Controversy arose recently when the House of Lords announced that the centuries-old practice of printing Acts of Parliament on vellum would cease. The Lords voted for change in 1999, but it did not take effect because under a long-standing agreement, going back to 1849, both Houses had to be in favour and the Commons rejected the move.
The Lords returned to the issue after the election last year.In October, the Commons Speaker said that “ the matter would have to be brought to the Floor of the House” for a decision.That has not happened, but nevertheless the Lords has decreed that the use of vellum should be discontinued. On II February Alistair Lexden put down a written question,asking for an explanation. It was answered on 25 February by Lord Laming,the Chairman of Committees in the Lords, who has responsibilty for the matter. His answer indicated surprisingly that the Commons now believes that it is a matter for the Lords alone.
Lord Laming said:
The House of Lords agreed to cease using vellum for public Acts in 1999, with a resolution to that effect being passed on 14 October 1999. That resolution still stands. At that time, the change was not agreed by the House of Commons.
In the past six years (2009/10 to 2014/15) the Lords has spent a total of £620,440 on vellum Acts; an average of just over £103,000 per year.
This is despite the availability of archival paper which is of extremely high quality and durability.
Private Acts of Parliament have been printed on archival quality paper since 1956, and I am not aware that vellum is now used for any other UK governmental or parliamentary records.
The National Archives has confirmed the view it took in 1999: that it does not require a vellum copy, and that archival quality paper is sufficient to maintain the public record. It also maintains a comprehensive database of legislation, both “as originally enacted” and “as amended”, on www.legislation.gov.uk.
Switching from vellum to high quality archival paper would, on a conservative estimate, save approximately 80% on current costs - or around £80,000 per year. The exact level of savings to public funds will depend on the number of Acts passed, and number of pages per Act, per year, and the precise specification and contractual arrangements agreed for future printing.
As well as being an expensive raw material, vellum requires a highly specialised form of printing which is not widely available, the machinery for which is expensive to maintain, and which is likely to be more difficult to procure on the expiry of the House’s current printing contract in March 2016.
As the start of a new Parliament seemed a natural point at which to implement the change previously agreed by this House, and we were coming to the end of present contracts, the House Committee was content that we were seeking to take forward the House’s 1999 decision. I then wrote to the Chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee to invite that House to agree to the change. The view of the House of Commons authorities is that this is a matter for the House of Lords.