London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

I, too, am delighted to say that we will support the amendments. This matter caused great concern during the passage of the Bill. I said in Committee that at the very least the presumption of liability, if not of guilt,"““goes against what everyone in this country and certainly our courts holds dear: the principle of innocence until proven guilty.””" When the matter was first raised, the Minister said:"““it is appropriate, and indeed proportionate, that the burden of proof falls on the defendant in this case.””" We argued strongly that the Government’s view was incorrect, but the Minister tried to justify it by saying:"““we are not going after the little granny who owns the sweet shop at the bottom of the road, in order to haul her before the courts. That would be crazy.””—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 October 2005; c. 94–97.]" However, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) has rightly pointed out, it is crucial that we realise that we will be dealing not only with the little granny, but with local sports clubs and community bodies, which need protection. I was genuinely delighted that although the Government failed to accept amendments tabled in this place, progress was made when the Bill got to another place and was in the hands of my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones. I noted with interest that Lord Davies of Oldham described himself as quailing in the face of Lord Clement-Jones on the matter. It was good to note that after Lord Davies had listened to my noble Friend’s argument, he was willing to accept it and move an amendment with wording similar to that tabled by my noble Friend. I am sure that the amendments will be accepted today, but I hope that the Minister will give thought on another occasion to the outstanding question of LOCOG’s status in respect of freedom of information legislation. He will be aware that LOCOG is exempt from such legislation because it is a private body. I accept entirely that confidential business matters need to be protected, but that legislation already protects them. Although LOCOG will not be covered by freedom of information legislation, I hope that it will operate as if it was covered by that legislation, because it is important that there be absolute transparency whenever it acts and makes decisions, especially on the matter that the amendments address. Let me end as I began, by saying that I am delighted that we are considering amendments to the most controversial bit of the Bill and that we have found a satisfactory situation to the problem.