‘(1)Subject to subsection (2), a relevant person may not use relevant material.

(2)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision permitting the use by relevant persons of relevant material, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

(3)Regulations under this section may in particular make provision about—

(a)the purposes for which relevant material may be used;

(b)the time at which or the circumstances in which readers may first use relevant material;

(c)the description of readers who may use relevant material;

(d)the limitations on the number of readers who may use relevant material at any one time (whether by limiting the number of terminals in a deposit library from which readers may at any one time access an electronic publication or otherwise).

(4)In this section—

(a)“reader” means a person who, for the purposes of research or study and with the permission of a deposit library, is on library premises controlled by it;

(b)“relevant material” means—

(i)a copy delivered under section 1 of a work published in a medium other than print;

(ii)a copy delivered pursuant to regulations under section 6 of a computer program or material within section 6(2)(b);

(c)“relevant person” means—

(i)a deposit library or person acting on its behalf;

(ii)a reader;

(d)references to using relevant material include references to copying it and, in the case of a computer program or database, adapting it;

(e)references to a deposit library include references to the Faculty of Advocates.

(5)A contravention of this section is actionable at the suit of a person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.’—[Mr. Mole.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

After discussion with publishing representatives, it was agreed, as I said when we considered the original clause 7, that that clause was too permissive. Adequate safeguards were requested to protect economic interests and to balance the responsibilities imposed by other clauses. We will therefore replace clause 7 with new clauses 1 and 2.

New clause 1 provides that, unless provided for by regulation, nothing can be done with material once it is deposited. Regulations will be able to specify the purpose for which the material can be used. They will also be able to specify when readers can first use it. That is important in terms of high-value, short-life publications, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire and others mentioned. Such a mechanism will allow embargoes to be placed on access to material until its commercial value has diminished. The archive value for the nation will, of course, remain.

Regulations will also specify the types of reader that can access material and will place limitations on the number of readers. In that way, a limit can be placed on the number of terminals—if that continues to be the

appropriate terminology—on which material can be accessed and/or the number of readers who can access it at any one time. Subsection (5) provides that any breach of the restrictions on the use of material by libraries will be enforceable by action against them for breach of statutory duty.

I therefore hope that the new clause will be seen as going a long way towards meeting publishers’ concerns.

On the whole, I welcome the new clause. I simply take this opportunity to reinforce a couple of points that I made earlier. The Minister was very helpful in responding to a question about preservation and he said that he would reconsider the issue. I am pleased that he said that, but I would like to leave him with just one more thought.

The long title says that the Bill makes

“provision about the use and preservation of material deposited”.

So, “preservation” is in the long title. New clause 1 makes allowance for copying electronic or non-print media, but it is couched in terms of copying for the purposes of users. There is a difference between what an archivist does when copying material for users and for conservation purposes. To take another example, one might record a radio programme on a reel to reel, because that gives the highest quality in analogue terms, although goodness knows how it compares in digital terms. However, the user’s copy would be made on a cassette, which would be played on a little cassette machine. In that way, one can preserve the reel-to-reel recording, and there would be no physical deterioration. Of course, there is no physical deterioration in digital recordings, but there is technical deterioration in the sense that the technology moves on, so that what was the dog’s cojones five years ago is not relevant and cannot be used by the reader today.

There must be a way of ensuring that the Bill allows archivists to make preservation copies as well as user copies. I am slightly concerned that new clause 1 is aimed exclusively at the user, although meeting users’ needs is a legitimate aim of librarianship. However, we must remember that there is a second aim of librarianship—conserving materials for future users. Libraries must meet the needs not only of the now but of the future. The Minister has already said that he will reconsider the issue to see whether everything is okay, but I wanted to emphasise the conservation and preservation arguments.

In moving the clause, the hon. Member for Ipswich, referred to terminals. Five minutes ago, the Minister said that every effort had been made to future-proof the Bill, but is the word “terminals” future proof? I am not sure that it is. I can envisage a time when one will no longer have a terminal but a little palm pilot on which to read a PDF file. We must ensure that we do not rule out ways of co-operating between libraries and secure networks, or even between non-networked networks. Goodness knows what broadband will do for us, when it eventually arrives in Aberystwyth. “Terminals” is a strange word, redolent of computer

talk of the 1970s and 1980s. We may need to consider it again. I hope that my remarks will be taken on board between now and Report.

I wish to raise one brief point on subsection (3)(b), on when readers can first use relevant material. It takes us back to an earlier discussion about small-volume, high-value publications. We said that if they were made available, the publisher might wish to put a bar on access for a period of months so that people would continue to subscribe.

New clause 1 relates specifically to non-printed material, but the same consideration may apply in publishers’ minds to printed material. If a publisher produces a specialist publication with a subscription list for 10,000 copies a year, he will want to be sure that the non-printed version supplied to the deposit library is held back for six months; but that will not happen with the printed version. It would make sense to try to achieve consistency. If we make a sensible concession to publishers by allowing a delay for non-printed materials, the concession should be made also for printed material. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

Those were all useful points. We shall certainly take them on board and see whether we can improve the Bill to reassure the hon. Gentlemen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.