SUBMISSION 23
Letter from Gordon Marsden MP to the Chairman
of the Committee
As Member of Parliament for a town which has
been at the centre of debate about the potential for resort casinos
in the wake of the Budd report and the Government's response,
I very much welcome your Select Committee inquiry, which is certainly
timely and I hope will be influential. I have read your broad
terms of reference and was particularly anxious to contribute
some thoughts in written form on those concerned with the potential
contribution of casino-development to the economy and on the social
impact of the changes proposed.
I believe that these proposals, so far as a
seaside town like Blackpool is concerned, need to be set in the
broader context of seaside and coastal town renewal and steps
that need to be taken to achieve regeneration for the benefit
of residents as well as businesses. To this end I would like to
submit for consideration as written evidence the recent enclosed
article I wrote for The House Magazine [dated 8 April 2002—not
printed] surveying the issues at stake and key questions to
be asked as to whether resort casinos can provide such benefits.
I have also enclosed a copy of a letter which I am currently sending
out to constituents asking for my views on the resort casino proposals
where again I try, as analytically as possible, to spell out the
questions that I believe any local authority, whether Blackpool
or whoever, needs to pose before granting planning permission
for any resort casino proposals that might be facilitated by the
Government's response to Budd.
I would also like to expand, for the Committee's
benefit, on one crucial issue at the heart of the current debate
in Blackpool—how the local community might benefit directly
from any such development. Your Committee will no doubt see a
range of projections as to the indirect benefits by way of increased
employment, projected visitor growth and spend, that resort casinos
might bring to Blackpool but these by their very nature will have
to be speculative and will not automatically address the concerns
of those who feel that the benefits so described will not inevitably
remain within a resort or—in terms of employment—automatically
benefit the existing local population. That is why there has been
so much focus on the potential to replicate the situation in Atlantic
City where I understand the State legislature has enabled a direct
levy to be earmarked from casino operators' revenue to benefit
community regeneration initiatives.
The difficulty I foresee in trying to transplant
this mechanism here is that the current UK legislative framework
offers little precedent for such hypothecation and it is an open
question as to how the Government might be able to or wish to
respond to such a proposal. It is of course possible that in the
wake of regional developments, including possible elected assemblies
in the North West and elsewhere, that in the future, say 5-10
years hence, there might be more legislative scope for such a
levy. In the meantime however, I believe it would be worthwhile
potential casino operators and local authorities (including Blackpool)
exploring together the possibility for a direct voluntary though
legally enforceable agreement, which would have the same effect
by earmarking a percentage of turnover, profit or a mix based
on a bottom-line flat annual payment for community use from the
income generated by such activities. These might be matters your
Committee might wish to explore in its oral sessions with witnesses,
as I believe that taking all sections of the community along with
any initiative for resort casinos would be a crucial element in
their success.
I understand that you have invited a team from
Blackpool Council to give evidence and will doubtless also be
wanting to interview some of the potential operators of resort
casinos, such as Leisure Parcs. I wish you luck in what should
undoubtedly be an extremely interesting enquiry and hope that
the enclosures and issues raised in this letter will make a useful
contribution to your deliberations.
Annex
COPY OF LETTER FROM GORDON MARSDEN MP TO
CONSTITUENTS
REGENERATION OF
BLACKPOOL
Thank you for your recent letter about the above.
I start from the assumption—shared probably
by the vast majority of Blackpool residents—that the town
urgently needs a major regeneration initiative to develop and
sustain its tourist industry and in conjunction with that major
new state-of-the-art conference facilities are needed. I have
said on a number of occasions that I would examine carefully all
and any proposals that came forward that looked likely to achieve
those aims. The Leisure Parcs resort casinos proposals have so
far been the most worked-out and ambitious of the various ideas
floated but the Council as the planning authority will need quite
rightly to evaluate them and any other proposals coming forward
with the utmost rigour. I have also said that to be successful
any casino-based regeneration scheme needs to carry maximum support
from all sectors of the community and address the issue of how
it would benefit social and community initiatives in the town
financially apart from any indirect benefits that might come to
local employment and the economy.
I should also point out that although the Government
has made it clear that it is minded to legislate to allow development
of the sort proposed by Leisure Parcs, it has not yet put forward
detailed proposals on this issue and moves to take the proposals
forward will now depend on changes in the law for which Parliamentary
time will have to be found—for good or ill, it will not
be an overnight process.
I recognise that there will be a number of individuals
and groups opposed on principle to liberalisation of gaming and
resort casinos. I respect those views, though I do not share them.
I suspect like the vast majority of people in Blackpool that my
views will be conditioned by the detail of what may be on offer,
and the framework within which the proposals are developed, as
well as the need to be as sure as possible that any initiative
will bring about the prosperity and regeneration desperately needed.
I intend therefore to continue, with my colleague
Joan Humble, to spend a great deal of time listening to the arguments,
talking to a wide range of groups and individuals and weighing
the points put forward. I hope that this is the sort of thoughtful
approach that most residents would expect on this debate.
Finally, I note your call for a referendum.
I am firmly of the view that any proposals for the regeneration
of the town should involve broad public consultation—and
indeed the Council, who are responsible as the planning authority,
have already undertaken a large scale exercise, the results of
which I understand will shortly be announced. It will then be
for the Council to decide what further mechanisms to ascertain
public opinion may be needed and cost and public demand would
clearly be factors here
While I am in favour of the broadest possible
consultation on this issue, a simple yes or no in a referendum
is not likely to provide it. The Council would have to consider
carefully the detail and practicality of whatever questions might
be posed. People's views are likely to be contingent on a whole
range of issues ie what alternative proposals are firmly on the
table, whether direct as well as indirect benefit can be assured
from any proposals and so on. I do believe that it is vital that
people are exposed to the full range of possibilities when being
asked their views on these developments in whatever contexts,
and I have argued as such right from the beginning of this debate.
Thank you for writing to me.
3 May 2002
| 
