

The text of the bill contains many powers for the King. Among these abilities, some are of considerable importance. Mr. Secretary of State, you have committed yourself in committee to ensure that all texts are communicated in the Justice Committee and subject to debate. We believe that this discussion will be necessary in due course. We thank you for being ⁇ attentive.

In conclusion, the text presented to us today appears to be a balanced text. It complements the current legislation without, however, disturbing the economy, which was not by the government’s intention. It also provides for a number of measures to protect the player but also, and this is important, by strengthening the means of the Gambling Commission not only to ensure the overall regularity of the gambling and betting market on our territory, but also to ensure the best protection that can be consumers.

The MR group will therefore vote on the bill submitted to us by the government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the subject of gambling is eminently difficult and sensitive and the discussions were passionate. Nevertheless, we all agreed on the need to adapt the 1999 law in order to bring it in line with the technological evolution of society. Nevertheless, one could believe that things were already clear since the exploitation of lottery and gambling games on the internet was prohibited. What was the value of this ban in the face of digital reality? How can we explain to our citizens that they could not play online when a simple ‘click’ gave them access to millions of gaming sites and other casinos, some even displaying more or less fancy operating licenses?

From now on, the legislative framework will be better defined. By requiring operators of online gambling and betting the existence of a real physical seat in order to be able to have an operating license, this project solves a problem that seemed very difficult to solve.

The illegal offering of gambling will therefore now be opposed by a controlled, limited and legal offering of gambling. The exploitation of gambling is therefore still prohibited but exceptions can be provided through a licensing system placed under the auspices of the Gambling Commission which sees its competences expanded.

Among the sanctions options of the Gambling Commission, the bill provides for the imposition of administrative fines. This additional measure is primarily necessary with respect to non-licensed persons who violate the provisions of the law. Now, illegality will no longer be a theoretical state of fact, it will be treated and combated.

For the Socialist Party, it was imperative to coupl with these repressive provisions the prevention and protection of the player. Prohibiting is not enough, it is also necessary to ensure that players are informed of the risks inherent in the practice of illegal gambling. It should not be mistaken, the fact of punishing the player for his participation in an illegal gambling does not obviously serve this goal of protecting the player.

In order to respect the principle of legality, our group has thus taken care to review the article concerning the incrimination of the player, which was initially formulated too vaguely.

We also requested and obtained the improvement of player information regarding the legality of the relevant sites. This is a positive list, also suggested by the Ecolo-Groen!, which will take over the sites that have obtained a legal license, and the subsequent creation of a label allowing to clearly identify the legal sites.

In short, the offer of legal games will allow players to be more protected from themselves, through the limitation of bets, and protected from malicious, uncontrolled and uncontrollable sites that took advantage of the anonymity of the web to catch the little or uninformed player.

While the information of the players is primary, special attention should also be paid to the pathological players, for whom the game is no longer a playful pleasure but a real suffering. In this regard structures exist to support people who suffer from insecurity problems such as, for example, the clinic of pathological gambling. It will be appropriate in the future to strengthen them and effectively inform players of the existence and importance of this type of structures.

The possibility offered to interested persons – a player, a family member or a relative – to request the prohibition of access to physical or virtual establishments confirms the government’s willingness to place player protection at the center of its concerns. In the same sense, we also supported the government’s decision not to extend the use of credit cards to other institutions than those of Class I or to the Internet.

Let me quote here our bill proposal concerning article 5 of the 1999 law. In fact, it was necessary to amend Article 1965 of the Civil Code to prevent the application of the exception of gambling to games permitted by the Act of 1999, in order to allow players to recover their gambling claims without the gambling contract being declared unlawful on the civil level. This provision has been taken back into the project with a few adjustments; we look forward to this.

For the surplus, there is still a long way to go. The law delegates a lot of responsibilities to the King. We will therefore need to ensure proper consultation, both with the Parliament but also with the sectors concerned in the context of the adoption of implementing orders. As an example, we will be ⁇ attentive to the dialogue that will be continued with the bookstores sector, a sector often mismanaged of which we know the difficulties.

Like the Internet, the need for legislation in the field of gambling knows no borders. Canada, Switzerland, France, many countries today find themselves facing the same debates, the same problems and the same difficulty of acting. Faced with a European Commission that often – and we have seen it again in the opinion that it has given even if it is not insurmountable – places liberalization at the top of its priorities – and that it matters for this Europe whether it is gambling whose effects can be dramatic – the government has made the choice of regulation, drainage and protection.

We must, of course, ensure compliance with EU law and compliance of the project with European rules. This project, however, reminds the European authorities that the protection of citizens and the fight against addictions are the real reasons for being public authorities.

Regulating, channeling and protecting – these were the priorities of our group in terms of gambling. Regulation, because it was necessary to make the legislation in the matter more coherent and to fill certain gaps in the law. Channeling, because in the face of the development of new information and communication technologies, we have witnessed for several years with relative powerlessness to an uncontrollable explosion of casinos, lotteries and other virtual games. Finally, protect, because in the face of the emergence of this illegal online gambling market, we had to admit our difficulties in protecting more and more players, as well as younger and younger players.

