EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (UNITS OF MEASUREMENT) (Hansard, 19 December 1979)

§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The business was announced last Thursday by the Leader of the House. Those of us who went to the Vote Office last week for the document received the Government explanatory memorandum No. 5247/79, dated 20 March, and the EEC regulation of that reference. However, I understand that a matter has arisen and that an additional memorandum has been deposited in the Vote Office, dated today. That document is not signed. Therefore, hon. Members who received documents last week—even my hon. Friend 'the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), who has put down an amendment—are unaware of the development. No indication is given on the more recent document as to when a change of decision at the Council of Ministers took place. Clearly it was subsequent to 28 March o this year.
If the Council's decision was taken as recently as yesterday or last Thursday, the existence of the additional memorandum could be understood. I hope that we shall receive an explanation before the debate starts. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, lack of documentation on these matters has been a cause of considerable difficulty.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
I am well aware that lack of documentation has been a source of difficulty in the past. I understand that the second document has been in the Vote Office for some hours—since 8 o'clock anyway, which is some hours—and I also understand that the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), in whose name an amendment stands, has been happy to substitute for it a manuscript amendment. On that basis, I believe that we should proceed with the debate. No doubt the Under-Secretary will explain what has occurred.

§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a desirable precedent for the House to debate the measures on the basis of documents that have been available only to those who have been lucky enough to discover the facts in the space of the few hours that have been referred to?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No, it is not a desirable precedent. The matter was drawn to my attention earlier this evening and I am delighted to know that the documents were eventually placed in the Vote Office. However, although it is not a desirable precedent, in view of the fact that there is a manuscript amendment, I believe that we should proceed with the debate.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Reginald Eyre)
I beg to move, That this House takes note of EEC document No. 5247/79, as amended, on Units of Measurement. First, I shall refer to the points of order that have been raised. I emphasise that copies of the memorandum were placed in the Vote Office, as you pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the course of my speech I shall refer to the memorandum. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will see that the slight amendment is entirely favourable from their point of view.

§ Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)
It is regrettable that this happened and it is more regrettable that the memorandum was not signed by a Minister. We have waited many months for this debate. Indeed, I signed the previous Government memorandum. Now we have an unsigned memorandum from the Government. I hope that this will not occur again.

§ Mr. Jay
Will the Minister at least tell us who is responsible for the memorandum that is not signed?

§ Mr. Eyre
I am not able to answer the question of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I apologise for the tightness of the timing. It will become apparent as I proceed that the effect of the amendment is slight and favourable.
Following the European Economic Community decision in 1971, incorporated in directive 71/354, to move towards the exclusive use of the metric—SI—system throughout the Community, the United Kingdom accepted this commitment on its accession in 1973. The timing of the phasing out of Imperial units was, however, largely left open for further consideration.
811 In 1976 an amending directive—76/770/EEC—set out a partial timetable for the removal of certain Imperial units, although the future of the most commonly used units was left open. The amending directive was introduced by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and was welcomed by the House after a full debate on 7 July 1976.
Since then the United Kingdom has participated in discussions in Brussels on the future of Imperial and other non-SI units. The result is that the present draft directive, originally published as COM (79) 89, was considered by the Select Committee on European legislation on 28 March this year. It has since been slightly amended, as I shall explain in a moment.

§ Mr. Tim Sainsbury (Hove)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that had we not become members of the Community it would still have been necessary, and in conformity with Government policy, for action such as is included in the directive to be taken because of the programme of metrication upon which both Labour and Conservative Governments had embarked?

§ Mr. Eyre
It is not possible for me to speculate accurately on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). It is difficult to envisage where we would have been had we not taken the important step of becoming members of the Community.
The new directive, which will replace the two earlier directives, sets out to regulate the use of units in certain areas of activity—for example, for economic, safety or administrative purposes. In practice, this means that as units of measurement cease to be authorised, reference to such units in legislation must be replaced.
It should be stressed that the directive does not introduce controls in areas where they do not already exist. For example, sport makes widespread use of units of measurement but it is not subject to legislative control. The furlong, for example, which ceased to be authorised at the end of 1977, can continue to be a feature of race meetings if the organisers so choose. For consumer protection reasons we have exercised control on the use of units for weights and measures purposes 812 for very many years. The directive will apply in that area.
The new directive, which will replace the two earlier directives, comes into force on 1 October 1981. It assumes that the Imperial units not in chapter III will by then have been removed from use in legislation in accordance with the timetable in the earlier directive. The United Kingdom has already partly implemented that timetable. The units of measurement regulations of 1978—statutory instrument 1978 No. 484—phased out a number of the less widely used units, such as the chain, the furlong and the rood and the dram. The next step is for a further group of Imperial units to be removed from use in legislation by the end of the year. There have been delays in finalising the new amending directive the necessary implementing leg cannot be introduced until early next year.
There is one small but significant amendment to the earlier draft, COM (79) 89. Three units—the yard, the square yard, and the therm—would have had to be removed from legislation at the end of the year. That was not acceptable to the Government as the early demise of the yard and the square yard would effectively compel the use of metric units only for certain retail sales, and the gas industry needed to use the therm for some time. We have negotiated an amendment to the original proposal that safeguards the position of the three units. They are now included with the other common Imperial units in chapter III of the draft directive. That means that their future need not be discussed again for 10 years.
The Government have accepted that the other Imperial units in the original proposal may be removed from legislation on the basis that all the legislation that uses them either has been amended or is in the process of being amended. The phasing out of the use of Imperial units by industry has been the subject of the most widespread consultation. We know of no special difficulties likely to arise now that we have safeguarded the units that I have mentioned.

