I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, we may take Government Amendments No. 17 and No. 21, and Amendment No. 16, in Clause 2, page 3, line 13, at end insert:

'No order may be made applying to weighed out goods sold by retail before 1st January 1980'.

The House will probably know—but I shall repeat what is written on Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of amendments which has been posted in the No Lobby—that New Clause 3 has been wrongly placed at the bottom of page 3001 in the list of amendments. It should have been placed as the first new clause.

The new clause, Government Amendment No. 17, and Government Amendment No. 21—the new schedule—all hang together. Amendment No. 16 is an Opposition amendment.

The Government amendments arise out of an amendment carried in Committee to insert a number of words which Amendment No. 17 now seeks to remove. I should explain the effect of the amendment which was carried in Committee. There are two defects in its drafting. The first is a minor defect. Cheese is not subject to a prescribed quantity order because it is not generally sold prepacked. The second and perhaps the more serious defect is that the amendment which was carried in Committee does not make clear that "prepacked" means prepacked in prescribed quantities. The two phrases are not synonymous.

That having been said about any drafting defects, the intention of the Committee and of those moving the amendment was absolutely clear. The principle was clear that, for instance, butter, tea and bread should not be subject to what in shorthand we call cut-off orders before 1st January 1980. I counsel the House against choosing 1st January 1980, and I ask it to endorse, and, indeed, to widen substantially, the principle carried in Committee.

The Government seek to substitute 21st April 1978 as the date before which orders proscribing imperial sizes cannot and will not be effective. The effective date worried the Opposition rather more than the actual date when the order was made. I ask the House to choose the alternative date of 21st April 1978 for two reasons. First, choosing 1st January 1980 could mean—I put it no higher—an excessive prolongation of the process of changeover, with all that flows from that in terms of uncertainty, confusion and a lack of framework in which to have orderly planning and, not least, consultation. The effect of choosing 1st January 1980 would be not merely to tie the Government's hands behind their back, but to risk giving the consumer double vision.

Secondly, I ask the House to bear in mind that as from April 1978 metric packs may be freely imported into the United Kingdom. We had the argument in the House and in Committee whether this was likely to happen. I do not intend to pursue that argument now. The truth is that no one really knows the extent to which metric packs will come into this country from April 1978. Nevertheless the risk is there, and it would be unwise not to have the power to bring order into that situation. I say "bring order into that situation". That can be done only by an affirmative order of both Houses of Parliament. The argument about the date is that it may unduly prolong matters and remove the power to bring about order if there is need to bring order to the situation by 1978.

I have adopted the principle agreed in Committee and made it much wider. The amendment carried in Committee applied—apart from cheese, about which it is defective—to butter, bread and tea. According to the new Schedule it will apply to bread, which was in the original amendment, to milk—I re-emphasise that we do not intend to phase out the pint size—to prepacked potatoes, tea, cereals, flour, all edible fats, not merely butter, and to sugar, salt and jam. Indeed, it will apply to almost every important household food item sold in prescribed quantities. I hope that the House will think that a reasonable response to the principle agreed in Committee and will find it acceptable.

The amendments tabled by the Government have listed a number of prescribed quantity orders which apply only in Great Britain, not in Northern Ireland. Later, in order to make this absolutely clear, I shall ask the leave of the House to move a manuscript amendment. Northern Ireland prescribed quantity orders have always in the past followed British prescribed quantity orders. There is no intention of trying to steal a march in the Province over the safeguards introduced in the United Kingdom.

Turning briefly to the Opposition's amendment, No. 16, I think it would be as well if I heard what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has to say before I attempt to reply. However, there are some problems of drafting, not least because the term "weighed out" foods is not a term of art. We know in our minds what it means, but it is not a term of art. I shall be happy to respond to the need to give some kind of safeguard about weighed-out foods, but I shall wait until the hon. Gentleman has made his speech.

I must utter a mild protest that, as neither the Bill nor all the amendments were tabled until yesterday, life was made a little difficult for the Opposition to table their amendments in the right form. The Minister has complained about that fact. Nor has life been made any easier by the way that the Department has been behaving. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said on New Clause 3. It is a concession that we welcome.

The Minister said that he accepted the principle that cut-off orders for prescribed quantities will be delayed until 1st April 1978. By that time inflation may be down to a more reasonable level. One of our objections was that the consumer would face considerable confusion with the current level of inflation. We welcome the broadening of the area from tea, bread, butter and cheese to cover a whole range of prescribed quantity goods. That seems the right thing to do.

