Mediterranean Living

Casino saga that would shame a backstreet bookie

Daily Mail Comment
3rd September 2006


How hollow ring the words of the Prime Minister's chum Lord Falconer, who, back in 2002, promised that the sale of the Dome to corporate giant AEG, headed by American billionaire Philip Anschutz, would create 20,000 jobs.

How empty now sits the pledge from John Prescott that it would 'create a new identity for the Peninsula'.

Indeed, there are jobs to be had. But they are low-paid tasks filled not by a local workforce, but Eastern Europeans working illegally, using forged National Insurance numbers.

Certainly the area is getting a new identity - one dominated by the spectre of a Government in hock to Las Vegas gambling interests determined to secure the right to operate Britain's first super-casino inside the Millennium Dome.

Last week saw an inauspicious start to hearings by the Casino Advisory Panel, led by Professor Stephen Crow, to determine which of seven rival cities should host the giant casino.

************

Professor crow airily dismissed the fact that John Prescott was the beneficiary of hospitality and gifts of cowboy regalia from Philip Anschutz as a 'silly story', ignoring a blatant conflict of interest and the Parliamentary reprimand that it earned him.

And it was soon clear that the panel was not even-handed in its interrogations. Soft questions were directed at Greenwich Council, a supporter of AEG's scheme, while rivals such as Blackpool received a hostile grilling.

To further muddy the waters, an official from Greenwich Council is working part-time for AEG.

It would be nice to believe that this was part of the much-vaunted job-creation scheme, were this person's salary not already being met by local council taxpayers. His job is to help fill jobs at the supercasino, a task which seemingly entails providing work for the illegal immigrants that the Home Office has now caught during raids on the site.

The behaviour of AEG raises questions, too. A faked letter of support from religious leaders turns out to have been drafted by a woman previously employed as a tourism officer by Greenwich before being hired by the US firm.

Plans have been distributed of the 'casino roof', raising questions about why Mr Anschutz should already be so confident of receiving permission.

************

The government's obsession with supercasinos beggars belief. There has never been a public demand for them. The evidence is that they are a malign influence on those who can least afford to gamble.

For a Labour Government, whose roots lie in defending the most vulnerable, this obsession with foreign gaming entrepreneurs is distasteful.

To suggest that it is all in the interests of jobs and regeneration is disingenuous, while Professor Crow's defence of John Prescott's fraternising with Philip Anschutz and his panel's apparent bias towards Greenwich is unacceptable.

Plans for a supercasino should have been abandoned long ago.

If we are to be forced to have this gambling carbuncle, then at least make the process to determine who should provide it above reproach.