London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

In case the noble Lord is about to withdraw his amendment—I am eager for him to do so; we should make progress—I want to put the obvious point on the record. He will recognise that what was given to noble Lords and what is in limited circulation at present is a draft form of guidance so far as concerns LOGOC. He has done a valuable job in identifying areas that we need to think about seriously, which we will certainly do. But I want to emphasise that we are not talking about guidance that is set in stone and that will be issued as such. I want to give the noble Lord at least a little ray of light with regard to his representations on that matter. But I stand firm about the major point that he is making, which I think has been reiterated. I am grateful that the noble Lord has shifted from presumption of guilt to presumption of liability—that helps a little. But I re-emphasise that in legal terms a presumption of guilt means that the defendant himself must establish proof of his innocence. With regard to the schedule, we are simply saying that the defendant gives evidence about the issue. I do not accept that issues about how the guidance works are as loaded as one or two of the contributions have indicated. On that point, I seek to differ from the noble Lord. But I wanted to bring to the Committee’s attention that we have not yet finalised the draft guidance.