This document is therefore balanced and should enable to meet these three priorities. Therefore, the Socialist Group will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, for Open Vld is the ratio legis in this the rapid evolution in gambling. I think of the ever-growing offer of illegal online gambling, the poker hype and the irresistible clutter on all sorts of betting.

In this discussion, I would like to make two preliminary comments on behalf of my group. The first note concerns the European notification procedure which is still underway. The deadline has been extended until 30 July 2009.

Mr. Secretary of State, there was a debate in the committee about whether or not to continue our work. At that time you literally stated that the members of Parliament continue their work perfectly as long as the publication and entry into force on the matter does not take place. We acknowledge this position, but make some reservations on the method.

A second preliminary observation has already been cited by a number of colleagues, in particular that the draft law has the character of a draft framework, in which ⁇ many powers are transferred to the King. Repeatedly, the text says “will be further regulated by royal decree”.

We refer to the discussion in the committee where you promised to engage the Parliament closely in the preparation of these royal decrees by submitting them in advance to the Justice Committee. Mr. Secretary of State, we have well noted what you promised and keep your promise.

Regarding the draft itself and the text, I would like to summarize a few points briefly. As for the bets, some today are included in the scope of other legal provisions, other bets are in a legal vacuum and still other bets are explicitly excluded from the scope of the Gambling Act.

It is therefore necessary to act legislatively in order to bring those bets in their entirety under the Gambling Act and to transfer the authorisation power to an authority, in particular the Gambling Commission.

As I said earlier, the rise of electronic means of communication such as mobile phone, interactive television, and especially the Internet, has resulted in it becoming much easier to practice chance and gambling. Due to the wild growth of gambling offered through the internet and because the repression lacks efficiency, legislative intervention is necessary.

The colleagues have already said it, it is true that the government, and the committee has followed it in doing so, has made the choice to introduce a coherent and properly controlled licensing policy. This means that the banned games are channeled to authorized facilities, where control is guaranteed. I know it, it has already been said here, not all parties agree with this viewpoint, but Open Vld is that in any case.

Mr. Secretary of State, we look forward to your intention to regulate the payment of the internet games via debit cards.

This law also provides that in addition to the operator, among other things, also the participant, the player can be punished, provided that the player knows, or must know, literally in the text, that he is illegally engaged.

In addition to the controlled licensing policy, which aims to protect the player as much as possible, an additional new protective measure is provided. Not only the player himself but also all stakeholders, the family has already been given here as an example, can request to have someone excluded from access to the gambling. This is a new protection measure provided by this design.

Finally, the competence of the Gambling Commission is significantly expanded with this draft. The exploitation of the betting, the media games and the gambling through information society tools such as the Internet is subject to a license, to be issued by the Gambling Commission.

More powers also means expanding the instrumentarium of the Gambling Commission. The present draft also sets out a system in which, as has been repeatedly stated, the committee will be given the possibility to impose administrative fines. In connection with this aspect, the Gambling Commission may impose these fines if the prosecutor fails to make a decision within six months of receipt of the PV or if the prosecutor decides to suspend.

We are not opposed to this arrangement, to this possibility of administrative fines, but we ask that the Gambling Commission should exercise this entirely new authority with the necessary caution and with the maximum respect for the rights of the potential infringer.

More generally, we believe that the Gambling Commission should be able to fulfill its role as an advisory, decision-making and control body in gambling, but that, on the other hand, there should also be limits to its function as a counselor to the government.

The fact that a number of members of the Gambling Commission remained present in the Justice Committee at the beginning of the discussion of the provisions applicable to the Gambling Commission, we have regarded as inappropriate, which has prompted us to ask those people to continue the work or the discussion of those articles behind closed doors after their departure.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Open Vld is convinced that this bill represents an important new step, first, in regards to the regulation of the gambling landscape in this country and, second, in regards to the development of a modern gambling policy. We will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the history of gambling is as old as that of our civilization. From all times, one has been gambling or betting, for objects or money, up to violence, the loss of a lot of money, or even the ruin of individuals or families. The game is between pleasure and suffering.

Faced with this, two attitudes are possible: either the prohibition, long abandoned in our countries, or the framework, more or less strict, in return for taxes paid to the state and the creation of jobs in the gambling industry.

This framework should not be a pretext, a façade. On the contrary, it must be sufficiently demanding and controlled to protect individuals beyond their personal freedom to put themselves in danger or lose money. It must be regularly evaluated and adjusted to take into account the evolution of the game.

The present project aims to meet new forms of gambling, in this case the gambling on the internet or the games offered by the media, and to provide a framework for all betting games, especially sports. This is an obvious necessity given the development of these new forms of gambling, the ethical and practical questions they pose and the polemics they have recently aroused. Just remember the case of Chinese betting on Belgian football matches, including in lower divisions.

Let’s also see the number of requests, in the form of spam, to which Internet users are subjected from their youngest age in order to play this or that game on the internet, which will allow them to earn a lot of money, without risk, at least if you believe the advertisements. More realistically, these games lead to addiction and can cause heavy financial losses.

We could have chosen a total ban on these online gambling, as other countries, such as Switzerland and Germany, have decided. This way, the rule is clear to both potential players and those whose mission is to control players or organizers. Another option is presented here: that of a licensing regime, accompanied for the surplus of a gambling ban opposable both to the organizers of games and to the players themselves. It will be necessary to assess the relevance of this choice, in particular with regard to the increased risk of gambling addiction, as well as the effectiveness of the measure contained in Article 4 §2 which prohibits the organization, participation or advertising for unauthorized games.