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
Will the decision to cease to authorise these Imperial units in 1989 have to be unanimous? Could the United Kingdom, even at that stage, prevent these units from being phased out against its will?

§ Mr. Eyre
There is 10 years ahead of us for consideration. It will then be necessary for the matter to be brought again to the House before any final step is taken.

§ Mr. Spearing
Before the Minister moves on to its substance, perhaps we may deal with the matter of the amendment. My concern is not for its substance but for the procedure. There could well have been a major change in the opposite direction. Other than those hon. Members who have been to the Vote Office since 8 o'clock, hon. Members who took their documents last week would not have known of it. When was the change made subsequent to the Select Committee's meeting of 28 March? Was it last week or was it much longer ago?

§ Mr. Eyre
I cannot answer precisely now, but I shall seek to do so in the course of the evening, or write to the hon. Gentleman. It may be helpful if I tell the House that there is only one amendment of any significance to the draft directive considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation on 28 March this year. Three units of measurement—the yard, the square yard and the therm—which under the terms of the earlier directive—71/354/EEC as amended by 76/770/EEC—would have to cease to be authorised at the end of this year, have now been included in chapter III of the draft directive. This means that they are grouped with other commonly used Imperial units on which a decision need not be taken before—as I have emphasized—31 December 1989.

§ Mr. Jay
Can the hon. Gentleman answer a little more clearly the question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)? The Minister said that before there was any change the matter would have to come to the House. But is there not also a decision by the Council of Ministers? After all, we were told on another issue earlier tonight that, although it was before the House, the House had no option but to decide one way, because the Council of Ministers had so decided. Is the Minister's hon. Friend right in thinking that before such a decision was taken it would have to come before the Council of Ministers, and we should have a veto if we wished?

§ Mr. Eyre
I should like to come in more detail to the point that the right 814 hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) have raised. I wish first to complete my remarks about the effect on industry.
We shall make the maximum possible use of the directive's provisions relating to the continued use of existing equipment. This is very important in certain parts of the country. It is no part of the Government's policy to make unnecessary difficulties for industry, and the implementation of the directive will be tailored to fit the realities of everyday life.

§ Mrs. Peggy Fenner (Rochester and Chatham)
At the strictly practical level, will local authorities cease requesting metric measurements for planning applications? It seems to me that they have been doing that for years, against the decision of this House. I realise that this is not a matter for my hon. Friend's Department, and if he is not prepared to answer tonight, perhaps he will write to me.

§ Mr. Eyre
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the very considerate way in which she posed that question. It is highly technical, and I do not believe that it would be possible for me to obtain for her immediately an answer that properly considered all the implications. I realise the practical importance of the matter, and I shall see that proper inquiries are made and that a full answer is sent to my hon. Friend. I hope that she will enjoy reading it during the Christmas Recess.
The most commonly used Imperial units are all included in chapter III of the amending directive—including now the yard, the square yard and the therm. A decision on the future of all these units will have to be taken by the end of 1989. This does not mean that they could not continue in use after that date—simply that a decision is to be reached by then on a date or dates after which they will cease to be authorised. Consequently, these units can continue to be used within the United Kingdom for trade and in our prescribed quantity regulations relating, for example, to some basic foodstuffs, coal and so on. Their continuing use will be as I have described.
The decision in Council would have to be unanimous and would therefore be subject to a veto.
815 As has already been made clear to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, the Government do not intend to compel metrication by legislation. Accordingly, voluntary timetables can be drawn up by the trade interests directly concerned.
The Government share the view of the previous Administration—I thought that the hon. Member for Norwood made this clear when he introduced the motion in 1976—that the directive should not seek to dictate the pace of metrication but that it should reflect the change of pace here. This has a very important practical implication for the House. That pace of change goes on and we have to reflect it. That is the Government's approach in introducing the motion.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Before he sits down, could he perhaps indicate why any specific date is given in the order? Why does not the order say that these measurements can be authorised until further notice? Why set a date on it? Would not my hon. Friend agree that it looks as if the Commission—the bureaucracy in Europe—ismerely trying to make further work for itself to justify its existence? I believe that these measurements are popular in this country and that people want them to stay. Why should not they remain ad infinitum or until further notice? Why do we have to have a date on the order?

