My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed. He faced a very heavy artillery barrage in Committee. The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Borrie, among others, trained their fire on the Minister, and I am glad he recognised the force of the argument. Whether we call it the presumption of guilt, the presumption of liability or an evidential presumption, this presumption has been replaced by no presumption at all. The amendment is hugely welcome on all sides of the House. It colours a great deal of our approach to Schedule 4, and it has had a beneficial effect on our thinking about how the schedule will operate generally except in one or two circumstances. It is a far fairer and more proportionate way of dealing with the London Olympics association right.
In his letter, the Minister was generous enough to say that the amendment was similar to the one I tabled, which was signed by Members of other parties. Not only has the Minister bowed to the logic of the argument, but he is happy with the drafting. What more could we have hoped for?
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clement-Jones
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c612 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-26 16:37:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305397
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305397
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_305397