| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.57 pm
Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond briefly to a couple of the points made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) made a passionate and effective defence of the interests of his local company. I have resolved that, if I am ever defeated in Broxtowe, I shall move to Milton Keynes, so as to get the benefit of my hon. Friend's advocacy.
On the specific issue of consultation, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Administration Committee tries to abide by the terms of the Ibbs report, which means that we rarely take evidence in open session. We ask the Officers of the House to make inquiries, to discuss matters and to correspond with companies, as was done in the case in question.
I confirm that members of the Administration Committee were apprised of the contents of the letters from William Cowley, and had the opportunity to bring the issue back to the Committee before the decision was published. We decided that we were still satisfied with the case.
Mr. White:
How many times did the Committee discuss with the supplier the issues of substance in the report?
Dr. Palmer:
As I said, the Committee does not normally take direct evidence in session from companies
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
How long has the firm been under contract to the House?
Dr. Palmer:
I am afraid that I do not have that information, but I shall be happy to supply the hon. Gentleman with it when I get hold of it after the debate.
As for durability, several hon. Members drew attention to the fact that, in principle, vellum will last for perhaps 1,500 years, and archival paper for between 500 and 1,000 years, or even, perhaps, 2,000 years. They argued that that was the crucial element. However, as I said earlier, the important question is not only the survival of the original documents but the security with which documents are kept, and the availability of computer back-up.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said that that was not a viable argument because computers crash. However, Members who work more actively with computers will agree that storage, especially storage of documents available on the internet, is not affected by the crash of any individual personal computer such as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members may own. We are talking about long-term storage with thorough back-up facilities, as thorough as those used by the Bank of England or other established bodies to secure the long-term viability of data.
Several hon. Members suggested that £30,000 is not a very large sum. Opposition Members attempted to ride with the hounds and run with the fox by attacking the Government for alleged overspending while recognising that the report is from an all-party Committee. I pointed out earlier that the availability of many more firms able to work with archival paper is likely to produce substantial savings of a kind that will be familiar to Opposition Members. It is unfortunate that they have presented their case as a partisan attack on the Government, and that approach will not benefit them in the vote.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and the hon. Member for Aldershot that it would be a shame to lose our foothold in an industry in which Britain is a leader in the world. Valuable though it may be to be the leader in the world in printing on goatskin, if we are unable to sustain the industry except by subsidising it with unnecessary orders from Parliament, the industry is not sustainable. I believe that that is the view of Ministers and Opposition Front Benchers, and of most hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not in the business of preserving industries merely for the sake of it.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North):
I am concerned by my hon. Friend's reference to subsidy. Does he agree that several valuable industries have been sustained by subsidy and that Britain remains an industrial nation as a result?
Dr. Palmer:
My hon. Friend's point would lead us into a broader political debate, but I agree with him that key industries have effects on other industries and need to be preserved during difficult times so that they can survive in the longer term. I suggest that the printing of documents on goatskin is not one of them. I note also that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes,
Mr. White:
My hon. Friend has referred to goatskin throughout the debate, but it is calfskin that is used.
Dr. Palmer:
I am grateful for that correction. In any event, the skins in question do not come from British cows.
The hon. Member for Aldershot, who is the authoritative voice in this House of the 19th century--and earlier centuries--noted the value of the death warrant of Charles I. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that any future royal death warrants will not be put on archival paper. The motion refers only to Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
I am grateful for that explanation. However, should some measure that is not an Act of Parliament require the approval of the House, from where will we get the material?
Dr. Palmer:
In the event of a future royal death warrant or other matter, we might exceptionally violate the call of the Leader of the Opposition and import the material from France.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) argued that Finance Bills are too long. That is a non-party issue, which goes beyond the current debate, but I suggest that the way to shorten Finance Bills is not necessarily to preserve them on animal skin.
The hon. Gentleman also pleaded the case of tradition. Let me give a serious response to the arguments about preserving tradition. I do respect the traditions of the House and those of the country. I believe that we should support traditions that are in keeping with our concept of Britain today, but to preserve a tiny industry that prints on animal hide for the sake of tradition alone does not seem to me sensible, and would not be understood by our constituents as sensible.
Question put:--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |