Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

512656

registered interest
date	13/04/2016
answering body	Members Estimate Committee
answering dept id	91
answering dept short name	Members Estimate Committee
answering dept sort name	Members Estimate Committee
hansard heading	UK Independence Party: Short Money
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the Members Estimate Committee, how much Short money the UK Independence Party has claimed since May 2015; and on what dates those payments were made to that party.
tabling member constituency	Salisbury
tabling member printed	John Glen
uin	33785
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 19/04/2016 answer text <p>The amount of Short money available to UKIP for 2015/16 since the May general election was £605,871. The amounts claimed and paid were as follows:</p><p> </p><table><tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Date Paid </strong></p></td><td><p><strong>Amount </strong></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>24 August 2015</p></td><td><p>£14,833.00</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>28 September 2015</p></td><td><p>£16,434.68</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>14 October 2015</p></td><td><p>£128,034.16</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>28 October 2015</p></td><td><p>£31,870.36</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>25 November 2015</p></td><td><p>£31,870.36</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>21 December 2015</p></td><td><p>£31,870.36</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>27 January 2016</p></td><td><p>£31,870.36</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>24 February 2016</p></td><td><p>£31,870.36</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>28 March 2016</p></td><td><p>£31,870.36</p></td></tr><tr><td><p><strong>Total</strong></p></td><td><p><strong>£350,574.00</strong></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 19/04/2016 16:01:28 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	4051 label Biography information for John Glen

519301

registered interest
date	18/05/2016
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	14 Tothill Street: Flags
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Rt. hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will take steps to ensure that the Union flag is regularly flown from the existing flag pole on the premises at 14 Tothill Street.
tabling member constituency	Lichfield
tabling member printed	Michael Fabricant
uin	37030
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/05/2016 answer text <p>Parliament flies three union flags on a permanent basis, on the Victoria Tower, and at 1 Parliament Street and Portcullis House. There are currently no plans to fly a flag at 14 Tothill Street.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 23/05/2016 14:42:45 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	280 label Biography information for Michael Fabricant

424629

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, whether the Commission consulted (a) users and (b) makers of vellum on ending the use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13882
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13880 13881 13883 13884 13885 13957 13958 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:59 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson

424630

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what alternative media for printing Acts of Parliament the Commission has considered.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13883
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13880 13881 13882 13884 13885 13957 13958 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:59 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson

424631

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the potential savings from ending the use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament; and on what basis that estimate was made.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13884
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13880 13881 13882 13883 13885 13957 13958 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:59 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson

424632

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, how much the use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament cost in each year since 1999.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13885
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13880 13881 13882 13883 13884 13957 13958 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:59 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson

424633

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what discussions the Commission has had with archival experts (a) within and (b) outside Parliament on ending the use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13880
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13881 13882 13883 13884 13885 13957 13958 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:58 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson

424634

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what advice the Commission has received on the comparative longevity of archival paper and vellum.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13881
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13880 13882 13883 13884 13885 13957 13958 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:59 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson

424635

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the average cost of the reproduction of an Act of Parliament on archival paper once it has deteriorated.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13957
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13880 13881 13882 13883 13884 13885 13958 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:59 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson

424636

registered interest
date	28/10/2015
answering body	House of Commons Commission
answering dept id	18
answering dept short name	House of Commons Commission
answering dept sort name	House of Commons Commission
hansard heading	Acts: Publishing
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the annual cost of the (a) storage, (b) continued care and maintenance and (c) re-printing of archival paper.
tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
uin	13958
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 09/11/2015 answer text <p>The House of Lords is responsible for the printing of two record copies of each Act, both printed on vellum in accordance with the Resolutions agreed by both Houses in February 1849. The Commission does not incur any expenditure on the printing of these copies, and has therefore undertaken no inquiry into, or consultation on, the proposal from the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords to move to the use of archival paper. It has also therefore not sought to assess alternative options, nor undertaken any analysis of relative storage or care costs of vellum as opposed to archival paper. The House of Lords agreed in 1999 to vary its resolution and that vellum should cease to be used. The predecessor Administration Committee had considered arguments in support of a similar proposal from the House of Lords in June 1999. That Committee recommended in a report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmadmin/539/53903.htm" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 539</a>) to the House that the proposal to end the use of vellum be accepted. However, following a debate on 1 November 1999, on a motion that the Commons agree with the Lords in their resolution, the proposal was rejected by the Commons. [Deb HC: 1 November 1999, Col 32ff].</p><p>In his letter to the Administration Committee of 17 September, printed with the Committee’s Report (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmadmin/521/521.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Record Copies of Acts</em>, HC 521</a>), the Chairman of Committees stated that the average annual cost of printing vellums is around £100,000 a year. I understand that the current estimate of the savings arising from a switch to archival paper are about 80%, amounting to around £800,000 of savings to public funds over the next ten years. These arise from the greater ease of printing on paper rather than vellum, as well as the raw material costs. 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. The Commission has made no assessment of the breakdown of savings arising.</p><p>The Chairman of Committees records in his letter the view that high quality archival paper would maintain durability and print quality. I understand that the National Archives has already informed Parliament that it does not require a vellum copy, and that it takes the view 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 <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk" target="_blank">www.legislation.gov.uk</a>. Private Acts have been printed on archival paper since 1956. There are internationally recognised ISO standards for archival paper, and for archival quality ink and printing processes.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake grouped question UIN 13880 13881 13882 13883 13884 13885 13957 14164 question first answered 09/11/2015 11:47:59 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
tabling member	1521 label Biography information for Mrs Sharon Hodgson