The effect of the amendment is that for the most important things we shall not have compulsory metrication until 1978. By 1978 I confidently expect that there will be a change of Government, so who is to say that compulsory metrication will ever take place?

I turn now to Amendment No. 16. I am grateful for what the Minister said on weighed-out foods. I do not know whether our amendment is in the right form, but it has been asked for by the retail consortium. Again, we see no reason why weighed-out foods should be subject to metrication. As the House is well aware, there is a considerable problem relating to the manufacture of scales. There are about 250,000 shops, with more than 500,000 scales. All those scales have to be converted at considerable cost—perhaps £700 each. This change ought to be made gradually. The retail consortium thinks likewise. Originally we suggested 1985, but the compromise date of 1980 is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason for hurrying up the process of weighed-out foods beyond that. There is no argument about suppliers producing things in metric quantities and therefore those at the retail end having to harmonise with their suppliers. There is no argument about prescribed quantities, either.

I hope that the Minister will fill in the detail and tell us how he proposes to do this. I hope that it will be across a broad range of goods. I can see no reason why selling carrots or apples in weighed-out quantities in shops should be illegal. That would be ludicrous. As the scales manufacturers are happy with our amendment, I hope that the Minister will accept the principle.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), I welcome the Minister's conversion to our point of view, which was advanced on Second Reading and in Committee, that we should not go in a giddy rush towards metrication in prepacked and other goods when common sense and consumer opinion indicate otherwise.

The Minister should not have too many misgivings about his proposal, particularly the advantage of allowing present quantities to continue to be legally used, but there is the difficulty, which we debated in Committee, of the change from imperial to metric sizes. The Minister said in Committee that 4 ounces was equivalent to 113 grammes. I shall have to take the Minister's word for that. But, following a rapid extrapolation, we see that the proposed metric size rounded up nearest to the 4 ounce size would be 125 grammes. One ounce, which is 56½ grammes, would go down to 50 grammes. That would be an example of a size being made smaller and, therefore, the cost of the item would not go up.

One of our major causes for anxiety is that this process will inevitably lead to more expensive goods in the shops, not in terms of value for money but in terms of price for the item. The Minister has cited, rather reluctantly, on more than one occasion the mythical box of cornflakes which would increase by 10 per cent. in size yet by only 5 per cent. in price. He must recognise the danger here. This must not become part of the metrication mythology. There is no inexorable law of logic which says that if we increase size by 10 per cent., the price will go up by 5 per cent.

This example was a bonus for the consumer, but it related to one particular item in those particular circumstances at that particular time. In other instances the price may well go up pro rata. Small income families and pensioners may have difficulty in adjusting to the larger figures and will have the impression that prices are going up unless they appreciate that quantities are also going up.

I refer to the background information on the recently introduced order about tea. In that instance the differential begins to widen with other sizes in that range. For example, 8 oz, which is 226 grammes, is rounded up to 250 grammes. I asked the Minister what examples there would be of rounding down rather than up and he was able to cite only one or two at the lower end of the range.

Although 12 oz is equivalent to 339 grammes, the next size up is 500 grammes. That means that we go down 89 grammes or right up to the half-kilo size, an increase of 161 grammes. As the differential begins to widen, the price becomes increasingly important. That is why the Opposition think that the Minister has made the right decision not rush into these changes.

The Minister should not be too dismayed by the views of bodies such as the National Federation of Consumer Groups, which said:

Any half-and-half stage in which some goods are sold in imperial, others in metric units, will be confusing for consumers and must add to costs.

That is rather overdoing the argument. In fact, in several instances, consumers have been, are and will be transacting purchases in different units, and the problem should be not overstated.

I conclude by welcoming the Government's attitude to these changes, which, I am sure, are in the nation's interests, and particularly in the interests of consumers.

The Minister opened his speech by criticising the drafting of the Opposition amendment in Committee on which this new clause is founded. The present new clause, which the Minister has moved, is also open to certain drafting criticism. As he said, it is the paving clause for the new schedule—Pre-packed and other Goods. The new clause applies to the sale of goods specified in certain enactments and orders listed in the proposed new schedule. Some of them, such as those relating to biscuits, cereals and dried vegetables, come under the heading:

"nitted imperial quantities in Orders made under section 21 of the Act of 1963".

