Pełne sprawozdanie z obrad

Wtorek, 14 listopada 2006 r. - Strasburg

18. Gry hazardowe i zakłady sportowe na rynku wewnętrznym (debata)

  Presidente. Segue-se a pergunta oral à Comissão sobre Jogos de fortuna ou azar e apostas desportivas no mercado interno, apresentada por Arlene McCarthy, em nome da Comissão do Mercado Interno e da Protecção dos Consumidores (O-0118/2006 - B6-0443/2006).

  Arlene McCarthy (PSE), author. – Mr President, I am not the author of the question but the Chairperson of the committee that is taking the question forward on behalf of Members. I want to stress that the members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection took a unanimous decision to table this oral question to ask the Commissioner for an update regarding the ongoing infringement proceedings against nine Member States concerning restrictions imposed on sports betting markets.

The committee would like the Commission to tell us in particular what progress has been made on the infringement proceedings launched on 4 April 2006 and what future steps are planned in this area. Is the Commissioner considering a legal framework for online gambling?

As we are on the brink of agreeing the Services Directive, we are well aware of the need for Member States to fulfil their Treaty obligations under Article 49 as regards the free movement of services. The Commissioner will be aware of the committee’s decision to remove gambling services from the Services Directive, not least because of the complexity of the gambling market. However, the freedom to provide services has in the case of the gambling sector clashed with national law in a number of Member States, which have introduced restrictive laws limiting the cross-border supply of online betting and gambling services.

We support the Commission in ensuring that these laws are compatible with Article 49, while respecting the rights of Member States to protect the public interest, as long as the rules are necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory, i.e. not discriminating against other EU operators. It is hypocritical, on public interest grounds, for a Member State to prevent other EU online operators from entering a national market, while at the same time allowing its own national online market to grow considerably while not applying those public interest rules. That is the issue we hope the Commission will address.

I would like to take the debate in a different direction. I believe that we need an EU response to the challenge of the global online gambling market. This is a market set to grow to a value of EUR 20 billion by 2010. In 2003, in the EU-25 commercial gaming industries, lotteries and casinos and betting services were worth some EUR 51.5 billion and there are some 2300 worldwide online casino sites. In the UK, for example, during the World Cup football matches, 30% of those making online bets on UK services were women. It crosses all classes and all generations. The rapid growth of online services and remote gambling and betting services has de facto already erased national boundaries.

However, let us not follow the US model of pulling up the drawbridge by enacting the 2006 Bush legislation – the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, making it a crime for banks to process or transfer funds via online betting sites. This is simply protectionism hiding behind a smokescreen of the so-called protection of consumers against gambling excesses. In reality, it is a law to stop foreign operators from competing or undermining the US casino and gambling market, while the States of Nevada and Las Vegas continue to develop their own online and remote gambling services.

I believe it would be good if the Commissioner, on behalf of the 25 Member States, would engage in the campaign to get an international agreement on standards and rules in regulating eGambling. This is one way to minimise the differences between not only the international community but also the EU Member States, to ensure in the end that all states opt in to high standards both for operators and consumers. The objective would be to ensure that we develop standards to protect vulnerable consumers, in particular young adults and minors, to engender a sense of social responsibility from good operators and investors and to ensure that gambling is not used as a source of crime or financing criminal activities.

The internet genie is out of the bottle: some 3.3 million EU citizens are regular online gamblers. This is a market that will grow. The EU should therefore be part of a wider international campaign for good and high standards. We need greater international cooperation to curb problem gambling and more research into the extent of participation in remote gambling. The study commissioned by the European Commission on gambling services in the internal market highlights the need to find common international standards and regulatory requirements that will protect EU citizens while allowing the market to operate.

I hope the Commissioner will feel encouraged by tonight’s debate to continue with infringement proceedings. However, in reality, it is a thankless task, which takes years to resolve, often not with a satisfactory conclusion, and I believe the best way forward is for the EU now to be a leader, driving good and high common international standards that can help minimise the differences, protect consumers and force the operators to be socially responsible.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, gambling services are clearly services within the scope of the Treaty, and Treaty principles, including those on the freedom of establishment and the freedom of services, apply to gambling. The Commission has an obligation to ensure that Member States’ legislation is fully compatible with the Treaty. Therefore the Commission decided in April to ask seven Member States for more information on their legislation that restricts the supply of sports betting services. The Commission has responded to a number of complaints from operators in the sports betting area.

