I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. Like every other speaker so far, I shall focus on the most controversial aspect of the order—the choice of Manchester before Blackpool in the Crow report. I was one of the serving members of the pre-legislative Joint Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I found that a very positive experience. We should look to more pre-legislative Committees to pave a smooth way for Bills through the House. The Government should take heed of that.
The pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee went on a couple of site visits. One of the most interesting visits that we undertook was to Blackpool, and another was to Great Yarmouth, of course. In Blackpool we could see the commitment of the council and the people to a super-casino. As a member of the Education and Skills Committee, I was impressed by the range of vocational courses being provided by Blackpool further education college ahead of the possibility that the super-casino might be located in Blackpool. There were not only good catering courses, but courses to train croupiers and so on. That was extremely positive and I hope that that facility will be used anyway, no matter what the final location of the super-casino.
As well as examining the evidence, the Joint Scrutiny Committee considered the term ““destination casino””. Then we moved to ““resort casino””. I was quite happy with those definitions, but when we got to the definition of a ““regional casino””, I was less happy. I prefer the term ““super-casino””, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) suggested, to the title ““regional casino””. Many, if not all, Members of the Joint Committee supported the principle of a super-casino on the basis that it was a way of regenerating a town on the periphery of a region that had few alternative strategic options available to it from a regional perspective. In that regard, Blackpool would have been an ideal choice. Many, if not all, members of the Scrutiny Committee would agree.
Such a location would have the added bonus of potentially reducing significantly the possible social impact of problem gambling, because most people would have to travel some distance to visit the casino, rather than having it on their doorstep. The spin-off, in regeneration terms, would be the overnight stays that would result, providing a big multiplier effect in regeneration terms.
As a former leader of Barnsley council before I entered the House, I take a keen interest in regeneration. Barnsley and Doncaster—the other town that I serve—are examples of the city regions model that is being developed in all the regions, with the aim of successful regeneration. Barnsley, for example, is on the periphery of the Sheffield city region and the Leeds city region. It is always more difficult for towns in such peripheral locations—the Barnsleys and Blackpools of this world—to be regenerated as successfully as big city centres such as Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester.
In settling on Manchester, the Crow report placed too much emphasis on the need to be able to test the social impact of a super-casino, and not enough emphasis on regeneration factors and the multiplier effect that comes from choosing a location such as Blackpool. Paragraph 116 acknowledges that factor in relation to the Blackpool bid:"““The fact that most customers would come from outside Blackpool and have to travel would be a deterrent to ambient problem gambling. The proposed central location for the regional casino appears to us to be a good one for it, and conducive to local regeneration””."
The super-casino represents a possible flagship regeneration project for a region. I would have thought that two of the major players in terms of regenerating a region would be its regional assembly and its development agency. Indeed, the report considers the opinions of those two main drivers of regeneration. Paragraph 110 says:"““The North West Regional Assembly supports the development of regional casinos in Blackpool, Manchester and Liverpool, with their preferred location for the single regional pilot being Blackpool.””"
Paragraph 111 states:"““The North West Regional Development Agency ‘strongly supports’ the Blackpool proposal on the basis that it ‘would help to restructure a much less diversified and weaker economy than its nearest rival in consideration, Manchester’.””"
The Secretary of State said that we have to accept these recommendations en bloc. As a member of the Education and Skills Committee, I remember a guy called Sir Michael Tomlinson producing an excellent report on the future structures of the education system. The Government did not accept all the recommendations of that independent report, but cherry-picked. I would say to Ministers that we must be consistent as regards recommendations from the independent panels that we set up and ask for reports. We must accept their recommendations en bloc or cherry-pick—one or the other. We are not doing that at the moment.
For my part, I am going to be consistent. I have major problems with the way in which the order has been handled, and therefore with supporting it as it goes through the House.
Betting, Gaming and Lotteries
Proceeding contribution from
Jeff Ennis
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 28 March 2007.
It occurred during Legislative debate on Betting, Gaming and Lotteries.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
458 c1581-2 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:18:58 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389135
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389135
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_389135