There will still be questions about the ability to effectively control the identity and age of the players, their actual, hourly or total losses.

Finally, as many foreign organizers will continue to offer their games over the internet, a real capacity for control and sanction against them, including in a transnational framework, will need to be ensured.

In this sense, amendments by Ms. Deom and myself, including keeping a positive list of authorized organizers and setting up a logo allowing citizens to know whether a site is authorized or not, were necessary.

Mr. Secretary of State, if one can consider as positive the fact that a framework finally exists for these bets and that the possibility of organizing these games on the Internet in Belgium is limited to the current gambling establishments, we regret that this device is so permissive, especially since this form of gambling on the Internet, unlike collective games, does not benefit from the benefits of social control, is ⁇ difficult to contingent and can constitute a quick path, especially for the younger, to gambling addiction and all its adverse consequences.

So I come to my main criticism and the second characteristic necessary for a public policy of gambling. If it is necessary to frame the game, it is also necessary to combat gambling addiction. At this level, the appointment is missed, not dislike Mrs. Marghem and members of the majority! I have heard it several times in the committee. Marque explain the repeated visits of compulsive gamblers to the Gambling Commission to request to be banned from gambling, then return, a few days later, to request to be rehabilitated and so on six or seven times, without ever being directed or compelled to a medical follow-up, without the fact that they have decided on this medical follow-up being evaluated as part of their new authorization to play. This is a clear deficiency in the current law.

Mr. Hamal, I have heard you too. They would give you the good God without confession! You are especially inspired to explain to us, hand on heart, the importance of protecting players. You explained to us that this concern has been on you for many years. This, however, did not prevent you, during the work of this committee, from taking with the majority the opposite options. In fact, you rejected our amendments that aim to better frame gambling and better protect players. I will return in a few seconds to the episode of article 54 and credit cards.

Mr. Gilkinet, it seems to me that I have more experience than you in the prevention of bullying and, in particular, in gambling. I recall here that for ten years, as a permanent member, I have chaired a provincial committee on prevention of bribery. Not only was the issue of drugs and alcohol on the agenda, but also that of gambling. So I know this matter and I have also supported various prevention groups, including the "Anonymous Players". I know the problems of these people and the difficulties they face and I know what to do to help them.

I would like to remind you that the competence of prevention belongs to the Communities. It is therefore up to them, beyond what we can do at the federal level, to develop, if necessary, a number of concrete actions.

This is especially the case in schools, as part of animations such as the province of Liège developed them. Just, Mr. Gilkinet, your party that wants the abolition of the provinces should know that the provinces play a ⁇ important role in several subjects including the prevention of assets, a driving role that unfortunately the French Community is not able to hold due to the lack of proximity. Before asking for the removal of the provinces, it might be necessary to see if they do not have important tasks to carry out in the sector!

Very briefly, to answer Mr. Gilkinet, you are not without knowing that a therapeutic follow-up should be done by persuading the person that this follow-up is necessary and not by imposing it on him. All measures to be taken are preventive and accompanying measures which, as our colleague Olivier Hamal said, fall within the power of the provinces.

I’m here, but you’re really the kings of alibi!

Mr. Hamal, I do not allow you to prejudice on my knowledge of the subject and I find that in relation to your experience, it is all the more condemning not to have adopted a more voluntary attitude towards the proposals advanced – and this concerns all members of the majority. Even if the competence is community, the agreements of cooperation, it exists in our country. We had taken into account this institutional peculiarity in the amendments we drafted, ⁇ imperfectly, but they have the merit of existing and being put to vote.

The majority of our fellow citizens consume gambling and money, and most of the time, this leads to little consequences. I myself am a player of the National Lottery – remember! But a proportion of these players estimated according to the studies that I was able to consult between 2 and 6% (5 to 6% being the figures cited in the Anglo-Saxon countries) has become addicted to gambling as one is to a drug. It is for the public power to prevent this addiction, to place adequate barriers in access to gambling and to provide adequate assistance to the players concerned, to their families, and even to the business world, to all those who suffer from their illness.

In Canada, a survey conducted within a gambling population reveals 25 to 30 percent of job losses or personal bankruptcies related to gambling. What are we talking about? Gambling addiction is defined as an inappropriate, persistent and repeated practice of gambling. The pleasure of playing then turns into an imperative need to play, despite the terrible consequences for the player and his surroundings.

The game then becomes the only concern of the subject. He completely loses control and ends up falling into dependence. The consequences are often destructive and lead to various problems in the life of the person concerned, whether financial, social, professional, psychological, physical, etc.

As part of the hearings prior to the vote on this project, we requested that associations, institutions active in helping dependent players, such as the ASBL Pélican or the Dostoevsky Gaming Clinic of the ULB, be heard. Their representatives told us, unfortunately too quickly and lacunarly given the time allocated, but with very correct words, the hell experienced by the players concerned and their families, as well as the need to treat these cases appropriately, especially – I insist – by an early orientation to help services.

