Now that the General Election is out of the way and a new government installed, there is an opportunity for politicians to take a decisive step toward completing the metric conversion that was begun nearly half a century ago. UKMA has argued that, without decisive Government intervention, the current muddle of conflicting measurement systems will continue indefinitely.  One way of speeding things up would be the passage of a “Weights and Measures (Completion of Metrication) Bill”.  Such a Bill might include some of the provisions listed below.

Ostensibly, the policy of all governments since 1965 has been “that the United Kingdom should – in stages – switch from imperial to metric units of measurement for an ever-increasing range of uses” (quoted from a letter from Tony Blair to Lord Howe in 2004). However, in recent years the Government have taken no significant practical steps to achieve that object, and they are explicitly relying on the false hope that “this is a matter that will solve itself in time” (quoted from Baroness Thornton, Hansard, House of Lords, 25 Feb 2010 : Column 1081).  The reality is that the Government has virtually given up on the great metrication project and wishes that people wouldn’t keep mentioning the subject.

What the noble Lady presumably meant was that, as the older age-cohorts of imperial-educated people die out and are replaced by younger metric-educated people, the transition from imperial to metric as the default system in common use would occur “naturally”.  However, if that were true, it surely would have happened before now.  It was in 1974 that the then Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher, required metric units to be taught in the maths and science curriculum.  Thus, anybody born after 1964 (i.e. well over half the working population aged 18-65) would have received at least their secondary education in metric units.  Yet there is little sign that this transition is occurring.  The popular media are still predominantly imperial, or they mix metric and imperial indiscriminately. In order to function effectively in the UK in the 2010s, adults need to be fluent with both systems.

If the “very British mess” of trying to operate two incompatible systems of measurement at the same time is ever to be ended, then it is idle to pretend that the changeover will happen of its own accord.  It will require decisive government action – and this inevitably will have to include legislation.

MetricViews suggests that a new Act of Parliament – perhaps called the “Weights and Measures (Completion of Metrication) Act” – will be needed.  It could include some or all of the following clauses:

(a)  A statement of the purpose of the Act – perhaps along the lines of the Australian or American declarations¹ quoted below.

(b)  Declaration that metric is the primary system for all legal and official purposes in the UK unless otherwise required by international agreements (i.e. currently aviation and maritime navigation)

(c)  Duty on all organisations in receipt of public funds (inc. Government Departments and Agencies, the Crown, local authorities, statutory bodies, schools and universities, police, BBC, contractors on publicly financed projects, charities receiving grants) to work toward becoming primarily (and eventually exclusively) metric.  This could include an appropriate clause to be inserted in all procurement contracts and grant agreements.

(d)  Power of Secretary of State to direct such public agencies (either selectively or generally) to cease using non-SI or non-SI-compatible units

(e)  Establishment of Commission to manage remaining stages of transition to primary or exclusive use of metric units

(f)    Power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the Commission

(g)  Reserve power of Secretary of State to take over enforcement powers of local authorities under the Weights and Measures Act where they are failing to act

(h)  Cut-off date (say, 5 years) for ending the exemption of “road signs, distance and speed measurement” from the requirement to use SI units

(i)    Power to prohibit manufacture, import and sale of measuring instruments that show non-SI units (might need to be some exemptions, eg. for legacy components and artefacts)

(j)    Requirement that measurement units used in advertising and product description shall be metric, with optional supplementary indications (to be enforced against advertising agencies, estate agents, newspapers, internet service providers – but not against private individuals). (It would be counter-productive to enforce against private individuals as this would simply lead to the creation of “martyrs”).

Ideally, this Bill should have been part of the new Government’s legislative programme.  Indeed, without Government support it would have little chance of becoming law. However, if the Government is reluctant to propose this measure at present, then perhaps an individual Member (of either House) – with the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsmen – would be prepared introduce it as a “Private Member’s Bill” – possibly under the “ten minute rule.”  Whether it then attracted Government support or not, it would obviously have to be published, might attract some publicity, and would put down a marker for future reference.

