§ 2.57 p.m.
Lord ORAMMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into committee.—(Lord Oram.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1 [Definitions of units of measurement]:
§ Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 1:
§
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(" (6) Nothing in the 1963 Act, or in any other provision contained in or made under an enactment, prevents the use of " gram " as an alternative way of spelling " gramme ", and the same applies for other units in the metric system which are compounds of " gramme ".")
§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to legalise the already widely used spelling " gram " as well as the spelling " gramme ". This shortened spelling is now accepted by all the major English-speaking countries of the world, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The authority for the spelling of the names of SI units is the General Conference on Weights and Measures, and they recommend that the spellings employed in each country reproduce the sound of the name in the national language. Either " am " or " amme " comply with this recommendation, but there are obvious advantages in using the shorter forms.
§ These shorter forms have been recognised by international organisations such as the International Standards Organisation and the International Organisation for Legal Metrology, and in this country by such organisations as the British Standards Institution and the Royal Society. The Metrication Board have similarly brought themselves into line with 579 current international practice and now use the shorter spelling exclusively. At present the shorter spelling is recognised only as an abbreviation, and it is now time that we accorded equal legal status to both spellings in order to align with international practice. The spelling with the " mme " is still in use and cannot be replaced immediately. I beg to move.
§ Lord ELTONIt is pleasant to start out with an Amendment about which we can all agree and, as one of the world's worst spellers, I only wish it were possible to have alternatives elsewhere in the Bill, possibly even legalising the transposition of the " e " and the " r " in metre.
§ Baroness PHILLIPSNaturally, I would not disagree with the Amendment, but I am rather puzzled as to why the Metrication Board very clearly print " gramme " with no possible alternative explanation.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNIs it intended also to harmonise the abbreviations? Harmonising abbreviations in this case may not be as easy as it seems, and it would be very convenient to have international abbreviations.
Lord ORAMIn reply to my noble friend Lady Phillips, I think that she has opportunities internally of taking up any questions with the Metrication Board but, as I indicated in my opening remarks, they recognise the form now proposed. As regards abbreviations, this is a somewhat new point and I shall look into it. I agree that if there can be harmonisation, both in spelling and in the abbreviations, it would seem to make sense, but I shall look into the point.
§ Lord SHINWELLCan my noble friend explain what he meant in his response to my noble friend Lady Phillips when he said that she could raise any matter internally with the Metrication Board? Does it follow that when metrication is passed—if, unfortunately, it is passed—any question about the decisions of the Metrication Board will not be able to be raised in your Lordships' House or in another place?
Lord ORAMNo, I did not mean to imply that. I believe that it was indicated several times during the Second Reading 580 that my noble friend Lady Phillips is a member of one of the committees of the Metrication Board. I had that in mind when I said that she had possibilities of internal inquiries. There was nothing more sinister in it than that.
§ Baroness PHILLIPSI feel that the onus is upon me to give some explanation. It is true that I have been—though I have not been able to attend the committee—a very humble, unpaid member of a small steering committee. I should like your Lordships to know that I was not a paid chairman or vice-chairman of the Metrication Board. I feel that this is rather important. I also felt very resentful of the way in which the Minister dealt with the points which I raised on Second Reading. He clearly had a very poor case, since it necessitated his quoting my membership of various organisations. I take up the point of my noble friend Lord Shinwell that, no matter what bodies I belong to, I hope I shall always have the opportunity of speaking out in your Lordships' House. Otherwise, it is pointless to be a Member of this House.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNWill the noble Lord bear in mind that the abbreviations are in many ways very much more important from the point of view of commercial documents and also from the point of view of scientific documents than the mere spelling of the name, which may sound much the same? The two spellings are designed to make it sound about the same. I hope that the noble Lord will pay attention to this because I believe that it would be worth while.
Lord ORAMI entirely agree and in looking into the matter I shall take into account what the noble Lord has just said. To my noble friend Lady Phillips I should like to say that I am sorry if she took any sort of offence over what I said at Second Reading. All I was seeking to do was to point out to her that there are many consumer organisations concerned with the Bill and that most of them are wholeheartedly in favour of it. I ventured to indicate those organisations of which she is a member, but we are all at times in the position of being members of organisations which take different points of view and it is up to us to make up our own mind, as my noble friend certainly did, 581 I did not in any way wish to query her right to say anything she wishes in your Lordships' House.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
§ 3.4 p.m.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMay I ask a question about subsection (4)? I wonder why it is necessary to define the units which may not he used for trade. They are, after all, already defined in Schedule I to the Act, so to do so again in a new Part VA hardly seems necessary. Also, if one is to define them, what is the point of defining one unit which may not be used for trade in terms of another unit which may not he used for trade, rather than in terms of units that may be used for trade?
