Gambling Bill — reasoned amendment on 2nd reading — 1 Nov 2004 at 21:46
David Ruffley MP, Bury St Edmunds voted in the minority (Teller for the Ayes).
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.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||133 (+2 tell)||0||82.8%|
|Lab||293 (+2 tell)||0||0||72.5%|