A recent study by the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) in France says nothing else. It highlights that the major beneficiaries of this situation are members of the gambling industry, who have seen their income explode. On the other hand, the poorest families are most affected by this phenomenon; proportionally to their income and resources, their play spending is greater, even though the amounts, in absolute terms, are smaller.

This gambling addiction is not taken seriously enough. We could have used the examination of this text to strengthen this attention. The associations recommend various preventive actions, including rapid orientation to ad hoc services, since the main problem of pathological players lies in a low demand for care. 82% of players surveyed as part of the INSERM study believe they can get out of it on their own. It takes on average six years of gambling for consultation, largely enough time to destroy a family, create debts, lose contact with reality. It is too long!

These associations also recommend the development of expertise on gambling addiction, which is cruelly missing in our country while it is developed in others. I regret that the majority has systematically rejected the amendments we had submitted to strengthen this dimension of prevention in view of a regulation substantially limiting the number of pathological players and the significant social costs associated with this psychopathology.

It has, for example, rejected those which consisted in accompanying any decision to prohibit gambling by an order to consult a specialized service or that relating to the establishment, within the Gambling Commission and in consultation with the Communities (in order to respect the division of competences) of a special body charged with building an expertise on gambling addiction or even that of passing the age limit of online gambling to that of all gambling, that is to 21 years, since the risk of addiction is enhanced by the absence of social control and multiple electronic requests from the online gambling rooms.

Even worse, I come to this famous article 54. While members of the majority wanted, in the right line of an amendment we had submitted, to restore the ban on the use of credit cards in gambling establishments, it was at a turning point that we witnessed under the impulse of Mr. Hamal, so worried about these poor people lost in the game's hell.

The majority, including the members who had deposited and defended this amendment, including you, Mr. Secretary of State, who had announced your support for this measure, gave up voting on this amendment whose subject is clear. It’s about preventing players from running heavy credits on a headshot, forcing them to leave the gambling establishment, re-contact with the outer reality, before making the decision to raise in order to try to “re-create”. I am not trying to explain this, except under the pressure of some lobby. I regret her. We will submit this amendment again.

I also wonder about the impact of the amendment of Article 5 of the Act on the protection of players and the new provisions on the quick payment of debts. This is a point that Mr. Landuyt has developed widely.

In the name of the economic interest that these gambling establishments represent, which generate employment and taxes, you have closed your eyes to the reality of pathological gamblers, ignoring that, if the game returns to the state, it costs it even more. This is the main criticism we have about this text. We will re-depose a series of amendments that would correct the shooting, especially in view of too wide authorizations given to the government and too generous gifts for the benefit of the gaming industry. I think of the number of authorized establishments that must be fixed by royal decree. We had proposed a confirmation a posteriori by the law, which was rejected.

It seems obvious to us, despite the absence of recent epidemiological studies or sufficiently reliable statistical data, that the social cost of gambling is higher than the benefit that the State can draw from it. But the impression that I had at the end of our work is that the government was much more attentive to the interests of some gambling organizers, strongly present at the work, than to the interests of those whose daily mission is to help compulsive gamblers and their families. We regret it.

This is what will prevent us from voting positively on this text, despite the advances I have highlighted. We will therefore abstain from this bill, despite the merit it has to lift some of the still existing shadow zones on the rules of the game. The opportunity was missed by the government and by the majority to further limit its social cost.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, it is clear that the regulation on gambling should be revised. The Secretary of State may recall that I already had a hammer on this in the committee meetings in January of this year. I then argued that the challenge mainly consists not only in conducting a wise policy, but also in ensuring that the policy is applied. I will return to this later.

List Dedecker already advocates a liberal but regulated policy. You will hear it immediately. We therefore oppose an ultra-repressive policy, as well as an ultra-repressive action by the Gambling Commission.

The indications indicating why an adjustment of the regulation was necessary can also be found in the annual report of the Gambling Commission. I have taken out some of them which I think are important to briefly explain.

In my opinion, the Gambling Commission justifies the fact that the internet games, some lotteries and mobile games have become a form of fraud that daily undermines the credibility of not only the gambling law but also of the industry. I think it is also important for the rest of the sector that it is stated that wild growth and the admission of unregulated and unlawful practices also undermine the sector itself.

More and more gambling addicts themselves ask to be put on the blacklist. They are no longer allowed to enter the gamblers. Since 2003, there have been 9,784 voluntary exclusions, of which one-third in 2008. In the present draft law, I think it is well regulated that family members can now also act to counter these social dramas.

One important element, which we also discussed in the commission at the time, is the crisis. In 2007, even before the crisis, the sales of the casinos and of the 179 slot machines halls each increased by 15% compared to 2006. These sales figures also continue to rise. Even today, indications from the Research and Information Centre of Consumer Organizations indicate that gamblers spend an average of €46.80 per month on gambling. This is 2.6 times more than in 2007.

The impact of the crisis is ⁇ and definitely an element that also now weighs in those figures. We must take care that we do not make an exceptional situation the basis for permanent legislation.

What, according to List Dedecker, is a positive given in this law? I think that the direction you take in the field of Internet sites and the authorisation of these sites in an objective way has a positive effect. We believe that the solution will need to be discussed internationally. Currently, international law on Internet infringements is too limited and must definitely and firmly be further expanded. I think that the present draft law alone, of course, will not be able to promote full legislation and agreements between countries and partners. It is, in any case, a subject that should be able to bring international turmoil so that it reflects on international law on the application of internet activities in general, and the crimes related to it and how it can be controlled and intervened by individual states in particular.