Lord ORAMI speak subject to correction on this point and, if I am wrong, I shall seek a later opportunity of putting this right. I think that the purpose of subsection (4), similarly to the purpose of having two Schedules in place of one in the original Bill, is to provide a more flexible machinery as we move into metrication. It will be necessary to retain some units not lawful in trade but to have their definition still clear, for instance, for the interpretation of contracts and so on prior to the change to metrication. I think that this may be the connection but, as I said, if I am advised differently I shall let the House know.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [units of measurement etc. lawful for use for trade]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Lord ELTONThere are quite a number of points which I believe need clearing up at this stage. It might be in order for us to take them seriatim. The one which I feel bears most upon the anxieties of many in the retail trade and in the industry which provides them with the machinery with which to do their weighing and measuring is the question of when the powers given to the Minister will be rendered operative and when he will use them. It is a question of the 582 time available particularly for the conversion of weighing machinery. I said on Second Reading that this was a point which I intended to raise and I was interrogated by the noble Baroness, Lady White, on the question of whether there was such a volume of work to be accomplished in time for the country to go metric with its weighing machines for weighed-out foods in particular. I am disturbed to hear that there is correspondence and even a Press release indicating that the Department regards the weighing out of foods to be a low prority area. I am disturbed only in that this may imply that this is unimportant. I am reassured if it means that it will be done at length, because I am variously advised that it may take three or even four years for the trade to accomplish the conversion. Therefore, I believe that it would be right if the noble Lord could give us some indication of the time scale on which it is intended that metrication shall become compulsory and the use of metric units exclusive in the various areas of the retail trade.
§ Lord SLATERCan my noble friend enlighten me as to how he intends to bring all this metrication to the attention of the general public? The general public is aware from the mass media that a change will take place in regard to weights and measures. The public is also aware that the Metrication Board has been set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the deputy chairmanship of my noble friend Lady White. One begins to wonder whether we are not forcing ourselves into a position wherein the form of guidance is being given to us by the members of the EEC and we are all becoming foreigners and accepting the foreign edicts and commercialisation that operates in those countries, without first giving thought to the basic means of operation that has been with us in the country for centuries past. No one can vilify the operation of the Weights and Measures Acts which have been operating in this country as a whole—and I speak now as a Briton, not just as an individual who has opposed the EEC and what comes from it from the start. This is one of the things that seem rather strange and ridiculous to me. We are bringing something into line with what is operating on the Continent and the people in this country are not being given an opportunity 583 of saying what they understand and believe in regard to this measure which is being introduced.
§ Lord SHINWELLI shall not follow my noble friend Lord Slater on a very important aspect of this problem; namely, the time-scale and the question of how long it is to take to implement the provisions of this legislation. I am much more concerned about the cost of it. I cannot recall that on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Oram, who is the Minister responsible for this matter in your Lordships' House, informed your Lordships about the cost of weighing machines, scales, conversion of this and that, and of one measurement replacing another measurement and the like; but obviously a vast amount of expenditure is bound to be entailed. The question which I venture to ask is: who is to be responsible? Is it to be the retailers, the manufacturers, or is this financial responsibility devolved upon the Government? If that is so, then we ought to know what it is to cost, particularly when there is now so much talk about curtailing public expenditure.
In this respect I note that statements are made from time to time by responsible members of Her Majesty's Government that a reduction in public expenditure may not take place in the coming year but in succeeding years. Therefore, this question of the cost of conversion from the traditional form of measurement to quite another form—which in my judgment appears to be imposed upon us because of our association with the EEC, and for no other legitimate reason—has to be answered.
At this stage I want to make my position perfectly clear. Any Amendment moved by the Opposition, and a decision by the Opposition to go into the Lobby in support of that Amendment, will gain my support on every occasion so long as I remain in your Lordships' House. I shall do this in every case on a matter of principle. I disfavour the whole project. I am a traditional supporter of the imperial pint, of the yard, the foot and the inch, and, quite frankly, I have not now time to learn about the litre, the kilo, the millimetre and all the rest. I prefer the old-fashioned concepts which have served the passage of time with 584 remarkable satisfaction to all concerned. I do not want this nonsense foisted upon the British public. We could do very well without it and so I wish to encourage the Opposition. This is not a question of politics. There is no reason why I should be expelled from the Labour Party for adopting this line. It is a matter of principle with which I am concerned. If the Opposition propose to go into the Lobby on any of the Amendments, I shall encourage them to do so and I shall be with them each time.
