I beg to move amendment No. 12, in

clause 5, page 3, line 2, leave out ‘is entitled to’ and insert ‘may request’.

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Amendment No. 13, in

clause 5, page 3, line 3, leave out ‘which it requests’ and insert—

‘The publisher may only refuse such request in exceptional circumstances where it considers on reasonable grounds that to comply with that request would be inconsistent with the criteria set out in section (Technical Advisory Committee) (4).’.

This is a probing amendment to question whether we should continue the traditional and historic method, enshrined in the 1911 Act, of depositing to all deposit libraries. If we are to involve far greater numbers of people—publishers of all kinds of material, although this relates mainly to print publishers—should material in this day and age be sent to all libraries or just to the British Library and one or two other key libraries? Why do we have to replicate what is in statute?

I understand the argument that the receiving libraries will jealously guard their well-earned rights to material, but it places a cost on the publishing industry, which will escalate as the volume of material grows in future.

I rise to oppose fiercely the amendment. I am jealous of the rights and privileges of the National Library of Wales not only because I am a Plaid Cymru Member of Parliament, but because the library is in my constituency. Indeed, I worked in the library and I can see it from my house whenever I am at home.

I am happy to intervene to assure the hon. Gentleman that I had no intention of involving the National Library of Wales in this.

In which case, I suspect the hon. Gentleman had Oxford and Cambridge libraries in mind. He can take that up with his hon. Friends, as more members of his party than of mine attended those august institutions.

I accept that the amendments are probing, but there are a few key points to be made about them. First, if the amendments were seriously considered, it would significantly weaken the 1911 Act. We must stop and ask ourselves why we would want to do that. From my discussions with the National Library of Wales, I am aware that it opposes the amendments and I know that they have not been discussed with the legal deposit libraries. We have heard a little about the importance of having discussions with publishers, but it is also important to have discussions with librarians. If these matters were discussed with librarians, they would be able to explain some good, as well as the purely patriotic, reasons for national institutions.

We need look no further than at what happened in Iraq with the desecration of libraries and museums in the last few days and weeks of the war to realise that libraries, institutions and learning are fundamental to our culture. They are a form of preservation and a practical means of ensuring that there is more than one copy of each publication in more than one place. The great library of Alexandria burned down and we lost all the knowledge that it had taken several hundred

years to gain. We therefore need more than one legal deposit library, and we need to consider where those libraries should be based.

The United Kingdom is made up of four countries that have come together—we have only to go to the Central Lobby to see the four saints representing those countries. It would therefore be reasonable to have four legal deposit libraries. There are also ancient institutions that have certain privileges that perhaps they should not have, but the Bill is not the place to start potching with Oxford and Cambridge. Those institutions deserve our consideration at another time.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire may have a genuine concern that although the deposit libraries in Oxford and Cambridge as academic institutions might have an interest in the purchase of some of the published materials, any crossover between other parts of those universities to make any of the deposit material more widely available would be inappropriate? Would he, like me, seek a reassurance from the Minister that the regulations would go someway to ensure that that never happened?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire did not make that point. However, I accept what the hon. Member for Ipswich is driving at. I also accept that later new clauses give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations about access, availability and timing. He is right in that regard. Although Wales has only one, England has more than one legal deposit library. That is a slight anomaly, but why not? We have a system that has worked effectively for the best part of a century. It dates back earlier than that in the collection policies of these libraries. It has won international respect and has led the way to international standards for legal deposit libraries. It has enabled us to embody our myriad cultures in the United Kingdom.

For example, the National Library of Wales specialises much more in non-print materials, which are not covered in this Bill. It collects paintings, maps, prints and video output. It records all the television and radio stations. The National Sound Archive does a similar thing. It collects film. Neither the British Library nor the libraries in Oxford and Cambridge do that. I do not know about Trinity college in Dublin. Its status as a legal deposit library allows it to do all those things. It can buy the first photograph ever taken in Wales, which was of Margam castle, and preserve it for the nation.

Without the status that the 1911 Act gives the National Library of Wales it could not pursue those ambitions and aims, which reflect well on Wales, the United Kingdom and our culture as a whole. I accept that they were probing amendments but I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will accept that they were perhaps misguided.