________________________________________________________________

¹Quotations from other legislatures:

“The object of this Act is to bring about progressively the use of the metric system of measurement in Australia as the sole system of measurement of physical quantities.” (Metric Conversion Act, 1970)

“Sec. 205b. Declaration of policy

It is therefore the declared policy of the United States–

(1) to designate the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce;

(2) to require that each Federal agency, by a date certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its procurements, grants, and other business-related activities, except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms, such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in non- metric units;

(3) to seek out ways to increase understanding of the metric system of measurement through educational information and guidance and in Government publications; and

(4) to permit the continued use of traditional systems of weights and measures in non-business activities.” (Metric Conversion Act, 1975)

At one time the Conservatives claimed that they would legislate to permit weighing and pricing of “loose goods” in imperial units (presumably without a metric equivalent) – as demanded by certain market traders.  For example, their 2005 policy statement, “Action on Deregulation”, announced: “We will negotiate to remove the compulsory nature of sales in metric amounts, which is contrary to consumer demands.”  (However, wiser counsels seem to have prevailed since this promise was not repeated in their election manifesto of that year, which was partly drafted by – guess who -  David Cameron).

(For their part, Labour ministers have also tried to pander to the imperialists by criticising trading standards officers for carrying out their duty to enforce the law passed by Parliament, and even claiming credit for having “saved” pounds and ounces on price labels in 2009).

Reverting to the question posed, in the first place the above 2005 statement implicitly acknowledges that the current EU Directive (which incidentally was negotiated with all-party support in the 1990s) would actually prevent a reversion to imperial weighing (although of course it does permit an imperial “supplementary indication”).  So any Government wishing to permit weighing in lbs and oz would need to renegotiate this provision with the European Commission, and if they were to agree, pilot it through the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.  Only then could they seek to amend UK law.

However, this might not be such an obstacle as it seems at first sight.  As former Commissioner, Gunter Verheugen, has famously remarked, the EU has never been interested in getting into a fight with an elected government over an issue that doesn’t affect cross-border trade or any other member state.  The Commission is not known for taking a principled stand on metrication issues (think of how they caved in to American pressure on dual marking on packaging and labelling), so in the interests of an easy life they might well find convenient reasons for giving in to populist clamour from British politicians and media.

But, when push comes to shove, would a future Government really actually do this (whatever it might have said before the election)?  On balance I think it unlikely – for the following reasons:

• What politicians say in order to get elected often conflicts with practical reality when they are in office.
• Read the history book rather than the crystal ball.  As noted above, in the 1970s, 80s and 90s successive governments of both parties negotiated and agreed the various EU Directives and the UK legislation that flowed from it – most recently the 1995 regulations requiring metric weighing and pricing of “loose goods” from 2000 (see SI 1995/1804).
• Many front benchers are in the age group that received their secondary education in metric units.  Like Andrew Lansley (Conservative), who recently advocated “centilitres” rather than “units” of alcohol, they are not so viscerally hostile to metric units as some of their predecessors.
• Although some leading politicians of all parties affect disdain for EU institutions they will need to work with their EU partners.  Is it really worth expending scarce political capital on this issue when they have much bigger fish to fry (such as the budget rebate, the Common Agricultural Policy,  the Lisbon Treaty, further enlargement, the European Defence Force, renegotiating the Working Time Directive etc etc)?  I think not.
• If they were successful in persuading the EU to amend the Directive, they would have lost a convenient scapegoat and would be unable to deflect criticism by blaming the EU for home-grown policies that they prefer not to defend publicly.
• There is likely to be considerable opposition from stakeholders in the UK to allowing a free-for-all in measurement units.  Most businesses (especially major retailers) operate wholly in metric (albeit sometimes with supplementary indications at the point of sale) and, although they have rarely publicly supported metrication, they will not welcome pressure from competitors to revert to imperial weighing and pricing, and perhaps having to replace all their scales again, retrain their staff etc.  Similarly, professional and educational organisations are likely to be dismayed at such a reactionary and unnecessary move.
• Sir Humphrey¹ would probably also be able to think of many other practical reasons for not reversing nearly half a century of consistent Civil Service policy – however half-heartedly it may have been implemented.