§ Mr. Eyre
The history of these matters is extraordinarily complicated, but I assure my hon. Friend that as a consequence of earlier measures that date is in being, but its operation is qualified in the way that I have described, which means that we shall have an opportunity to consider the matter again before the results become final.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Before I call the next speaker, may I say to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). This replaces the amendment which is printed on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Eric Deakins (Waltham Forest)
I beg to move as a manuscript amendment, at the end, to add 816 but affirms that no decision on the phasing out of those imperial units which the EEC Directive requires to be reviewed by the end of 1989 should be taken before the House has first given its approval. The amendment seeks to establish the principle that this House should decide if and when the remaining Imperial units should be phased out. I understand that it is acceptable to the Minister and I hope that he will confirm that. This principle may have been explicit in the explanatory memorandum of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) but it is not explicit here, and on such an important matter it is absolutely essential that we make the position clear.
Before the end of 1989, the Council has to decide on a date for phasing out Imperial units. In those circumstances, the Government of the day, if they agree with the Council view, will have to get the prior approval of this House.

§ Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)
I think that the whole House will welcome the directive. I am not saying that in a spirit of self-congratulation because I signed the memorandum. I am sure that it is acceptable, as is the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).
I mean no discourtesy to the Under-Secretary of State, but it is a pity that the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who has strong views on and departmental responsibility for these matters, is not present. The right hon. Lady has made a number of statements outside the House on these subjects.
The matter covered by the directive is deferred for 10 years. Even at the end of that time, as the Under-Secretary of State said, we are not bound to take any decision. If the rest of our partners in the Community decided that there would have to be a phasing-out, we should have a right of veto and the matter could be put off for another discussion to take place in about 10 years' time.

§ Mr. Jay
Is my hon. Friend certain that the veto operates, from our point of view, in the right direction? Is he sure that this is not a situation in which the special relationship lapses should any other country exercise the veto?

§ Mr. Fraser
My clear understanding, when I prepared the memorandum, was 817 that there was deferment of any decision, that any decision to phase out remaining Imperial units would require a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers, and that a British Minister would be able to veto that decision. It is simply a deferral of any decision at all.
It is explicit that the veto would reside in this country. I hope that I put the matter properly in the memorandum before the House, saying that the pace of metrication is best determined inside the United Kingdom and not determined for us by our membership of the Community. There is little to argue about, or discuss, in the Community proposal. The matter is put off. We are left to our own domestic devices in deciding what to do.
But we cannot ignore some discussion in the House about the way in which we should proceed at our own domestic pace towards a completely metric system. This matter divides each side of the House. I think, from my recollection, that it also divides the Liberal Party. It would be a pity if what is very much a scientific matter were to become an issue in which one party was in favour of measuring an area by multiplying a chain by a furlong while the other party favoured measuring an area of land by the hectare. Any idea that clear party lines can be established on these matters is ludicrous and would do no credit to the House.
We have to continue to consider the pace and the desirability of moving to a completely metric system. One can move more quickly in some areas than in others. I want to put a number of points for consideration.
First, there is the compelling argument about simplicity. I should like to give an illustration. If one wanted to find the capacity in cubic yards of the Dispatch Box before which I am standing, one could measure first in inches and divide the result by 1,728 to convert into cubic feet and then divide by 27 to convert into cubic yards. I think that that is a fairly good illustration. On the other hand, if one were working it out in cubic metres, one would measure in centimetres and move the decimal point. There is a point about simplicity here. Anybody who has struggled through O-level physics on the Imperial system and has seen others doing it rather more easily on the metric system will know what I mean.
818 Secondly—this is not unimportant—we have about 16 million people educated solely in the metric system. Looking through CSE and both O-level and A-level examinations, I think that I am right in saying that we find not one examination conducted on the Imperial system. We have some responsibility to children and adults educated solely in the metric system.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
On the subject of education, on which the hon. Gentleman appears to have some knowledge, will he tell the House whether he has any information on the time advantage that can be derived from teaching children subjects, such as physics and mathematics, in the metric system, which he has graphically demonstrated is so simple, as opposed to teaching them in both systems or just in the Imperial system?

§ Mr. Fraser
The hon. Gentleman mentioned time.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
I have in mind the time that it takes to go through the educational process. I have heard it suggested that it takes an additional year in the mathematical curriculum if one has to teach people in both the Imperial and metric dimensions.