Having met with the authorities of all seven Member States, my services are now examining the formal replies received from each. At this stage I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that examination. I should like to inform Parliament that I expect that to be completed in the next few weeks. Based on that examination I would put forward a proposal to the college of Commissioners on how to proceed. It would then be a matter for them to decide on the next steps.

In addition to the seven cases opened in April, the Commission decided, on 12 October, to send formal requests for information related to the gambling sector to three other Member States. Complaints from operators, to which the Commission is responding, relate mainly to sports betting services. That is why nine of the ten cases opened so far related to the provision of sports betting services, some of them online. However, in October the Commission also enquired about national legislation in Austria, which prohibits advertisements from casinos licensed and operating in other Member States. We also have concerns that Austrian legislation requires national casinos to protect only nationals from excessive losses, without having similar protection for foreign players.

As guardian of the Treaty, the Commission will examine all complaints that it receives. However, at the same time I do not underestimate the sensitivities that exist in many Member States on the question of gambling. Member States are fully entitled to protect general interest objectives, such as the protection of consumers. However those measures must be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. In particular, they must be applied to national and non-national operators in a systematic and consistent way.

The Commission does not seek to liberalise the market in any way, but rather to be assured that whatever measures Member States have in place are fully compatible with existing EU law. Member States are well aware of the case law of the European Court of Justice, which I expect will develop further.

The Commission accepted Parliament’s request to exclude all gambling services from the scope of the draft Services Directive. It was made quite clear to me at that time that the regulation of gambling should be left to the Member States. I fully agree, provided that such national legislation is compatible with the Treaty. In the context of the infringement proceedings I am willing to work in close cooperation with the Member States to ensure compatibility of national legislation with Community requirements and allow for appropriate and effective protection to be put in place, for example to safeguard consumers and to protect minors.

PRÉSIDENCE DE M. GÉRARD ONESTA
Vice-président

  Malcolm Harbour, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, would you allow me to make a point first, before you start the clock. According to the agenda, this debate was scheduled to start at 10.30. That was quite clear and I notice that a number of my colleagues made an effort to be here at 10.30. So I am disturbed to find that I missed most of the speech of my colleague Mrs McCarthy, because the debate appears to have started at least ten minutes early. I do not think that is acceptable, if I may say so, and I am sorry that your predecessor in the Chair has gone away. If the schedule for the day says a debate starts at 10.30, I submit to you that it should start at 10.30, even if there has to be a short adjournment.

Perhaps I could now move on and if you will restart the clock, please, I shall make my substantive points.

I very much welcome the fact that Mr McCreevy is here to address this issue and I am pleased that, under the leadership of Mrs McCarthy, we have taken an initiative that I hope will shed some light on this issue. As the Commissioner made clear, this is a highly sensitive issue and it involves many aspects of public interest. But nevertheless, from the point of view of the operation of the Single Market, which is also of overriding interest to us, the situation is, as you suggested, deeply unsatisfactory.

Clearly we await the results of your investigations but I suggest that, at the very least, it would be appropriate for you to issue some form of guidelines to Member States on their attitude to receiving applications from reputable and well-established gambling operators who simply want to be able to operate in other EU countries under the law of those countries, which they are perfectly entitled to do. One of the things you did not mention, but which seems to me to be rather extraordinary in terms of discriminatory practice, is that some Member States have tried to restrict access to those markets on the grounds that they do not want to encourage gambling. Yet at the same time those Member States are promoting participation in their national lotteries with billions of euros across Europe. Clearly that is entirely inconsistent. I believe it is sensible and good that the European Court of Justice has struck down some of the restrictions, but I think those guidelines will be important. As Mrs McCarthy said, in terms of operation and protecting the public interest respectable operations are extremely important.

