With two votes apiece, a decision over whether to grant a gambling parlour permit in Senglea was deferred yesterday, as Cottonera residents continue to warn against the growing number of such outlets in their area.
Increasing the number of gambling outlets simply increases the pool of gamblers
The deferral was cautiously welcomed by social workers and gambling experts, who called the proliferation of the parlours “massively worrying” and said existing gambling regulations neglected social considerations.
Yesterday’s 20-minute Environment and Planning Commission hearing got heated at times, although the various parties remained civil throughout.
As both opposing parties argued the respective merits of their case, what emerged clearly was the lack of clarity when it came to classifying such gaming halls, with either side referring to different policy documents and insisting their interpretation was correct.
Senglea local council representatives were conspicuous by their absence, despite two lobby groups having challenged the authority to appear at the hearing.
The council has refused to take a position on the issue, saying it has full faith in the judgement of Malta Environment Planning Authority (Mepa).
Representatives for both the Friends of Cottonera Forum and Flimkien għal Ambjent Ahjar were present.
The two organisations have voiced concern about the socio-economic impact such gaming parlours would have on Senglea.
But objections along these lines were immediately shot down by the applicant’s architect Stephen Farrugia during yesterday’s hearing, who insisted “subjective moral perspectives” had no place at a Mepa hearing.
“The area is a tertiary town centre. If someone wants to invest in it, they should be allowed to invest,” Mr Farrugia insisted.
For his part, objecting architect Mariello Spiteri argued that the proposed gaming parlour was within 60 metres of a Legion of Mary meeting place and therefore contravened gaming regulations – something the hearing chairman conceded was outside the commission’s remit.
But while architects argued over technicalities, Sedqa social worker and addiction expert Manuel Mangani fretted over gambling permit trends.
“It seems a new gaming hall opens every week. It’s highly alarming and it seems little is being done to stop it,” he said.
Existing regulations have failed to adequately address social concerns surrounding gambling, Mr Mangani insisted, adding: “A good gambling policy is one that reduces, rather than increases, the opportunities to gamble.”
He argued that increasing the number of gambling outlets was likely to exacerbate gambling addiction problems, which had decreased over the past few years following the government’s 2009 decision to shut down several such parlours.
“Compulsive gambling is extremely addictive and hard to resist. Increasing the number of gambling outlets increases the pool of gamblers and subsequently the number of those who become addicted.”
The sentiment was echoed by a spokesman for Gamblers Anonymous, a Caritas-led self-help group that offerscompulsive gamblers support in overcoming their addiction.
Making a distinction between an average gambler and a compulsive one, the spokesman noted that “a compulsive gambler would have no problem driving from Marsascala to Ċirkewwa, as long as they got their fix.
“But we want people to know that help is there for those who need it.”