Nitted imperial quantities? The mind boggles. This conjures up an interesting recipe for "nitted" biscuits, "nitted" breakfast cereals or "nitted" shortbread. I am sure the Minister will put that right.

To be more serious, the way in which the new schedule sets out enactments and orders is a little inelegant. An order is an enactment and it is rather confusing to call them "enactments and orders" as the new clause does.

I refer to the very last order printed in the new schedule:

"The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Bread) Order 1976".

This is about the third or fourth bread order that we have had in 12 months and I suppose that these orders will go on in future in the same form as in the past until 21st April 1978—the date mentioned by the Minister. They will be permissive orders. There is no doubt that it will be necessary to have these interesting orders from time to time, as it has been in the past, but they will be permissive, not mandatory.

The other peculiarity in the drafting of New Clause 3 is when it speaks about

"The powers to prescribe the quantities in which goods may be made up sold, or made for sale,"

Does "made up sold" mean sold made up? This again conjures up the interesting image of mascaraed biscuits, or powdered flour, or lipsticked sugar. Surely it means "sold made up". The new clause also uses the phrase "made for sale", but surely that means made up for sale. All goods are made for sale. These phrases are confusing and create some difficulties in interpretation.

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), when he complains that Government amendments appeared on the Order Paper at the last moment and that the Bill was not printed until the day before we were to discuss it on Report. This means that it is impossible for the Opposition to suggest amendments to the right lines or the right clauses. It is impossible for us to make any constructive suggestions or to put down amendments to Government amendments. If they had appeared on the Order Paper earlier, I would have taken an opportunity to put down a few amendments to tidy up what I would call bad drafting.

I suppose that it is a matter of congratulation for the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that, no matter how late the Bill is published, it does not seem to have been much of an impediment to his putting down amendments. The amendments on the Order Paper are a reflection of the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity.

It would be silly to allege or assert that everytime there is a conversion from imperial to metric the cost will not be pro rata. So far, we have had some encouraging examples. I have given the example of cornflakes. Another relates to dried vegetables. The old 8 oz pack costs 13½p the new 250 gramme pack will cost 14½p. Thus, the consumer will get 10 per cent. more product for 7½ per cent. more money.

The new metric pack for salt will contain 10 per cent. more salt, but the price will increase by only ½p or 1p—an average increase of only 5 per cent.

Is the Minister satisfied that the prices to which he refers are due to the physical metrication of the goods and not to other movements of costs which happen to be brought into line when the change in pack from imperial to metric takes place?

I cannot say. I am quoting examples of cases in which there is 10 per cent. more in the pack and not 10 per cent. more on the price.

I received assurances from the sugar manufacturers and packers of a marginal decrease in the price of sugar. I do not exaggerate the importance of this, but there was a small decrease in price of sugar delivered to the retail store.

One reason why the consumer organisations prefer the 125-gramme pack is that the increase in size benefits the consumer, because the ratio of packaging to product diminishes. There is no heavy balance on either side, but the chances are that there will be a reduction in the price rather than an increase.

In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) was concerned about increases in prices because of the changeover. In response to the concern expressed both inside and outside the House, we changed the Bill to contain the provision that associates with the changeover from imperial to metric compulsory unit pricing, and so on. We have to give the maximum degree of reassurance to the consumer when we go metric.

The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) says that I am a convert to Gradualism. I am not a convert to gradualism in this area, but there are areas in which I might agree with the concept of the inevitability of gradualism. I agree that the right way to go about this matter is to take Parliament along with us.

The right hon. Member for Crosby was critical of the wording, including the phrase "made up for sale". The wording has been weighed extremely carefully. "Making for sale" refers specifically to bread. "Sale" refers specifically to intoxicating liquor. The other words all have their appropriate place.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) asked about weighed-out foods. The drafting of the amendment is not wholly adequate, and I cannot recommend the House to accept it both for drafting and other reasons. Weighed-out foods are not defined in the Bill and it would be extremely difficult to define them. The amendment does not make clear whether the restriction is intended to apply to the making of an order before 1st January 1980 or to the sale of goods before 1st January 1980. The more serious problem—this is not a drafting matter—is that foods which are weighed out are often closely linked to goods which have already gone metric or which are likely to go metric whether or not we have the Bill.

