London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

This is a significant amendment, which takes us into technical and legal territory, so my response will be suitably worded but, I hope, precise. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord on the new interest that he has acquired. I have no doubt that it will add further insights into the work that we do on the Bill. We are debating that part of Schedule 4 which has been called a presumption of guilt. Not only did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, use that phrase, but also my noble friend Lord Borrie. If I was already quailing in the face of the onslaught of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I quaked at the additional contribution of my noble friend. Both noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, will forgive me if I spend some time explaining the Government’s position and, I hope, allaying fears regarding the advertising industry. I shall not rebut their arguments, although I shall seek to counter them. The Government totally reject the description of the provision as a presumption of guilt. It is inaccurate. The Bill includes what is known as an evidential presumption, which is a much lower hurdle for a defendant to clear than is implied by the term ““presumption of guilt””. If that were built into the Bill, the anxieties of the noble Lords would be well founded.