Brussels, 13/02/2009 (Agence Europe) - Online gambling should remain a matter under national control because the Member States are better able to regulate the industry than the EU, according to most MEPs in the European Parliament's Internal Market Committee on Thursday 12 February 2009, adopting a report on this issue by Christel Schaldemose (PES, Denmark). A number of MEPs headed by Malcolm Harbour (EPP-ED, UK), however, believe that online gambling is a business that should be subject to the rules of the Internal Market and will therefore be tabling a “minority opinion” when the report is voted upon in plenary in the 9-12 March 2009 sitting.
Online gambling is easier to access than traditional gambling but can be a source of danger to children in several respects and threaten the integrity of sports competitions. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, however, Internal Market rules should not form the basis of regulations for online gambling, explains the own initiative report by Christel Schaldemose, approved by 32 to 10 (no abstentions). Some 400 amendments to the draft report were lodged.
The report as adopted on Thursday calls on the Council of Ministers (which represents the Member States) to seek “a potential political solution” to the problems of online and traditional betting and gambling. Studies and proposals, submitted by the Commission at the request of the Council, could identify “common objectives” and a “common proposal” to enable action to be taken to solve the social and public order problems arising from cross-border online gambling such as gambling addiction and misuse of personal data or credit cards. Joint measures could be envisaged to tackle risks relating to illegal betting behaviour and match-fixing, says the report. It also backs the development of standards for online gambling as regards age limits, a ban on credit and other measures and information to protect vulnerable gamblers, such as children and gambling addicts. Regarding advertising, MEPs believe self-regulation is not enough. Instead they stress the need for both regulation and cooperation between industry and the authorities. They say that practical solutions should also be examined for limiting the danger of bettering large sums of money. A maximum amount per moth that a person can spend on gambling could be laid down or online gambling operators could be obliged to make use of pre-paid cards that would be sold in shops, says an amendment tabled by Toine Manders (ADLE, the Netherlands).
The vote on Thursday reflects MEPs' concerns abo8ut the deregulation of gambling, which is by far the most important source of income for sports organisations in many Member States. They also note that bets taken by private operators are a form of commercial exploitation of sports events. They recommend that governments protect sporting competitions from any unauthorised commercial use and take steps to ensure fair financial returns to the benefit of all levels of professional and amateur sport.
The coordinator of the EPP-ED group, Malcolm Harbour, announced that a minority opinion would be tabled at the plenary vote, scheduled for the 9-12 March 2009 session, because of divisions of a mainly national character. He himself had signed or co-signed most of a number of amendments putting the emphasis on compliance with Internal Market rules and judgments of the European Court of Justice, but these were rejected. The minority in question argues that gambling is an economic activity to which Internal Market rules should apply, notably freedom of establishment and the freedom to supply services, but that non-discriminatory access to national markets for operators which meet the requirements should be guaranteed by Member States under Article 43 and 49 of the Treaty. It also believes that the dangers of online gambling, especially the consequences for consumers such as addiction, are unproven. According to the same MEPs, Court of Justice rulings and the ten infringement proceedings under way against Member States show that measures taken by some Member States do not comply with EU law and a clarification of national and EU powers is required. (O.L./trans.fl)