§ Mr. Fraser
Frankly, I would not know. From what little mathematics teaching I have done, I have found it easier and speedier to teach in the metric system. I think that is beyond dispute.
We have been progressing in education on the metric system for almost 15 years. I think that it was in 1965 that my right. hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) first began a programme of change to metrication. I am not sure whether he was followed or preceded in that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). It has taken a long time. We must consider how long we should continue with a dual system.
The third reason why we have to consider these matters is that Britain is an international trading nation. We do not trade in glasses of beer and pints of milk. Successive Governments have given commitments to retain the pint for both milk and beer. That is relatively unimportant, but there are other areas where trading considerations are of importance. If I 819 interpret the Government's attitude properly, they regard the change to metrication as inevitable but they have no clear idea when the change will take place. I ask the Minister to say a little more about the Government's philosophy on that matter.
The Minister for Consumer Affairs has made clear that she does not believe in compulsion. When there is a change from Imperial to metric, the trade generally agrees upon a date when the change will take place. In that sense it is voluntary. The trade agrees upon a date for transition from one form of measure to another, but, for the sake of orderliness, it likes the Government to prescribe that date as a matter of law. There is no possibility of converting from the Imperial to the metric system by voluntary means, particularly in the retail sector, as I think the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will confirm. The word "compulsion" has been invested with rather more force than it deserves. A phasing-out order puts a Government imprimatur on the agreement reached by the trade itself about the way in which it will phase from one system to another.
I ask the Government to consider whether voluntarism should be allowed to progress to the stage where it becomes anarchy and chaos. There is danger in relying too heavily on voluntarism and in not providing an orderly framework within which industry can make the transition if it so wishes. I hope that we can on some future occasion have the Government's reflections on how they see the process eventually taking place.
When we considered the Weights and Measures Bill I gave a commitment to publish an annual statement about voluntary and compulsory changes to metrication. Perhaps we can have an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman that that annual statement about progress towards metrication will continue to be published to the House so that hon. Members, industry, and the general public will know what is the basis of the Government's thinking and what kind of timetable they have in mind.

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
I should be delighted if I could congratulate somebody on having saved yards, square yards 820 and the therm. Unfortunately, I do not know whom to congratulate, because the memorandum on this subject is not signed. I should have liked to offer my congratulations because whoever it is has done a lot better than the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) when he was in charge of this subject.
He put before the House a memorandum of 20 March this year in which he was quite prepared to accept the loss of the yard, the square yard and the therm. At that time the Select Committee on European legislation reported to the House. It called our attention to this proposal and recommended that it should be considered by the House.
We are only just having the debate on the issue following the report from the Select Committee in March. In that report the Select Committee on European legislation made this comment: Some familiar units such as the yard and the calorie are not included in the list of legal units of measurement that may continue to be authorised. Obviously the Select Committee puts some weight on the fact that we were to lose the yard. Had the Select Committee been informed of the fact that we have now saved the yard it might well have recommended to the House that this debate was unnecessary.
There is an undertaking to put before the Select Committee on European legislation any significant alterations in the proposals that are to go to the Council of Europe, so that the Select Committee may reconsider a proposal on which it has already reported to the House. In this case the Select Committee had reported to the House in March last on a proposal as described by the hon. Member for Norwood when he was in charge of the Department. It is a great pity that this new and welcome proposal was not brought before the Select Committee. It might have saved the House a lot of trouble tonight. There it is, and I still do not know whom to congratulate.
I do not even know when this decision was made. If it was made even a week ago it could have been brought before the Select Committee. If it was made only yesterday, or today, I congratulate whoever made it. The yard has just been born "in the vestry" as it were, just in time. I am pleased that we have it back.
821 Is my hon. Friend quite satisfied that he has construed the relevant article correctly?
Article 1 of the draft directive states: The legal units of measurement within the meaning of this Directive which are necessary for expressing quantities shall be:… (c) until a date to be fixed by those Member States, those listed in Chapter III of the Annex in those Member States where they were authorised on 21 April 1973; this date may not extend beyond a date which shall be set by the Council under Article 100 of the Treaty before 31 December 1989. It is possible to construe that as meaning that the date of termination of legality must be a date prior to 31December 1989. The Minister has said that it means that if before 31 December 1989 the Council fixes the date for termination of the legality of those measures, the date can be any date—five, 10 or 20 years after 1989. However, I am not certain that that is the right construction.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
Has not my right hon. Friend considered that article I has been amended by a memorandum that will be in the Vote Office tomorrow and available to hon. Members in a week or two?

§ Mr. Page
I was tempting the Minister to amend this article so that it is certain that all that must happen is that before 31 December 1989 a date is set but that, apart from that, the matter is left wide open.
A date must be set before 1989. It is right that any proposal should come before the House. Normally it would go first to the Select Committee that deals with European legislation. That Committee may recommend that it be debated by the House. If the Committee so recommends, the Minister cannot take steps to implement the proposals until the House has debated it. That is the purport of the amendment. The amendment states only fact. Present procedures should be emphasised. The amendment is acceptable as a statement of the present position.

