Lords Sitting of 26 June 1969

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: LEAVE OF ABSENCE
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have on Tuesday next, in obedience to Her Majesty's command, to go to Caernarvon to attend the Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I hope, therefore, the House will be good enough to excuse my absence from the Woolsack on that day. I ask for leave of absence accordingly.

TELEPHONE BOX CHARGES
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider tapering down from 1s., for the maximum distance, to 3d., for the minimum, the rental charge of 1s. per call imposed last October on operator-controlled telephone boxes.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the additional charge for calls connected by the operator from telephone kiosks is a contribution towards the upkeep of the kiosks and to the additional operator time needed to check the insertion of coins and the termination of the call. Kiosk costs are independent of the distance. It would be unfair to expect people making long-distance trunk calls to subsidise those making shorter ones.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he realises that in the remoter country districts this charge will bear rather hard on the agricultural community, who are, after all, the poorer
266
section of the nation, and that making local calls will be really expensive for them?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I realise that, but I do not think that there is anything we can do about it, because these kiosks are not only in the countryside, but all over the country; and, unfortunately, they are losing about £2 million a year. The operator is rather an important person in this matter. Let us suppose the noble Lord telephones: he asks her for the number, she gets it, she notes when three minutes are up, and she then asks him if he is going on with his conversation. She is therefore occupied in looking after him.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what amount of money has to be spent on these kiosks because of vandals?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am afraid that does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

POSTAGE ON NEWSPAPERS
3.6 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an estimate of what it would cost the Post Office annually to restore to private citizens the concession they enjoyed until last year of receiving first-class service for newspapers posted at second-class rates, compared with the £1 million a year which is lost now that this concession is enjoyed exclusively by publishers and newsagents.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, rather more than £500,000 a year. A more precise figure cannot be given because much depends on the extent to which private citizens are sending newspapers by the first-class service at present, and this is not known.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged for that reply. But for the sake of £500,000 in the annual account of the Post Office, is it really worth while breaching the principle that a State trade monopoly ought to give

267
equal service to all and sundry on equal terms? Is that not a very good Socialist principle?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the noble Lord asked that question the last time he raised this matter. He had a long letter from the Postmaster General on October 24, 1968; we had a Parliamentary Question on November 11, and there was a debate on an Unstarred Question on this subject, including a speech by the noble Lord which I read just now. He understands the position quite well and he expressed it clearly in his speech. Today he has asked this Question. The position is this. It is not a matter of how much we save by doing this; it is a question of trying to stop too much evening sorting, and so on. That is why we make the distinction between those who want to post by first-class mail and those who do not.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am sorry for having pursued this matter, but I have not until to-day had the answer that the cost would be £500,000, have I?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, no; but the noble Lord could have worked it out for himself if he had looked at the Post Office accounts.

WAR PENSIONERS' ALLOWANCES
3.10 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before the new war pensions Royal Warrant and Orders in Council are laid, they will consider increasing the allowances for comforts and age, and the special occupational allowance and severely disabled allowance for the exceptionally disabled, all of which have been adversely affected by the rise in the cost of living since October, 1967.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the most careful and sympathetic consideration has been given to the needs of war pensioners but I can hold out no hope
268
that the particular allowances the noble Lord has in mind can be increased on this occasion.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, there are four allowances mentioned in my Question. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the comforts allowance and the age allowance were both raised two years ago? The other two allowances I mentioned were too new to be attended to then. Is it not clear that the cost of living has adversely affected all these allowances? As very few people are involved, and very little money, will the Government be more sympathetic and keep these allowances on the right level?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are sympathetic, and of course we honour the noble Lord for the great attention that he pays to all these matters. But I think he will agree that successive Governments have maintained the principle of not upgrading every allowance on every occasion. The noble Lord will know—although other Members of your Lordships' House may not—that the pensioners who are receiving the two particular allowances with which the noble Lord is concerned will all receive the increase in the basic pension and, unless in hospital, will get an increase in their constant attendance allowance; and about three-quarters of them will also be getting an increase in the unemployability supplement. So in fact they will he receiving some extra money, although the Government wish to preserve the principle of not upgrading each allowance on every occasion.