I also think that it is good that excesses in gambling are addressed. I am not of the same opinion as Mr. Gilkinet. I think this bill offers the possibility to address excesses. Let us also emphasize that the individual sense of responsibility must play a role. It is not up to the legislator to complete a full social picture. I think the individual can play for a piece. If someone has the desire to commit a gambling at some point, then it must be possible. If he wants to use his credit card in the casino, he must be able to do so. The sense of individual responsibility must continue to play a role. It is not only to the legislator to speak about this. I will return to that later.

Extending social control to family members seems to me a very good thing. The terrible situations are known to all of us. It is not only the gambler who will pull at the hand brake at some point.

What do we disagree with? We ⁇ do not make a mistake by appealing to the individual sense of responsibility. I believe that the discussion surrounding the use of credit cards in casinos is just a step too far, demonstrating that Parliament wants to act more overwhelmingly in legislation, while this is not necessary.

Anyone who enters a casino does not necessarily cause a social drama. There are also people who can handle gambling and gambling responsibly. A foreigner or a tourist who wants to play should not simply be denied that play.

We appeal to the sense of responsibility, Mr. Secretary of State, when we give the player the responsibility whether or not to enter a game and eventually be punished. I think that in the same order it is important that we appeal to the individual sense of responsibility for the use of means of payment.

By the way, I think that the black player list, with the possibility for family members to act, is already sufficient guarantee that social dramas are avoided.

I am not the biggest euro-fiel, but you have, in any case, well bypassed the objections of Europe, or at least for a while placed by your side. In general, we need to think about legal certainty. Last week we talked about the smoking ban. This is the second law in two weeks that we will hunt through this Parliament, with the risk that there will be further amendments. That risk is there anyway. You have until September to submit the proposal. Europe is not yet ready with its positions. The legislation that we are adopting today may still need to be amended.

The risk exists. I think that in terms of legal certainty we should think about how we deal with such a bill or bill proposal here.

As far as international data is concerned, I think we should look beyond Europe alone. Of course, Europe has a certain legislative weight. Furthermore, when we look at Asia and the United States, we know that steps must also be taken to ensure that we do not fall into a kind of flipper cabinet, to say it in play terms, where sites that are not licensed here can return again and again under other names and from other web addresses, which then actually has little to do.

There are more justified criticisms from the industry. Not the biggest element, but also not insignificant, are the automatic gambling. When playing two automatic gambling games, a maximum hourly loss of 12.5 euros is now registered in the law, while another 25 euros was proposed in 2007.

It was not an unjustified request from the sector to determine the amounts in question through a royal decree in consultation with the sector and to clarify them from the draft law.

Finally, control remains a delicate point. For example, in January 2009, you must have determined that the checks on poker tournaments were limited to eight in 2006, seven in 2007 and eleven in 2008. Through the Internet, it was about seventeen, fourteen and seven checks, respectively. Control remains a delicate point.

A law is a powerful instrument only if it is effectively ensured that its provisions are implemented. In this regard, I call for the availability of the necessary resources to effectively monitor and put the law into action.

In summary, I can point out that our group will abstain during the vote on the present bill. First, we believe that the design contains very noble inserts. On the contrary, we continue to feel that the harassment continues to take on the sense of responsibility. Especially the systematic control remains a delicate point. She will probably also be left behind.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Ladies and Gentlemen, I have the last word.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is clear that the law on gambling, which dates from 7 May 1999, had to be revised, not only because it had to be regulated in a coherent manner after ten years of practice, but also because it had to be adapted to the new, modern, social context in which gambling is currently organized. Let’s think of the TV games and the Internet.

It is also to this that the bill, which, by the way, was discussed extensively in the Committee for Justice and was discussed and amended in a committed manner, meets.

First, Mr. Speaker, the starting point of the present bill is and remains the idea of channeling, which was also already the starting point of the old law on gambling. The illegal offering of gambling offered to people to satisfy a congenital gambling illness is combated by channeled, limited, legal offering of certain gambling under strict, legal conditions.

In principle, all gambling is prohibited unless they are licensed. In licensing, the Gambling Commission plays a central role. It decides on the basis of the current situation which gambling operators will still be licensed.

Our party, CD&V, is convinced that only in this way can this channeling limit the natural need of man to be able to gamble and to want to gamble and that in this way certain players can be protected against themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the bill expands the scope of gambling legislation and clarifies a number of things. First, from now on, the bets also fall under the gambling legislation and therefore must also be licensed in advance before they can be legally offered. Until the current bill, these bets were only tax regulated, with all possible possible abuses, but now they can only be arranged by recognised bodies after authorization by the Gambling Commission, which is a good thing. These provisions, in particular, also took into account the importance of horse racing associations, giving them the possibility to organize mutual bets on foreign racing.

The principle of hosting the bets at the Gambling Commission is a good thing. In this way, the King and the legislator can give the possibility to channel certain bets and thus prevent the risks that may be associated with them. It is indeed important that bets can be offered on a limited scale. Eventually, it should be watched that this does not happen in innocent-looking newspaper stores that, in a way of speaking, threaten to become disguised betting offices, because then there is a question of low threshold that could tempt too many people.