To give an example, sugar has gone metric on a voluntary basis, facilitated by an order of the House, but it may still be possible to buy weighed-out sugar in certain quantities. That is an example of an item which is weighed-out, though rarely, although the bulk of the product is sold in metric quantities. If we provided for weighed-out sales of every product, those sales might represent only 1 per cent. of the pre-packed sales of the product, and we should start to get into difficulties and might create the very confusion which the Bill is intended to remove.

I have recognised in answers to Parliamentary Questions and in discussions with consumer organisations that there is concern about weighed-out foods such as greengrocery, fresh fruit, fresh meat products in butchers' shops and fish. In those areas people are most concerned that there should not be early progression to metrication. I want to give the House a firm and solemn undertaking on the principle of the amendment in relation to those products.

The Government will not use the new powers under Section 9A to impose any cut-off dates for imperial units in respect of the three main retail weighed-out foods sectors. Those are the sectors which have caused the greatest concern and which cover the preponderance of weighed-out foods. They are greengrocers and fruiterers, butchers and fishmongers. No orders will be made to operate before 1st January 1980. This assurance is in line with my previous statements that the Government take the view that these sectors should be the last to change over. This assurance relates to the date of the implementation of possible orders, not to the date for bringing draft orders before the House. Because of the planning periods involved and the need for certainty in the trade, not least among scale manufacturers, it may be necessary to make such orders well before the effective date.

How long in advance has the Minister in mind for the making of such orders?

Is the hon. Gentleman asking how much time will elapse between the making of an order and its implementation?

Yes.

I repeat, it would be wrong to lay down a rigid timetable. When the Bill has been enacted I hope to give the House and the country a tentative timetable, as I said at the end of my speech in the Second Reading debate. That tentative timetable for the changeover will be decided after background consultations and negotiations inside and outside the House. If we went further than that we should be becoming rigid and arrogant.

I take it that the Minister still believes that it is necessary to have cut-off orders, and is saying that, although there will be delay beyond that previously envisaged, orders will still be laid and cut-off dates will be fixed. Why should not the imperial measurement merely be allowed to wither away?

The withering away would take so long that it would not facilitate the needs of the consumer but, rather, work to his disadvantage. That is not simply my view. It is the unanimous view of every responsible consumer organisation in the country.

The date of 1st January 1980 is not a target date for the metrication of the weighed-out foods I mentioned. It is not a deadline; it is a minimum date. If weighed-out foods such as meat, fruit and vegetables and fish are the last in the queue, their place will depend on how many other products get into the queue in front of them.

I hope that the House will appreciate both the value of the undertaking I have given and its solemnity. If the Opposition are prepared to withdraw their amendment, the undertaking will have the endorsement of the Government, the Conservative Opposition and, I assume, the Scottish National Party and other parties. The undertaking would thereby be endorsed by virtually every major party in Parliament. If any Minister tried to bring in an order which breached the undertaking, that undertaking could be thrown into the Minister's teeth. For the reasons given, I hope that the House will decline to accept Amendment No. 16 and will endorse the serious and solemn pledge which I have given.

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene prior to my hon. Friend who will be winding up the debate. I wish to speak particularly about Amendment No. 16. In accepting New Clause 3 and some of the arguments put forward in Committee, the Government are being both rational and agreeable.

The Minister stated his intention to exempt meat, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables but he is, therefore, excluding a number of other things, including confectionery. In Amendment No. 16 we have in mind not only the period of conversion required for the metrication of weighing scales but also the sheer size of the problem. There are about 300,000 retail outlets, many of which have scale sales. Confectioners are typical. The smaller shop carries a large range of goods and frequently sells vegetables and fish, for instance, alongside sweets and cigarettes. It is in such shops that the problem really arises and the cut-off date is, therefore, most at risk. I urge the Minister to consider whether he may not be ignoring the type of shop where the greatest difficulty could arise—the smaller mixed shop, such as a confectioner's, where loose weighed-out goods are sold alongside packed goods. Will the Minister also consult those who are responsible for retail confectionery, for example, and for small shopkeepers?

We are grateful to the Minister. He has made a substantial concession.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) made several arguments which I shall back up. We are sorry that the Minister cannot include confectionery and we urge him to reconsider. As my hon. Friend emphasised, that will cause confusion in shops which sell a mixture of goods including those that are to be exempt and those that are not. Hon. Members have argued that one cannot have one rule for this and another for that because it would cause confusion. That is particularly important for the small retailer who sells vegetables and fish as well as confectionery. I urge the Minister to consider that argument.