THE OXFORD CANAL
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the British Waterways Board consulted their statutory Advisory Council before deciding to close sections of the Oxford Canal at certain dates; whether they will now reconsider their decision; and whether before announcing their scheme, they considered the damage it could do to all users of these waterways.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, we understand from the British Waterways Board that they did indeed consult the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council before introducing this experiment. They also considered the interests of all users of the Oxford Canal, but decided that it would be reasonable to try the experiment of temporary closure of a section of the Canal to boats, in order to allow undisturbed water to anglers, before 10.30 in the morning on four specified Sundays this summer. The Board will certainly consider the results of the experiment. including comments from boating interests, before deciding their future policy.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will my noble friend consider the fact that the Advisory Council had not met before I put down my Question; therefore it cannot have been the Advisory Council that was consulted before the Board came to their decision? Will he look into the matter of who was consulted and find out whether it is true, as I am informed, that it was only a sub-committee? Is he aware that the secretary of the committee said they were not consulted, the chairman said they were consulted, but upon another matter, and two members of the committee said that the decision was made before they were consulted?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I really cannot say "Yea" or "Nay" about whether by noble friend had his Question down before different bodies were consulted. All I can say is that on the first date that this trial was made, on Sunday, June 22 this year, the Board's general manager was at the site and witnessed the experiment. His impression was that everything went off very amicably. He much appreciated what he saw, and this experiment was appreciated by the anglers. The boaters also accepted the arrangement most tolerantly and there were no queues of boats at Banbury Lock. So, my Lord, it seems as if this experiment was successful and I hope that my noble friend will be quite satisfied.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, as anglers are the largest body of sportsmen in the country, are they not entitled to some consideration over other users of waterways?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, that was the opinion of the Board concerned and that is why this experiment was carried out reasonably early on a Sunday morning when most people would not be on the move.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will my noble friend consider whether he should point out to the British Waterways Board that the danger of this experiment was that in fact they did not close the waterway, but left the anglers with the impression that they had? Since only two locks at a 20-mile interval were closed, boaters were left with the impression that the waterway was not closed. So two different sets of people were under the impression that they had the use of the waterway when that was not so.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am sorry that although most other people seem to have been satisfied with this experiment, my noble friend is not satisfied. All I can do is promise to convey the sentiments that he has expressed to my right honourable friend.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us whether the number of fish was substantially increased as a result of this experiment, as this would seem to me to be the object of the whole affair?

FUTURE BUSINESS: DIVORCE REFORM BILL
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in view of the number of noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to speak on the Second Reading of the Divorce Reform Bill next Monday, I hope that it will meet the convenience of the House if we meet at 2 p.m. I should also like to inform the House that dinner will be available on that day from 7 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS (NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to apply to the National Debt Commissioners certain sections of the Trustee Investments Act

271
1961; and to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Bill read 1a. and to be printed.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill is a straight Consolidation Bill and therefore if your Lordships give it a Second Reading it will go to the Joint Consolidation Committee in the usual way. It is a Bill which consolidates the relevant provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1931; the Herring Industry Act 1935; the Herring Industry Act 1938; the Herring Industry Act 1944; the Statutory Instruments Act 1946; the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1948; the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951; the Northern Ireland (Sea Fish Industry) Order 1951; the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953; the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Food) Order 1955; the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1957; the Sea Fish Industry Act 1959; the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962; the Northern Ireland Act 1962 and the Sea Fisheries Act 1968. I hope your Lordships will agree that this seems a fairly clear case for consolidation, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

CEREALS (GUARANTEED PAYMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1969
3.20 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Cereals (Guaranteed Payments) (Amendment) Order 1969, be approved. I do not think
272
I need to take up your Lordships' time in speaking at length on this Order. Its provisions are quite straightforward. It is concerned with the arrangements for calculating and paying to growers deficiency payments on barley which were originally set out in the Cereals (Guaranteed Payments) Order 1964, when the standard quantity/target indicator price arrangements were first introduced. The need for this amending Order arises from the changes in the arrangements following the determinations of Ministers which were announced following the 1969 Annual Review.
In the 1969 Annual Review White Paper, the Government set out the measures to be taken to give effect to their policy of encouraging an expansion of cereal production to the fullest extent technically possible and consistent with reasonable resource use and support cost. Last year we removed a limiting factor on wheat production by abolishing the standard quantity restriction, and in the Order now before your Lordships provision is made for the abolition of the standard quantity for barley.
Provision is also made for the ending of the arrangement under which, when the annual production of barley is below the standard quantity and the average realised price is below the target indicator price, the deficiency payment is abated within a range of production determined by Ministers. A similar arrangement for wheat was terminated last year. The current provisions relating to wheat, rye, oats and mixed cereals remain unchanged. I commend the Cereals (Guaranteed Payments) (Amendment) Order 1969 to your Lordships' House as a necessary step in the fulfilment of the Government's announced intention of promoting the expansion of cereals production while maintaining necessary safeguards for the Exchequer.
Moved, That the Cereals (Guaranteed Payments) (Amendment) Order 1969, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for explaining to us the purpose of this Order. I welcome the change in the abolition of the standard quantity for barley. This is something which will be welcome to cereal growers. In noting the change in the seasonal price

