\documentclass[a4paper]{article}

\begin{document}

{\footnotesize
Welcome to the UK Metrication Association  \texttt{www.metric.org.uk}  
}

\section{History of metrication in the UK}

Although a great deal has happened in the UK over the past 30 years, there is still a lot of ignorance of the current
situation. Some people think it's already gone too far, others don't seem to be aware of what has actually happened. One
school of thought is that SI (metric) is OK for some fields, e.g. scientific and engineering endeavours (indeed, some
people think SI was designed only for such purposes, rather than general use), but it is not suitable for others. For
example, as Britain is an island, and the design of our road signs doesn't affect how we do trade with the rest of the
world, it is not necessary for road signs to convert to metric. However, SI is a coherent system of units, and including
non-metric units defeats the point. We buy our petrol by the litre, so it's easier to calculate consumption using
kilometres; coaches and trucks have odometers recording kilometres, and speedometers showing km/h (not kph, please!) in
prominent form. The argument also ignores the fact that the UK shares a border with Ireland, which has largely converted
its distance signs, and is planning to change its speed limit signs in 2001.

The Metrication Board was set up by the government in 1969 after the Confederation of British Industry and the British
Standards Institution announced that industry was in favour of metrication. The MB's remit was to educate the public and
business, and encourage the adoption of SI. A target date of 1975 was set, by which time it was anticipated that the UK
would be substantially metric. A quarter of a century after that target, we are still not there!

By 1975, a lot had been achieved, particularly in industry, but also in a lot of everyday products. Unfortunately, the
arrival of Margaret Thatcher's government saw the end of any further persuasion on the part of the government. The
Metrication Board was killed off.

However, the government had already signed up to the European Directive 71/354 to harmonize our units of measurement by
requiring SI. This resulted in several further Directives (see here) which set out transition dates for phasing out most
non-metric units. UK legislation was then amended to enact these changes. 1995 saw the removal of the pound (weight) and
pint for labelling pre-packed goods.

Perhaps the most significant change took place at the end of 1999; as of 2000 January 1 it has no longer been legal to
sell loose products (vegetables, fruit, cheese, meat, nails, ground coffee, etc. etc.) by reference to the ounce, pound,
pint or gallon (with the exception of draught beer). It is interesting to note that those who complain about possible
prison sentences for traders who don't use metric do not complain that the same penalties currently exist for any
publican who dares to sell his beer in litres - one particularly ludicrous anomaly (especially given that nearly all
pint bottles of beer on sale in supermarkets have been changed to 500 ml bottles.) This, in fact, did happen a few years
ago, when a publican was fined for selling beer in metric sizes; I wonder how much support that publican received from
those who proclaim themselves defenders of freedom to use any chosen units of measurement? Pints of beer are usually
spoken about in the same breath as the pint of milk in returnable containers, but there is one significant difference,
in that it is now perfectly legal to sell milk in metric sizes.


\section{Historical Perspectives: by the last Director of the Metrication Board.}
\label{sec:de}

I have been stimulated by some of the recollections of your recent correspondents to try to explore some of my old
Metrication Board records to see when Parliament first debated the metric system, Many references suggest 1897.

In fact the first reference was 13th April 1790. One hundred years earlier. This was when parliamentarian Sir John Riggs
Miller [Britain] and the Bishop of Autum, Prince Talleyrand [France] put to the British Parliament and French Assembly
respectively, the proposition that the two countries should cooperate to equalise their weights and measures, by the
joint introduction of the metric system.

There was no immediate progress although there were many positive debates in the second half of the 19th Century. For
example, 1st July 1863 the Bill for a compulsory change to the metric system was approved by 110 votes to 75 votes.
Speakers argued many of the points we hear today. On the one hand supporters argued its logic and simplicity, savings in
time and money, advantages to trade and education. Opponents stressed the undesirability of following the precedent of
France and the problems of conversion for the ill-educated and disadvantaged. However no specific cut-off dates were
proposed.