Lord ORAMI should like to deal first with what was said by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. During Second Reading he indicated in a very brief intervention that he was displeased with the Bill and that he would take the action which he has detailed this afternoon. We all know of his strong, individualism, and I can assure him that if he were under threat of being expelled from the Labour Party as a result of his action here, I should be the first to jump to his defence, although I do not think that he would need any such defence. He makes two points. The first concerns the question of cost.
It is true that I did not include much on the question of cost in either of my two speeches, but my noble friend Lady White dealt with this aspect to a considerable extent, and she made the point, which although general is very valid, that it is not so much the cost of metrication that should trouble us but the enormously greater cost to this country if we do not metricate. Indeed, those sectors of industry, which with the advice of the Metrication Board have already metricated, have discovered that the warnings of the great cost that would be involved have not proved to be true. Although it is not easy to give precise answers to the question such as that which my noble friend raises about cost, I assure him that there is already sufficient evidence that the costs are much less than the fears about cost, and indeed in the modern world, in which practically everyone but us has metricated, the cost of not metricating would he enormously greater.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell also said that he has no time to learn the new system. I believe he has; I believe he will be with us for many years yet, and I think that he could spend some of that 585 time learning to live with the new system, and I feel that he would not find it as difficult as he might now imagine. I urge on him the point that there are youngsters involved. I have two young boys, aged eight and nine, who are now going through the process of learning arithmetic. I am concerned about them and their contemporaries, and about the enormous benefit that the metric system is to the educational system. Certainly I do not want my children—and I believe that farseeing parents do not want their children—to go through what is, frankly, the nonsense of learning two systems side-by-side, and the sooner we can get to the more rational system, the better.
Perhaps, in making these points, I have partly answered my noble friend Lord Slater, but there is one point of his which I also wish to answer. He suggested that what we are doing in the Bill is simply in order to conform with the EEC. I assure him that that is not so. Of course there are connections with our membership of the EEC; of course there is a link. But the strong recommendation which I quoted at Second Reading from the Hodgson Committee in 1950, was in terms of the merits of the metric system for the benefit of this country. That was before the issue of this country's membership of the EEC had been raised in the way it has subsequently been raised. There fore, this is not a European exercise; this is a British exercise, and I believe that it is good for Britain.
I now turn to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the timetable. He will, I know, appreciate, first, that the Bill and this clause, as part of it, are principally a machinery-creating device. This does not in itself set a timetable, nor does it in itself do anything towards metrication. It provides the machinery whereby orders can be introduced so that metrication can be brought about. Therefore the timetable depends on the bringing in of the orders and with the discussions which will be necessary with a great variety of organisations before the orders are introduced. But the noble Lord is quite right to ask for some general indication of priorities. He quoted, quite rightly, my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. What my honourable friend said was in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned; namely, that 586 the lowest priority will be given to weighed-out goods, and that in that sense they will be last in the list, or late in the list. What is meant is that things like prepacked goods will be dealt with first, and the weighed-out goods will come subsequently.
If I were to make a guess—and I should not like this to be taken as categorical— think a four-year period in terms of these goods would be the right kind of period to have in mind; but, having said that, I would stress that this does not mean that those concerned with the manufacture of machinery, and so on, will have to wait four years before they know how they are affected. It may be that the order concerning these things can pre-date the actual introduction of the regulations by some rather long period; and it certainly will be the case that planning and discussion will go on from the point of the passage of the Bill. I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to go into more detail—indeed, it would be impossible to do so—but I hope I have been helpful in giving a general indication of the proposals.
§ Lord ELTONI am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has. He was very tentative in accepting a target of approximately four years; I hope he may be able to speak with more certainty about it at a later stage. Of course I accept that the orders may predate the compulsive content of the orders in their publication. Indeed, I merely rise to say that the further ahead orders can be given, if orders must be given, the better, because, as the noble Lord knows all too well, large sections of the retail trade are not happy, and when they are not happy they are not anxious to act and therefore will not act until it is necessary to act. I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind, first of all, that the longer the time they can have in which to act, within reason, the better the hope of getting the measure satisfactorily completed, and, secondly, that the further ahead of that date the intended date can be published, again the more likely, it is to be smoothly completed. There is much reluctance to meet these regulations, and the pain will he reduced if it can be done in that way.