273
scale which the Minister of Agriculture put out in his Press notice, I observe that the result is to reduce the total range of the price scale over the whole season, so that now there is a range of only ls. 4½d. per cwt. over the whole 12 months. This seems to me probably too small to give farmers a strong enough incentive to hold their barley off the market at harvest time and then market it over the 12 months in an orderly flow, which of course is the whole object of the scheme.
I think that weight is given to my point by the fact that the range price scale for wheat over 12 months is 4s. a cwt. Will the noble Lord perhaps explain why the range is so narrow for barley, and whether he is satisfied that it will in fact be adequate to get an orderly flow of barley on to the market and make sure that we do not get excessive quantities put on the market at harvest time and immediately after?
The second point I should like to put to the noble Lord is this. Obviously the Ministry of Agriculture is in a reforming mood with regard to the deficiency payment arrangements for cereals and this, in the main, is to be welcomed. The noble Lord will be aware from his farming connections that, especially after the difficult conditions of last harvest, far too many had samples of home-grown grain have been put on the market, both wheat and barley. This is very damaging to the reputation of home-grown cereals and tends to depress the general price level for home-grown cereals as compared with the price of imported cereals, and therefore is bad for all the home growers. Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to prompt the home-grown cereals authority into action in the coming 12 months to see whether they can devise an incentive scheme to encourage farmers to put their cereals on the market in top grade condition? It seems that the return on the market for high quality cereals is not sufficient in itself to encourage farmers to do just that, but it would undoubtedly be greatly to the benefit of all our home-grown cereal growers if our grain were put on the market in top condition. If the noble Lord will take note of this point and commend it to his right honourable friend, perhaps next year we may see in this Order a scheme of this kind introduced. With that, I
274
have pleaseure in giving my support to the Order.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one further question? This Order brings barley into line with wheat. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us, as farming is a long-term operation, if it is the Government's intention to bring oats into the same system, and, if so, when?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for giving his support to this Order. I must say that I did not expect anything else. So far as the point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, is concerned, I cannot say when oats are likely to be brought into line with wheat. I mentioned in my opening remarks that at the moment this is not catered for, but I think that my right honourable friend has this very much in mind, although I cannot give a precise date.
Replying to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, it is true that in recent years there have been difficulties about samples of grain being marketed in not very satisfactory condition. Obviously, what my right honourable friend, all farmers and people interested in buying and selling grain want is that it should be bought and sold in the best possible condition. Of course, I cannot give any guarantee, but I will certainly make sure that this matter is brought to my right honourable friend's attention to see what he can do about it in future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL LIME SCHEME (EXTENSION OF PERIOD) ORDER 1969
3.28 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1969, laid before the House on May 20 last be approved. The purpose of this Order is to continue for a further five years the authority under which payments may be made to farmers towards the cost of agricultural lime. The current authority, last renewed in 1964, expires at the end of July. The issue is quite simply whether payments of lime subsidy should be continued after that date.

275
The terms of the subsidy scheme itself and the level of subsidy are the subject of a separate Order known as the Agricultural Lime Scheme, the latest version of which was approved in 1966. I ought to say that the scheme is under review and some proposals have been put to the farmers' unions and lime trade associations for their consideration. Discussion of these proposals, and of any suggestions or counter proposals, will take place during the coming weeks and an amended Scheme will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, provided, of course, Parliament first approves the draft Order now before this House.
On this present Order, however, the issue is simply whether a lime subsidy scheme should continue after July 31. The subsidy scheme has undoubtedly played an important part in the improvement in land fertility since the scheme began in 1937. Since then, use of lime has increased from half a million tons a year to an average of more than 6 million tons a year during the peak period from 1956 to 1965. The serious deficiencies in lime have been corrected, and in recent years use has naturally fallen to a level consistent with the estimated needs for maintenance of an adequate lime status. I am sure we shall agree that it is important that the proper use of lime should continue, and I hope and expect that noble Lords will approve this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Agricultural Lime Scheme (Extension of Period) Order 1969, laid before the House on May 20 last be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.31 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us the gist of this Order. We shall of course support it, and particularly the Order that is now before the House to extend the scheme in principle. However, I should like to take this opportunity to make a comment about the scheme that is at present under consideration for defining the payment of the subsidy which, as the noble Lord has told us, is now under discussion between the Government and the National Farmers' Union.
276
The noble Lord referred to the spectacular increase in application of lime which has occurred since this scheme started over 30 years ago, and this has been most gratifying to us all. Those in the farming world recognise that this lime scheme has probably given more value to the farmland of this country than any other single scheme. But in looking at the trend of consumption I would call the noble Lord's attention to the fall in the trend over the last few years. The noble Lord had some anodyne phrase about the fall from the level of 6 million tons per annum to a level which was sufficient for the husbandry needs of the land—or some such phrase. I should rather doubt it. I am beginning to think that the present level of application may well be falling below what is desirable, certainly for some of our farmland.
The level of application has fallen from about 6 million to 6½ million tons per annum seven or eight years ago to 3·9 million tons last year. This is quite a significant drop. It has fallen particularly sharply in the last two or three years, when it is perhaps significant that the rate of subsidy has been reduced in the last scheme from 65 per cent. to 50 per cent. Before passing definite comment on this fall, one must have expert technical advice as to what is the optimum level of application of lime throughout the country. I am not in a position to say firmly that 3·9 million tons is not enough, but I rather suspect that it is not. I should think that something higher was desirable, and I should not have thought that seven or eight years ago farmers generally were putting on very much more than was necessary.
There is this additional point. With another form of subsidy we are encouraging farmers now to put on heavier dressings of nitrogenous manure, which is itself an acidic fertiliser and therefore tends to further acidify the soil and to increase the lime need. I should think there is probably a case for looking fairly closely at these figures to see whether the present application is sufficient, whether the down trend over the past few years is now becoming dangerous, and whether measures should not be taken to get an upturn again, with rather heavier usage.
The point that I should like to put to the noble Lord is that he should ask his