§ Mr. Deakins
That is not my understanding of the amendment. Under the present procedure, when the Select Committee recommends that there should be a debate, it normally takes place on the Floor of the House, on a Government 822 motion to take note. Under the amendment, which I hope is acceptable, the House will have to take a positive decision—the Government will have to move a motion to approve the action that they propose to take in the Council.

§ Mr. Page
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) for explaining his amendment still further. I agree with his amendment even more. I am sure that hon. Members agree that the House should debate an affirmative resolution. I want to be certain that the other member States will not construe this article to mean that a date of termination of the validity of these measurements must be fixed before 31 December 1989. I hope that the Minister will negotiate better wording for article 1 (c).

§ Mr. David Penhaligon (Truro)
By training I am an engineer and therefore probably have more sympathy for going metric than most other people. I recognise the reluctance on the part of some people to follow this trend. My beloved mother in Cornwall still buys potatoes by the gallon, which is the way that people in Cornwall have always bought potatoes and, although I tell my mother that I am sure that it is absolutely illegal, she will buy potatoes by the gallon until the day she dies and, frankly, as far as I am concerned, I cannot see why she should not.
There is, however, one problem. I am not quite clear how we now measure a number of things in this country. How, for example, do we define the pressure to which we pump tyres on cars? We have in this document the possibility of using newtons/m², pounds per square inch, or bars. I do not know whether the old kg/cm² is still alive and kicking, but certainly the previous three are mentioned in this document.
This is the problem when there are two or three systems operating at the same time. Very few people understand the connection between one set of units and another. The point I raise is relevant to a number of other possible combinations of units dealt with in this document. How do we measure the pressure to which tyres are inflated? How do we measure the maximum stress at which steel becomes plastic? How do we 823 measure stress and pressure in general terms? Have we ended up with the ludicrous situation of having a different system for measuring stress in steel from that which we use for measuring pressure in tyres? That is the problem when there are two systems operating together.
I make a confession. When I am thinking of how warm the Chamber is I think in degrees Fahrenheit. When I think of the temperature at which steel melts I think in degrees Centigrade. It is a crazy system by which to bring up young people. Certainly the schoolchildren understand only the new units. I believe that the trend must be general. My specific question is: how do we measure pressure?