I was not clear of the Minister's meaning when he spoke of goods related to those sold in metric quantities. He gave the example of sugar, but that is an insignificant example. I am sceptical about his argument. The Minister has, however, exempted meat, fresh fruit, fish and vegetables, which are most important products. All those concerned will be grateful for his undertaking and for that reason we will not move our amendment.

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that if there were a Conservative Government there would probably be no metrication at all. Will he clarify the position? If the Conservatives become responsible, shall we still have the cut-off dates or not?

The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I said that in relation to prescribed quantities we would see what happened. We will tell him precisely what we think of the Bill on Third Reading. We will explain our attitude to the principle of the measure. He was not a member of the Committee but even he must notice that we strongly object to the principle of conversion.

I return to the amendment. We agree with the Minister's proposal. On the understanding that his undertaking is absolutely copper-bottomed we shall not move Amendment No. 16.

It would be discourteous if I did not reply to the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). I know of no shops from which I buy both fish and sweets at the same time. If they exist, I do not buy fish or sweets in them.

Much of the greengrocery and fruit trade is carried on not by combines but by those with their own businesses, or corner shops. That is also largely true of the sale of fresh meat and fish. I hope my undertaking covers the area about which the public is concerned.

I was asked to give an example, apart from sugar, of a product which has gone or is going metric but which is still weighed out. Confectionery is a good example. From the beginning of next year most sales of prepacked confectionery will be in metric quantities and they will be sold alongside weighed-out quantities. I agree that there could be confusion if imperial and metric measurements are used side by side.

The National Federation of Scale and Weighing Machine Manufacturers takes the view that there would be a large degree of metrication effort for butchers, greengrocers, fruiterers and fishmongers. It believes that relatively less metrication effort is required in the confectionery and tobacco trades, the reason being that the scales used in confectionery shops are uncomplicated and can be converted quickly. I do not want to make a judgment, but whatever sector is involved there will be extensive consultation and I hope that that will reassure hon. Members.

The Minister must be clear about the size of the problem. About 28 per cent. of confectionery is sold by weigh-out. Even though small shops may use unsophisticated and easily-converted scales, we are talking of nearly 2,000 million sales of quarter-pound quantities. Confusion will be caused particularly if in adjacent shops some goods are sold in imperial quantities and others in metric quantities near the cut-off date. I welcome the Minister's decision to consult.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause had to be drafted before the reprint of the Bill as amended in Standing Committee B was available. As a result, there is an error in the second line. It refers to Section 8, which is now Section 10. However, I think that that can be put right. I am in very good company, because on the last page of the Bill as reprinted exactly the same thing has happened. In the top left-hand corner there is a reference to Section 11(4), which should now be Section 13(4). I hope that the Minister will alter that.

The clause seeks to ensure that the new order-making powers given to the Secretary of State by the Bill will not be used in a manner which would invalidate existing civil contracts. It is narrower than New Clause 3, because it refers only to existing contracts. So far as my clause may be unprecedented, so far as it may be a new provision in the law, it is made necessary by the fundamental change in the law that results from the Bill, namely, that by the repeal of Section 10(10) of the 1963 Act an order by the Secretary of State will be permitted in future—to use the words of Section 10(10)—

"to cause the exclusion from use for trade of imperial in favour of metric units of measurement, weights and measures."

Therefore, these are new powers to make such mandatory orders. They will be made under the sections to which I have referred in the clause—

"sections 1, 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act (as amended by this Act) or under section 8 of this Act".

Section 1(2) of the 1963 Act is a paving section for Schedule 1 of that Act. Schedule 1 defines units of measurement by virtue of Section 1(2), which states:

"Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect for defining for the purposes of measurements falling to be made in the United Kingdom the units of measurement set out in that Schedule".

Schedule 1 had a greater effect than merely that of a definition schedule. Section 10(1) provided that no person should use for trade any unit which was not included in that schedule. The Bill repeals subsection (1) and will leave Schedule 1 merely as a definition schedule—the Minister reminded me of that several times in Committee—but in two respects Schedule 1 may have a greater effect than merely as a declaratory schedule defining certain units. For example, one may use the words "metre" or "litre" in a contract. In Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act both are defined as having

"the meaning from time to time assigned by order by the Board".

Therefore, the meaning can change from time to time. If a change is made by order, it could without warning alter the effect of a contract. All that I am seeking in the clause is a warning period before a contract is so invalidated.

Secondly, Clause 1(2) inserts in Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act headed:

"Definitions of units which may not be used for trade".