§ Lord SLATERMay I ask my noble friend a question before we accept this 587 Amendment? What consideration has been given to the present weights and measures inspectors in this country from the point of view of re-education? Some of these people have been engaged in this service for years and years, and they have certain conditions of employment laid down in regard to the positions they hold. What is happening for these people from the point of view of the re-education which will have to take place in some way or other for them to be able to understand the situation? They may even be too old to be able to understand or to pass forms of examinations, if they are subject to such. Is my noble friend satisfied that the present weights and measures inspectors in this country, who will have to implement this measure, will be efficient in their attitude of mind and understanding as to what is involved when the time comes for this legislation to be brought into operation?
§ Lord CLITHEROEBefore the noble Lord replies, may I go back to the question which was asked about cost? I quite appreciate the argument that there is, or may be, a general advantage in cost to this country of going metric, but what I want to know is who is going to pay the cost of replacing all the weighing machines and scales, and the millions of thermometers and barometers, that noble Lords and people throughout the country at present have. Who is going to pay for that?
§ Lord DRUMALBYNI do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would like to answer that question first. I was going to go on to a rather different question.
Lord ORAMVery well. First, I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that note will be taken of his points. They are important; but I assure him that we are, of course, already in touch with the trade, with weighing machine organisations, and that consultation will of course be continued. do give him that assurance.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Slater, it slipped my mind but I intended, when replying to his earlier intervention, to assure him that an enormous amount of consultation has taken place on this Bill already. Before bringing in any specific 588 orders under the legislation we are required to consult, particularly, consumers' organisations and all other interests concerned. Needless to say, this would include weights and measures officials. We all have a great admiration for the expertise of the weights and measures officials throughout the country, and I think the fears that my noble friend has expressed about their difficulty in carrying out their duties under the new legislation are not well founded.
In reply to the noble Lord opposite as to who bears the cost. this is taken on board by traders and by industry. But, as I said in reply to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, those who have already embarked upon their particular sector of metrication have found that the costs are not as large as they had feared; and, indeed, many of them have reported economies which overweigh the costs that they have had to bear.
§ Lord CLITHEROEWhat economy can there be in buying a dozen new thermometers for a house? What is the economy in that?
Lord ORAMI am talking of the costs to the trade and industry overall. Of course there will be some equipment which will become completely redundant and which will have to be replaced. I am not saying that every particular transaction has an economy, or has no real cost. What I am saying is that as the method of metrication is taken on hoard economies of method emerge, and it is these other savings which counter the costs, which are very real.
§ Lord THOMASWould the Minister not agree that we are already beyond the point of no return in so far as metrication is concerned? Every thermometer in my house is graduated in both Centrigrade and Fahrenheit. Let us get out of this twilight of indecision between metrication and the old-fashioned pounds, shillings and pence, and all that sort of old-fashioned stuff. I think that, as a nation, we must realise that metrication will come in. Let us get on with it and stop arguing about it, and get some action on the thing, so that we can do some business worldwide without backward thinking. I am all in favour of getting on with metrication and of giving it 589 the kind of attention we had to give it during the war, for instance, when a lot of munitions that we made had to be made to metric measurements converted from the old-fashioned inches and whatnot. We got into the habit of thinking in decimal points. Although I know that lead screws on lathes, and so on, must be altered owing to metrication, let us go to it with a good heart and realise that the longer we argue about it the worse it will be.
§ Lord DRUMALBYNMay I add to what my noble friend Lord Thomas has said in this way? We have already made so much progress in metrication that it would be folly to go back, because it has been at the level of industry, in the main. This has all been in preparation for ultimately going forward to the point where this system will start affecting the consumer. It has already started to affect the consumer in certain respects—the metric clock, and that sort of thing—and, of course, if the consumer wants to go on using his Fahrenheit thermometer there is nothing in the world to stop him doing so. This is not in the course of trade. What he will not be able to do is to buy another one when it wears out. That is all there is to it.
