Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

I have a certain sense of déjà-vu about debating the burden of proof with the Minister. I must say from the outset that although we have tabled an amendment later on in the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has restated the classical reversal of the burden of proof and put it down in a well drafted amendment. I do not really understand why there is any justification for reversing the burden of proof. It seems to be a popular thing for the department to do nowadays. In the London Olympics Bill, the department was forced, quite rightly, to retreat from that issue, because it soon became apparent when we subjected the clause to scrutiny that there was no particularly good reason why the burden should be reversed. In the case of that Bill it was the London association right. In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has frankly stated, disclosing information is something that we do not wish to see happen and there should be a penalty, but the issue is how draconian you can be in expecting someone to prove themselves innocent under Clause 5 before they escape the net, so to speak. As the burden of proof operates in the clause as it stands, they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. That, by any standard, is a very tall order, and it is particularly difficult taking into account the way that the defence in subsection (5) is drafted. I fully support the amendment. I think that the Minister has a long way to go, and I certainly saw nothing in the arguments put forward in the other place to justify a reversal. I look forward to seeing whether the Minister can come up with some fresh arguments in this area.