---

4.21 pm

Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset): I shall not delay the House for long in giving the Opposition's view that the resolution should be approved. The printing of Acts on vellum is an anachronistic practice that dates back to 1849. In October 1956, Madam Speaker, one of your predecessors was wise enough to institute a partial change by suggesting that private Acts should no longer be printed on vellum and deposited in the Public Record Office.

I shall be so bold as to suggest that the Opposition regard the move as part of the common-sense revolution. It is ironic that in these days of computers and electronic data storage, we should be debating the merits or otherwise of continuing to keep the work of the House stored on vellum. The case for change has been made admirably by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on behalf of the Committee. Vellum is very expensive, and the note by the Clerk of the House that is appended to the report suggests that printing last year's Finance Act alone on vellum cost nearly £12,000. That cost is increased by the necessity to place duplicate copies on vellum in the Public Record Office.

I do not know, and the hon. Member for Broxtowe did not mention, why, in 1985, his predecessor Committee rejected the proposal to extend the proposals to public Acts.

Dr. Palmer: I understand that the then Committee included an hon. Member in whose constituency there was a vellum manufacturer. He argued very forcefully against the proposals, and the matter was not proceeded with.

Mr. Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments because they probably make the case exceedingly well.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Far be it from me to interrupt the eloquence of his flow for long, but the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe are a source of anxiety to me because I have attended closely to the letter that I received from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). In paragraph 7 he informs me that he understands that the vellum producers nearest to those in his constituency are in France. I sense a split between Labour Members, and I would be grateful if that could be resolved as speedily as possible.

Mr. Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Unfortunately, I can throw no light on the question of where the nearest alternative source of vellum

1 Nov 1999 : Column 38

is to be found other than the correspondence that I, too, have had with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White).

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Perhaps I may assist the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). As I understand it, representations were made in 1985 on behalf of a firm that manufactured vellum. That firm no longer exists. The firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) produces vellum. The impression that the House has been given that the nearest alternative supply of vellum is in France is correct.

Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for that clarification.

I said that I would not delay the House in giving the Opposition's view. We have no objection to the motion, and shall let the matter stand there.

4.25 pm

Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East): I apologise for the earlier confusion when I objected to the first motion.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), I was in the computer industry before I entered this House, so I have no problem with the modern techniques of recording Acts. I have supported wholeheartedly the efforts of the Modernisation Committee to modernise the processes of the House.

I oppose the motion for three reasons: first, because of the way in which the matter was handled, to which I shall return; secondly, because I disagree with the Committee's arguments, which I hope to demonstrate are wrong; and thirdly, and most importantly, because the decision means the end of an industry in which Britain leads the world. I hope that, for each of those reasons, the House will support me in what I understand is a free vote, and reject the Committee's report, so that we can find a different way forward.

Committee members did not talk to the supplier until it was too late and they had made their decision. Let us take the issue of the Finance Bill, to which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) referred. The House authorities asked for a certain quantity of vellum; it was supplied. Then, at very short notice, they asked for a considerable quantity more, demanding it within 24 or 48 hours. Any reasonable request could have been met.

Mr. Bercow: I reiterate that I understand and am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's legitimate anxieties. Will he clarify for the benefit of the House whether the company in his constituency was given any opportunity to make representations? If it was not, that would, at the very least, count as a rank discourtesy, and the hon. Gentleman would have every reason to be dissatisfied about it.

Mr. White: The hon. Gentleman makes the point about the supplier's feelings more eloquently than I can. The supplier has written several letters and received replies, but in a letter to me in September, he said:

"I have tried to find out more about the reason behind the review of Vellum.

1 Nov 1999 : Column 39

I cannot find any reason why the officials of the Public Bills Office were so 'determined' to hold the Press to its contract when there was no . . . reason."

It seems to him that there has been a campaign to end his contract; that it was a question of making a decision and then finding reasons for it. He is rightly upset about that. One of the things that worry me is the way in which the episode has been handled, because I do not think that it has been handled correctly. Many issues, such as those of cost, thickness and storage, could have been resolved in discussion with the supplier. There did not need to be a change of material.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that this important debate was not important. The jobs in his constituency are very important; I accept the arguments on behalf of his miners. The supplier is very important to an old part of my constituency, so I contend that this an important debate.

Dr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend asserting that, with further consultation, it would have been possible to reduce the bulk of vellum by one third and to eliminate all the extra cost?

Mr. White: I am saying that it would have been possible to reduce the thickness and costs. Whether that was what the Committee had in mind would have been resolved by discussion.

One of the arguments compared vellum with archival paper. I quote from a letter that I have received from the British Library:

"my colleagues at the British Library were consulted about recommending an archival quality paper, which they were happy to do. I understand that they were not asked to compare the longevity of parchment with that of paper."

Therefore, the question that they were asked was not necessarily the one that should have been asked.

Equally, the Institute of Paper Conservation has said:

"We are concerned by the Select Committee's statement that archival paper has a proven life expectancy of 250 years, possibly more."

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe was right to say 500 years. The institute goes on:

"It seems to ignore the more fundamental problem of finding and securing supplies of archival paper made to the high specification required."