It may well be true that some politicians have sent out signals that they dislike metrication and would like to restore parity to imperial units.  For example, the former Conservative leadership contender, David Davies, made a pitch for the imperialist vote by having himself photographed with a market trader who had been successfully prosecuted by the local Council for using imperial scales.  Others, however, have maintained an embarrassed silence.

A realistic assessment is that, if faced with the responsibilities of power, no future Government would want to waste time and political capital on a project that would annoy as many people as it would please.  That is no doubt why the subject does not receive a mention in any of the major parties’ manifestoes. So if there any electors who intend to vote for a party in the expectation that they will soon be able to revert to weighing tomatoes in pounds, buying petrol in gallons or registering land in acres  – they are likely to be disappointed.

[Footnote: For the avoidance of doubt, UKMA does not support or oppose any particular political party but supports any candidate who will advocate early completion of the 45-year saga of British metrication.]

____________________________________________________________

¹Sir Humphrey Appleby was the fictional Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs in the 1980s television series “Yes, Minister.”

The full text of the exchange is printed in Hansard and can be read here.  A video clip may also be viewed at this link.

The background to this exchange was covered in our recent article “NHS risking patients’ lives with imperial scales”, which gives links to the relevant documents.  Briefly, an official report found that, despite previous warnings, 30% of NHS hospitals were still using scales that are switchable between metric and imperial, and 10% were actually being used in imperial mode.  This risks wrong doses of drugs (which are calculated in metric) being administered to vulnerable patients – with possibly disastrous consequences.

The Minister’s statement is welcome as a public confirmation that it really IS Government policy “to move toward full metrication in time” (quoted from a letter from the Science Minister, Lord Drayson).  However, I do have reservations about her comment that “this is a matter that will solve itself in time”.  By this of course she was presumably echoing the widespread assumption that, since children are educated in metric units, as older people die out, metric units will gradually become the default for the general population, and imperial units will fall out of use.  If only this were true …

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests otherwise. The alternative view is that, after ca 35 years of metric education in schools, acceptance and use of metric units varies with occupation, educational standard and social class – and also with the mistaken  perception that metric units are “foreign”.  On this view, we have reached a stable but highly unsatisfactory situation of “two systems” with no prospect of resolution – without specific Government action.

The other reservation that one must have about the Minister’s statement – however welcome it may be – is that although she speaks for the Department of Health, the policy is not carried through to other aspects of Government – notably Transport.  We shall return to this point in a forthcoming article.

Going back to the exchange in the House of Lords, it is good that the Health Department is now committed to issuing an “alert” reminding all NHS hospitals of the importance of metric-only scales.  This will reduce the risk of a catastrophic accident resulting from confusion over measurement units.  So let us congratulate Baroness Thornton and hope that, with her support, stones, pounds and ounces can finally be eradicated from the NHS.

NIST, which is part of the US Department of Commerce, recently issued the following statement on its website:

“The EU Metric Directive [sic] (80/181/EEC), scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2010, has been modified to allow the continuation of both supplemental (U.S. customary, inch-pound) and metric units for consumer goods sold in the EU. The rule was published on May 7, 2009 in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Directive instructs the European Commission to produce a report to the Parliament and Council regarding the smooth functioning of the internal market and international acceptance of SI units by December 31, 2019, including proposals where appropriate.

Demonstrated progress will be important for U.S. stakeholders to achieve long-term acceptance of supplemental units [sic] in the EU. Modifying the U.S. Fair Package and Labeling Act (FPLA), which currently requires dual labeling, to permit optional metric labeling is an example where greater international marketplace acceptance of SI units can be achieved.”

[This report is slightly inaccurate in that the Directive has been in force since 1980, and in any case its proper informal title is the “Units of Measurement Directive”]

The statement is so badly written that it is difficult to work out what it means.  In particular, the final paragraph , in so far as the words mean anything, appears to be gobbledegook.  There is no question that supplementary “units” should “achieve long term acceptance” in the EU.  The recent amendment to the Directive was simply a concession to exporters to remove a potential (alleged) business cost and/or barrier to trade – that is, the requirement for separate labelling for the EU and US markets. The only units legal for trade in the EU will continue to be metric (with the minor exception of the pint (imperial – not US) in limited circumstances in the UK and Ireland), but supplementary “indications” (not units) will be permitted on labels. The inability of NIST to get its head round this simple concept is depressing.