I presume that that means what it says, and that any of the units set out there may not be used for trade. If one uses such a unit in a trading contract, the contract must be invalid, void and unlawful. By Clause 1(1) the Secretary of State is given power by order to amend Schedule 1 of the 1963 Act

"by adding to, or removing from, Parts I to VA of that Schedule any unit of measurement".

He might, for example, by order put the cubic yard into Part VA, with the result that it becomes a measurement which can no longer be used, and thereby invalidate at once a contract based on it, unless the House accepts my new clause.

A similar position could well arise as a result of orders made under the new Section 9A, introduced into the 1963 Act by Clause 2. The new section begins by saying:

"(1) No person shall—

(a) use for trade any unit of measurement which is not included in Schedule 1A".

It later refers in the same way to Schedule 3. Subsection (3) of the new Section 9A says:

"The Secretary of State may from time to time by order amend Schedule 1A or 3 to this Act".

If the Secretary of State amends the schedules in such a way as to make an otherwise lawful unit unlawful, it seems to me to make invalid a civil contract based on those units. In that case the position is perhaps even worse, because under Section 9A(2)

"A person who contravenes—

(a) this section"—

and therefore an order which has altered the section—

"shall be guilty of an offence".

Therefore, an early warning system such as I have suggested is only fair and just to the trader.

Regulations made under the new Section 9B, also introduced into the 1963 Act by Clause 2, may not be quite so disastrous to existing contracts, but Section 9B(3) is drawn so widely that one cannot forecast what such regulations may contain. They may certainly affect existing contracts.

Clause 10 creates an entirely new order-making power. The Secretary of State is there empowered to "exclude or modify" existing statute law. If he does so, that may affect contracts based on existing law, and those contracts should be protected, at least for a period.

The Minister's answer may be, as it was in part in Committee, that orders made under the new order-making powers will contain a saving article similar in effect to new Clause 1. He may give us that assurance, but it is not in the Bill. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to protect existing civil contracts when the orders and regulations are made. If that is the Secretary of State's intention, I ask him to write it into the Bill by means of new Clause 1. It is necessary to make the provision obligatory and not leave it merely to the hope that there will be a saving article or regulation when the orders or regulations are made.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that his clause is in part inadequate, in part unnecessary, and in part inferior to what is already in the Bill.

Let me deal first with the argument that the clause is inadequate. If protection is needed to save a contract, it needs to be a permanent saving and not a temporary one for one year.

Secondly, the clause is in part unnecessary in relation to Clause 1 which is linked to Schedule 1, because Schedule I will be the record of definition. One of the reasons that we wish to have a schedule of record is so that we may have set out a catalogue of measures for the purpose of interpreting contract documents.

The use of a measure that is no longer valid if used by way of trade does not necessarily invalidate the contract. If the definition of a unit is changed, as the definiton of "litre" was recently changed, the statutory instrument always contains savings in respect of the existing contracts. I doubt whether there will be changes in Schedule 1. Indeed, I think that the schedule will remain as an archive for many years to come alongside other measures which are to be, if not put to rest, preserved for posterity.

Thirdly, the clause is inferior to what is already in the Bill because Clauses 2 and 10 already contain powers to make savings for existing contracts in respect of orders made under Sections 9A or 9B of the 1963 Act. That will be a permanent power—a power which the right hon. Gentleman by a later amendment seeks to leave out—but certainly the power exists to make savings for existing contracts. That kind of power has always been used in the past and always will be used in the future. I hope that in view of what I have said the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause.

I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's reply, and I shall take his three points in turn.

First he said that this should be a permanent saving. I am sure that if I were to draft New Clause 1 including the word "permanently", the Minister would shout me down immediately. I was merely asking for a warning to those who have already entered into civil contracts, to make plain that those contracts would be terminated within a year. I thought that was a reasonable way in which to put it. Indeed, I am surprised that the Minister should throw out the clause, because I have been so moderate. I can be far more violent if he wishes, but I have advanced a model suggestion.

The Minister also said that the clause was unnecessary in regard to Schedule 1. I shall not repeat my argument on that matter. The Minister may read my remarks in Hansard tomorrow if he wishes to do so.

The Minister then said that an order does not necessarily invalidate a contract. That is correct; but orders making certain units unlawful in use may make civil contracts invalid, and indeed unlawful, if one continues to deliver goods under those contracts at the old weights or measures.