Again, the House has been given only part of the story. It is possible to get the sort of quality from the paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred, but it comes at a cost. It is not a matter of going to the local branch of Staple's and picking up some paper. There are issues to be resolved on the question of high quality.

We have already heard that the recommendation is about achieving a saving to the House, but fundamental costs to libraries and to archives would increase, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe accepted.

When we compare longevity of 250 or 500 years with the 1,500 years of vellum, the cost of £30,000 pales into insignificance. The supplier has assured me that the thickness requirement is dictated by the House authorities. He could easily supply vellum at half the current thickness if he were asked to do so. New techniques are being developed all the time that improve the quality of vellum at a much thinner specification. Again, no one has

1 Nov 1999 : Column 40

discussed that with him. It was taken as read that the current thickness was required. No one asked whether the vellum could be thinner.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe recognised that it is not an animal welfare issue. The calf skin is from animals that are already dead, or that would be used for other purposes--it is waste material.

It has been alleged that there is a short supply of vellum. Again, the evidence that I have would dispute that. One of the most fundamental suggestions in the report is that it is difficult to print on vellum, but that seems to ignore modern developments that mean that printing on vellum is possible from a standard ink-jet printer. If that can be done, there will be no problem in continuing to use vellum. Other people are not suggesting that there are printing problems with vellum.

I have a letter from Sotheby's, which suggests an idea for the House:

"Would you like to borrow a piece of real medieval vellum? . . . If you were speaking about the durability of vellum and could exhibit a piece, you could virtually defy anyone in the House to tear it in half."

My notes are on vellum. Before I came into the Chamber, I offered them to the Government Whips and said, "If you want to rip them up, feel free to do so." As hon. Members can see, they were unable to tear them in half.

There is a fundamental reason for opposing the motion. Arguments in the Committee's report could be discussed. In fact, arguments on both sides could be discussed with the supplier. There is only one supplier in the country who deals with vellum; Britain leads the world in the sector. If we were to lose that supplier, an industry would be lost. The company has one major contract, on which all the others depend. It is sustained by its contract with the House--so that, in turn, it is able to supply vellum to its other clients, such as bookbinders, archives and museums. The contract also enables the firm to supply very small quantities of vellum to other clients, such as--as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said--the six pieces supplied to Trinity college.

We can save our vellum industry, and the unique skills practised in it. The National Library of Scotland stated:

"This material is more durable and long lasting than even the archival papers in common use today. Archival papers are long lasting but they do not have the life of parchment/vellum and are yet unproven . . . If it is the intention to preserve the original records of state for as long as possible, then parchment/vellum should be the information carrier."

Christopher Clarkson, a conservator of library and archive materials, said:

"I teach in many countries, including America, and I can in all honesty say that many workshops rely on England . . .


Your colleagues in Parliament may think that discontinuation of the use of parchment is an economy, but they must be made aware of the larger picture."

In the aftermath of the Florence flood disaster, the skills of many people were required. Subsequently, many of those skills have been lost. If the House cancels the contract, Britain will lose conservation, bookbinding and archival skills, and, in the years to come, we will come to rue the decision.

The National Library of Wales said:

"Vellum is essential for the conservation of historic books and manuscripts, but it is used in far smaller quantities for conservation than when it is used for printing, and in my opinion the combined purchasing power of British conservators is insufficient to sustain the sole surviving British manufacturer of vellum."

1 Nov 1999 : Column 41

The House may decide that making a £30,000 economy justifies destroying an industry--but such a decision would be wrong. We are again in danger of being penny wise, but pound foolish. If the company loses the contract and goes out of business, we shall be putting a dozen people out of work. Although that number of jobs lost--compared with those lost in the coal, steel or shipbuilding industries--is not great, we shall be losing entirely another industry and the skills that create products that we export around the world.

I ask the House to reject the report, so that we might find another solution. If we reject the report, we shall be able to continue discussions with the supplier on finding savings. If the report is accepted, we shall damage not only the company and my constituency, but--most of all--the United Kingdom.

I refer Opposition Members to today's editorial in The Times, which urges them to treat the matter with the importance that it deserves. I tell Conservative Members that, if last week's rhetoric meant anything, they should vote today to support a British industry that depends on British agriculture. Any Conservative Member who votes today to accept the report will only be exposing as rhetoric the statements that the official Opposition made last week.

I remind my colleagues that, when we were in opposition, we were unable to save the shipbuilding industry or the coal mines--which others had resolved to destroy. If we accept the report, we too shall be destroying an industry, albeit a small one.

We should deal with the matter properly. There should be proper consultation, so that we might find the best way forward and treat people decently. The proposal would make a small saving for a small number of people, but we would lose something important for everybody else.

I ask the House to reject the report and give us time to find a different way forward that does not destroy an industry. The nearest vellum producers are in France. Whether the other business would go there remains to be seen, but we would lose it for this country. I shall be pushing for a Division. We need to have further discussions to look at the wider picture and engage in joined-up thinking rather than just saving money for the House authorities at the cost of jobs and industries and increasing costs for libraries and other parts of the public sector. Please reject the report.

---