Of course I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but accepting the amendment could lead to some very unwelcome consequences. I agree that we must be careful. Consider the following scenario: admitting part of a statement might result in a slight or marginal risk of prejudicing the defendant; however, that may be substantially outweighed in the interests of justice by showing the video recorded evidence in full. If one part was excluded it might be harder for the jury to understand other parts of the recording. There are a great many circumstances in which that might happen. It may be important in understanding how a witness is developing the evidence. There are times when that slight risk of prejudice is substantially outweighed.

The fact that this is an interests of justice test provides adequate protection for the defendant's interests. When the court considers that the risk of prejudice to a defendant is particularly acute, it would not consider it to be in the interests of justice to admit a statement. However, solely to frame the test around prejudice would ignore all other pertinent considerations. The test would also focus entirely on the court's reasons for excluding the evidence. Courts could find that a difficult test to apply, as there is no indication of the considerations that would support the evidence being admitted. It is instead desirable to make it clear to the courts what the balance of considerations should be in this context. Parliament adopted a balance of those factors for video recorded evidence in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. For that reason alone, it would be highly undesirable to have two tests for the courts to apply to very similar situations.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.