The big issue that we have to face is online gambling. Whether Member States want to preserve a monopoly or not, the fact is that consumers are taking advantage of online gambling. I believe it is much better, in the public interest, that we have well-regulated online gambling services than uncontrolled services which come into Europe from other countries outside the remit of the European Union.

  Le Président. – Avant de donner la parole à l'orateur suivant, je vais répondre à votre motion de procédure.

Vous avez parfaitement raison, le débat était bien annoncé à l'heure que vous avez indiquée. Cependant, il a été précisé sur le site du Parlement européen, au début d'après-midi, que le débat pourrait commencer un petit peu plus tôt si l'heure des questions se révélait plus courte que prévu, ce qui a été le cas. Par ailleurs, les services de la séance ont essayé de joindre tous les orateurs. Ils ont réussi à les joindre tous, sauf vous, Monsieur Harbour, mais je pense que votre présence dans l'hémicycle ce soir montre que vous n'avez pas perdu grand-chose du débat. Cela dit, je me devais de vous donner ces explications.

  Donata Gottardi, a nome del gruppo PSE. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, "Rien ne va plus" è la curiosa apertura delle recenti conclusioni dell'Avvocato generale Colomer alla Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee, chiamata a pronunciarsi per la terza volta con riferimento alla normativa italiana sui giochi d'azzardo, dopo la sentenza Zenatti e la sentenza Gambelli, quest'ultima richiamata giustamente nei considerando dell'interrogazione orale in discussione.

È davvero importante conoscere non solo le risultanze da parte della Commissione ma le stesse iniziative recenti degli Stati membri che sono destinatarie delle procedure di infrazione e, appunto, i passi che la Commissione intende svolgere. Credo che sia anche importante che su questa materia vi siano regole leggere ma certe, anche coinvolgendo direttamente il Parlamento europeo: solo in questo modo si possono aiutare gli Stati membri esposti al rischio di richiami e valutazioni negative nel pur condivisibile tentativo di proteggere le persone, in particolare, come è già stato qui detto, i minori e i soggetti più indifesi.

L'esplosione dei giochi d'azzardo, delle lotterie e delle scommesse online è un fenomeno che non può essere lasciato alla liberalizzazione del mercato, anche se è evidente la difficoltà per quanto riguarda il principio di non discriminazione. Ricordo solo la direttiva "Servizi", che è stata già qui ricordata, che ella esclude proprio per motivi di ordine pubblico e di tutela dei consumatori.

  Toine Manders, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik dank de commissarissen en de collega's dat zij de moeite nemen om over dit toch spannende onderwerp te spreken. We hebben gokken en internetgokken uit de dienstenrichtlijn gelaten omdat wij daarover geen besluit durven te nemen. Het valt nog steeds onder de artikelen 43 en 49 van het Verdrag en op dit moment - dat blijkt ook uit de elf inbreukprocedures - bestaat er een enorme rechtsonzekerheid bij de lidstaten en bij de bedrijven. Hoe moeten we daarmee omgaan?

Ik ben blij dat de Commissie interne markt deze mondelinge vraag heeft gesteld. Er zijn immers problemen. Enerzijds is er het probleem dat het voor de lidstaten heel veel geld oplevert aan belastinginkomsten en anderzijds ontstaan er sociale problemen. Maar het voornaamste probleem is dat, indien op een markt waarin heel veel geld te verdienen valt geen goede juridische regeling voorhanden is, heel veel illegale praktijken plaatsvinden waarin criminele organisaties de bovenhand voeren.

Voorzitter, ik denk dus dat de politici, en ik hoop dat de commissaris het met mij eens is, de handschoen moeten opnemen en besluiten moeten durven nemen. Wij moeten ons niet overgeven aan de zeer wijze rechters in Luxemburg, die dan door deze zure appel heen moeten bijten. Ik vrees dat er veel meer arresten van het Europees Hof van Justitie zullen volgen zolang wij als politici niet de juiste beslissingen nemen.

