Question

To ask the Chairman of Committees why the use of vellum for the record copies of Acts of Parliament has been abandoned without the passage through both Houses of a resolution to authorise its discontinuation.

The House of Lords agreed to cease using vellum for public Acts in 1999, with a resolution to that effect being passed on 14 October 1999. That resolution still stands. At that time, the change was not agreed by the House of Commons.

In the past six years (2009/10 to 2014/15) the Lords has spent a total of £620,440 on vellum Acts; an average of just over £103,000 per year.

This is despite the availability of archival paper which is of extremely high quality and durability.

Private Acts of Parliament have been printed on archival quality paper since 1956, and I am not aware that vellum is now used for any other UK governmental or parliamentary records.

The National Archives has confirmed the view it took in 1999: that it does not require a vellum copy, and that archival quality paper is sufficient to maintain the public record. It also maintains a comprehensive database of legislation, both “as originally enacted” and “as amended”, on www.legislation.gov.uk.

Switching from vellum to high quality archival paper would, on a conservative estimate, save approximately 80% on current costs - or around £80,000 per year. The exact level of savings to public funds will depend on the number of Acts passed, and number of pages per Act, per year, and the precise specification and contractual arrangements agreed for future printing.

As well as being an expensive raw material, vellum requires a highly specialised form of printing which is not widely available, the machinery for which is expensive to maintain, and which is likely to be more difficult to procure on the expiry of the House’s current printing contract in March 2016.

As the start of a new Parliament seemed a natural point at which to implement the change previously agreed by this House, and we were coming to the end of present contracts, the House Committee was content that we were seeking to take forward the House’s 1999 decision. I then wrote to the Chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee to invite that House to agree to the change. The view of the House of Commons authorities is that this is a matter for the House of Lords.