Apparently the Commons motion expressing surprise and regret over the choice of Manchester for Britain’s first regional casino has now been signed in support of Blackpool by 66 Members of Parliament coming from all three major political parties. The Early Day Motion asks the government to reconvene the joint expert scrutiny committee that originally examined the draft gambling bill, in order for it to assess the conclusion arrived at by the Casino Advisory Panel in its selection of location for the super casino.

Should such an assessment be needed for the regional casino licence, then it surely follows that all the CAP choices should be open for debate and there was little point in the whole exercise that led up to the announcement of the 17 new casino hosts. The government has already expressed itself as unlikely to interfere with the CAP recommendations. After all, as Minister for Sport and Gambling Richard Caborn commented in 2005, CAP was appointed for ‘its wealth of experience’ and ‘the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity’.

In the emotional aftermath of CAP’s announcement on 30 January, one important fact seems to have been largely overlooked in the rhetoric supporting Blackpool’s claim to the title. In that same statement in 2005, Richard Caborn continued, ‘Our priority is to get a proper assessment of the social impact new types of casino will have, particularly on problem gambling.’ Using the argument that problem gambling would be less likely to have a negative social effect at a resort casino like Blackpool must defeat the object of a prototype regional casino.

Blackpool, a now fading seaside destination in the northwest of England, is frequently compared to Atlantic City before the arrival of casinos. It would be the perfect choice to build a destination casino resort, and it cannot be denied that it would benefit greatly from the regeneration such a development would bring. However, for quantifying the amount of negative social impact the huge jackpot gaming machines will bring it cannot compare with inner city locations. Support for Blackpool puts the need for regeneration in other regions at risk, as no complete study on social impact could be undertaken, but those championing its cause seem to be missing that point.

CAP appears to have closely followed the brief given to it by the government and to have made a responsible and intelligent choice. It was always evident that examining the social impact would be more important than examining regeneration effects and an attempt to reverse that priority should not succeed. Placing a Vegas-style casino in the heart of a deprived inner city area, where impulse gambling will be a factor, should give a truer picture of whether the benefits of such casinos outweigh the negative aspects.

It is understandable that MPs, religious groups and others are concerned for those unfortunate people with a personality disorder that leads them to gambling addiction, but casinos are not the cause of the illness. Support for Blackpool rests mostly on the factors of regeneration and fewer problem gamblers, both worthy causes, but if the CAP decision is overturned in favour of Blackpool the prospect of reaching a balanced assessment of the actual social impact of super casinos will have received a setback. (E-02.14.07)

© Copyright 2007 CasinoCompendium



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