§ Mr. RossI beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 24, line 20, at end insert:
Provided that it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under this section if he proves that at the time he so 1499 passed or permitted to be passed the matter or substance concerned he did not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that it would be likely to have the aforementioned effects.When the Bill was in Committee we considered proposed Amendments by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) to import into the Clause a qualification to the effect that an offence would be committed only if polluting matter were passed knowingly into the sewerage system. The important word is "knowingly". While accepting in principle that something of the sort was desirable, we explained that there is some difficulty in producing an Amendment in an acceptable form. Now that we have had a chance to give more thought to this, we move this Amendment which we think covers the situation. It enables a person charged with an offence under Clause 47 to put forward the defence that he did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that his action would have the undesirable effects referred to in subsection (1).
§ Mr. WylieI welcome the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as the Clause stood, it was a very inequitable provision and imputed a statutory offence for which in many cases there could be no moral responsibility. The way that the problem has been resolved is satisfactory, although it switches the onus on to the accused to explain why he did not know. However, he should be in a position to do that.
§ Amendment agreed to.