277
right honourable friend the Minister to look closely at the present level of application and particularly the level last year. I agree that last year was a year of exceptionally difficult weather, which probably had some influence on the level of application, but I rather suspect that the first few months of this year are also down—I imagine that the noble Lord has the figures. I should like him to look at this closely, and if the present level is not sufficient I would ask that the Minister should consider taking steps to encourage farmers to increase the present application to a level that would give the optimum fertility. With those comments, I have much pleasure in supporting the Order.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for giving a general welcome to the continuation of this scheme. I listened with a good deal of interest and, if I may say so, sympathy to what he had to say about the trend of consumption. The figures, however, do not suggest that there is any need for alarm. Far from it. Taking a four-year rolling average, consumption has gone down from the peak of 6·5 million tons reached in 1963 to 4·7 million tons in the year 1968–69. The actual consumption for last year, taking last year alone, was 4 million tons. This, as the noble Lord said in the fair way that he always deals with these matters, was probably due in some part to the bad weather—bad liming weather particularly—that we had. Nevertheless, it is down, and although I notice that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have recently shown an increased use the figures for England certainly ought to be watched.
The noble Lord said that some attention ought to be given to the actual needs. Some assessment has been made. I understand that the results of the tests, hearing in mind the annual losses of lime due to leaching and the increased use of fertilisers, to which the noble Lord referred, suggest that there is a total lime requirement in the United Kingdom of 4·5 million tons per annum. That has to be compared with an actual figure of use last year of some 4 million tons, which to some extent, as we both agree, was probably influenced by the bad liming weather. Nevertheless, as I say, this trend is something that has to be watched. I am not sure that there may
278
not come a time, if it continues, when we ought to embark upon some campaign or some further educational activity to ensure that the benefits of this subsidy are reaped to the utmost by the agricultural community. I will see that what the noble Lord has said is considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

METRICATION OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
3.38 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the cost of converting British weights and measures to a metrical system, and, in view of this, whether they will postpone such a measure. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper. This is not based on any moral issue. I do not feel that there is anything particularly right or wrong in either the metric system or our present system of measurements. So far as I know, the distance to Heaven is not measured in miles, though I have not heard any rumours, as yet, that it is measured in kilometres. My protest is based purely on the practical side. If it were just a matter of saying, "We will change over, and by next month we will adopt the metric system" and nothing else was involved, well and good—provided that you like being like everybody else. Personally, I do not like being like everybody else, but apparently a great many people do to-day.
But, of course, the change involves more than that. The expense of the changeover is going to be colossal, when one thinks of the changes that will have to be made. For instance, every milk bottle in the country will have to be a different size; every tin that contains anything that is sold either by weight or by volume will have to be a different size. Every cardboard box that surrounds anything that is sold by weight or volume will have to be changed.
My Lords, that may not sound very important, since one throws a tin or a cardboard box away as soon as one has used it. On the other hand, it has to he remembered that the machines which make them will have to be changed, and

279
that is going to cost an enormous sum of money. Unfortunately the cost will be borne by the producers and the manufacturers, since apparently the Government have made a definite statement that they are not going to give any compensation to those who suffer loss owing to the changeover. At the present time this change is not necessary—that is my great point. Even if one considered it desirable, I do not think that it is really necessary, and, that being the case, is it really justifiable at a time when every individual in the country is finding it very hard to make ends meet? I say personally, "No, it is not justifiable".
Just think of other things that this changeover will involve. All road signs which indicate speed limits will have to be altered. Who will meet that expense? Presumably it will be the local governments. Everything in the way of mileage measurement, and every signpost, apparently, in the country which indicates the distance of some particular point will eventually have to be changed, although it will not take place immediately; it will be spread over a certain period of time. It will all cost money, and I do not consider that it is necessary.
I feel that at the back of the mind of the Government is the idea that by using a measuring system which is similar to that of other European countries we shall he more likely to get into the Common Market. That is an understandable point of view, but I do not know that I altogether agree with it. Personally, I think that what is more likely to get us into the Common Market is the production of high-quality goods, and quality at present has fallen very far below our pre-war standard, at any rate. I do not think that we shall find that we shall be very welcome members of the Common Market unless we turn out better quality goods. However, that is neither here nor there; it is the expense to ourselves to which I am objecting.
It is rather significant that there should he an anti-decimal group, because if metrication were such a desirable step I should hardly think there would be a group organised to oppose it. However, the anti-decimal group give a rather interesting supposition. They say milk costs 10½d. per pint—that was in November, 1968. The halfpenny is being de-
280
monetised in 1969; therefore the price will be 11d. per pint. As from February 15, 1971, 11d. is converted to 4½p; but as 11d. is in fact 4·583 recurring new pence, the price will be 5p—that is to say, in to-day's currency, one shilling per pint. The pint will be replaced by the half litre, which is 90 cubic centimetres less than one pint. Therefore the housewife will pay the equivalent of one shilling for less than a pint of milk.
Assume that a family purchases five pints of milk per day and 28 pints now cost £1 4s. 6d., 28 pints converted to 1652 litres will cost £1 13s. 0d., an increase of 8s. 6d. That is a rather interesting consideration, because it is a very practical one which will occur in almost every household in the country. At a time when the taxpayer is finding it very hard indeed to keep his head above water I do not feel it is fair to impose this extra burden upon him. If it were a matter of urgency that we should adopt this system I would say, "All right, we must grin and bear it". But it is not a matter of urgency. We have gone on with our old system quite successfully for many years and I cannot see that there is the slightest necessity, even if it were granted that it would be desirable, to change over now, at a time when, as I say, it is going to be extremely burdensome to the average citizen. Therefore, I am asking the Government whether they will have second thoughts about postponing this changeover.
3.48 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I had supposed from the phrasing of my noble friend's Question that he, like most of us, assumed and accepted that the stage of debating whether the change to the metric system should take place—and I repeat whether the change should take place—was already behind us. I am relieved to find that I was right in this, although his acceptance seems to be rather grudging. If I am right, I am still at variance with him in his desire expressed to-day to delay the process. The official Opposition, for which I am now speaking, takes the view that we shall go metric. The decision is inevitable. Speaking personally, I say not only is the process inevitable, but the sooner the better. To me it is a happy inevitability. If ever there were a non-Party political issue, this is it. My noble friend and I can differ, yet respect