§ Mr. Tim Sainsbury (Hove)
It seems rather unfortunate that the move to metrication, which it has been pointed out has been going on in this country officially for 15 years and has been under discussion for about 100 years—indeed, I believe that it was nearly carried in this House 100 years ago—has become confused with the directives of the European Community. If it causes no other problem it brings into the debate certain Labour Members whose prejudices against the Community would override even their strongest affection for the logical system of measurement which metrication represents.
This situation rather muddies the waters in a discussion on something which I would have thought that anyone who considered the situation logically and took into account schoolchildren, the consumer and industry—three fairly important groups in society—would have to support. I detected, underlying the opening remarks of the Minister, almost a welcome for the idea, as he said, that the matter need not be discussed again for another 10 years. I can only say that if, for 10 more years, our schoolchildren, our industry and our consumers are to be kept in the ridiculous confusion that we have now, they will bitterly regret it. We shall all come to realise what an unnecessary problem we are causing the whole of our country.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that he did not expect any special difficulties to arise. He should appreciate that a great many special difficulties are 824 already in existence as a result of the lack of clarity in the Government's metrication policy and the lack of clarity at times displayed by the previous Government. The difficulties are already there. The first one concerns education. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said that already 16 million children had been educated either entirely or principally in the metric system. Are we to continue educating children in the metric system and then ask them to come out into a world where we persist in using an archaic system which is hardly used in any other part of the world? I should like my hon. Friend, if he cannot answer that now, to write to me.
Are we proposing any change in the education system, because in 10 years' time it will not be 16 million; it will be 26 million or 30 million who will have been educated in the metric system and will then be expected to spend the remainder of their lives grappling with these extraordinary measurements which everybody else has been sufficiently sensible to give up.
We then come to the question of trade. I was interested to receive an answer from one of my right hon. Friends to the effect that only 0.4 per cent. of our exports go to countries which either have not metricated or have not got a committed timetable for metrication already. Do we—one of the greatest trading nations in the world—wish to stay with the 0.4 per cent.? It imposes absurd difficulties upon our manufacturing industry if it has to produce in Imperial measures for the home market and in metric measures for exports.
Some of my hon. Friends share, I am sure, my desire that our heritage should be preserved. However, the right place to preserve the heritage is in places like museums. One does not use one's model T Ford for driving up and down a motorway every day; it is a piece of industrial archaeology. Perhaps it is because it is called the Imperial system that some of my hon. Friends find it so attractive, but that is a false reason for having such affection for this peculiar system.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
I certainly do not drive up the motorway in an old Ford car, but I do like to know how many miles I am driving on the motorway. My hon. Friend, who I am sure accepts the 825 Government's move towards reducing Government expenditure, would surely not like huge sums to be spent on changing all the motorway signs at a cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. The British people are very proud of their mile. There is no reason why this Imperial measure should be changed, just as there is no reason why the pint or the yard should be changed.
My hon. Friend talks about our heritage, but surely there are many Imperial units that could be used ad infinitum in this country without damaging industry. If only 0.4 per cent. of our exports are to countries that have Imperial measurements, surely industry can adapt itself and that will not inconvenience the British people.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
I do not think that my hon. Friend could have been listening to what I was saying. There is the problem of education and trade. If a manufacturer is producing an article in a world market, as practically all people who try to export are, he does not want to have to produce and package that article in Imperial and in metric measures. It complicates the whole process and leads to fewer exports because it is therefore the more difficult to export. My hon. Friend must try to bring himself to think about the matter logically. It is very romantic to be attached to the mile. There is no reason why we should necessarily drop the mile, anyhow in this century. My hon. Friend may not be aware that the only Imperial measure that has any remaining significance in the world of sport is the mile. The mile is still occasionally run with distinction. Those in athletics have not been running any other distance expressed in Imperial terms for years—I think I can almost say decades—but the mile can be preserved. If we can keep that and go metric on the rest, perhaps that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
Those most adversely affected by the present state of confusion are the consumers, and that means every person in the country. It is all very well to talk about keeping the pint, but is my hon. Friend aware that by the end of next year milk in retail shops will be sold only in metric measurements, while milk delivered to the doorstep will be sold only in Imperial measurements? We shall then have a system whereby a very standard commodity is sold in two totally different 826 and incompatible systems of measurement.
Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) is, even if he is not—that if one takes a recipe that requires the use of butter and cheese, butter will be bought in metric packs and the cheese will be bought in Imperial packs? That is not exactly helpful to either cooks or consumers.
We are in a state of total and ridiculous confusion, which is damaging to education, trade and the consumer. The House should take note of this directive in the hope that we shall not have to wait another 10years in our present state of total confusion, at great cost to our education system and manufacturers and at growing confusion to the consumer.
As my hon. Friend knows, as each month goes by more and more goods in metric packs come into the High Street shops of our country. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Norwood suggested, unless we have a Government created, co-ordinated programme of conversion, conversion of weighed-out goods will not take place. Therefore, weighed-out goods will continue to be sold in Imperial measures, whereas all packaged goods will be sold in metric measures.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
How much will it cost?

§ Mr. Sainsbury
The cost to the consumer and to education will be infinite, and the cost to the manufacturer will become progressively more damaging. However much we love our imperial past, it is time that we said "Goodbye" to the daily use of this relic of imperialism.

§ Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)
If a week is thought to be a long time in politics, 10 years must be infinite hereafter. Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who is a hardliner for metrication, the subject of the debate has the unanimous agreement of every hon. Member. I am sure that every hon. Member would agree with the amendment of the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins). From the nodding of the Minister—which I took to be nods of awareness and awakeness—I took it that he agreed with it also.

§ Mr. Eyre
It may help the House if I indicate that I am glad to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).

§ Mr. Lawrence
I am most grateful, as I am sure are all hon. Members, to hear of the Minister's acceptance. That only goes to underline my second point, because I believe that the subject matter of the debate has exhausted itself. Had we known about the matter, perhaps we would not now be wasting public time and money, and subsidies for the Refreshment Department and all the other things that follow, keeping the House here unnecessarily.
I hope that the House will not mind if take a moment to mention a matter that I think is far more important than any hint of disagreement that has arisen during the debate. That concerns the procedure by which we have come here. I remember sitting close to where the hon. Member for Waltham Forest now sits—unhappily, for too long—when in debate after debate on EEC motions I drew attention to the lack of provision of documentation for an EEC debate.
I remember being supported by my own Front Bench at that time. Time and again we stood up and criticised the Government for failing to take the necessary steps to acquaint the House on matters that were far more contentious than any that have been debated tonight. I was not one of those who went to the Vote Office to check on the documentation, because it never occurred to me that year after year of complaint about the way in which Back Benchers are treated would have been ignored by my Government. That Government came into power promising as much assistance to the Back Bencher as possible.
It never occurred to me that if I bothered to go to the Vote Office I would find inadequate documentation. As we noticed in the previous debate, we are not always happy with what the Common Market forces on us. Those of us who are strongly in favour of the values of the EEC—the fact that we are a member of the club that, above all else, helps to secure world peace and co-operation in international affairs—give up some of our independence as Back Benchers because we trust the Government to make sure that EEC matters are brought before us 828 completely, properly, and in a way that is beyond procedural and technical dispute.
However, what has always happened is still happening. We used to complain about the administration of the House—that somebody had not bothered to make sure that the documents got to the Vote Office. However, a decision seems to have been taken in Europe that is of great importance to tonight's debate, yet about which no one knows anything. We only know that we have a piece of paper, bearing the name of the Department of Trade with today's date at the bottom, saying that the rules have been changed.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page has courteously and properly said, it is not just that he would like to congratulate whoever brought about that change; he wants to know who is responsible for the piece of paper. Why do those responsible for the paper not think it necessary to acquaint the Minister with fundamental details as to when it was negotiated, who negotiated it, who produced it, and who signed it? The absence of any answers—for which I do not blame my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has performed his task with great distinction—is symptomatic of the contempt in which we fear that Back Benchers are held by bureaucrats. Following hon. Members from all parties, I have had to complain about the utter failure to produce these documents and of the failure to acquaint the Minister of something that is fundamental to the debate.

