---

Baroness Byford: Is Amendment No. 22 consequential on the amendment that we have just agreed? I need clarification, as the two amendments are linked.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 22 is not consequential; it is grouped. If the noble Baroness would like to move it, it may be that it will not be opposed.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 1, line 14, leave out "knowingly permits" and insert "gives permission for"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may be helpful for Members of the Committee to be aware that the Government accept that, as Amendment No. 3 was pre-empted by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, Amendment No. 24—which was consequential on Amendment No. 3—becomes consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. We therefore consider that it was agreed in the Division on Amendment No. 1.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Transas Group Bill

Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.

Gambling

A message was brought from the Commons that they have amended the order of the House of 10th July appointing a Select Committee to join with a committee of the Lords to consider and report on any clauses of a draft gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown by leaving out the words "within the United Kingdom".

Courts Bill [HL]

Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.

House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.

---