RECORD COPIES OF ACTS

As this motion is using historical data, we may not have the record of the original ordering, in which case signatories are listed alphabetically.

This is an amendment to an existing motion

This motion was originally tabled by James Gray on 01 March 2016. This is amendment number 1.

View details of the original motion

Suggested amendment

leave out from 'House' to end and add 'believes that Parliament will be ridiculed if £80,000 spending is approved on an anachronistic vanity use of vellum which has no more modern practical value than Parliament's traditions of top hats and quill pens; notes that Parliament has recently approved savage cuts in the incomes of the disabled and other people in financial distress; and congratulates the House of Lords that has proved that it is sensitive to public opinion and display a common sense attitude to frivolous inconsistent spending.

Original motion text

That this House disagrees with the conclusion of the House of Commons Administration Committee in its First Report of Session 2015-16, and regrets the decision by the House of Lords to discontinue the use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament; further regrets that the views of individual hon. Members were given no consideration; is concerned that the alleged saving of £80,000 per annum is unlikely to materialise in the long term; believes that the terms of the Resolutions agreed by both Houses on 12 February 1849 have not been fully complied with; notes that the Second Report of the Lords Select Committee on House of Lords Offices, published on 25 May 1999, clearly states that when the Parliament Rolls of Acts of Parliament were discontinued in 1849, it was resolved by both Houses that two copies of every Act should be printed on vellum and that resolutions of both Houses would be needed to give effect to a recommendation to discontinue the use of vellum; further notes that the 1999 proposal was rejected by a majority of 39 per cent in this House; welcomes the view expressed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General that government funds would be available to pay for the continued use of vellum for printing Acts of Parliament; and therefore calls on the House of Lords to reverse its decision to use archival paper rather than vellum for the printing of record copies of public Acts of Parliament until the 1849 Resolutions are amended by both Houses.

The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it. The date shown is when the Member signed the motion.