A debate at Westminster Hall yesterday was entitled ‘Regional Casinos’ and had the objective of arguing the case for an increase in the number of regional casinos from the one permitted under the Gambling Act 2005. Manchester, Central MP Tony Lloyd said, “…it is in the interest of Britain as a whole that we increase the number of regional casinos, rather than restricting their number to one. That would allow a better scale of response to the experimentation that they represent.”

There is some support for increasing the number of regional casinos to the eight proposed last year before expediency led the government to restrict ‘super’ casinos to just one prototype in order to get its Gambling Bill passed before the General Election. The massive response from local Councils expressing a wish to host a regional casino in their area has led many to the opinion that one is not enough. Whilst Tony Lloyd was wanting to put the case for his own city, he pointed out that the Government has established a casino panel that will ensure that locations satisfy the need for the best possible test of social impact.

John McFall, MP for West Dunbartonshire, suggests there is a compelling case for having eight regional casinos to give local authorities unparalleled opportunities for local regeneration. Areas would be assessed by unemployment figures and other social deprivation figures, and a meaningful test of the impact of ‘super’ casinos would require a range of locations such as seaside resorts, inner cities and edge-of-town developments. Graham Stringer, MP for Manchester, Blackley, followed the argument commenting, “The logic of testing social impact implies a number of anything up to eight regional casinos, so that we can understand what would happen.”

One hour and twenty minutes after the Parliamentary debate commenced the Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, rose to speak. Whilst insisting that the Government is determined to take a cautious approach, he pointed out that the best way to test antigambling reports would be to have eight, eight and eight casinos – small, large and regional. He continued, “…we shall reconsider the matter if those on the Opposition Benches say that they will reconsider moving from one to a number between one and eight. It is right to move forward in that way, and we are still prepared to go in that direction.” He finished by saying, “To take forward regional casinos will need consensus across the House. That is the best way forward.” (E-03.02.06)

© Copyright 2006 CasinoCompendium



>>> return to archives
>>> return to frontpage