Perhaps I read too much into it, but why did the statement include reference to the review in 2019?  Surely, NIST is not planning to lobby the EU to allow American units as primary units with no metric equivalent stated?  In fact the obvious interpretation is that Directive’s intention is that the Commission should report on whether it will still be necessary to permit supplementary indications.

The statement’s final sentence is also nonsense.  Amending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) will not achieve “greater international marketplace acceptance of SI units”.  They already are accepted internationally – except in the USA!

If NIST feel that their statement has been misinterpreted, then perhaps they can explain what they really did mean.

However, NIST is right to focus on the issue of whether the FPLA should be amended to permit metric-only labelling on goods that are regulated at the federal level. Current federal law requires both metric and US customary units on regulated goods, and so far all attempts to introduce into Congress an amendment to permit metric-only labels have been blocked as a result of lobbying by powerful US business interests such as the Food Marketing Institute (FMI). (Illogically, they seem to believe that allowing voluntary metric-only labelling would compel them to change the sizes of their packages).  Further details can be read on the USMA website at http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/fpla-update.html

(It should also be explained that some goods that are not regulated at the federal level may be regulated at the level of the State, and most States do in fact permit metric-only labels on these goods).

The question now arises whether the FPLA is a non-tariff barrier to trade.  Such barriers, unless they can be justified on legitimate grounds (e.g. health and safety), are illegal under the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and this was one of the reasons why the European Commission agreed to support the continuation of supplementary indications on packages within the EU.  Otherwise the USA might have filed a complaint against the EU. However, arguably, the boot now appears to be on the other foot.

European (and other non-US) manufacturers would naturally expect to label their goods in metric units only.  However, if they want to export those goods to the USA, they will need to incur an increased business cost by adding an additional label or alternatively creating completely different packaging for the US market. Of course, they could simply standardise on a uniform dual-unit label and use this in all markets worldwide – but why should they?  Since the EU’s concession to the USA was not reciprocated, its effect is that EU manufacturers who currently export or might in the future export to the USA have effectively lost the option to label their goods in metric units only. The USA has effectively imposed dual-unit labelling world-wide – a form of American imperialism.

Can anything be done to retrieve the situation?  Whether a complaint to the WTO would be upheld probably depends on what view its Appellate Body would take of the argument that EU (and other) manufacturers should be free to label in metric-only and should not be compelled to dual-label simply because a single state (however powerful) refuses to use the same measurement system as the rest of the world.   Arguably, if the USA wishes to engage in international trade, it should be expected to accept the international system of measurement and not impose unnecessary burdens on foreign manufacturers.

In my view the European Commission should be seriously considering such a complaint – or at least it should let it be known (diplomatically of course) that unless there is progress on amending the FPLA, a complaint might be filed.  Without such an implied sanction, it is difficult to see how the US Congress might be persuaded to drop its opposition.

Our correspondent wrote:

“I wonder if anyone has the time and resources to write an article for Metric Views on [whether] the policy of gradual metrication been a success compared with other country’s policies of doing it in less than a decade.  Could we put together any objective measures by which you might measure the success of such a policy – cost, public acceptance, lack of resistance from stakeholders etc.?  Just a thought.”

The first thing to be said is that the original intention, when the policy of metrication was announced in 1965, was that the job would be completed in 10 years – that is, by 1975. However, although behind-the-scenes preparations were well advanced by 1970, including a target date for converting road signs in 1973, little had actually been achieved in practical terms by the time of the general election.  Edward Heath unexpectedly won the election, and although famous for taking the UK into the EEC, he did little to encourage metrication.  Indeed he allowed his Transport Minister to postpone indefinitely the conversion of road signs, and the 1972 White Paper announced that conversion would in future be voluntary and gradual: “There will be no “M-day” for metrication.” (paragraph 12),   No Government since then has had the commitment or political courage to set a new target date.  Instead they have diverted criticism on to the EU.