Ik hoop dat de Commissie en de Raad zo ver komen. Zo niet, dan hoop ik dat het Parlement zelf met een initiatiefverslag komt om voor de rechtszekerheid te zorgen, die echt noodzakelijk is vanwege de vele problemen die er zijn, te weten verslaving, volksgezondheidsproblemen, zwart geld, witwassen, noem maar op. We moeten dit met een strakke, duidelijke richtlijn inzake gokken en internetgokken oplossen. Ik hoop van de commissaris advies te krijgen over de manier waarop het Parlement dit moet aanpakken.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group . – Mr President, I welcome the Commissioner's statement that we must protect minors. To do that it is imperative to take a long hard look at Ireland’s policy of having no age limit on gambling with the state-run tote. Children in Ireland are permitted to place bets at greyhound tracks and horse tracks if these are part of that tote. Other forms of gambling are limited to over-18s. Video evidence exists of Irish children as young as four years of age legally placing bets with the state-run tote. It is not uncommon for birthday, Christmas and first communion money to wind up in the Irish state tote and, ultimately, with the Irish Exchequer.

The Chief Executive of Horse Racing Ireland, when asked his opinion of child gambling in Ireland, said that it was no problem and that he wanted to develop the customer of the future. For years you, Commissioner McCreevy, as Irish Minister for Finance, refused to amend the Tote Act and outlaw child betting in Ireland. As Commissioner, will you now change your attitude and, at this late date, support restrictions on child online betting, at race tracks, in bookmakers, on airplanes and anywhere else that this insidious practice persists?

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, al bij de eerste stemming in de Commissie interne markt hebben we ten aanzien van de dienstenrichtlijn ervoor gekozen om gokactiviteiten, met inbegrip van loterijen en weddenschappen, van het toepassingsgebied van deze richtlijn uit te sluiten. En sommigen - ik verwijs naar hetgeen collega Manders juist zei - durven misschien geen beslissing nemen. Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat velen aanvoelden dat er best wat ruimte aan de lidstaten kon worden gelaten om op hun manier, aangepast aan de gevoeligheden en de situatie in hun land, volgens de eigen traditie met deze complexe materie om te gaan.

Het spreekt voor zich dat de lidstaten daarbij het Verdrag moeten respecteren en we kennen een aantal antwoorden van het Hof op een aantal eerder gestelde prejudiciële vragen. Ik hoop, mijnheer de commissaris, dat de vragen die zich nog stellen u niet direct ertoe aanzetten de Commissie te adviseren regulerend te gaan optreden. De Commissie is natuurlijk wel de hoedster van het Verdrag en ook wij verwachten dat ze haar rol ernstig neemt, maar ook dit kan met enige terughoudendheid.

De interne markt laten werken, dat is in alle opzichten nodig en positief, maar dat hoeft niet in strijd te zijn met de zorg om een afdoende bescherming van de openbare orde, van de veiligheid en de mentale gezondheid van de consument. Ik hoop dan ook dat er ruimte blijft voor de lidstaten die zich, al dan niet via staatsmonopolies, ervoor inzetten om de speldrift te kanaliseren, de eerlijkheid van het spel te bewaken en de financiële opbrengst daarvan, zo ze willen en zo ze kunnen, te bestemmen voor culturele, sociale en sportieve doelen. Duidelijke rechtsregels kunnen zeker helpen, maar wetgeving is daarvoor niet altijd nodig. Ik spreek hier zeker niet namens de fractie, maar wel namens een aantal collega's van de fractie die hier vanavond het woord niet konden voeren.

  Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE). – Señor Presidente, el juego no es un servicio cualquiera, es una actividad peligrosa. Peligrosa porque se está jugando con la inocencia e ignorancia de la gente. En la mayor parte de nuestros Estados miembros, el juego está hoy sometido a regulación.

No entiendo cómo es posible que, desde instancias supranacionales, se pretenda ahora imponer a los Estados miembros una liberalización de los servicios del juego, cuando la mayor parte de nuestras sociedades no la aceptan.

Recientemente el Congreso de los Estados Unidos ha prohibido el juego on line, y me parece que, en este momento, en la Unión Europea, deberíamos seguir el ejemplo norteamericano, por un lado, para proteger a nuestros consumidores frente a las organizaciones mafiosas y, en segundo lugar, para proteger a ese conjunto de instituciones sociales que hoy, en cada uno de los países miembros, se nutren de la actividad lícita, legal, del juego que permiten las autoridades nacionales.

