APPENDIX
Note by the Clerk of the House
Record Copies of Acts
Introduction
1. The purpose of this note is to seek the view of
the Committee on the proposals -
that from the first chapter of the year 2000 the
record copy of public Acts preserved in the House of Lords Record
Office should be preserved on archival paper and not on vellum,
and both private and public Acts should have archival paper covers,
and
that (subject to the views of the Keeper of the Public
Records and the Master of the Rolls) the deposit of duplicate
record copies of both public and private Acts at the Public Record
Office should be ended, with effect from the same date.
2. The arrangements proposed to be changed derive
from Resolutions of both Houses in 1849 (CJ (1849-50) 42). The
Resolutions provided for two copies of every Act, whether Public
or Private, to be printed on vellum, one to be deposited in the
Record Tower (now the House of Lords Record Office) and the other
with the Master of the Rolls (now the Public Record Office). The
copy deposited in the Lords' Record Office is authenticated by
the Clerk of the Parliaments. Where a doubt arises about the accuracy
of the published text of an Act the Courts look to this authenticated
copy as the authority for what Parliament has enacted. As well
as providing authority for the Courts the authenticated copy is
consulted by members of the public both in the United Kingdom
and from abroad. The authenticated record copy therefore needs
to be held in a form in keeping with the authority and dignity
of Parliament.
3. The 1849 Resolutions were not formally amended
by the House when in 1956 (following the recommendations of a
Joint Committee and the Lords Offices Committee) it was ruled
by the Speaker that the vellum requirement should no longer apply
to private Acts (HC Deb. (1955-56) 558, c. 945). On the
other hand, given the recent history of attempts to change the
practice regarding record copies of public Acts (see para.
4 below) it is suggested that amendment by the House (and by the
Lords) of the earlier Resolutions would be the most appropriate
course in this case.
Archival paper
4. A proposal to extend to record copies of public
Acts the 1956 decision on printing of private Acts on vellum was
rejected by a Sub-Committee of the Lords' Offices Committee in
1957 after they had heard evidence which appeared to cast doubt
on the suitability of paper for archival purposes. The suggestion
was not considered in the Commons at that time. In 1985, a similar
proposal which had been agreed by the Lords was put before the
Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee in this House and
rejected: no report was made setting out the Sub-Committee's reasons,
though it is believed that Members took the view that the anticipated
level of savings did not justify a departure from long-standing
tradition. It was also the case that representations were made
by a Member in whose constituency a vellum-making factory was
located. (It should perhaps be added here that there is currently
only one supplier of vellum in Europe. In the event of failure,
recourse would have to be had to North America.)
5. So far as concerns the suitability of archival
paper raised in 1957, samples of the record copies of the Private
Acts deposited in the Lords' Record Office from 1956 have since
been tested and reveal no deterioration in the archival paper
on which they have been printed. Forty years is not a long time
in archival terms, but British Library Conservation Department
laboratory tests have proven a life expectancy of 250 years and
indicate that archival paper can have a life expectancy exceeding
500 years. All record copies are maintained by the Lords Record
Office in proper archival conditions and they are produced for
inspection only under supervision.
6. In addition, archival paper has the advantage
of being considerably less bulky and easier to handle than vellum
since vellum sheets are, on average, two and half times as thick
as archival sheets. The Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the Parliamentary
Officer responsible for the preservation of the record copies
of Acts, has concluded that the adoption of archival paper for
the record copies of the Public Acts would be as satisfactory
for those Acts as it is for the Private Acts. Examples of archival
paper will be available at the meeting of the Committee.
7. As to the cost, which was at issue in 1984, it
is clear that there would be substantial savings to public funds
from such a change. The current cost of vellums is £27 per
page (ie for two copies). Expenditure on vellums amounted to £59,000
for the 1997 Acts, and is projected to be £67,000 for the
1998 Acts. The Finance (No. 2) Act 1998 alone cost £11,502.
This figure does not take account of staff costs involved in checking
vellums, necessitated in particular because ink does not take
as easily to vellum as it does to paper. A saving of nearly £24,000
per annum could be made by switching from vellum to archival paper,
or some 35.7 per cent of the total cost (and see also paragraph
9).
8. Finally, there are practical considerations arising
from the printing process itself. The use of vellum is a very
specialised form of printing which few printers are equipped to
carry out (see para. 4), and which probably even fewer would be
prepared to take on. In view of the current process of tendering
for the printing services to both Houses, and the likelihood that
HMSO will also tender for its contract in respect of printing
Acts (to which the printing of vellums is tied) in the near future,
it is desirable to remove any disincentive to which the need to
print vellums might give rise in prospective providers of such
services. The more that can be done to create genuinely competitive
conditions for the award of new printing contracts, the better.
Duplicate copies
9. The 1849 Resolutions also incorporate a requirement
for a duplicate record copy. The then Keeper of Public Records
was consulted about this in 1984 and he indicated that the duplicate
copies held by the Public Record Office were rarely consulted
and that any inquirer wishing to consult these duplicates was
normally referred to the Lords' Record Office. The then Master
of the Rolls was also of the opinion that these duplicates should
be dispensed with. Their respective successors are being consulted,
but there is no reason to expect that the position of the Public
Record Office has since altered. I will keep the Committee up
to date with any replies received. Using archival paper for the
production of only one record copy would increase the annual
saving to some £30,000 or 42.5 per cent of the total cost.
Conclusion
10. I have no objection to the proposal to print
record copies on archival paper. The status of these copies would
not be affected. The manner of preservation is appropriate and
the durability of the material involved is acceptable. There will
be cost advantages. In practice the consequences for the two Houses
will be very limited indeed. So far as concerns the lodging of
a duplicate copy in the Public Record Office is concerned, Members
are reminded that the published Queen's Printer's copy of an Act
is a legally recognised text in its own right, and is produced
from the same type as the record copy. A further specially authentic
copy in the Public Record Office seems unnecessary.
11. The Administration & Works Sub-Committee
of the Offices Committee in the Lords agreed on 4th
May this year that vellum copies should be discontinued and recommended
that from the first chapter of the year 2000 one single record
copy of Acts, whether public or private, should be produced on
archival paper. If the Committee concurs, and the Lords Offices
Committee agrees, I suggest that the next step would be to seek
the House's agreement by means of a Resolution to amend or supersede
that of 1849, with a parallel procedure in the Lords.
7 May 1999
| 