§ Mr. Spearing
Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the complaints that he mentioned when his party was in opposition were more often than not initiated by hon. Members on the Government side? The real culprits are not necessarily the servants of the House or Government, but the manner in which the EEC legislates and changes one document into another, by what we would technically call an amendment, in secret and by procedures that are arcane in the extreme. Is that not at the bottom of the difficulty?

§ Mr. Lawrence
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is right. We are simply not in a position to know, as we have not been given an explanation.

§ Mr. Deakins
Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether this is correct, but is 829 it possible that the piece of paper that we have received from the Vote Office today is not an additional explanatory memorandum, and hence it is not signed? It purports to be a notice bringing to the attention of the House an amendment to the draft directive. In those circumstances it is odd that it should have come from the Department of Trade. An amendment to a directive should normally come from somewhere in Brussels and be signed by the President of the Council.

§ Mr. Lawrence
The text of the document that we have tends to support the hon. Gentleman's proposition. It says that there is only one amendment of any significance to the draft directive.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that it is a highly unsatisfactory situation, for whatever reason. If anything of importance and value results from tonight's discussion to justify hon. Members being here at this late hour it will be if the Minister gives a personal undertaking that this matter will be thoroughly looked into to see why this happened. Perhaps he will be good enough to write to hon. Members present who have shown an interest in the matter or, failing that, give an explanation in due course.
More importantly, he should make sure that this never happens again. If anyone's backside has to be kicked, it should be kicked, and if anyone's head has to be banged, it should be banged, if this Government wish to maintain the loyalty of their Back Benchers in support of proposals that we often reluctantly feel obliged to support because we are supporters of the Common Market. This country has voted overwhelmingly to support the Common Market, and we have to continue trusting the Government and the various Departments. We should not be led into the situation in which we are driven to doubt whether we are being run by robots rather than by people who care about issues that concern this House.

§ Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made valid points on procedure, but I hope that they will in no way detract from a warm welcome for this additional item that has been presented to us. The amendment allows the yard, the square yard and the furlong to survive 830 for a further 10 years as legal units of measurement in this country. I sincerely congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on this important achievement, which will be much appreciated throughout the country.
I welcome the general change of direction taken by the Government on metrication. Although the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) hoped that there had not been a change of direction, clearly the abolition of the Metrication Board and the statement that there will be no further compulsory metrication denotes a significant change of direction, which I warmly welcome. As long as we have a Conservative Government, which will certainly be until 1989, when this matter comes up for decision, and, I hope, many years thereafter, we shall have what I would describe as a permanently mixed economy on different systems of measurement. Few people will regret that or be confused by it, although my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) admitted that he was totally confused by the two systems.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
The one thing that I am not is confused. Perhaps I should have declared an interest, as a retailer. We serve well over 2 million customers a week and they are all in the permanent state of confusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) wishes to remain. People are required to go about their daily business in schools, shops and manufacturing and commercial enterprises using two incompatible systems of measurement.

