HC Deb 11 June 1920 vol 130 cc784-5
Mr. REMER

I beg to move, to leave out Clause 2. I do not think the Clause is necessary in the Bill. It will lead to very great litigation and trouble, and it seems to me that this definition of what is ready money football betting business is not desirable to be put in the Bill.

Amendment not seconded.

Motion made, and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir H. Norris.]

Mr. REMER

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

I think it is a piece of class legislation, and that to attempt to pass a Bill of this kind, dealing only with football and not with the whole problem of betting, is against the interests of the country. Whether betting is good or desirable or bad is one question which ought to be dealt with as a problem by itself, and we ought not to attempt to deal with the problem of betting without rhyme or reason in one solitary game. I know of similar things which are going on in other games. I think it is desirable that this class of legislation, which I might almost describe as sentimental legislation, and which is not in the best interests of the country, should not be encouraged, especially on a Friday afternoon, when there are very few Members in this House. I think it is desirable that the problem should be dealt with as a whole. I can see no reason, and I have heard no reason, why this legislation has been brought forward, and I beg to submit that the Bill is wholly against the best interests of this country.

Amendment not seconded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.