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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

391513

	registered interest
	date	20/07/2015
	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	Parliament: Hearing Aids
	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, pursuant to the Answer of 22 June 2015 to Question 2662, if he will extend the provision of the induction loop system to ensure people who have hearing loss or who are deaf can follow proceedings in all meeting rooms using a personal loop inducted into that system.
	tabling member constituency	Walsall North
	tabling member printed	Mr David Winnick
	uin	7923
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 07/09/2015 answer text <p>Following the hon. Member’s questions of 15 and 22 June, officials in the Department of Facilities have worked with the House of Commons audio-visual (AV) contractor to establish the costs and viability of extending the existing infra-red loop system to those meeting rooms on the Estate that do not currently have this facility. The work to install this facility in an additional twenty-one rooms across the Estate is planned to take place during the Conference Recess and be in place when the House returns in October.<br><br>An additional twenty-one rooms will be fitted with the infra-red loop system at a cost of approximately £31k. The rooms concerned are:</p><ul><li>Portcullis House : Rooms M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T and U</li><li>Norman Shaw North: Ground Floor Interview Room</li><li>Parliament St: Rooms A,B,C and D</li><li>Millbank House: Archbishop’s Room</li><li>7 Millbank: Conference Room E and Room 11</li><li>The Palace of Westminster: Conference Room H</li><li>Tothill St: Rooms G01, G02 and G03</li></ul><p> </p><p> </p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 07/09/2015 14:09:40 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	316 label Biography information for Mr David Winnick

423604

	registered interest
	date	23/10/2015
	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	City of London Remembrancer
	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, if the Commission will review the right of access for the City of London Remembrancer to the Chamber of the House.
	tabling member constituency	Sheffield, Heeley
	tabling member printed	Louise Haigh
	uin	13180
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 29/10/2015 answer text <p>I understand that the Remembrancer is one of some 17 Roll A Parliamentary Agents who work with the promoters of private Bills. Parliamentary Agents are permitted to observe proceedings from the Under Gallery in the Chamber, that is, the visitors’ seats “under the gallery” facing the Speaker, for the purposes of their work. Other visitors may also sometimes sit in the Under Gallery.</p><p>Access to the Chamber and its surroundings is not a matter for the Commission.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 29/10/2015 17:57:23 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	4473 label Biography information for Louise Haigh