281
each other's views, as is no doubt happening in other political Parties.
I recall that when the prospect of converting to a decimal currency system was first mooted in Parliament it was done by my noble friend the Earl of Dundee from the Dispatch Box at which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will soon be standing. There was an immediate and passionate denunciation delivered by one of the best-loved and most fondly remembered Members ever to serve in this House; that was the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who had come into politics from a Durham coal face and was a stalwart of the Labour movement for well over half a century. He spoke on that occasion, I am almost certain, from precisely the spot where my noble friend has delivered his speech this afternoon. Since then our two Parties have changed places (as they will soon change again); but I am certain that there will be no Government of Britain in the 1970s which will halt, delay or regret the decision we are discussing to-day.
My noble friend believes that the cost of this change would be reduced by delay. I believe the cost would be increased. It is helpful and prudent and essential for a Parliamentary Opposition to point out the costs and any passing inconvenience of a given Government policy, even one which they basically favour. After all, few Governments will ever perform that particular service themselves.
It is true to say that this project was launched on the wings of euphoria, the plumage a trifle over-gilded, some of the rougher pinions tactfully concealed. My noble friend has to-day assisted in pointing out that this is not going to mean instantaneous joy to everyone concerned. I do not share all my noble friend's fears in degree or even in kind. I do not, for instance, think that his anxieties on behalf of industry are widely shared among those whom he seeks to protect. The noble Lord. Lord Kennet, may choose to say, and he would be justified in saying, that the inception and primary impulse came from industry. On May 24, 1965, in another place, the President of the Board of Trade said:
"The Government are impressed by the case which has been put to them by the representatives of industry for the wider use of the metric system of weights and measures …".
Of course, it will sometimes be wise and worthy of a Government to take advice
282
from one level of industry or another, and at other times it is less wise and less worthy. I am sure that on this occasion the Minister was right to say:
"The Government hope that within ten years the greater part of the country's industry will have effected this change."
I cannot agree with those who argue that this matter is being "rushed". In 1950, the Committee on Weights and Measures reported in favour of the metric system, but did not consider the change timely. In 1960, the 11th International Conference on Weights and Measures agreed the new definitions of metric units to be the basis of the international system of uniform units, which are now being adopted by all the countries which attended that Conference, including Britain. When the responsible Minister spoke in Parliament in the way I have just quoted, it was three months after the Federation of British Industries had formally reported to him that, after a detailed survey of its members, the majority was in favour of the adoption of the metric system as the only method of measurement to be used in Britain. A similar inquiry by the British Standards Institution reached the same conclusion. On July 26 of that year the Minister of Technology announced his intention to set up the Metrication Board to bring about the adoption of the metric system by consultation and consent. That Board is now in existence, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and the vice-chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Bessborough, and serving on it are other distinguished men from different sectors of the economy. Consultation has taken place and is taking place, and a very wide and positive measure of consent has already been given.
Our official and legal employment of the metric system dates from a good deal further back than these events. In 1885, Britain signed the Metric Convention, a full decade after its ratification by 18 other European nations; and in 1897 the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act made lawful in this country the use of metric measures in trade. There was on that occasion in Parliament a Motion to make it compulsory, but that Motion was defeated. A system which has been legal in this country for 84 years can hardly be regarded to-day as a blinding or staggering novelty.