The following year, 9th March 1864, the House of Lords debated a Bill to permit the use of metric weights and measures
in trade. One supporter noted that Englishmen were notorious for liking old terms and old habits and he hoped that the
new nomenclature would not be diverted by attempts at ridicule. He said the sound of the word 'metric' can be absurd to
anyone but a fool who has never heard it before; but no more than a 'yard' to a man who has never heard of a 'yard'
before.... !!!Parliament passed the Bill and this became the Metric Weights and Measures Act 1864.  On the 24th February
1868 a parliamentary proposal to set Imperial cut-off dates was withdrawn on promise of a Royal Commission of enquiry.
The Enquiry Report was positive, and on the 26th July 1871 Britain almost became a metric country. The government lost
the Bill to make metric compulsory after two years, by only 82 votes to 77 votes. An argument that might have influenced
opponents was a plea that Britain would be "letting down America and our colonies" who had harmonised their systems with
the ones in use in Britain. [NB At that time the American Congress had emulated Britain by allowing contracts in metric.
A particularly strong USA advocate for metric was John Quincy Adams.]

There were further debates, and near misses, in the UK Parliament in 1872 and 1896, before a comprehensive debate [ 21st
June - 6th August 1897] concluded by legalising the use of metric for all purposes. There were no contrary votes. NB
This is the debate which most references indicate to be the genesis of metrication in the United Kingdom.

Metrication continued to be debated for the next 10 years. In 1904 The House of Lords unanimously voted to make metric
compulsory after two years. It was claimed that the Austrian and German nations had successfully made metric compulsory
with a changeover time of only "one week"!!!!! The Government said they would not obstruct the proposal, but the Bill
was never adopted in the Commons. Two similar debates in 1907 failed. By now, the Board of Trade was expressing some
reservations, claiming that metrication had failed in France and that the agricultural labourer would never ask for
0.56825 of a litre of beer. The vote against compulsion rose to 150 votes to 118 votes. Conflicts in Europe put further
political consideration of metrication out of mind until the publication of a Government White Paper on Weights and
Measures 10th May 1951.  The 1951 White Paper was in fact the 28th Report put to Parliament during the preceeding 100
years. This latest report was in response to the the Hodgson Committee Report published in 1949. Eventually we had the
Weights and Measures Act 1963; a long series of Parliamentary questions to Ministers and the Federation of British
Industries [now the CBI] lobby in favour of metrication in 1965. These initiatives culminated with the creation of the
Metrication Board in 1969 by Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Minister of Technology. The target date for completion was end
1975. The transition to metrication and the role of the Board were given positive support and encouragement by Geoffrey
Howe the resposible Minister of the new Government in 1972. Indeed at that time, and until circa 1977-1978, there was
good, sensible and steady progress which seemed to be supported by every section of society including, for example, the
small retailers and the elderly as represented by Age Concern.

Prepackaged food changed but the really difficult issue to emerge affected retailers of 'loose weight' products. They
needed to be reassured there would be an agreed cut-off date for their transfer from Imperial to metric. The retail
problem was that metric prices would always appear to be more expensive than their nearest Imperial equivalent.
Voluntary transferees to metric found themselves commercially disadvantaged. This is because viz. 4 ozs is smaller than
125 g: one pound is smaller than 500 g and a pint is smaller than a litre. Prices are correspondingly lower. The issue
of how best to explain the position to consumers dominated much of the Boards creative thinking.

The product which brought all voluntary retail initiatives to a full stop was the experience of the floor covering and
carpet retailers. Their 1975 change to sales by the sq. metre started well, but in 1977 one of the major High Street
retailers found enormous commercial advantage in reverting to sales by the square yard. Consumers could not be persuaded
to believe that goods costing, for example, £10 per square or £12 per square metre were virtually priced the same.
Consumers bought, in very significant volume, the apparently cheaper priced imperial version.  Metrication of carpet
sales entered into full scale reverse and the Chambers of Trade and retail associations pressed for firm Government
leadership, i.e. compulsory cut-off. With hindsight one of the Metrication Board jingles may have helped spread the
'carpet' misunderstanding. This was the jingle "a metre measures about three foot three, just a bit longer than a yard
you see". Consumers understandably couldn't relate an e.g. £2 per square unit price difference with the Metrication
Board's "just a bit longer". Then the political nerve began to fail.