Por tanto, desde mi punto de vista, yo creo que la Comisión hace bien en examinar el tema del juego, pero tiene que tratarlo desde el punto de vista de la protección de los consumidores y de la protección de las instituciones que hoy se benefician del juego legal en la mayor parte de nuestros Estados miembros.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar McCreevy! Sie haben heute auch einen äußerst anstrengenden Tag hinter sich, und daher geht es Ihnen nicht anders als uns, denn wir bemühen uns, die Sache in der notwendigen Klarheit und Kürze an Sie heranzutragen.

Ich persönlich bin der Auffassung, dass wir im Bereich des Gamblings und der Lottoreihen zwei verschiedene Elemente haben: auf der einen Seite den absolut grenzüberschreitenden Markt für Online-Anbieter, den wir nur europäisch regeln können. Der Kollege Medina-Ortega hat darauf hingewiesen, dass die US-Amerikaner für ihren Markt schon eine Regelung gefunden haben. Auch wir in Europa können für den Online-Markt nur eine Lösung finden, wenn wir ihn zusammen mit den Mitgliedstaaten europaweit regeln.

Auf der anderen Seite gibt es den Markt des traditionellen Glücksspiels und der traditionellen Sportwetten, der eher in schriftlicher Form abläuft. Wir sollten anders als in dem Vertragsverletzungsverfahren, das die Kommission – also Sie, Herr Kommissar McCreevy – eingeleitet hat, eher nach dem Prinzip verfahren, dass die Mitgliedstaaten, wenn sie wirklich effektiv Suchtprävention betreiben, indem sie ihre nationalen Monopole so ausrichten, dass ein möglichst geringes und möglichst verbraucherbeschützendes Angebot angestrebt wird, die Möglichkeit bekommen, diese Monopole – unter der Kontrolle und der Aufsicht des europäischen Rechts und der Europäischen Kommission – auch in Zukunft zu halten.

Es muss aber sichergestellt werden, dass durch das Monopol, das die Mitgliedstaaten auch schon bisher halten, wirklich nur ein Ziel verfolgt wird, nämlich die Suchtprävention, und dass die Mitgliedstaaten mit dem Monopol nicht andere Ziele wie beispielsweise die Sanierung öffentlicher Haushalte, die Sportförderung oder andere Dinge verfolgen.

Vor diesem Hintergrund würde ich mich sehr freuen, wenn wir – das Parlament und die Kommission – gemeinsam eine Regelung finden könnten, die einerseits eine europäische Regelung für den Online-Markt herstellt und auf der anderen Seite die nationalen Regelungen im Bereich der Monopole bei den traditionellen Sportwetten erhält, sofern sie binnenmarktkonform sind.

  Joel Hasse Ferreira (PSE). – Senhor Presidente, caros Colegas, a exclusão do jogo da directiva de serviços, nomeadamente as lotarias mas não só, parecia ter introduzido alguma clarificação neste sector, mas teremos que ir mais longe. Sabemos de alguns aspectos complicados que envolvem certos tipos de apostas e de jogos, pelo que é necessário, não só garantir a protecção dos consumidores, como assegurar uma eficaz fiscalização dos circuitos financeiros com ligação a estas actividades para prevenir ou combater o branqueamento de capitais.

É claro que não podemos confundir a adequada protecção dos consumidores com o indevido proteccionismo que algum Estado queira ou esteja a usar, mas convém em qualquer caso recordar o direito de cada Estado-Membro a regular o fenómeno do jogo a dinheiro no seu território, até aparecer outro instrumento legal no plano europeu, e os jogos on line mereceriam, neste caso, uma especial atenção da Comissão, como o merecem desde já do Parlamento, o que foi dito e evidenciado neste debate. Finalmente, congratulo-me com o facto de a Comissão do Mercado Interno e da Protecção dos Consumidores ter suscitado este assunto pelo que avançámos esta noite no seu esclarecimento.