283
The intricacy of international trade to-day, and the speed with which dealings have to be carried out, render a common system of weighing and measuring far more important and essential than it was in 1885. Industry, as we know, has recognised this, and since the decision was taken by the Government most of the individual industries have moved swiftly to adapt themselves. Notably the copper, aluminium and steel industries have already planned their changes, which will become effective, I understand, in 1970. The construction industry has been even more alert to the possibilities. It is making this change the pretext for other beneficial changes in alignment with modern methods and techniques. A still more striking advantage will be in the technological field. As one example, the Concorde aircraft has been built to two separate systems of measurement. The Jaguar is being designed, and will be built, to the metric system alone. The benefits here are evident.
Of course, industry accepts that over a large part of the field costs will be involved, but it would be unhelpful, I think. to exaggerate the scale of those costs. I have heard mentioned, although my noble friend did not mention it to-day, a figure of £500 million, but I believe that, so far as this enormous figure has any validity at all, it must be a global estimate which takes no account of replacement machinery which would be bought in any case in the natural course of modernisation. Nor does it take account of machinery which can be adapted. I understand (and this may bring some comfort to my noble friend Lord Somers) that, for instance, Guest, Keen & Nettlefolds have reckoned that any machine tool can be adapted to the new system at a cost between £25 and £125. That does not exactly spell ruin.
In giving my view that the quicker this process can be carried out the better. I am not losing sight of the problems and the anxieties of the retailers, in particular of the small stockists, who will be faced with the problem of double inventories. While the two systems are run in parallel in a given firm, this will necessitate two sets of stocks, which will lead to confusion between the two—confusion will lead to mistakes, and mistakes cost money. I would take this as a reason, in
284
contradiction to my noble friend's view, for getting through this stage as quickly as possible. It is sometimes pointed out that the United States, which occupy such an important sector of our export effort, still maintain what we call the Imperial system. But I think we should ask: for how long? A powerful Congressional Committee has been set up in Washington to study the implications for the United States in "going metric", in particular what it may signify with regard to the balance of payments. We know the importance that American business now gives to Europe, and there seems to me every likelihood that their decision will follow that of Her Majesty's Government.
Some alarm has been spread regarding the problems which this change will create in education. All the evidence I have gathered convinces me that this is a false alarm. Teachers in every part of the country are in fact moving very rapidly to prepare their pupils for the metric era. It is true, I think, that the production of textbooks is not keeping up. but where this happens teachers are preparing their own papers, so determined are they that those whom they teach shall not be left behind. Without going into any deep detail, it is significant that the Society for Science Education has made a study of what will be required within its own sector of education, and its findings are already being implemented in practical terms in classes. It would be harmful, I suggest, to put the clock back in this respect, which would be the consequence of my noble friend's suggestion.
In the last fortnight, I have spent some time talking to a science master in a grammar school near my home. He says that, so far as his school is concerned, the P.F.S. system (the pounds, feet and seconds system) has already given place to the M.K.S. system (that is the metres, kilogrammes and seconds system), and that the former is taught simply as something which will still be required in a secondary fashion, for perhaps a few years. Apart from all this, in my laborious experience of mathematics I have always found that the decimal system was several stages less difficult than the outgoing system which I was obliged, and all of us were obliged, to learn. I hope that in my saying this my noble friend will not think that I am speaking with antagonism to his point of view; I am

285
speaking simply in distinction from it. I am sure that it would not be wise to gloss over the difficulties, and his own dose of counter-euphoria must be valuable. All the same, I am left with the definite impression that the delay he proposes would in fact cost money, and not save it. The momentum must not be lost.
Before sitting down, may I introduce a personal anecdote to illustrate the problem of different systems of measurement. I will do so with a recollection from the jungle of Eastern Siam into which I had been parachuted behind the Japanese lines late in 1945. I was going to an important rendezvous on the banks of the Mekong River, with a guide who spoke no English whatever. My own halting Siamese was only adequate to ask gloomily, from time to time, what was the distance to the next village. On each occasion he held up one, two, three or even four fingers, but as this cypher meant nothing whatever to me it was of limited help to my morale. When I returned from that journey my Siamese host explained, in polished and explicit English, that the unit involved was the distance through thick jungle, on a clear night, over which one could hear a dog bark. Naturally, I blamed myself severely, once this was explained to me, for not having identified the unit for what is was. But it may be that one or two of your Lordships might have been equally obtuse, and will see this as one of the handicaps in maintaining varied media of measurement between nations. The time-honourd native units of the British Islanders have served their purpose, and will have to go. We can honour them still, but not, I think, grievously regret their passing. They have survived, in fact, a century and a half longer than was necessary or even. in my submission, wise.
I hope your Lordships can bear one final historical reference, this time in no way personal. In 1790, M. Talleyrand proposed to the French National Assembly a new meteorological system, and the French Academy was instructed to investigate and make proposals. Their first act was to invite our own Royal Society to join in these investigations and assist in the recommendations. The Royal Society have not so far replied, although they have issued, earlier this year, a small and approving pamphlet. In 1791 the French Academy reported and recom-
286
mended the metre. In 1799 the new system was presented to the French Assembly and made legal. In 1837 the metric system was made compulsory in France. It is my hope, which I share with the Government on this occasion, that we shall indeed have caught up by 1975.
4.3 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, leaves me very little to say. To the best of my knowledge his facts were right; I am convinced his priorities were right, and personally I found his anecdotes apt. Indeed, were it not that there are some other issues between us, if this were the only one, I should not mind whether or not he was sitting on this Bench in a couple of years' time. But since metrication is not the only reform that remains to be carried out in this country I propose to do my best to keep it the present way for a little longer yet.
As the House knows, a metre is simply a section of the circumference of the earth taken round a certain meridian, and it has long puzzled me why or how we ever got hold of our existing system for the measurement of distances. A foot—anybody can understand what a foot is; it is as long as your foot. A yard, being three of those, is about as far as one step; but a mile, which etymologically speaking ought to be one thousand of those, is riot in point of fact: it is 1,760 for some reason I have never been able to make out. Armed with this, the English speaking peoples have carried out the most extraordinary job of educating others all over the world in the last 500 years or so. I believe there is at present evidence from educationalists who are coming for the first time upon peoples who need to be taught how to measure things that they, not having six fingers upon each hand, find it difficult to understand the system of inches and feet; but since they do, like us, have five fingers they find it easier to understand the decimal system.
There is little to add to the facts given by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. The history really was a sort of early Messina. In 1875 we were in the negotiations but when it came to signing something we did not sign it, and the only gloss I want to put on the short history