Board of Trade Ministers Shirley Williams, Alan Williams and later Roy Hattersley and John Fraser supported metrication.
They seemed to recognise the setting of a cut-off date was unavoidable. They had had, by this time, the benefit of
analysing the results of successful metric changes in all the Commonwealth countries. There was a wealth of information
within the Department of Trade to show that a clear retail cut-off date was both desireable and inevitable....exactly as
19th Century parliamentarians had foreseen. The necessary Order, drafted by the Board of Trade in 1978, was agreed by a
huge range of retail trade, industry, engineering, consumer, trade union, elderly person, sporting and educational
organisations and..... the overwhelming number of parliamentarians. A small number of critics, in each political party,
did voice opposition to the element of compulsion but this seemed to come from a relatively small minority within the
Eurosceptic movement.

However, the initiative was in the hands of Secretary of State for Trade, Roy Hattersley and a General Election was
expected in 1979. There seemed to be weeks and weeks of "will he/ won't he" allow Parliament to vote for the Order
giving the final Imperial cut-off. Almost every private test of opinion indicated the Order would command a substantial
majority in Parliament. Although the Opposition sensed a weakness in the resolution of the Labour Government it was
acknowledged that many conservative MPs had been career-long advocates for cut-off and would therefore be likely to
favour the Government Order, or at least abstain. In the event, Roy Hattersley chose not to test opinion, not to allow
the vote. He withdrew the draft Order. Speculation was that he judged the issue might lose some votes in the forthcoming
election. Plenty of time to introduce Imperial cut-off Orders after a Labour victory. The junior Trade Minister John
Fraser made his disgust and disappointment apparent... suggesting the actions of his Secretary of State would be seen as
"gutless". Many shared that view. Labour lost the election anyway and Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister.

One Conservative backbencher, Sally Oppenheim had been almost the lone but persistent critic of the metric programme.
Ironically she was appointed junior Minister of Consumer Affairs at the DTI and then metrication was added to her
portfolio. In letters to MP's and associations she made it clear [a] she was not opposed the metrication in principle,
[b] metrication was not the result of Britain's accession to the EEC but [c[ she did object to measures which would
compell people to adopt metric against their will. Proponents of metrication, trade and consumer organisations,
officials and the Metrication Board explained and argued that a voluntary change at retail level was absolutely
impossible...it could never happen. It was a recipe for confusion, waste and duplication.  Government had to lead over
the last hurdle. It did, it led backwards. In 1980 the Metrication Board was abolished.

In truth the Metrication Board had little else to do. Every possible programme had been agreed, consumer information
campaigns composed and there was nothing to do until or unless a date was fixed for the completion of the transition. We
little knew then the die was set for a further 20 years of waste, confusion and argument. Successive DTI Ministers did
nothing to inform consumers or public opinion. They did nothing to refute the new 'big lie' namely, that Britain was
being forced to change because of the European Commission. In fact, during the past 20 years most Commission Officials,
European Politicians and businesses in Continental Europe 'couldn't have given a damn' whether Britain changed to the
metric system or not. They seemed to quite like the idea of Britain shooting itself in its economic foot, by imposing
upon itself the extra costs and waste of maintaining a dual system. For twenty years not one single British Minister has
attempted to explain the advantages of metrication; been frank about the changes which had successfully taken place in
the rest of the World or the fact that we had committed ourselves to become a metric nation long before we joined the
European Community.  Most tried to pretend or imply they were protecting our British culture from the European bully.

How sad, what a waste, what a pity.  

Jim Humble OBE  Director of the Metrication Board  [1978-1980]  

\end{document}








%%% Local Variables: 
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End: 
