 |
answer text |
<p>The House Committee considered this matter at its meeting on 3 May. The Committee
agreed that, in response to the letter from the Clerk of the House of Commons about
the debate, I should write to the Chairman of the House of Commons Administration
Committee in the following terms:</p><p>“I am writing further to the backbench debate
on printing record copies of public Acts of Parliament on vellum. I have consulted
the House of Lords House Committee in preparing this reply.</p><p>As you know, this
House agreed in 1999 to move to printing Acts of Parliament on archival paper instead
of vellum. We are persuaded that printing on archival paper is a more appropriate
use of public funds, and that the case for continuing to print on vellum is not made.</p><p>If,
in the light of the debate, the House of Commons wishes to arrange a contract for
printing record copies of public Acts on vellum then the House of Lords Administration
will gladly share experience of managing the legacy contract to assist you in making
any such arrangements. I am sure you will appreciate that this House does not wish
to contribute financially to any future printing on vellum. It is also important that
we ensure the longevity of any public Acts, as the Clerk of the Parliaments must certify
a record copy of them.</p><p>Perhaps at our next regular meeting it would be possible
for us to discuss some of the points made in the debate. I am, as ever, grateful to
you for all your help in this matter.”</p><p>I wrote accordingly on 4 May.</p>
|
|