This policy of “voluntary gradualism” was reaffirmed by Tony Blair in a letter to Lord Howe in 2004, and even more recently by Lord Drayson (Minister for Science) in a letter to the Chairman of UKMA last December, in which he said:

“The Government’s longstanding policy in relation to units of measurement is to move towards full metrication in time, but at a pace that recognizes that a significant proportion of consumers are still more comfortable with using imperial units.  Metric units are used for the majority of transactions regulated by the Weights and Measures Act 1985.  The United Kingdom is already substantially metric …… We recognise that a single system of units of measurement as a reference point is vital for fair trade and consumer protection.  However, we also believe it is important that imperial units can continue to be used alongside metric ones whilst they remain more familiar for some consumers.”

The sad result of this policy, as we know to our cost, is that the UK has got half way through metrication and got stuck, with little prospect of resolution without decisive intervention by the Government.  So we have the “very British mess” of two systems described on UKMA’s website at this link.  I think it can fairly be said that the UK’s approach has failed.

Other countries which commenced conversion in the late 1960s or early 1970s have tried different approaches. Australia and South Africa are examples of countries that largely completed their changeover within the 10 year timetable, whereas the USA has been even slower than the UK – albeit there is considerable unseen progress (e.g. in the American car industry).  Canada has converted its road signs but encountered resistance to the changeover in retailing, putting it further ahead than the UK in some ways but further behind in others (the American influence is of course very strong).  The Irish Republic is an interesting case.  Initially slow like the UK, it succeeded in converting its road signs and speed limits in 2005 and has now largely completed its programme – albeit pints (imperial) linger on in pubs.  One may speculate that one of the reasons why the Irish overtook the Brits is that by leaving the sterling area and later adopting the Euro, and then completing the metric changeover, they were demonstrating their independence from their former colonial masters.

Can any lessons be drawn from all this?  Can we in fact, as our correspondent asked, develop any objective measures?

I think this is actually an impossible task.  As far as costs are concerned, most of the costs were incurred so long ago that, even if they had been identified at the time, there are no surviving records of them.  Ditto the benefits.  What we can say, however, is that the UK has failed to reap the benefits of its investments in new machine tools, retraining programmes, school textbooks etc precisely because a large proportion of the population still uses obsolete units of measurement.  The “voluntary/gradual” approach means you get all the costs but not all the benefits.

The second criterion suggested by our correspondent was public acceptability.

Clearly, the UK has had a problem here – but arguably a problem that is self inflicted.  Whereas in, for example, Australia, the government was careful to explain the reasons and the programme for metrication (see this link for extracts from the official report), and then implemented the changeover relatively quickly, the UK Government tried to do it by stealth and without explaining the reasons to the general public. They also tried to do the easy bits first (pharmaceuticals, building and construction) while hoping that the difficult bits (esp retailing) would be addressed later long after the current politicians and civil servants had left office.

It is probably also true that Britain has a larger proportion of traditionalists who reject all change, especially if it appears to affect imagined icons of Britishness. Then of course came the incorrect identification of the issue with the EU, and so opposition to metrication became a metaphor for Euroscepticism.  If only the thing had been done quickly, before the anti-European campaign had been cranked up, it could all have been history by the end of the 1970s.

The third suggested criterion, resistance from stakeholders, requires a little examination.  The primary stakeholders (manufacturing and building industries, local authority trading standards officers, major retailers, consumer representatives) have generally supported (or at least acquiesced in) metrication.  The main resistance has come from independent shopkeepers and market traders, supported or exploited by right wing political groups.  In economic terms these are not all that significant, but by dint of political stunts (the so-called “metric martyrs”) they have captured the interest of the media and thereby won some sympathy amongst the general public.  Again it has been the failure of politicians to explain the changeover, take responsibility for their own policy and carry it through in a reasonable timescale that has allowed grievances to fester and grow.

So my response to our correspondent’s question – whether countries that converted quickly to metric units fared better or worse than countries that have tried to do the job voluntarily and gradually – is that the question really answers itself.  “Voluntary gradualism” merely prolongs the agony and does not work.  Unfortunately, successive UK governments have refused to learn from the experience of more successful countries such as Australia (or even Ireland in respect of road signs) and, despite all warnings, have deliberately followed those policies that are least likely to succeed.