I stated earlier that I considered the hon. Gentleman’s amendment on constructing an advisory committee to be a helpful guide to how best such a vital job may be carried out successfully. I thank him for drafting it. While I am in favour of the existence of an advisory committee, I do not believe that it should be constituted in primary legislation. If that were done, it would effectively reduce the flexibility of the committee and the Secretary of State. Given that every effort has been made to future proof the Bill, I believe that the proposal would be counter-productive.

The constitution of the committee and its functions may need to change over time, sometimes quite radically. I assure the Committee that the Government are intending to establish such a panel to advise the Secretary of State on drawing up regulations relating to legal deposit and subsequent implementation. Such a panel will be made up of representatives of the publishers and the deposit libraries as well as other key stakeholders. However, to enable it to operate in the ever-evolving world of non-print publication and to continue to represent those bodies with an interest in the legislation, we do not consider that the committee should be established in primary legislation. It is also important that some consultation takes place with interested parties that might not be represented on the advisory panel. The existing provisions are preferable to the proposed amendment.

New clause 3 would constitute a technical advisory committee in primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not agree with me, but I believe that it is an inflexible solution to what could and should be achieved flexibly. It would constitute an advisory panel in the same way in which the advisory panel on Crown copyright was constituted. Doing that in the Bill would leave no opportunity to put things right if it was found that the committee, as originally set up, did not work for whatever reason. The libraries and the publishers would have to live with it until primary legislation could change it. That is why my Department advocates maximum flexibility. We believe that it is right that there should be some good consultation with interested parties before the committee is established and its terms of reference fixed. There would be no opportunity for such consultation if the new clause was accepted.

As I said, I wholeheartedly support the setting up of a committee or a panel to advise the Secretary of State on drafting the regulations. However, the committee must be given every opportunity to be a success and should not be limited through any inflexible legislation. I am fully aware of the difficulties of legislating on the online environment, so expect there to be extensive consultation with the committee and elsewhere in excess of the usual 12-week consultation period before any regulations are prepared to deal with the online environment, about which the hon. Gentleman is especially concerned.