287
we have just heard is that when it came to the 1897 Act, which legalised the use of the metric system in this country, the noble Lord is perfectly right in saying that it was part of that Bill that that system should be made compulsory, and he was right also in saying that that provision was defeated—it was struck out of the Bill. It was only struck out by five votes; and it is indeed striking that if we were only five votes from that in 1897 there should still be any question about it.
I should like briefly to recapitulate what has happened in recent years. In 1951 the Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures. which was set up to review legislation, reported that the Imperial system should be abolished in favour of the metric system. In 1963 the British Standards Institution stated that it had consulted within British industry and it came down firmly in favour of starting a change without—and it specifically mentioned this—waiting for Canada and the United States of America. The then Federation of British Industries wrote to the Government saying that the vast majority of their members, both in the number of firms and in the total size of their businesses, was in favour of adopting the metric system as the primary, and later as the only, method of measurement to be used in Britain; and in 1965 the Government accepted that recommendation. Since then what has happened is, I think, common knowledge and I need not recapitulate it.
I should like to give one or two facts about the trade position in the world which throw a fairly sharp light on our present need to get on with it. It is perfectly true that Canada and the United States of America, which are both industrial and trading nations, are not metric, and so far as we know Canada is not doing anything about it. On the other hand, the United States is beginning to do something about it; it is beginning to churn into action and I think it is not a rash forecast to say that action will be seen there. Every other industrial nation in the world is already metric—Indeed, most of them have been for a great number of years. In 1966 two-thirds of all the trade in the world was carried on between metric countries. At the present time between 75 and 80 per
288
cent. of all the imports in the world—that is, all the world trade measured at the entering end—is into metric countries, and at the moment 90 per cent. of the population of the world lives in metric countries. So to hold out much longer against those high, and still increasing, figures would, I think, not be a defensible action for a modern Government.
In asking this Question the noble Lord, Lord Somers, concentrated particularly on the question of cost, and rightly reminded the House that the Government had decided that the costs of the change must lie where they fall and there will be no compensation. There are bound to be costs, but it is certain that there is no meaningful possibility of estimating what they are going to be. No countries which have recently made the change to metric measurement have been able to make an overall estimate of the cost, and no countries have attempted to pay any compensation. The two facts are, of course, related. One would have to amass an absolutely gigantic amount of information from every firm and organisation in the country concerned and to examine it in the greatest detail, and the cost of this exercise itself would probably turn out to be a sensible proportion of whatever costs have to be borne.
I suppose that the main part of the costs would be the need to replace or modify machinery, equipment and tools; but that is a cost which continues in any case. If it is done, as I hope it will be by a wise firm, at the time, or a little before the time when they would be renewing the machinery in any case, then it is only a small extra part. I suppose there may be—one cannot deny it—an initial loss of efficiency and productivity during the transitional period. There may be a loss, due to the need to carry dual stocks and to have men skilled in working both systems during the transitional period, but it is obviously in the interests of industry and trade to cut down the transitional period as much as possible. All these things are obvious.
In the non-industrial field there may be costs—it is hard to get at them, but I think it is clear that one of the principal ones was named by the noble Lord, Lord Somers; namely, the cost of changing over the speed limit signs and the signposts on the roads. This, of course, is a subject which must be a matter for more thought. But let us look at the

289
other side: let us look at the probable gains and savings. All the costs refer to the conversion period only. There is no continuing cost—there will only be a certain cost while people are actually turning over. But there will be a continuing gain, and a clear gain, which will arise from simplicity and efficiency in working a metric system because it is easier to do in your head. There will be very substantial advantage in the export trade, which goes in its great majority to metric countries, in the rationalisation of industrial practices of one sort or another; in the reduction of varieties of materials and components, and an appreciable reduction in the costs of stockholding. All these must be planned; and they will be planned. Indeed, industry would not have asked for the change if it had not been their intention and wish to plan it.
It is equally impossible to give any sound estimates of the gains, the regular long-term gains. But it is perhaps worth mentioning to the House that the very detailed report from the Australian Senate Select Committee on the adoption of the metric system—which of course they decided to do—gave an example of a large motor company in Japan which reported that it recovered the cost of its conversion to the metric system at a rate of 20 per cent. a year. This is pretty good.
There was also evidence given to that Australian Committee that the speed of changeover is important because the cost of conversion (and this is very much germane to the noble Lord's wish to delay) itself increases with each year's delay in undertaking the change. It was suggested to the Australian Committee that this annual cost could be anything up to 5 or 8 per cent. a year. And a report made by the South African Government on the same problem in that country quoted a figure of 8 per cent. a year as the cost incurred by delaying conversion to the metric system. The cost of lost overseas trade before conversion is, I believe, largely inestimable, but it was reported in the Press last summer (I cannot say whether this is true or not) that this country had lost an order for £1 million worth of engineering equipment largely because it was not in metric terms.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I would felicitate the Opposition
290
Front Bench on the degree of agreement achieved on this matter, were it not for the fact that agreement between the Front Benches recently has not had a very healthy history; and being of a profoundly superstitious nature I will avoid doing anything so bold as that. I hope the House will agree with me that it is clear that now, 179 years after the French authorities communicated with the Royal Society, the Royal Society has been wise to answer, and it is now time that we got into line with the great majority of our trading partners and all industrially and scientifically forward-looking countries of the world.