Briefly, as I touched on this in my earlier contribution, the selection of the deposit libraries reflects the United Kingdom as it was in 1911. One of them now lies outside the UK. It is one of these

oddities that we gently pass over. I do not object to it but it perhaps raises the question why there is not an institution in Belfast that is regarded as suitable for exactly the recognition and on exactly the same grounds that the hon. Member for Ceredigion outlined.

Those who are familiar with this legal position will know that these issues and the special situation of Oxford and Cambridge have been juggled with and gently in the English way stuffed under the carpet for a while. The Minister may, as I do, still possess a library card for the Cambridge library. I suppose that I have an interest in its continuation. I would not wish to argue against the retention of those libraries but it is difficult to see how they can be justified in entirely rational terms. But I am not sure that we always make law in this House in entirely rational terms.

We are having a go today!

I, too, hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will see fit to withdraw his amendments. They would constitute a change from the current system of deposit for print, and there has never been any intention that I know of to do that. The print system works well, and there is no reason to change it. Let me say, as I have been challenged about this, that I would be loth to see the university libraries of Cambridge and Oxford losing their right, because if that had happened, I would have had to find another library when I was researching my PhD. It was nice to be able to go across the River Cam and sit there and do nothing week after week.

The case made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion is important. He raised an issue that may seem fanciful to some; I do not think that it is at all fanciful. Great institutions have been burned down and wrecked. We always assume that there will be copies if there are not the originals, but that is not always the case. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will not like this, but he is over-egging the pudding in this respect. I do not think that it will cost the publisher a great deal more to send copies to various libraries.

We have to consider in regulations the problem of very high value and very low volume, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire raised. There are volumes and great maps—the Mappa Mundi, for example—that do not exist anywhere else, but there are ways and means of ensuring that scholars and researchers can look at them. It should not be rocket science to come up with a solution to that problem. Indeed, there are many solutions already.

There is, of course, the solution that is already agreed between the legal deposit libraries, as I understand it, for publications that were available before the 1911 Act, or some that may have fallen through the net since that Act was introduced. There may be only one copy of a publication in, say, Aberystwyth, but by dint of various wonderful things the contents of it are available to the other libraries. It should be possible to tackle genuine cases of high-cost publications and low-volume ones even within the

framework of this legislation, because entitlement does not mean that someone must have a copy. They can voluntarily choose not to take that copy. It must be possible to arrange for a copy to be available in one or two of the libraries and then, by means of a secure network or whatever, to be made available to all the readers.

Yes, that is important. Hon. Members may have a problem with the fairness of the geographical spread of the libraries. Of course, if the Bodleian library wanted to move, it could go to the university of Glamorgan in Pontypridd, which would be about halfway between Aberystwyth and London. Perhaps I will come up with a proper suggestion on Report.

We have had a fairly interesting debate. I would not be ruling out the other deposit libraries receiving material. The onus would be on them to make the request. The second part of amendment No. 13 says that the publisher cannot refuse a reasonable request unless certain conditions are breached. Those are set out in new clause 3.

While the hon. Gentleman is dwelling on the second part of amendment No. 13, will he comment on the reference to section 9(3)(b)(ii) or (iii)?

Yes, that is the obvious mistake and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has picked up on it. When we tabled the amendments initially, instead of referring to new clause 3, we referred to section 9, and I am afraid that the reference went through as section 9 instead of new clause 3. The details set out in new clause 3 are the subjects that the technical advisory committee should consider, which include regulatory impact, the UK base of the publication, proportionality, practicality and copyright protection. Those are the key issues. In amendment No. 13, we are saying that there should be no right to withhold compliance with the request to deposit the printed material, unless there are sensitive issues that are not met in the guidelines. We shall be discussing that a little later, but the Minister’s initial comments seemed favourably disposed to what we seek in new clause 3.

I apologise to the Committee for that error, but it has been rectified in the latest printing of the amendment paper, which now includes the phrase “(Technical Advisory Committee) (4).” We are saying that such material should be deposited as normal, with the proviso that sensitive situations are not covered. We shall come to that later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.