My Lords, this is a matter for Parliament. Following the debate in the other place, the Commons Administration Committee is discussing the issue this very afternoon. We will consider the next steps when it has concluded its deliberations.

I am very delighted to be discussing this pressing issue today because there is not much else going on. I respect what my noble friend has to say but I gently repeat that the recording of Acts of Parliament is a matter for the two Houses. We very much hope that a way forward can be found to continue the use of vellum. If that is not the wish of this House, a way will have to be found, but, as I say, we await the outcome of the committee’s meeting this afternoon.

The House Committee considered this matter at its meeting on 3 May. The Committee agreed that, in response to the letter from the Clerk of the House of Commons about the debate, I should write to the Chairman of the House of Commons Administration Committee in the following terms:

“I am writing further to the backbench debate on printing record copies of public Acts of Parliament on vellum. I have consulted the House of Lords House Committee in preparing this reply.

As you know, this House agreed in 1999 to move to printing Acts of Parliament on archival paper instead of vellum. We are persuaded that printing on archival paper is a more appropriate use of public funds, and that the case for continuing to print on vellum is not made.

If, in the light of the debate, the House of Commons wishes to arrange a contract for printing record copies of public Acts on vellum then the House of Lords Administration will gladly share experience of managing the legacy contract to assist you in making any such arrangements. I am sure you will appreciate that this House does not wish to contribute financially to any future printing on vellum. It is also important that we ensure the longevity of any public Acts, as the Clerk of the Parliaments must certify a record copy of them.

Perhaps at our next regular meeting it would be possible for us to discuss some of the points made in the debate. I am, as ever, grateful to you for all your help in this matter.”

I wrote accordingly on 4 May.

I refer the Noble Lord to the statement by my Hon Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General on 20 April 2016. This is available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-04-20/debates/584554e7-fb8f-44d6-8df0-8b3af8476d1e/CommonsChamber

As my Hon Friend made clear during the debate the printing of Acts onto vellum is a matter for Parliament. The Government is keen to work with the House authorities to explore all avenues for continuing to print on vellum [in line with the will of the House of Commons.]

As the House Committee was content that we were seeking to take forward the House’s 1999 decision and the House of Commons has indicated that this is a matter for the Lords, I have no such plans.

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.

This information is published on GOV.UK.

The number of newspaper journalists and publishers receiving awards in honours lists published between December 2011 and December 2015, broken down by individual list, is given below:

New Year 2012 - 1
Birthday 2012 - 3
New Year 2013 - 4
Birthday 2013 - 1
New Year 2014 - 3
Birthday 2014 - 1
New Year 2015 - 2
Birthday 2015 - nil
New Year 2016 - 1