Lords criticise casino criteria

Manchester is the preferred location for the super-casino

The selection criteria used to pick the sites for 17 new casinos has been criticised by a Lords committee.

It said there had been a "general misunderstanding" about the Casino Advisory Panel's aims.

The panel believed it had to find the best testing ground to gauge the social impact, possibly at the expense of more "common sense" issues, peers said.

The choice of Manchester for the only UK super-casino, ahead of Blackpool and London's Dome, proved controversial.

The city had been a 16-1 outsider to be selected as a test-bed for the UK's first regional "resort" casino.

'Best test'

The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, has been examining the draft Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007, which would press ahead with the choice of Manchester and 16 other smaller casinos.

The committee said the advisory panel believed its prime objective was not to select sites most in need of regeneration, but to find those locations which offered the best test of social impact.

"In essence the panel was selecting candidates for a research project Lords Statutory Instruments Committee report

"The panel appeared to interpret this as locations where the effects of social impact and regeneration were most identifiable and traceable," the committee found.

"In essence the panel was selecting candidates for a research project."

It said this explained some of the "less obvious" choices for smaller casinos.

'Well-to-do gamblers'

In the case of Bath, which was not in "pressing" need of regeneration, it offered "an opportunity to examine the impact of a small casino aimed at well-to-do gamblers in a heritage setting", the committee said.

Its report questioned whether an emphasis on the research process may have edged out "more common sense issues" like the pressing need for regeneration.

"These casinos will be closely monitored and if there is evidence they are causing harm, the commission can and will act to deal with that Richard Caborn

In the case of the Manchester super-casino, the advisory panel had noted it would not be easy to measure the impact in such a big city. But in deprived east Manchester, where the bid was focused - it would be easier to measure the effects.

However peers noted that, under the terms of the legislation, a city council, having won a bid, could then relocate a casino anywhere within its boundaries - which risked undermining the policy about testing social impact.

Peers were also concerned that not enough emphasis had been put on the need to minimise the harm from gambling, in the selection criteria.

Monitored

But Sports Minister Richard Caborn said the independent Casino Advisory Panel's recommendations had been based on "16 months of careful, objective analysis of the evidence".

On the question of minimising harm, he said the Gambling Act gave new powers to the regulator - the Gambling Commission - to regulate casinos.

"These casinos will be closely monitored and if there is evidence they are causing harm, the commission can and will act to deal with that," he said.

Lib Dem culture, media and sport spokesman Don Foster said the report raised "a number of important concerns" which needed "full parliamentary scrutiny".

The Lib Dems have also tabled a motion in the Lords which would halt approval of the super-casino licence until the issue has been considered by a joint committee of MPs and peers.

A list of locations will go before MPs for a three-hour debate and vote on 28 March - the government has said it will back the recommendations of the advisory panel.

But scores of MPs have signed a Parliamentary motion, lodged by Blackpool North MP Joan Humble, calling for the move to be rethought.