The aye-voters supported a 'reasoned amendment' opposing the Second Reading of the Gambling Bill for the specific reasons stated, principally that the bill was too permissive and would have led to an increase in gambling addiction. Had it passed, the amendment would have killed the Gambling Bill. When it failed the House still had to take a formal vote on whether the Bill should pass the Second Reading stage.

The full text of the amendment was:

"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Gambling Bill since it fails to take account of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Draft Bill with regard to regional casinos; consequently fails to impose adequate controls on the number and location of such casinos and on the number and type of gambling machines contained; does not give local authorities sufficient powers to reject specific casino applications; opens the door to an influx of overseas-owned super casinos in our towns and cities, close to where people live; and is likely to promote gambling and lead to further diversion of funds from the National Lottery, severe disadvantage to the existing UK gaming industry and a significant increase in problem gambling."

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 293.

The aye-voters passed the 'Second Reading' of the Gambling Bill and ensured that it moved on to the next stage. The main thrust of the bill was to deregulate the gambling industry and allow for a number of 'supercasinos' to be opened, though it also tightened up some regulations, mostly in uncontentious ways.

A 'no' vote in this division would have had exactly the same effect as an 'aye' vote in the reasoned amendment that preceded it, namely to kill the bill, but without sending the message that it was being killed for the specific reasons stated in that amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 212.

Before the Gambling Bill, casinos could only allow people in after they had become members, for which they had to prove their age and identity, and wait 24 hours. The Bill removed these restrictions. MPs voting No here defeated an amendment that would have meant casinos still had to check the age and ID of people coming in.

The Gambling Bill gave power to the Minister to ban children from using 'Category D' gaming machines, i.e. arcade games such as the crane and "penny push". MPs voting No defeated an amendment to remove this power. Those in favour of the amendment argued that the power, even if unused, would prevent investment in these machines by arcade owners. The government stated the power would only be used if evidence emerged that such games harmed children.

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 211.

Those voting Aye passed the Third Reading of the Gambling Bill. This completed the Bill's passage through the House of Commons. It would now become law subject to the agreement of the House of Lords and any amendments they made.

The main thrust of the bill was to deregulate the gambling industry and allow for a number of 'supercasinos' to be opened, though it also tightened up some regulations, mostly in uncontentious ways. In earlier stages it had been studied and modified by a committee of MPs and also by the whole house.

Later, during the Lords' consideration of the Bill, the government accepted an amendment reducing the number of supercasinos from 8 to 1.

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 38.

The majority Ayes approved the motion:

That the draft Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.