FUTURE BUSINESS: DIVORCE REFORM BILL
4.14 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves the Adjournment of the House, I should like, with the permission of the House, to raise a matter relating to our business and to express concern about the arrangements which have been made for the debate in your Lordships' House on the Divorce Bill. Your Lordships will have seen from the Order Paper that this is down for debate on Second Reading on Monday of next week. This is a very important Bill. It is one of the most important features of the legislation to go through Parliament during this year.
I have no wish to score Party points, but I should have thought that, with the withdrawal of the legislation on House of Lords Reform, and of the industrial relations legislation, there should have been plenty of time remaining at the disposal of your Lordships' House to give the best possible facilities for the consideration of this important social measure. Yet the Second Reading is put down for Monday of next week—Monday being a day on which your Lordships do not normally sit, and a day which is extremely inconvenient for the noble Lords who have to come long distances to attend and particularly for Scottish Peers—on the day immediately preceding the investiture of the Prince of Wales, an occasion which means, as I understand it, that practically all the Welsh Peers will be required to be in Wales on the Monday.
There are, in spite of that, I am told. 29 Members of your Lordships' House who wish to address the House on the Second Reading of this Bill. It may well

291
be that those who are opposed to this Bill will wish to have a Division, and if there are to be 29 Peers speaking the possibility is that that Division will take place later at night than is normal for the convenience of your Lordships' House. There may be good reasons, which as a private Member do not know, as to why this decision has been made, but I feel that in the interests of those of us who are opposed to this legislation it is right to raise the matter at this time, since we are likely to rise before a quarter past four on one of the important debating days which are at the disposal of your Lordships' House. I wish merely to make this point because I think it is right so to do.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will try to answer the point which the noble Lord has made. May I first say that I have a good deal of sympathy with him he sees that we are rising shortly after four on one day and then on the next sitting day we are likely to go on quite late. Nothing pains me more than when business so works out that we have this irregularity of Sitting days, and if it were possible to work it out perfectly evenly then I, for one, in so far as I have a responsibility here or have anything to do with it, should be very happy to make the necessary arrangements. But the fact in this case is that we were intending to take the Post Office Bill Committee stage to-day, Thursday.
We took the first day of the Committee stage of that very long Bill, with its 138 clauses and 11 Schedules, on Monday. Everyone anticipated that we should have two long days on the Committee stage. Then, as I was entering the Chamber on Monday, I was told that certain of the Amendments were not to be moved. Of course, the noble Lords who had put down those Amendments were perfectly entitled to move them or not to move them; but I am sure the noble Lord himself will agree that the decision not to move could cause a certain degree of inconvenience. It meant that other noble Lords who had come along to speak to those Amendments had not, in fact, the opportunity they expected to have. But one consequence of what happened then was that we finished the Post Office Bill Committee stage on Monday. That has meant that we have had a light day to-day.
292
I am not sure what the noble Lord would have us do in this particular case. To have Government business finish earlier than one anticipated is one thing, but immediately to run round and interfere with private Members' business would be quite another. After all, in the case of the Divorce Reform Bill we are dealing with an important Bill, a very important Bill, but it is a Private Member's Bill; and, so far as I am concerned, the Government in this case are acting only as a sort of honest broker. I did put up a proposal that we might meet to-morrow, so that some part of the speeches on the Bill could have been delivered to-morrow. But the general opinion of the House, as I was able to measure it, was that we should start the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday. And we are starting it slightly earlier, at 2 o'clock. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, says, some 29 noble Lords have put their names down to speak. Provided that they speak with reasonable brevity, I should have expected we could reach a conclusion and have the Division at a reasonable hour—at about 8 or 9 o'clock was my estimate; and that was, I hope the noble Lord will think, a reasonable way to look at it.
There is one other point that I would make. In July we tend in this House to become rather congested. There are certain very substantial Bills still to be considered. We have, next week, this special event at Caernarvon to which many noble Lords will be going, but if the House wishes to rise by the end of July, which I think would be the wish of most of us, then it is necessary to accept this congestion as from about now. Had the Post Office Bill taken the time that we expected it to take we should have been sitting until quite a late hour to-night. With that explanation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alport, will believe that we have not acted entirely irresponsibly, and I assure him that before the arrangements were made we endeavoured to get the general feeling of the House.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past four o'clock.