Digital Switchover (Disclosure of Information) Bill

moved Amendment No. 20: 20: Clause 3, page 3, line 18, leave out ““a defence for a person charged with”” and insert ““not”” The noble Lord said: I rise with huge optimism at this stage that the Minister, having argued so cogently in the previous grouping, will realise that what he is really seeking is a compromise over the issue of the burden of proof. This is intended to be a halfway house, so that the defence is more easily available when the burden of proof effectively remains the same, but belief is more easily established. I am sure that the Minister has looked at this long and hard, and perhaps he thinks that this is preferable to completely reversing the burden of proof. It does not go right back to the classical situation of mens rea in terms of knowledge, intent or recklessness, but it would change the way in which subsection (5) operates. It is usually open to the prosecution to establish a case beyond all reasonable doubt. Even this amendment establishes a rather strange animal, and it is not particularly desirable, but I hope that if the Minister is adamant that he will not accept the earlier amendment, he might at least see the benefits of this one. I beg to move.