Labour has been left licking its wounds after a backbench revolt over its plans to liberalise gambling.

The Gambling Bill was passed on Monday night by 286 to 212, a government majority of just 74.

A heated debate saw Labour backbenchers queuing up to criticise the plans, fearing the measures would see people living in poorer areas losing out to giant multinational companies.

During the second reading vote, the Tories and Liberal Democrats were joined by 29 Labour MPs in voting against the proposals, while many others abstained.

Downing Street said on Tuesday that ministers would listen to concerns during the committee stage of the bill's passage through the Commons.

"Tessa Jowell has emphasised that she is open to practical suggestions, but they do have to be practical," the prime minister's official spokesman said.

Modernisation

In the Commons debate, the culture secretary had defended the government plans.

But Jowell said that she will consider "constructive" suggestions to amend the legislation.

The minister insisted the plans would modernise out of date legislation.

She said the plans would establish "a well-considered and robust framework" for gambling.

And she slammed the Conservatives for their "opportunism" in opposing the legislation.

She said the proposals had been developed over a five year period and "until very recently there was cross-party consensus for reform".

"But as is so often the case, consensus in dealing with what is a difficult contemporary social issue was replaced by the opportunism of the passing bandwagon," she said.

Jowell told MPs that every proposal to strengthen the bill will be considered "on its merits".

She also accepted that ministers "need to make sure that our desire to give adults freedom to gamble if they wish is not at the cost of children or the vulnerable".

Snobbery

However she came in for criticism from senior backbenchers Frank Dobson and Donald Anderson for her observation that there was a "whiff of snobbery" about the views of bill's opponents.

"I do not know whether I fall into the category of an opportunist or a snob, but I would certainly accept do-gooder as the definition of someone who tries to do good in this matter," Anderson said.

And former health secretary Dobson described the measures as "bad for the country, bad for hard-working families and bad for the party".

"It is the worst possible political combination, it is both wrong and unpopular," he said.