Futher memorandum from Councillor Steven
Bate (DGB 119)
Many residents from our various groups linked
with the Coalition Against Gambling Expansion have asked me to
write regarding some "evidence" offered to you.
They object to a claim made by Mr Anthony Jennens.
He claimed that those concerned about "large", "resort"
or "destination" casinos only did so out of "self
interest . . . moral or religious grounds". This is not correct,
our concerns and the safeguards we recommended are based on reports
by National Economic Research Associates, and The Gambling Impact
Literature Review by Jennifer Borrell, plus many other respected
economic and academic research reports.
At the time of writing our recommended safeguards,
we were unaware that so many others shared our concerns. We were
aware of the small number, but influential connections of, those
seeking to profit from Vegas style slot machines. However we were
not aware that the economic case for their proliferation was so
weak.
A lot of smoke and a number of mirrors seem
to have been brought down from the North West. In his "evidence"
Mr Jennens one moment agreed with us, that "proliferation,
problem gambling, convenience gambling and the question of cut-throat
competition and crime would be undesirable" and be caused
by small casinos in city centres.
A moment later he wrongly suggested it would
not have those negative effects, if it were in a "resort"
or "destination" casinos in Blackpool. Mr Jennens' evidence
would appear to lack credibility. The three, four or five "destination"
casinos proposed for Blackpool would be "convenience"
casinos for around 20,000 residents who live within walking distance
of them. Do not forget the 11 million tourists who walk through
that area every year. They would also be convenient for 250,000
Fylde Coast residents that live within a short bus or tram ride
of them. We are very concerned that Council and Regional Development
Officers are attempting to mislead Parliament.
One moment it is suggested that over 70% of
the casino visitors are expected to be from outside the North
West Region. The next moment you are correctly told that if large
casinos are allowed in Manchester and Liverpool, then the whole
Blackpool proposal will never happen. All of the evidence indicates
that a very large percentage of the resort casinos profits will
come from the seven million people who live within a two-hour
drive.
You have been told that without some degree
of gambling exclusivity or planning priority, Blackpool is finished
as a tourist town. However Blackpool Councillors and key community
representatives have been told that everything important in the
Masterplan can and will happen with or without the large casinos
(but it will take longer without the casinos).
We are concerned that you have been told that
public funds have to be used to create an infrastructure around
the proposed resort casino sites, to draw in the private casino
investment money. However Councillors and the local public were
told (by the economic development officer) it would be illegal
for any public money to be used towards any casino development.
For four years the local public were told that
a share of the large casino profits would be directed to community
projects. Much was made of the $Millions spent on regional elderly
welfare services from Atlantic City casino profits. The public
have not yet been told that actually the resort casinos will not
come unless casino gambling tax is halved, and there is no specific
casino profit money for local services at all.
The local public have been told that, because
the resort casinos will be Vegas scale attractions, lots of other
"non gambling attractions" will want to develop near
them. In fact after four years of such publicity not one single
developer has made public any proposals to develop an independent
hotel, retail centre, family attraction, restaurant or similar
near to a resort casino.
Mr Haslam has encouraged the local media to
repeat hundreds of times over four years that casino developers
want to regenerate Blackpool and other leisure developers want
to develop near the resort casinos. Now he correctly tells you
that they would prefer to be in Manchester and Liverpool and a
complicated series of regional planning rules and public money
incentives are needed to direct them to Blackpool.
Other evidence has emerged in recent weeks to
indicate what the Vegas people really want—low gambling
tax, cheap land, few planning or licensing restrictions or safeguards
to hold back their aggressive marketing plans, and as many grants
as they can get their hands on.
The public that we are in contact with are very
concerned to read the news (via your website evidence) of Reg
Haslam's latest proposal. His idea for mostly public money to
be used to build "resort casino shells" is a shock.
For the Council via (we assume) the new Urban Regeneration Company
to speculate with public money as to the long term rental value
of casino operation leases is of great public concern.
We feel this is the time to ask you to read
up on the cost to the council taxpayers of Lancaster and Morecambe
of the infamous "Blobbygate scandal" that Mr Haslam
was very involved in. Also that the senior council officer who
spent two years putting together the plan and bid for an integrated
light rail/tram system for the Fylde Coast resigned because of
Mr Haslam's "lack of interest in and commitment to local
public transport". We also have evidence that Mr Haslam told
three major "non gambling" tourist attraction developers
to look elsewhere, as all the potential sites in central Blackpool
were reserved for potential resort casinos. Rather than being
a credible witness assisting your Committee and Blackpool residents,
Mr Haslam has failed to understand how long it takes to get legislation
through Parliament, or for other reasons, he has in fact delayed
the regeneration of central Blackpool for five years.
There would be great public concern if Parliament
enabled a situation to arise where public money was used via various
quangos to develop resort casinos. The Regional Development Agency
would be part controlling the funding and planning. The Council
would own the land and virtually the buildings. It would be asking
itself for planning permission. It would be asking itself (or
for lease holders) for entertainment and licensing approvals.
It would be setting its own licensing conditions. It would be
expected to enforce licensing conditions on itself or its most
important clients.
Councillors who were directors of the Urban
Regeneration Company would be excluded from relevant parts of
meetings. So other councillors could not question them about the
many issues that would crop up if the Council were landlords to
the town's largest employers (25,000 allegedly).
Some of our contacts are of the opinion that
this "build shells and lease out the space to casinos"
is a last gasp idea to salvage a concept that has always been
very high risk. It has certainly not been discussed by the Tourism
and Regeneration scrutiny committee, or the Development Control
Committee, or at any public consultations, or in the local media.
Mr Haslam has ensured that the new Local Plan
places no responsibility on those seeking planning approval for
resort casinos to research, or make any provision for, the potential
negative economic and social costs that each casino may cause
to its clients or community stakeholders.
We are concerned that your committee has hardly
questioned the central issue of resort casinos as a viable regeneration
tool. On libertarian grounds there is a case that allowing many
extra slot machines is an easy way of raising extra tax revenue.
With the probability that e-gambling could grow and wipe out many
options, the case is weak and the gamble is risky that any long
term regeneration would be enabled by any UK building full of
slot machines.
It would appear that nobody within DCMS, The
Gambling Commission or local or regional planning bodies has thought
through, the various economic and social impacts of all the various
sizes and numbers of casinos: that could be allowed. We would
ask you to discuss the additional evidence that has appeared in
recent weeks.
— The Blackpool Social Services Youth
Offending Team has called in Gamcare to help them, following research
that 20% of local youth offenders have a serious gambling dependency.
— Confirmation that 8,000 football
pools jobs were lost in Liverpool when government encouraged the
aggressive marketing of the Lottery.
— Confirmation that 15% of bingo club
takings and jobs were lost when government encouraged the mass
marketing of scratchcards.
— The Bingo Association estimates that
30% of their takings, halls and jobs will be lost if government
allows the aggressive marketing of Vegas style slot venues.
— The gambling industry has not attempted
to disprove the NOP survey that 93% of UK residents do not support
the notion that we need more gambling opportunities such as Vegas
style casinos.
— No viable counter case has been offered
to dispute the concerns raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Unless we have missed it, you also appear to
have not requested or obtained any independent evidence of the
percentage of revenue that these proposed casino slot machines
will obtain from pathological gamblers. If it is 40% or 30% how
can any of these proposals proceed?
For the 93% sceptical of the need for Vegas
style slot sheds.
February 2004
| 
