UK Parliament / Open data

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

Proceeding contribution from Joan Humble (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 28 March 2007. It occurred during Legislative debate on Betting, Gaming and Lotteries.
My hon. Friend highlights how difficult it is for us in the brief time available to try to analyse in detail the casino advisory panel’s report. He and I should not be comparing the respective bids of our constituencies; that should have been done in the context of a Committee set up for that purpose, which could have taken evidence and questioned Professor Crow about his assertions. The report was full of assertions, with language such as ““I believe that”” or ““We feel that””. On an issue as important as this, I want more than that. We need an assessment of evidence and as firm a conclusion as possible. We did not have that in the report. I disagreed with Professor Crow’s conclusions, but he could have had better advice. The Merits Committee pointed out that he addressed the issue of profitability, which did not fall within his remit, although the Committee accepted that it was a matter of common sense for him to consider it. In Professor Crow’s assessment of Blackpool, he says that the"““regeneration benefits of the proposal before us are unproven””." But that is true of all the bidders for the super-casino, because we have never seen one. No locality could prove its claims, but why did he say that about Blackpool? From my recollection, he did not say it of any of the others. He appears to have marked down Blackpool on all his subheadings, including methodology and location. The most condescending and indeed hurtful remark in Professor Crow’s report, however, was about the economy of Blackpool. He said that he did not accept that our economy was declining, in spite of the overwhelming evidence given to him by the very large numbers of people who appeared in the public evidence session. He said that he believed that there would be"““stabilisation at a lower level””." He went on to say that"““this may well include the management of contraction. If so, this situation should be resolutely faced by the authorities and local businesses alike without visions of external intervention to cure all ills.””" How dare he say that? What we were bidding for was absolutely the most appropriate external intervention in Blackpool. We have an economy that is built on leisure and tourism. Where else should there be a super-casino but by the seaside in Blackpool? Yet Professor Crow says that we should not look for external intervention, but that Manchester was already regenerated.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
458 c1576-7 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top