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 previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

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

425143

	registered interest
	date	30/10/2015
	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 savings from ending the printing of Acts of Parliament on vellum; and what proportion of those savings arises from (a) William Cowley and (b) other costs from the use of vellum.
	tabling member constituency	Washington and Sunderland West
	tabling member printed	Mrs Sharon Hodgson
	uin	14164
	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 13958 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

1003699

	registered interest
	date	09/11/2018
	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	House of Commons: Recruitment
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been spent on (a) headhunters and (b) recruitment agencies in the last 12 months.
	tabling member constituency	Warley
	tabling member printed	John Spellar
	uin	189554
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/11/2018 answer text <p>Over the last twelve months, headhunters have been engaged to recruit to 11 senior roles in the House of Commons Service, including five external posts on the Restoration and Renewal Shadow Sponsor Board, at a total cost of £176,975.</p><p>In addition, the House of Commons has paid £303,860 to recruitment agencies during the same period.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 23/11/2018 12:37:42 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	318 label Biography information for John Spellar

1019379

	registered interest
	date	03/12/2018
	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	House of Commons: Food
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his oral contribution answer of 29 November 2018, Official Report, column 403, what practical problems prevent the implementation of a buy British policy.
	tabling member constituency	Warley
	tabling member printed	John Spellar
	uin	198174
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 13/12/2018 answer text <p>We acknowledge that there may be an expectation that the House of Commons should be buying British wherever possible, but as a contracting authority as specified in the European Parliament and Council Directive, we are subject to EU Public Sector Procurement directives. It is therefore impossible for us to demand that we wish to buy only British products simply on the merits of origin and must instead ensure that our specifications at tender stage, and ultimately our decision to award a contract, does not discriminate against products or supplies from other EU member states.</p><p>The vast majority of fresh products purchased by Catering are in fact British – meat, poultry, dairy, eggs and most fruit and vegetables (when in season) are sourced from within the UK. We demand that UK or equivalent standards of welfare and/or production must be met as this is a consideration of quality rather than origin. UK standards on the whole are easy to follow, robust, commonly accepted and enforced across each sector.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 13/12/2018 12:12:12 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake previous answer version 90662 answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	318 label Biography information for John Spellar

528928

	registered interest
	date	27/06/2016
	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	House of Commons: Procurement
	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 he will take steps to ensure that the House of Commons Commission's purchasing policies support British (a) industry and (b) agriculture.
	tabling member constituency	Warley
	tabling member printed	John Spellar
	uin	41273
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 04/07/2016 answer text <p>The House of Commons procurement policies operate within the parameters set out by the UK Public Contracts Regulations 2015.</p><p>The House has a Sustainable Purchasing Policy which, amongst other things, requires contracts that are particularly suitable for SMEs to be highlighted as so being, contracts to be divided into lots and processes to be as simple and proportionate as possible to encourage SMEs to participate in our competitions. Further, the policy requires contracts that are suitable for Social Enterprises to be identified at an early stage and that market engaged to ensure their participation.</p><p>More generally, the House supports British industry and agriculture by:</p><ul><li>Purchasing our goods and services in a way that maximises the ability of SMEs, Social Enterprises and organisations with less bargaining power to win our contracts;</li><li>Conducting open and competitive tender processes that are accessible to all British suppliers whether small, medium or large;</li><li>Advertising our contracts on the UK Government procurement website Contracts Finder and the House’s own electronic procurement portal to ensure that there is maximum visibility of our contractual opportunities;</li><li>Writing specifications of requirements that take into account domestic social, economic and environmental requirements.</li></ul> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 04/07/2016 15:58:42 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	318 label Biography information for John Spellar

711349

	registered interest
	date	15/03/2017
	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	Parliamentary Organisations: Recruitment
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, how much has been paid since May 2015 to head hunters by (a) the House of Commons Commission, (b) the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, (c) the Inter-Parliamentary Union, (d) the British American Parliamentary Group and (e) any other body grant-funded by the House of Commons Commission.
	tabling member constituency	Warley
	tabling member printed	John Spellar
	uin	68010
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 22/03/2017 answer text <p>Since May 2015 the House of Commons Commission has made payments totalling £203,676 to Executive Search recruitment agencies (‘head hunters’). This includes fees for online and press advertising, where appropriate, for which the agencies pay and for which we reimburse them. I have asked the House authorities to send to the hon. Member contact details of the responsible officers of the grant-funded bodies so that he can seek that information from them. The Commission does not require them to report on any use of head hunters or the costs of any such use.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 22/03/2017 10:33:53 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	318 label Biography information for John Spellar

755949

	registered interest
	date	04/09/2017
	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	Big Ben: Repairs and Maintenance
	house id	1
	legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
	question text	To ask the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps have been taken to ensure the use of British materials in the refurbishment of the Elizabeth Tower and its machinery.
	tabling member constituency	Warley
	tabling member printed	John Spellar
	uin	7409
	answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 12/09/2017 answer text <p>The procurement process for the final contract for the refurbishment of the Elizabeth Tower is ongoing via an open competition in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and Parliament’s procurement policies. In order to comply with the Regulations, Parliament cannot specifically require the use of British materials or machinery when letting contracts, as the Regulations prohibit references to a specific country of origin or production.</p><p>The scaffolding contract was awarded via the same method in November 2016. The steel in the steelwork structures used in supporting the scaffolding on the Tower is primarily sourced from British suppliers.</p> answering member constituency Carshalton and Wallington answering member printed Tom Brake question first answered 12/09/2017 12:46:32 answering member 151 label Biography information for Tom Brake
	tabling member	318 label Biography information for John Spellar