Second, the new bill also provides for the channeling of a number of new forms of gambling, in particular the gambling offered through the telecommunications means and by television and radio. This is also a step in the right direction. The choice of a system in which it was chosen to allow the arrangement of virtual gambling only to entities that also offer gambling in the real world is a good and realistic approach. The providers of this type of real gambling are known to the competent services and can therefore also be controlled. That means that all other gambling offered through information and communication technology is now illegal and prohibited, which is clear.

Also, the wild growth of gambling, offered in television and radio programs, is now clearly accommodated in the gambling legislation and are therefore also now permitted only subject to a prior authorisation of the Gambling Commission. In this way, it is finally possible to obtain arrangements for such games, allowing the unconscious TV viewer to possibly be protected against themselves.

Important in this regard for CD&V remains, however, that gambling games organized by local associations following an occasional event, for example an annual market, are not gambling games in the sense of the law and therefore may still be organized, though only four times a year.

I have a third point, Mr. Speaker. In order to protect players from themselves, the draft law now punishes not only the creator of the illegal gambling, but also the participant, insofar as he knows that he participates in an illegal gambling. The Gambling Commission may not only, as before, decide to withdraw the permit or suspend the operation in the case of established infringements, but can also impose administrative fines. That is a good possibility, with which the Gambling Commission must of course deal with the necessary caution.

Mr. Speaker, there are also additional safeguards included in the bill, such as the preservation of the use of credit cards when playing, not to mention casinos. The age conditions also remain important. Gambling can be practiced from 21 years old, betting from 18 years old.

These were some points from the bill that are important for CD&V.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, the human urge to play and gamble is of all times and will always exist. The idea of imposing a complete ban on gambling and betting was supported by some, but that would just have the opposite effect. By prohibiting any form of gambling or betting, people will look for illegal gambling circuits to meet their innate gambling needs. Then, of course, is the fence of the dam, because this type of circuit is controlled by a number of gambling creators who have the sole goal of making the greatest possible winnings, without any scruples. This situation should be avoided at all times.

By channeling a limited number of opportunities to practice gambling and betting, the government can continue to increase its responsibility in this regard and impose strict conditions to protect potential players from their own gambling urge.

CD&V is convinced that this is the only correct approach. The bill was discussed extensively in the committee, in a constructive atmosphere. It was even amended beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition. We will approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as other colleagues have already said, people have always played. Therefore, it is not necessary to ban games, but to regulate them.

Personally, I found the review of this project exciting, fun, sensitive, difficult. Difficult because it is obvious that the love of gambling exists, even if I don’t know it. There is the love of money, which is difficult to regulate. There is also the evolution of technology. It was the visit to the Gambling Commission that revealed interesting things to us: we saw how one could play on the internet to infinity using someone else’s credit card and make him lose a lot of money.

The scene was special. We visited the expanding casino in Brussels; we visited the Gambling Commission, on a thick afternoon, where we were told things both interesting and terrifying; we followed big drops to understand how one could manipulate the whole of these games. Finally, it must be acknowledged that the gambling industry, very present in commission, has been difficult to understand when one does not know it.

We understood that everyone wanted to regulate the games and protect the player, which should be the first goal of the project. We have heard the industry’s demands; we can understand that business profitability is a weighing argument for this important sector that follows very closely the evolution of this record.

We also understood the problem of taxes. I would like to tell Mr. Gilkinet that I read yesterday, the new government agreements for the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital Region. A chapter is really devoted to the assets. The word "game" is there; the terms "game on the internet" are there; there is a proposal for intense collaboration between the Region, the French Community and the government since we even talk about interministerial conferences on the subject. I do not know who inserted this phrase but I remind you, as Ms. Marghem said, that it is a competence of the Regions and Communities and that these entities have done their job. I am not afraid of the assets. It is not the Gambling Commission to set up gambling clinics.

Of course, clinics of the game, there are. But I don’t think that’s the role of a magistrate, who chairs a commission whose mission is to issue licenses and collect fines, to organize gambling clinics.

Thank you for referring to this excellent agreement to the French Community and the added value that the group has brought!

We are also part of this agreement.

I recognize it!

To return to your explanation, we never intended – ⁇ I expressed myself wrongly – to see the Gambling Commission become a gambling clinic.

In fact, there are two elements. First, it is about not washing hands in relation to situations that are submitted to the Gambling Commission. I think of the pathological players who come back unceasingly and who are not told to try to go to treat themselves, to appeal to bodies recognised by the Communities. It is simply about giving guidance but not doing the work.

Secondly, it seems to us that an observatory that allows us to have information on the evolution of this addiction and this addiction is lacking in the Belgian space. It should be implemented in collaboration with the communities. It should enable the development of best policies, where it is most relevant, in a framework of cooperation that respects each’s competence. This is clearly stated in the amendment that we have submitted and submitted.

I propose that, within the framework of an interministerial conference on the game as planned, all entities recall your good ideas!

