London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I thank the Minister for that very interesting response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his very authoritative speech. He referred very usefully to the guidance notes produced by LOGOC—I shall come back to them in a minute—and he also referred very helpfully to the big distinction that needs to be made between the patent Acts and the kind of assumptions that are made there. I do not believe that they are sui generis with what we are talking about. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his extremely valuable support. The Minister referred to the presumption as a ““presumption of association”” rather than as a ““presumption of guilt””, as others have described it, and he said that its effect would be much less draconian than anything alleged by any noble Lord who has spoken on this matter. He is in the business of allaying fears. He said that it is a pussy cat of a provision because the power would not be misused; that it would be applied by LOGOC very carefully and that a case would not be taken to court unless there was absolutely clear evidence. If some evidence is adduced by someone who is alleged to be breaching the association right, then somehow the presumption rebounds and the case will need to be demonstrated by LOGOC. That is certainly a matter of some contention. The Minister then referred to the defences available under paragraph 8. On any basis—whether it is called a presumption of guilt or a presumption of association—it is a presumption of liability for someone in circumstances where the allegation is made and paragraph 3(1) comes into life. It involves an individual or a business in those circumstances having to prove a negative. That is where the onus lies. The Minister was, I believe, a little blithe about the impact of the way in which the presumption operates. If the presumption operated in the way that he said, it would not involve proving a negative. All one would simply do is place a bit of evidence on the table—right or wrong—and then instantly the onus would fall back on LOGOC to demonstrate the association right.