  Jacques Toubon (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, je vais essayer de faire à la fois vite et lentement. Ce débat vient à son heure et, d'ailleurs, ce qui vient de se dire depuis quelques instants me paraît positif. Chacun souhaite que l'Union européenne intervienne autrement que par la seule jurisprudence. Cette question implique en effet un ensemble d'entreprises et de services: les casinos, les loteries et autres jeux de hasard par des voies traditionnelles ou par Internet. Cela va donc bien au-delà des seuls paris sportifs en ligne sur lesquels porte la question d'Arlene MacCarthy.

S'il est normal que ces services appliquent les principes du marché intérieur, Monsieur le Commissaire, il ne faut pas que la liberté rime avec la loi de la jungle! Pour des raisons d'intérêt général, de santé, de moralité et de sécurité, il faut réglementer et contrôler. Les États membres doivent pouvoir autoriser et contrôler des opérateurs publics et des opérateurs privés en situation de concurrence loyale. L'importance des jeux "transfrontières" oblige à dépasser cependant le cadre national. À cet égard, ce qui vient d'être décidé par les États-Unis est la démonstration que, faute de pouvoir contrôler ceux qui jouent et ceux qui font jouer, il vaut mieux interdire Il vaut mieux prendre trop de précautions que pas assez.

C'est pourquoi, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'approche actuelle de la Commission, qui repose exclusivement sur les traités et la Cour de justice me paraît insuffisante et dangereuse. Aujourd'hui, il est clair que la compatibilité des législations nationales avec les traités est un concept insuffisant. Vous devez, Monsieur le Commissaire, en collaboration avec le Parlement, mettre sur pied une législation dérivée qui soit susceptible d'organiser ce secteur fort important, tant sur le plan politique que sur le plan économique, d'une manière saine et rationnelle. Que ce secteur se développe soit, mais en toute sécurité pour les personnes et pour les États!

  Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα τελευταία χρόνια το σύστημα του κρατικού μονοπωλίου στον τομέα των τυχερών παιχνιδιών, που επικρατεί στην πλειοψηφία των κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, δέχεται όλο και περισσότερες επιθέσεις από ιδιωτικά κυρίως συμφέροντα.

Στη συνάντηση κορυφής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο Εδιμβούργο, τον Δεκέμβριο του 1992, το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο αποφάσισε, δεδομένης της αρχής της επικουρικότητας, να μη ρυθμίσει τα τυχερά παιχνίδια, αλλά αυτά να παραμείνουν στην αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών. Στην οδηγία του 2000 του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου, προβλέπεται η ρητή εξαίρεση των τυχερών παιχνιδιών από το πεδίο εφαρμογής. Το ίδιο ακριβώς προβλέπει και το σχέδιο οδηγίας του 2006 για τις υπηρεσίες. Δεδομένων των ιδιαιτεροτήτων που παρουσιάζει ο τομέας των τυχερών παιχνιδιών, το Δικαστήριο των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων αναγνωρίζει την αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών να ρυθμίζουν με τρόπο που αυτά θεωρούν καλύτερο την αγορά τους.

Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, ένας από τους σημαντικότερους λόγους των αποφάσεων αυτών είναι το γεγονός ότι ο τομέας των τυχερών παιχνιδιών περικλείει υψηλού βαθμού κινδύνους εθισμού, κυρίως των νέων, αλλά και διάπραξης εγκληματικών πράξεων, όπως απάτη, ξέπλυμα μαύρου χρήματος και άλλες, και -προσωπικά- θεωρώ ότι μόνο το κράτος μπορεί να δημιουργήσει τους μηχανισμούς ελέγχου, εγγύησης, αξιοπιστίας και διαφάνειας για την προστασία του καταναλωτή.