I should like to come on to the small print of this clause. Let us take Section 9B, the new section that is to be inserted into the Act. I should like to ask what the Government have in mind about placing an obligation to give information about the metric equivalent of imperial units. The section is clearly drafted to start with in saying that it will be necessary to give the imperial equivalent of the metric unit. This is what will happen. In the turnover to the metric marking of packaging, the imperial equivalent will be given. Then it goes on to say that the equivalent can be done for the metric equivalent in imperial units. I wonder what the noble Lord has in mind on that; and in the same way when it comes to the question of giving information " on premises ". I can see that people will want to know what is the imperial equivalent of the new metric units. They understand the imperial equivalent and will want to see what the new metric measures and weights mean in terms of what they know already. I do not understand why it is necessary to do it in the opposite 590 direction; and I wonder why the Government are proposing to take powers for this.
There is another small point that I should like to be certain about. The orders that are to be made
may prescribe the persons to whom, and the cases and circumstances in which, the regulations apply….I take it—and I hope that I am right—that " persons " here includes classes of persons; because in some cases it will be classes of manufacturers, in some cases some types of distributors and in other cases other types of distributors. I hope that " persons " will include the words " classes of persons ".There is another important provision in the new subsection (2A) to be inserted in Section 54 of the 1963 Act. It reads:
In the case of an order under section 9A(3) of this Act which relates to imperial units, measures or weights the Secretary of State in acting under subsection (2) of this section shall have particular regard to the need to consult, and to consider representations from, organisations representative of the interests of consumers ".This, I take it, relates to the change-over from imperial to metric units. It is on this that particular regard to the need of consumers has to be paid. Perhaps it is worth reminding your Lordships that what this clause of the Bill is doing is to amend Section 54 by adding a new subsection (2A) to that. In particular, Section 54 gives a list of sections of the Act where the Board are under an obligation to consult with and consider any representations with respect to the subject matter of an order made to the Board by such organisations as appear to the Board to he representative of interests substantially affected by the order. The subsection which it is now proposed to add goes on to say that the Board shall have particular regard to the need to consult consumers' organisations in this particular case—namely, changing over to metric measurements. I should like to ask the noble Lord how he is going to select the organisations representative of consumers' interests. This is the sort of thing that does not seem to give any trouble at the time of the passing of the Act, but it can give quite a lot of trouble later.I would point out again that the Secretary of State is given discretion as to which organisations representative of interests substantially affected he should 591 consult in the other cases mentioned in Section 54, but in this particular case the Secretary of State seems to be obliged to consult with organisations representative of the interests of consumers. We all know the difficulty that can be raised by whether that means all organisations representative of consumers, and, if not, which? I should like to ask the noble Lord to give consideration to that point. Those are the only points I should like to raise. I am sorry to give him rather a lot, but that is because of the drafting of the subsection.
§ Lord SHINWELLOn this question of consulting the consumers, I can make my submission to my noble friend the Minister quite specific, because he has had a long and valued association with the Co-operative movement. Perhaps he would be good enough to say whether the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the various co-operative societies in the country have been consulted, and, more particularly because the Co-operative movement is a democratic movement, whether they have been consulted in a democratic fashion. In other words, has every member-consumer of the Co-operative movement, with which my noble friend was so long associated, been consulted on this subject of metrication? It is important that we should all know.
§ Lord REDESDALEMay I raise one point of clarification? This covers the cubic foot and comes within the Directive. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about the non-relation of this Directive to this particular piece of legislation, but there is one area which worries me a little. The Directive says that the cubic foot should be dropped by 1979. This covers the gas industry. I appreciate that gas is covered by the Gas Act 1972, but I feel that the gas industry requires some notification of the Government's intention because every gas meter measures in cubic feet and that is converted by thermal value into therms. Therms also are proscribed, if that is the word. I should be grateful to know the Secretary of State's intentions in the future about giving indications in the gas industry (and to the other heating industries) as to what they ought to be doing about changing from cubic feet to, presumably, cubic metres.
§ Lord SLATERThe reason for my further intervention is the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I sincerely hope that, while he may already have these gadgets in his own home and welcomes metrication, he will have respect for the opinions of other people; because it is a matter of opinion. He may have been a professional in his own sphere of activity during the course of his lifetime, but some of us have been professionals in other spheres of activity not connected, probably, with the engineering sector of industry in this country. We have been connected with other organisations and other parent bodies who have had to carry out the edicts laid down by past Governments during the course of our careers in the representation of the general public in this country. Therefore, while he may make such statements as: "Let us get on with it!", "Let everything else be put on one side!", "It has been introduced. Let us get on with the job!", I very much hope that he will have respect for other people's opinion in the course of his deliberations.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEI beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.