§ Mr. Peyton
I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at the end to insertunless he proves that the prohibition imposed by the order was not, and would not on reasonable inquiry have become, known to the master".880 Continuing our happy mood of harmony, I move this Amendment in not only the hope but the belief that it will meet the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in Committee.
§ Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)
I thank the Minister for seeking to insert these words, which entirely meet the point I raised.
However, there is one very slight point of drafting at which I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would look with his advisers. I suppose it could not be argued that the condition that the accused person should say that the prohibition could not reasonably have been known to him applies only when he is charged on indictment but not when he is charged on summary conviction. In other words, it would be a pity—I am sure that the Minister does not mean it—that he should be able to say by way of a defence when charged on indictment and liable to a year's imprisonment that he did not know of the prohibition and could not reasonably have known it but that he should not be able to say that when charged on summary conviction and liable only to a lesser penalty.
I should have thought that as a matter of drafting those words might have meant that, but perhaps they do not.
§ Mr. Peyton
I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I will certainly look into the point.
§ Amendment agreed to.