We have already touched on the substance of the amendment in our opening debate. It is important, particularly in respect of the relationship between the libraries, the publishers and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Subsection (7) refers to regulations that the Secretary of State may bring forward, but only if he or she has first consulted the deposit libraries and, more importantly given the worries that have been raised,

“the publishers appearing to the Secretary of State to be likely to be affected.”

Amendment No. 15 would firm up the consultative relationship in two ways. First, it would put the advisory committee, the body that will develop from the joint committee on voluntary deposits, into the Bill. Secondly, the amendment highlights two critical areas that are fundamental to the publishers’ rights, such as proportionality. It refers to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the regulations

“are proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by them in respect of the preservation of the national intellectual archive”.

That wording was lifted almost verbatim from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which refers to proportionality in a way that might help draftsmen incorporate it into the Bill.

We are not asking for something that is not already on the statute book. Section 22(5) of the Act states:

“The designated person shall not grant an authorisation under subsection (3), or give a notice under subsection (4), unless he believes that obtaining the data in question by the conduct authorised or required by the authorisation or notice is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by so obtaining the data.”

Similar words applied to clause 8 of the Bill will give the assurance that publishers seek.

Amendment No. 15 refers to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the regulations

“do not conflict with the normal exploitation of any work, or category of work, to which this Act applies or would unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner(s) of the copyright or any rights of a similar nature in any such work”.

It concerns anything that might prejudice the economic viability of the publishing organisation. There is similar wording in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 137 of which states:

“If it appears to the Secretary of State with respect to a scheme or licence to which this section applies that ... making them subject to the scheme or licence would not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owners”.

We have taken wording from existing legislation that protects the two key issues of proportionality and copyright benefit and included it in amendment No. 15.

We are talking about regulations that may or may not be brought forward by the Secretary of State.

New clause 3 would define the committee, which is a group of people whom the Department will consult and includes the publishers and the libraries. It is an extension of the excellent work that those bodies have already done in bringing forward the Bill. New clause 3 defines a technical advisory committee. The Minister said earlier that he takes on board the need for the consultation and the immediacy of it. It is to be hoped that in response to the amendments he will go into more detail about how he sees that moving forward.

The important thing about new clause 3 is not so much the composition of the committee or the fact that it will be consulted on certain issues, but that it points up the key areas that need to be discussed. They are outlined under proposed subsection (4)(d)(i) to (v) and relate to a regulatory impact assessment, particularly on online publication. The need to define UK based authorship or origination has not yet been decided. Subsection (4)(d)(iii) concerns proportionality and paragraph (iv) is about practicality and the fact that the regulations will not be excessively heavy on the publishers. Paragraph (v) is about copyright protection, which I have already dealt with. Those are the key areas that must be discussed.

We want the Bill to recognise the importance of the committee. Hence, our new clause and amendment No. 15. We understand that there are “technical problems” with doing that, because of Treasury and cost implications. No doubt the Minister or the Bill’s promoter will explain that to us. We are looking for some movement from the promoter towards the publishing community in respect of those key issues. If it can obtain assurances on some of those issues, particularly proportionality and copyright protection, many of the community’s fears and concerns will abate. We have reached an important stage. If we can confront such issues—perhaps not this afternoon, but before the Bill is discussed on Report—we have every chance of making good legislation, which is what we all want.