Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have heard the Minister say that we had 16 sittings. Is that in order when, according to the Official Report, the final sitting was the 15th sitting? Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Lock: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair, but it is typical of the points that have been taken. This is a good Bill and it has been properly scrutinised. Its powers are needed for the police and for the victims of crime and I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.--[Mr. Kevin Hughes.] Question agreed to. 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1126 Weights and Measures 10 pm Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): I beg to move, That the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 85), dated 16th January 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th January, be revoked. The House now proceeds to scrutiny of an important regulation touching on the subject of metrication. Our objection to the regulations-- Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Would hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly? Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our objection is that the regulations mark another stage in the Government's determination to drive out pounds, ounces and other familiar imperial units of measurement, and to replace them with an enforced metrication policy, even when that is unnecessary and unwanted. The background to the regulations is that in 1999 the Government ended the permitted sale of loose goods--fruit and vegetables, meat, fish and so on--in pounds and ounces. From 31 December 1999, it became a criminal offence to sell those loose goods in the familiar units that we had used for so long. That has led to the absurd prosecution of a market trader, Mr. Thoburn, in Sunderland. His only crime, it is alleged, is that he is selling fruit in pounds and ounces. The court case is costing tens of thousands of pounds. It is still under way, and we await the verdict. Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): Does my right hon. Friend share my perplexity about the matter? Some people might consider it a modern thing to use systeme internationale d'unite measures, but the United States uses pounds and ounces in NASA space probes, as well as miles, feet, inches and square yards in other circumstances. Can my right hon. Friend understand what the Government's motive could be for abandoning historical units of measurement such as pounds and ounces in favour of metrication? Metrication is popular in Europe, but it is not understood here. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to give the United States as an example of a country that uses imperial measurements. However, I do not think that they are called imperial units there; rather, they are known as non-metric, or even English, units. Indeed, in some cases in the US, there has been a reversion to such units and away from metrication. My hon. Friend asks why the Government are so intent on metrication, and I confess my bafflement on that point. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The Government have had to address the issue because, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the previous Government signed up to metrication time and again, and reconfirmed as much in this Chamber, time and again. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is not quite the case, as my remarks will show. Doubtless the Government will try to blame everything on everyone but themselves, but in this case it will not work. 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1127 The point that I was developing leads on from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). It is that the metrication process has nothing to do with consumer rights or the protection of consumer interests. In the case of Mr. Thoburn and his sale of fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces, it is neither suggested nor alleged that he was in any way misleading his customers. Quite the reverse--he was serving his customers in the units they asked for; he was not short-changing them in any way. In the market in Sunderland, there were many other outlets. There is choice in a market, by definition. If he was doing something that his customers disapproved of, they could easily buy their produce from somebody else. He would lose business if he was thought to be imposing his values on an unwilling public. He and his customers were simply exercising choice, and the Government are now denying them that choice. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Thoburn case. Am I right in thinking that the genesis of the regulations can be traced back to 1989 and the European Council of Ministers, whose United Kingdom representative was the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), now foreign affairs spokesperson for the Conservative party? Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is getting this slightly wrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) obtained for this country an extension of the rights of traders to continue to use imperial measurements. This Government failed to do that in 1999, so the guilt lies on the Government Benches rather than ours. Dr. Howells: I would not want the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. Why does he not simply admit that the Government of whom he and the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) were members signed up to metrication and then managed to obtain a 10-year extension which would enable traders to put supplementary measurements on each weighing scale? That is precisely what we did the year before last. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid that the Minister cannot avoid responsibility in that way. These prosecutions are proceeding because in 1999 the Government failed to extend the right to use imperial units in trade in loose goods. We obtained that extension in 1989--that is a matter of record. The Government did not even try to obtain an extension in 1999. I have a helpful written answer from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who is in his place. The hon. Gentleman said: "The Government have not discussed the derogation for goods sold loose with Members of the European Commission."--[Official Report, 8 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 583W.] The Government did not even discuss the matter, let alone ask or insist. 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1128 An extension of this right could easily have been obtained. The original directive was negotiated by the Labour Government in 1979. It includes the following lines: "Whereas the laws which regulate the use of units of measurement in the Member States differ from one Member State to another and as a result hinder trade; whereas, in these circumstances, it is necessary to harmonize laws, regulations and administrative provisions in order to overcome such obstacles". It is clear from that preamble that the entire rationale was built on the premise that the use of imperial measurement hindered trade. However, Mr. Thoburn and his market trader colleagues in Sunderland are not engaging in international trade. How can it possibly be said that the sale by a market trader in some way infringes the rules and regulations of international trade? It is preposterous. Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Does it not go even further than that? If it was a question of concern for international trade, and a trader insisted on using a unit of measurement that was not acceptable to potential customers on the continent, he would not be able to trade. People trade in the measurements that their customers want. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Trade exists by satisfying customers. Someone who supplies goods in units that are inconvenient or are not understood will not sell them. People do not need bureaucrats or central Government to tell them that. It is much better to leave such matters to normal commercial intercourse at market level. Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I want to make progress. The domestic sale of loose goods has no single market implications and does not affect other member states in any way. It is a purely domestic matter and therefore falls under the subsidiarity requirement, which is now written into the treaty of Rome, as amended. Respect for subsidiarity is insisted upon, so if the Government had asked in 1999 whether United Kingdom traders should continue to use pounds and ounces for domestic trade, no case whatever would have been made against the proposition, which would have been allowed. As has been mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham succeeded in obtaining a further derogation when he applied for one. The same would apply in respect of many units of measurement. It may interest the House to be reminded that some imperial measurements have indefinite extensions. They include the mile and the acre, and pints of milk can still be sold in returnable bottles. The use of such measurements is still permitted because the Government and the European Union know perfectly well that if they insisted on abolishing them in favour of metric measurements, the public would not accept their decision. The principle is already established. When it is convenient for the public to continue to use traditional imperial measurements, they are allowed to do so. Will the 14 Mar 2001 : Column 1129 Minister clarify, however, whether those extensions are indefinite? Could we be required by majority voting to abolish the mile, the acre and the pint in due course? John Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrtümlich glaubt frei zu sein. There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free!
