I do not want to get into exegesis of the law, but I think that the matter is relatively simple. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will note that subsection (7) says:

``If a person has been given a warning notice''.

He suggested that if a person says that he has not been given a warning notice, and he is right, proceedings against him would none the less be binding. I respectfully suggest to him—he is a far more eminent lawyer than I—that a person would have a pretty good defence if that problem occurred: he could say that his case did not fall within subsection (7) because he had not been given a warning notice.