London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill

The amendment addresses the use of presumption, in that a person is ““presumed”” to have infringed the London Olympics association right by using any of the words listed in the Bill. It has become known, slightly unfortunately, as the reversal of the presumption of innocence, and it was one of the most controversial aspects of the original Bill. As the Minister has said, we debated the issue at length both in Committee and on Report, and I warned him on Third Reading that I thought that it would cause problems in the other place.In Committee we discussed the defences that were available in the original Bill and the fact that the approach was consistent with Sheldrake v. DPP and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However, concerns remained, focused mainly on two areas: first, the fact that it is a basic principle of English law that one is innocent until proven guilty, and the regulation at least seemed to contravene that principle; and secondly, the fact that the Bill seemed to weight the dice firmly in favour of LOCOG. We all accept that the marketing of major international sports events is now in a new era, and organisers demand exclusivity to derive the most commercially advantageous sponsorship deals. As a quid pro quo, we all accept that some of the money finds its way back to the grass-roots development of sport. I wholly agree with that principle. However, it is important to strike a balance so that the enforcement of the measures is not unduly heavy-handed. The amendments represent a good compromise. LOCOG gets the exclusivity that it requires and the security of knowing that the regulations will take effect on Royal Assent, while on the other side of the fence, the industry gets some measure of protection from over-zealous enforcement. I therefore have no hesitation in agreeing to the amendments.