Τέλος, είμαι της γνώμης ότι εφόσον απελευθερωθεί η αγορά τυχερών παιχνιδιών, είναι ενδεχόμενο να καταρρεύσει το σύστημα στήριξης του αθλητισμού στην Ευρώπη, παρασύροντας παράλληλα δράσεις και ενισχύσεις του πολιτισμού και της κοινωνίας, όπως ο αγώνας κατά των ναρκωτικών, της εκπαίδευσης και της στήριξης ατόμων με αναπηρία ή ειδικές ανάγκες που έχουν κατά κύριο λόγο οικονομική βοήθεια από τον κρατικό οργανισμό τυχερών παιχνιδιών. Πιστεύουμε στην ελεύθερη αγορά, κύριε Επίτροπε, κύριε Πρόεδρε, όχι όμως αγνοώντας ενίοτε τους κινδύνους που ενέχουν τα ανεξέλεγκτα παιχνίδια.

  Othmar Karas (PPE-DE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Erstens: Aus ordnungspolitischen Gründen haben wir Glücksspiele und Kasinos von der Dienstleistungsrichtlinie ausgenommen. Das sage ich, obwohl ich ein klarer Befürworter der Stärkung des Binnenmarktes bin. Wir wollten aber nicht das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten.

Zweitens: Mit dem Glücksspiel sind viele Risiken verbunden. Deshalb sollte als Argument der Kommission für Vertragsverletzungsverfahren nicht nur das Argument des Wettbewerbsrechts und des Binnenmarkts herangezogen werden.

Drittens: Wir benötigen eine klare Definition. Was fällt alles unter den Begriff Glücksspiel, wenn wir darüber sprechen? Angesichts der unterschiedlichen Behandlung von Online-Märkten, Sportwetten, Automaten, Kasinos und Lotterien ist eine einheitliche Definition erforderlich, damit sie überall gleich behandelt werden, und wahrscheinlich auch ein einheitlicher rechtlicher Rahmen.

Viertens: Auch andere wichtige Bereiche, Herr Kommissar, wie der Verbraucherschutz, die Gesundheit, die Besteuerung, der internationale Handel, die Geldwäscheproblematik, die Suchtprävention, die Bekämpfung der Kriminalität und des organisierten Verbrechens sind zu berücksichtigen.

Fünftens: Fast alle Mitgliedstaaten regeln das Glücksspiel. Elf haben spezielle Rechtsmodelle, vier kennen ein begrenztes Lizenzmodell.

Sechstens: Staatliche Lotterien haben 2004 Verkäufe in Höhe von 63 Milliarden Euro verzeichnet. Das bedeutet eine durchschnittliche Nettoausgabe von 140 Euro pro Kopf.

Das bedeutet, dass – siebtens – ca. 33 % aller Einnahmen für good causes und Steuern verwendet werden. Bei einer Liberalisierung im privaten Bereich wären es nur 3 %.

Achtens: Der Beitrag zur Beschäftigung wird in der EU auf ca. 13 Milliarden geschätzt.

Neuntens: 195 000 Jobs innerhalb der EU können dem Verkauf von Lotterien zugerechnet werden.

Ich bitte Sie, diese Argumente bei der Beurteilung mit einzubeziehen.

  Brian Crowley (UEN). – Mr President, I should like to make one point. Much attention has been paid in this debate to young people and the effects of gambling addiction on them, and yet more people under the age of 12 are trafficked or forced into prostitution because of drug or alcohol addiction and abuse than the gambling addiction that is the subject of our debate tonight.

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. There is no specific Community legislation governing gambling. If and how Member States wish to regulate gambling services at national, regional or local level is therefore a matter for each Member State to decide for itself. But the general principles of Community law and the Treaty continue to apply and any national legislation must respect those principles. The diversity of national approaches can lead to legal uncertainty for service providers and their customers, especially where national legislation fails to respect Community law.

Tonight’s debate helps to illustrate once more the diversity of opinion with regard to gambling services. I am, of course, aware of calls for a specific Community regulatory framework for gambling services. There are equally strong views opposing such Community intervention. In my experience, the first requirement in trying to find a solution is to have a clear understanding of the problem and of the policy options available. The Commission recently published a study carried out on its behalf by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. The study illustrates the complexity and diversity of national regulatory approaches. Should Parliament believe that, over and above our efforts to ensure the application of fundamental Treaty principles, more should be done to ensure legal clarity, I look forward to hearing Parliament’s detailed views on what precisely the issues are that warrant Community intervention and what policy options would command a sufficient degree of consensus for a meaningful solution at Community level. In the absence of such a political consensus, legal certainty may ultimately only be provided by the European Court of Justice.

