Government tabled its Green Paper on Gaming on Friday. Such a discussion paper is welcome and long overdue. Debate on gambling — and that is the accurate nomenclature as opposed to the more politically correct term gaming — needs to be held on the foundation of informed and factual information as opposed to anecdote and emotion. As Premier Dr. Ewart Brown notes, Bermudians have long had strong opinions for and against gambling, and still do.

This newspaper has long opposed the idea of casino gambling, but has taken the position that if gambling is going to be widened, it should be along the lines of the UK national lottery or, the Jamaican lottery, with the proceeds going to fund worthy community initiatives, including but not limited to social and health programmes to the arts and sports. This newspaper also supports the Green Paper's commitment to a review of all gambling laws and the consolidation of the Island's chaotic laws on the subject into one omnibus piece of legislation. Despite that, it is important to come to a debate like this with an open mind. Clearly, there are arguments for and against casinos, lotteries and other forms of gambling.

So having said that and having looked at the Green Paper in its entirety, it is regrettable that the Paper and the two studies that largely comprise it- the Innovation Group's study on gambling in Bermuda and the Task Force on Gambling's subsequent report — is fatally flawed. That's a shame, because clearly a great deal of work went into the studies. But because the Innovation Group was only asked to look at gambling from the perspective of improving tourism, its scope and perspective severely limited. Thus, a lottery is rejected, in spite of the fact that the report says it could raise as much as $17 million a year in revenue for Government (or a lottery authority) but because it would not directly benefit tourism.

With respect to tourism itself, a good deal of time is spent examining whether casinos would bring more visitors to Bermuda, but no time is spent questioning whether those visitors who now come to the Island would continue to do so. Or, to put it another way, could Bermuda actively differentiate itself from its competition on the basis that it does not offer gambling? That question simply is not examined by either the Innovation Group or the Task Force. The idea may not hold water, but it has been put up as an alternative and deserves examination. It did not get it.

Similarly, the task force notes that the opposition it expected to receive to gambling did not materialize and surmised as a result that Bermudians were more comfortable with the idea than they had been in previous years.

The task force used US studies, some sponsored by the gambling industry, to support the idea that gambling has become more socially acceptable. That may be so, but it would have made sense to survey the local population on that very question to ascertain as best as possible what people feel. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on the two reports. Some could have been used for such a survey. Instead, the report relies on conjecture; exactly what it was not supposed to do.

Similarly, very little time was spent on the question of "who should gamble" and whether a model like the one in the Bahamas — where residents cannot enter casinos — would work in Bermuda. The report notes that the Bahamas is reviewing its laws and may drop that rule, and adds that the committee does not believe such a rule would be found acceptable by Bermudians as a whole (is there anything in Bermuda which does?). Again, there is no research to back that view. What's of most concern is that the report's summary appears to misrepresent the Task Force's own recommendation. The Task Force recommends in its report a casino in Hamilton along with the offer of casino licences to Bermuda's six largest hotels. But whether by omission or commission, the summary of the Task Force's recommendations at the beginning of the Green Paper makes no mention of casino licences for hotels.

All of this is unfortunate. The Innovation Group report does outline the benefits of casino gambling for Bermuda tourism and does spend some time looking at the social costs of gambling, especially with regard to gambling addiction. And the Task Force does provide a reasonable assessment of the state of Bermuda's economy and does try to measure the benefits and costs. But neither report looks at the whole issue or discusses alternatives in any detail. It is not a basis for future policymaking.