MANCHESTER has vowed to fight on for its super casino after the House of Lords threatened to wreck the plan in a shock rebellion.

Just minutes before MPs voted by 274 to 250 to support the city, and smaller casinos in 16 other places around Britain, peers rejected the package by a majority of just three.

The dramatic scenes followed a day of arm-twisting by culture secretary Tessa Jowell, who had attempted to woo rebels with the promise of a committee to discuss the next phase of super casinos – with the implied promise Blackpool would be next in line.

That seemed to have worked in the House of Commons, where the Conservatives had pledged to try to block the plans and 83 Labour MPs had signed an early day motion expressing “surprise and regret” that Manchester was chosen ahead of Blackpool. In the end only 18 Labour backbenchers rebelled and the government’s majority – 24 – was far larger than expected.

Confusion

But the Lords threw the situation into confusion by backing a rebel amendment calling for the vote on the site of the super casino to be split up from the vote on the 16 smaller casinos.

That could have a catastrophic effect on Manchester since it was the “bundling” of all 17 sites that kept many would-be Labour rebels in line. And since the package was a “statutory instrument”, and not a law, the Commons cannot simply override the upper chamber.

MPs supporting the Manchester bid – which would create more than 2,500 jobs in the city’s deprived eastern wards – suggested the Government could reintroduce the same order with the same meaning, but a slightly different wording, in the upper chamber.

Tony Lloyd, MP for Manchester Central, said: “This was a good day for Manchester, if not yet a great day.
“The Government has to go away and reflect but I don’t think they can accept being overruled by the unelected house, by such a narrow majority.”

Richard Caborn, sports minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), pointed out that the vote was carried by a “substantial majority” in the Commons.
“The House of Lords has decided not to carry it and we have to reflect on that, and look at what the Lords were saying, what their concerns were, and whether we can meet those concerns,” he said.

Mr Caborn insisted the Government had been right to refuse to allow separate votes on the supercasino and the 16 smaller casinos.
“This was a pilot of 17 casinos,” he said. “It was not an a la carte menu.”

Elected

Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester city council, said: “We won the vote in the more important place.
“Tessa Jowell has said she will reflect on this but since there is a clear will of the House of Commons I would expect that to hold sway before too long. I don’t think the Government will be willing to walk away from the decision of the elected chamber.”

But a spokesman for the DCMS warned late last night: “As Tessa Jowell said, there was no plan B. We will have to go away and look at this.”

Westminster sources warned last night that any attempt to resurrect Manchester’s bid in the Lords could yet be scuppered by Gordon Brown. The chancellor, expected to become prime minister later this year, is said to be less than keen on a “gambling explosion” and may now take a negative view of plans for all 17 casinos.

It is believed to be only the third time since the second world war that the Lords has blocked a statutory instrument supported by the Commons. The first was in 1968 over sanctions in Rhodesia, and the second over Ken Livingstone’s candidacy for the mayorship of London.
 

See Thursday's editions of the M.E.N for more analysis and reports.

What do you think of the shock vote? Have your say below.