I would like to make a third observation. The procedure we have adopted in parliament to vote on this bill is special, Mr. Minister. The circumstantiated opinion of the European Commission “make me worried” somewhat. However, it is not every day that a bill is voted in parliament which, in the state, does not appear to approve the European Commission! When we read this circumstantiated opinion, we find that this is an extremely heavy and binding procedure. Compliance with Community law is important; Luxembourg’s case-law is also. I feel that EU law and jurisprudence are evolving. If my information is accurate, a major stop in the matter is expected at the beginning of September.

Mr. Minister, I would like you to keep our committee informed of your negotiations with the European Commission. I think I know that you have an appointment in a few days with the European Commission to respond to this harsh opinion. At the same time, the Commission even says that the text would violate the provisions of the Treaty and in particular the freedom to provide services.

I am not completely satisfied with the legal certainty compared to EU law. I ask you, once again, to give us information about the state of your negotiations and the final judgment of the Commission regarding this bill.

We will also be very attentive to the royal decrees you will take to implement the entire project. If the European Commission should continue to make negative comments about it, it is obvious that the Senate should rework this text.

I am in favor of a coherent policy and, as you have repeated, you will explain to the Commission that your project is coherent, that it takes into account the protection of the player and that, in the general interest of society, you have made political choices.

I fully agree with you that you advocate these objectives; however, in the state, at the reading of the circumstantiated opinion, we remain on our hunger as to the fact that Belgium will gain cause to adopt the project. Indeed, as part of the special notice procedure, we cannot adopt legislation during this period, because the time limit is insufficient. It would be impossible to publish this law in the Belgian Moniteur before 30 July; we must wait for the latest instructions from the Commission. Then the text will go to the Senate, since a part falls under Article 77.

There was a lot of discussion in the committee on some difficult issues.

One of them would be the use of credit cards. The bill proposes not to change current legislation and stick to the 2003 compromise: yes to credit cards in casinos and not elsewhere, including their ban on the internet.

We have solved the problem of the exception of gambling that has been stirring parliamentary proposals for a long time; I think we have done well to dare to change the Civil Code. I no longer have a state of mind on this subject, even though the exception to the game, in Roman law, Mr. Giet, constitutes an important element and touching this article makes tremble. However, we are right: gambling debts must meet a particular regime and enter into a particular provision of the Civil Code.

The conditions for licensing are a difficult subject: what criteria must they meet?

We heard from representatives of the industry, we received a lot of mail on the conditions, the criteria, the distinction between Belgian and foreign bets, on what a bookstore can offer or not.

Thus, the lines of the project are good, but the Minister will have to be ⁇ attentive to the royal decrees in order not to violate and violate the major principles of Community law, i.e. equality of treatment, non-discrimination, freedom to provide services and I pass.

Belgium is right to strictly regulate this matter, just like Germany, but others do not do it at all. This is difficult because they claim to regulate online gambling, but the internet has no boundaries. When certain countries, such as Malta or Gibraltar, allow everything to be done, one can imagine that the effectiveness of this bill will have to be evaluated. Indeed, the Gambling Commission can impose fines and compel them to pay, but this will need to be studied in a European and global framework in order to know how to penalize those who do not respect the Belgian legislation, which transcends our borders.

Mr. Minister, the CDH will vote on this bill, but awaits specific news from the European Commission.

Does the government ask the word in this phase of the discussion, Mr. Secretary of State?

First, I would like to thank the reporters, Ms. Marghem and Ms. Lahaye-Battheu, for the excellent report, which provided a complete overview of the extensive discussions that took place in the Committee on Justice.

It also referred to the large number of amendments, namely one hundred and nineteen. Some speakers pointed out that certain amendments were not discussed in the sense of majority and opposition, but that there was an open discussion. All opportunities were available to discuss these amendments in an objective way.

I am also grateful for the commitment. They have been involved in this complex matter. However, some preliminary study was required in order to proceed to the discussion of the legislative texts.

Today, all speakers have agreed to the great principles of the law, although the approaches differ in terms of concrete measures. The main principles of this law on gambling are the regulation of these games, their control and the protection of players.

The vast majority of speakers commented on the European procedure. These are comments made by the European Commission and a request for information. Tomorrow there will be a meeting with delegates from the European Commission. It seems to me important that our Parliament sends a signal to Europe and that, through this law, it expresses our wishes to it. I will keep you informed.

I would also like to say that this is a framework law accompanied by royal decrees. Today, I confirm that the royal decrees will be presented and discussed in the Justice Committee.

One important note is whether the law goes far enough. Some speakers want to go very far, even with a total ban on internet games. It refers to Germany. The European Commission is very strongly opposed to this and in practice this rule is not applied in Germany. Apparently this is not feasible. There is no implementation of the rule.

Then we will find ourselves in the same situation we know today. It is therefore preferable to regulate and control this sector and thus protect the players.

There are also speakers who want to undertake a crusade against casinos. The casinos are an existing phenomenon and are being controlled today. The legislation on casinos has not changed.

Is the protection of the players sufficient or not? Important is the age requirement of 18 and 21 years. The age requirement of 21 years for categories 1 and 2 games is a requirement that still exists in a few European countries. In many countries it is 18 years. I think this is also an additional measure.

The age will also be checked via the Internet. There will be an identification and registration obligation. This also seems to me important.

