HL Deb 15 November 1934 vol 94 c468

Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (4).


My Lords, the object of subsection (4) was to make it clear that Clause 3 of the Bill does not supersede the Betting Act, 1853, in the application of that Act to unlawful pari-mutuel betting. On further consideration, the Government have reached the conclusion that subsection (4) is unnecessary from a drafting point of view and that if it remained in the Bill its existence might be used to support an invalid argument that the Betting Act, 1853, in some way qualified the authority conferred by Clause 10 of the Bill to operate and effect betting transactions with a totalisator established on a dog racecourse in pursuance of Clause 10. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.

Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.