---

Video Recordings Bill

Indeed, it was clearly very different from the tenor of the rest of the debate, but I shall address my remarks to my noble friend in due course. I am grateful to noble Lords who have addressed a number of pertinent questions, to whom I shall do my best to respond. In broad terms, I welcome the Bill as important and urgent, given the discovery that the Act under which prosecutions have been brought and which has been in force since 1984, is legislatively defective for the reasons I outlined in my opening speech. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked a number of important questions. First, I reassure him that of course the moment that the problem with the Act was identified, urgent action was taken in relation to the Act, and, as I said, all departments were contacted to do a serious trawl on legislation to ensure that no other action, which would be remiss and have such serious consequences, had occurred. When departments do so much work in preparing legislation, obtaining the consent of both Houses, and then have due regard to how it is enacted, they take very seriously the point that legislation for which they were responsible may be flawed. I can give the House the assurance that this is a one-off, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Luke, that it is not a question of any particular procedures. The procedures and nature of the work in departments are proof against mistakes of this kind. That is reflected in the fact that this is the first legislation that we have had to address in these terms. It raises all the issues of the fast-track procedure and engages the interest of the Constitution Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated. No department will be anything other than utterly scrupulous about its checks regarding legislation. A Minister would not be asked to stand before either House if we were not confident that this is the only case—important though the case is. We have given the fullest explanation that we can of how the error occurred. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, asked a number of important questions. His most important question was that reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I want to put this on record again. He asked: what is the status of previous prosecutions? Previous prosecutions will stand unless and until set aside by the courts. This is an area untested by the courts, but we believe that the courts will set aside convictions only in exceptional cases, when they identify a substantial injustice. That is unlikely to be the case where convictions have been secured after a full court process, given the confidence that we all have in the way in which the courts conduct the business of due process. So we have reassurance on that front. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the difficulties facing local authorities, particularly regarding claims for compensation. Local authorities will have to deal with that themselves, but we will be providing advice and guidance for them as required, because we appreciate that they have been placed in this position through no obvious fault of their own. We are concerned about the point rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about where the prosecuting authorities now stand and the issue of retrospection and where we all are with regard to the Bill. We considered retrospection at some length with the prosecuting authorities, but it was not considered appropriate in these circumstances. Retrospective criminal offences should be introduced only in truly exceptional circumstances, and the Government's view is that the use of the fast-track legislation route in these circumstances—where the legislation has been rendered unenforceable by a failure to notify the Commission in draft—is necessary to restore the public protection contained in primary legislation as quickly as possible. All that rather precludes the use of retrospection. The inclusion of such retrospective concepts in the Act would have weakened the justification for the fast-track approach. Given the contributions of other noble Lords, I am confident that the case has been made that the prime issue must be to correct the position as rapidly as possible through the fast-track procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked whether the legislation is void. It is not void, but, as the noble Lord is all too well aware, the problem is that it was not notified to the Commission. The Bill repeals and revives the Act, and follows the previous procedure of omissions being corrected by notification, rendering it enforceable from when it becomes an Act. Effectively, we are in the most appropriate way making up for the error of the past and getting this law enforceable as soon as we can.