The ban on access for gambling addicts is being extended. Also, family members, third parties, relief providers or OCMWs will be able to submit a request to prohibit someone from accessing certain institutions or even the internet. This also seems to be an important element.

Several speakers pointed out the cooperation with the Communities which have a very important part of their competence in this matter. I believe that further protocols with the Communities could also be concluded in the future.

Finally, I would like to point out that the aid groups that were heard in the Chamber Committee could appreciate the bill and found it a significant step forward.

Overall, I think that with this undoubtedly not perfect draft law we are still meeting the major objectives set by Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I have two comments. At no time in the committee, nor in this plenary session, I have heard any objection to our position regarding the total ban. One concrete element is that one can simply abolish the bank card. You can completely abolish the betting of profit and loss. This is technically perfectly possible, but one refuses to do so and I have not heard any reasonable argument for it. At this point we want to calmly adjust our vision. Per ⁇ the total ban in Germany goes even further, but in any case we want to exhaust the financial profit-loss possibilities. This is technically perfectly possible, but it is not done. I hear no explanation for that.

Second, there is a huge discrepancy between what is possible in casinos and what is possible in all other gambling establishments. We must all conclude together that casinos are very privileged compared to other gambling establishments. All forms of relaxation are possible there, in addition to gambling, to facilitate gambling, while one applies this very strictly and rigidly to other gambling establishments. That is not logical, that is absurd, that is Kafkaian.

Mr Schoofs, two comments. As for your first comment, the following. I will not go into the technical details, but it is still very important that the use of credit cards in the future is banned on the internet in terms of gambling. Credit cards will only remain permitted, as is now the case, by a 2003 law amendment in casinos. Credit cards are not allowed outside. I think this is very important. It also goes towards the opinion of the European Parliament.

As for your comment on the casinos, there is a clear distinction between casinos and other institutions. The regulations are completely different and the requirements are also much stricter. I think the threshold for entering a casino is also much higher. I disagree with your reasoning in your first statement. You have said that there are gambling halls on the coast and that they are disadvantaged by the advantage of the casinos. I do not understand that reasoning. We consider this as a whole and we bow to protect the player in all settings. We believe that separate protective measures and regulations are needed depending on the institution. I do not understand, however, that you think they want to harm the play halls on the coast versus the casinos. After all, the gambling halls have a lower threshold than the casinos and also pose a threat to the weak player. This must be approached globally. A global balance has also been found and a global response has been given to all the comments of the committee members.

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State appears to not want to distinguish between a bank card and a credit card. Indeed, with a credit card can not be played on the internet, but I didn’t say that either. I said that a bank card can be used. It is also a financial key that allows money to be wasted, allowing a gambling addiction to spread further, and allowing the gambler to become increasingly sick. The fact that the gambler is in an isolated environment... It is often about young people who are sitting in a lofty room, in a room at home. They can play uninterrupted gambling. I’m talking about young people 18 or 19 years old, or young people 16 or 17 years old who steal the identity card and bank card of their parents, if necessary, sometimes with violence, because intra-family violence has to do with that problem too. That is a first point.

The bank card remains. I didn’t talk about a credit card, because it can only be used in casinos.

Second, as regards the situation on the coast, I would like to point out to the Secretary of State that it was an amendment of Open Vld, which was not refuted by CD&V. His party has not contested this amendment at any time. In the end, it was the man who opposed it. In the explanatory note of the amendment it was stated that it is very difficult for the playrooms on the coast, in West Flanders, to compete with the casinos. Therefore, I refer to the Secretary of State only to the amendments submitted by his majority.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we do not resume the discussion held in the committee.

I wonder if Mr. Schoofs would prefer that the jungle that exists today, and the abuses that exist today, continue to exist because of the attitude he now adopts.

Mr. Speaker, we are the ones who want to go the most and who want the strictest regime, for everything and everyone. The casinos and online gambling, which leaves this majority still too much to exist. I would return the argument to the Secretary of State. The sometimes too soft and too soft options are not his. However, it is not those options that make the decision for us. No, we want a different regime, a stricter regime, a stricter regime, but that doesn’t happen.

Does anyone ask for the word?

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to have a further answer from the Secretary of State on whether or not a special majority should be acted.

Mrs Smeyers, we have discussed this in the committee. I disagree with your position. This is a legislation that has absolutely no fiscal intention and which, in my opinion, also has no fiscal consequences, unless the effect of regulating and eliminating the black and grey circuit in the sector will increase the general revenue of the various governments. This is independent of the technical aspects of this legislation. I do not agree with your opinion on this subject.

This is also the answer given by the Secretary of State in the committee. I also referred to the opinion of the State Council. This is a advice on another subject. Here it is also about the tax on the inverter, which explicitly states that the tax object is a federal matter, but that only the special legislator is authorized to amend the WIGB, the Code on the Income Based Taxes. I think the passage from the State Council opinion on enlargement also applies to this. I think this issue should be voted by a special majority.

I can imagine that this discussion has been held in the committee and that the Secretary of State remains with his answer.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Smeyers rightly says that this is a different sector. In principle, one could discuss that judgment, but here it is about regulating a jurisdiction that is truly federal and it is not about tax matters. There is a ruling from the Constitutional Court stating that this matter is federal. I think there can be no discussion about this.