§ Mr. Moate
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for declaring his interest, of which I was not previously aware. He has been hiding his light under a bushel, if he will excuse the Imperial reference. However, I suggest that he underestimates the common sense of the British people if he believes that his customers are as confused as he suggests. They are capable of buying goods in a metric pack and then ordering a pound of potatoes in an Imperial unit without suffering any confusion.
People should not be compelled to fit into the neat, logical pattern of life that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove and the hon. Member for Norwood suggest. That is not my understanding of 831 the British way of life or the Conservative philosophy. For decades hence—perhaps for infinity—we can continue to have both systems operating alongside each other. Industry can go metric on a voluntary basis if it wishes and needs to. At the same time, workers in industry will continue to use pounds, ounces, miles yards, inches, pints and gallons fully understanding them and not suffering from any confusion.
Many millions of people have been educated in the metric system. In school, they are taught a certain system, but education is also given in the home. In the home and in shops children will learn all the different measurements. If we asked people in the street—tomorrow, not tonight; it is too late—about their knowledge of the different systems, we should discover that they had just as much familiarity with the Imperial system as with the metric system. The change of direction makes sense. It will be welcomed generally and I welcome the Government's action in the matter.
I accept that in 1989 we shall have the right of veto. Yet, the more I read and re-read the document the more confused I become. On the one hand, it could be implied that until 1989 the measurements remain legal. If that is the case, a new proposal in 1989 will be required and in those circumstances the veto could operate against us. If, on the other hand, the measurements continue indefinitely—unless the Council takes a decision against us—the veto will operate in our favour and we can prevent any change. The answer is simple, but I am somewhat confused by the document. I want to be certain that, with or without the amendment that will pass tonight—not necessarily overriding the directive—we shall have the continuing power of veto.
If we do have the veto, it is important to retain that power and not to move over to majority voting.

§ Mr. Eyre
With the leave of the House, it might be convenient for me to reply to a number of points that have been raised during the debate, in particular to the point referred to by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised at an earlier stage. I 832 am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the opportunity to intervene and accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).
Again I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton for being unable to answer his procedural question. As he knows, I should have liked to be able to take some credit for what is a favourable change. I am sure that some credit must be due to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept an assurance that I shall consider the matter. I agree that it is not entirely satisfactory. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not write to all those who are present. The Parliamentary Private Secretary and I keep arguing about who was present when we attempt to draw up a list.

§ Mr. John Fraser
I have tabled a question to the Minister for Consumer Affairs, asking her to give a full reply after the recess.

§ Mr. Eyre
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do all that she can to clear up the question of procedure and ensure that a misunderstanding of this sort does not arise again.

§ Mr. Spearing
Will the Minister assure the House that in any statement or answer that is given it will be made clear at what meeting of the Council of Ministers the change we have learnt about tonight was made, under what sort of procedure, what Minister was present, and on what date?

§ Mr. Eyre
I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will understand that Ministers are not physically present at all meetings—

§ Mr. Fraser
They are not present at any of them.

§ Mr. Eyre
I accept the nature of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry and I shall do my best to ensure that it is properly answered.
I thank the hon. Member for Waltham Forest for moving the manuscript amendment. On behalf of the Government, I am glad to accept it. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a series of powerful points in support of the motion and I am grateful for the welcome that he gave it. He called for a certain 833 measure of orderliness in the way in which trading interests respond to the requirements of phasing out.
Undoubtedly, trading associations will consider how they are to respond to the regulations. I have been told that the petrol retail trade recently decided to go metric voluntarily. Perhaps that decision will have an effect on other trade associations. I mention that because I hope that it will be helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who expressed his anxiety in this connection.

§ Mr. Sainsbury
I assure my hon. Friend that there is evidence, as his Department knows, that there is no prospect of the trade in catch weight perishable commodities going metric voluntarily without a Government arrangement for a cut-off date. Unless that is introduced, confusion is bound to continue. It will be worsened by the petrol trade going metric and other trades not going metric.

§ Mr. Eyre
I respect my hon. Friend's expert knowledge. I am sorry that he speaks in such strong terms. However, I am grateful for the further contribution that he made about the educational implications. I am sorry that I cannot answer it now, but I shall get a full answer for him and write to him.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who has given great service to the House as a member of the Select Committee on European legislation and who has a great knowledge of these matters and a whole range of other matters, asked whether the article was correctly construed. I am always worried when my right hon. Friend intervenes to raise such a matter. When he did so on an earlier occasion in Committee the Government were defeated. I am always apprehensive of, and careful in my approach to, my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend asked about dates. His inquiry was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. At present the end date is wide open. However, a date will have to be set by 1989. In coming to that decision the veto will be available to member States. The date that has to be determined by the Council by 1989 may be a date much later than that. I hope that that simple statement will clear up all the doubts and reservations that have been expressed, and will 834 satisfy my right hon. Friend, who I note is shaking his head.

§ Mr. Moate
What will happen if the veto is used and no date is set?

§ Mr. Eyre
I think that we would all have to consider that carefully.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) asked how stress is measured. At that time I was feeling it keenly. How do we distinguish between that measurement and the measurement of pressure in tyres? I feel that there are differences between the two measurements. I have been waiting for inspiration, but it has not come. It is a technical matter, even a medical matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that when I have been able to consider it I shall write to him to convey the relevant technical information.
The Government share the view of the Labour Adminstration that the directive should seek not to dictate the pace of metrication but to reflect the pace of change. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the measure, as amended.