text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Gambling Bill - reasoned amendment on 2nd reading
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  <p>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 <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-11-01&number=297">formal vote</a> on whether the Bill should pass the Second Reading stage.</p>
  
  <p>The full text of the amendment was:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
  <p>"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."</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 183, Noes 293.</p>
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  