---

Video Recordings Bill

My Lords, we on these Benches are most grateful for the opportunity to put on record our absolute support for the speedy passage and implementation of the Video Recordings Bill. I underline the fact that we endorse the purpose and intentions of this Bill. It is most regrettable that there has been uncertainty in criminal proceedings, and so we look forward to reinstating the legislation in the proper manner. As we are all now aware, this Bill was a Private Member’s Bill which unfortunately did not complete due process. Regrettably, the new procedure was not recognised in time for this Bill and consequently the Act is not currently enforceable. The mistake was first noticed when preparations were made for the current Digital Economy Bill, which, as the noble Lord has mentioned, has amendments to the Video Recordings Act within its scope. The result has been that publishers of videos, DVDs, X-rated and R18-rated video games can distribute their wares without any classification. Moreover, it means that no further prosecutions can be made. According to the British Board of Film Classification, many responsible members of the home entertainment industry have continued to submit their works to the BBFC to be classified. However, as the Minister said, submissions were 11 per cent down in September 2009, 20 per cent down in October 2009 and 38 per cent down in the first half of November 2009. Can the Minister inform the House of any updated figures since that time? We can see, therefore, that it is vital to ensure that this legislation is once again active and enforceable. Perhaps the Minister can provide the House with more details about the possible consequences and effects of the discovery that the Act is not enforceable. Can he, for instance, inform us what the status will be of those with previous convictions under this piece of legislation? The Minister said that those who are outside the timeframe of 21 days for appeal would be unlikely to be successful if they now tried to appeal. However, might there be a case for saying that those people may not try to appeal against their conviction, but may try to set aside the Act altogether? At present, as we know, no new prosecutions can be made under the Act as it stands, and those who make an appeal within the allowed timeframe cannot be opposed by the courts. Can the Minister inform the House precisely when that began? Can the Government estimate how many people should have been prosecuted during that time, but were not? Has any research been undertaken as to how much compensation, if any, might be demanded and possibly awarded as a result of convictions made under this legislation? We look forward to ensuring that the legislation is re-enacted in its proper form as soon as possible to ensure the protection of consumers and to empower law enforcement agencies to implement its provisions. I wonder whether the Minister could inform us when the Cabinet Office will have completed its audits of all Acts passed into law since 1984 in terms of their compliance with the European technical standards directive. It would be useful to know whether there were any such similar problems in other pieces of legislation and indeed whether any other member countries of the EU have encountered similar problems. Finally, we welcome the recommendations from the Constitution Committee, which were published in its report of 7 July 2009, Fast-track legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards. The Government published their response on 7 December 2009 and agreed to implement the recommendations. This Bill is the first to be subject to these new procedures and has, I believe, shown the value of these proportionate and sensible proposals, provided that fast-track legislation is used only when appropriate and necessary. One of the recommendations was that, ""the Minister responsible for the Bill should be required to make an oral statement to the House of Lords outlining the case for fast-tracking"." Thus, on 7 January, we had the benefit of an explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of the special procedure and the reasons for it. A further recommendation was that, ""the details contained in the oral statement should also be set out in a written memorandum included in the Explanatory Notes"." As noble Lords will be aware, the Explanatory Notes do indeed contain these seven helpful questions and answers which provide reassurance that fast-tracking is necessary in this instance and that due attention has been paid to proper scrutiny. We therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his explanation both of the Bill and of the new procedures. We look forward to reinstating the Video Recordings Act in an enforceable manner which will leave no uncertainty in criminal proceedings.