I should like to add just a few more words to this debate. Mr Harbour put it fairly succinctly when he made the point that there was a great deal of inconsistency amongst many of the Member States, against whom we are now taking some action. We shall probably be taking action against some more. If Member States, their governments and their legislatures want to have very restrictive laws on gambling, etc., they may do so on public policy grounds. But they cannot do the things that Mr Harbour has referred to. They cannot spend millions and millions advertising gambling services for their own national operators or their own national, publicly-owned operators. They cannot allow their own national operators and bar everybody else. If Member States feel, as some Members of this House obviously do, that gambling is a greater scourge than alcohol addiction, tobacco addiction and all these other addictions put together, then they should ban it for everybody and allow no gambling at all in their Member State. That is one option. Then nobody would complain. The Commission would not take action against them and no one would worry about it at all. But it is a bit hypocritical for Member States to allow millions to be spent promoting gambling and at the same time allow nobody else to play the game.

In all Member States gambling is regulated to some extent. The point made by Mrs McCarthy about international standards for online gambling is quite a good idea in itself, but first some form of consensus would be needed among the 25 Member States. We can start by getting consensus in this Parliament, but I do not think we will. I am certain that we will not get it in the Council of Ministers. I have about the same chance of getting consensus in the Council of Ministers and Parliament as I have of winning the lottery this weekend. Those would be the odds against it. So there is much to commend what Mrs McCarthy says, and if there was a consensus I would like to go in that direction, but my experience tells me that it would be very difficult.

If you read the executive summary in the recent study, which, if I am correct, comes to 51 pages, and save yourself reading the other couple of hundred pages, it does not come down heavily on one side or the other.

(comments off-microphone from Mr Toubon)

Well, I do not think my honourable friend Mr Toubon has read the report, but you can see from that how complex this problem is and the many different ways it is regulated. It will show you what a gargantuan task it would be to head down that road.

In my political life I have not been afraid to take on impossible causes and tilt at windmills and run into brick walls, but I think that if we did attempt some kind of harmonisation of this area, what we would end up with, if anything, would be the most illiberal piece of legislation ever to go through any House anywhere in the world, because it is not possible. I have recognised for a long time that there are great differences of opinion here, long before I came to this conclusion. I recognise that throughout Europe, and even in my home country, there would be very different views about this. Some people, I know, think that it is worse than drinking addiction, worse than tobacco addiction, worse than anything possible, but others do not. I know which category I fit into, but I think trying to get some harmonisation in this area is going to be a long, long process.

  Le Président. – Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (article 142)

  Louis Grech (PSE). – Xi Stati Membri ddecidew unilateralment li jintroduċu leġiżlazzjoni li biha jwaqqfu ċittadini Ewropej milli jużaw siti ta' l-internet tal-logħob ta' l-azzard ('gambling') imħaddma minn kumpaniji rreġistrati f'pajjizi oħra ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea.

Dan jikser il-principju li ma jkunx hemm xkiel għal moviment ħieles ta' servizzi bejn Stati Membri, kif ukoll id-Direttiva 98/34 KE li tistipula li qabel ma' pajjiż jintroduci regolamenti li jikkonċernaw servizzi ta' l-informatika, jrid jinforma lill-Istati Membri oħra u lill-Kummissjoni.

F' Gunju li ghaddq, b' risposta ghal mistoqsija parlamentari, gejt infurmat li l-kwistjoni giet suggetta ghal investigazzjoni mill-Kummissjoni.

Nistghu inkunu nafu f' hiex waslet din l-investigazzjoni u ittehdux xi passi.

Naqbel li wasal iz-zmien li dan is-settur li qed jizviluppa b' mod mghaggel ikun kopert bi stuttura legali li jkollha standards u regolamenti li jirregolaw b' mod serju dan is-servizz.

Regolamenti li jipprotegu l-konsumaturi u minorenni, u fl-istess waqt jiggarantixxi li operaturi serji jistghu joperaw b' mod liberu fl-istati membri kollha ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea.