London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

Time will tell. I am willing to be reasonable and use other language such as ““presumption of liability”” rather than ““presumption of guilt”” if that is deemed inflammatory, but the reality is the same. When I introduced the amendment, I deliberately talked about constituting an automatic infringement, triggering the presumption of guilt, and so on, possibly leading to an injunction and/or unlimited damages. I clearly understand the issue about civil rather than criminal liability, so let us talk about presumption of liability. There is a big difference between us on the question of whether, in the words of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, we are talking about the loading factor. Those who wish to see this presumption changed or amended believe that the current impact of the Bill is disproportionately loaded against the industry and individual companies. I cannot accept the way in which the Minister has tried to characterise how that presumption will operate. It is extremely helpful to have the draft guidance, and I understand that it is a draft, but I cannot see that changing very much in the draft will change very much about how LOGOC will administer the use of the right and whether it will take action against an advertiser or a company. I am not really convinced by what the Minister has said. I will do him justice and read his remarks carefully, but I suspect we may well have to come back to this on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.