The hon. Gentleman said that orders always contain a saving clause. He was being contradictory, because he first said that the clause was unnecessary and he then said that orders would have a saving provision. I am not happy to accept a statement that in the past orders have always had this saving. Parliament will now by the Bill impose a mandatory change in weights and measures and units of measurement. In those circumstances we should make certain that orders contain saving clauses, and not merely trust to precedents.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 9, in Clause 2, page 5, line 8, at end insert:

'and to inform such organisations of the probable contents of regulations which the Secretary of State may consider it expedient to make in connection with or supplementary to the said order.'

The clause deals with the question of consultation on orders before they come into effect. By Section 54 of the 1963 Act it was recognised that before making any orders under 10 different provisions of that Act, the Secretary of State should

"consult … representatives of interests substantially affected".

I am using the actual words of Section 54 of the 1963 Act, and, indeed, I seek to introduce those words into New Clause 2.

This Bill, having introduced two new order-making powers in Clause 1 and via Section 9A of the 1963 Act, has added those powers to the list in Section 54 of the 1963 Act. Therefore, it has been thought necessary to make statutory provision for prior consultation with the representatives of people who will be interested in what is taking place.

I wish now to examine whether it is right that Section 9A orders should require prior consultation but that Section 9B orders should not.

I am prepared in principle to accept the right hon. Gentleman's clause. I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I intervene at this point in order to shorten the proceedings.

Is the Minister prepared to accept the clause and its wording as drafted?

I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I am prepared to accept the principle. There is a conflict between the way in which the right hon. Gentleman puts the matter and the recommendation set out in the Renton Report.

I am sorry that the Minister did not table his own amendment. He now says that he accepts the principle in mine. It is not easy for Opposition Members to draft the right provisions. The Parliamentary draftsmen dislike whatever we table for consideration.

I would ask the House to accept the clause as it stands. If the Minister says that he accepts it in principle, surely there can be little wrong with the wording, which I have taken from the 1963 Act.

The point I was trying to make when the Minister intervened—and I am grateful to him for that intervention—was that consultation on orders made under Section 9B will be even more important than those made under Section 9A. Orders made under Section 9A will make the move from imperial to metric. By the time the Bill reaches the statute book people will be resigned to it as the major change that will take place under the Bill, but the important consideration in a person's mind will be, "How shall I understand the change'? How shall I prevent myself from doing something wrong when I make a mental conversion? How can I stop myself being swindled by the new measures?" Therefore, orders under Section 9B will be of vital importance to the public, and all interested representatives should be consulted.

Let us suppose that the Secretary of State and his officials become so steeped in the intricacies of conversion that they issue an order that every petrol pump should contain a notice saying that one gallon shall be described as 4·54609 litres or that one litre shall be described as 0·21997 gallons. These are not the sorts of conversion tables that will tell the public anything. It will be no help if one is told that a kilogramme of butter is equal to 2·2046 lb. The public and the House should be consulted before these vitally important matters are put into an order and before the order is laid before the House with no possibility of amendment.

Matters are even worse with Section 9B. These orders can affect specific and individual cases, specific circumstances and specific individuals. There certainly should be something written into the statute making it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult. There is no obligation at present. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of the clause it should be written into the Bill.

I must refer to Amendment No. 9, which is being taken with this new clause. The amendment deals with the possibility of an order under 9B being made to supplement an order under 9A. I wish to ensure by this amendment that when the Minister consults representatives of those interested in the contents of an order under 9A he will inform those representatives of what he has in mind to implement that 9A order by the more detailed 9B order. That is a simple statement. I am sure no one can object to it being put into the Bill so that those interested may know what is coming in the later order or the order which will implement the orders under 9A.

However good and genuine the intention of the Minister may be to consult, there is not that obligation under the statute except in the case of certain orders. I want to extend it so that there is an obligation to consult on orders which, I submit, will be of vital importance to the public.

Let me deal with the practice, which must be well known to the right lion Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) from the time when he was a Minister. Most regulations involve a good deal of consultation. I gave some examples in Committee of the sort of consultation that goes on in connection with regulations which are analogous to those which will be made under 9B. The best example I can give concerns the dual-marking regulations. These were negative procedure regulations because the Conservative Government in 1963 decided that they should be so. There was no statutory requirement to consult under the 1963 legislation. I make no party point about this.

We consulted 253 trade organisations, 19 consumer organisations and 20 enforcement officer organisations, and we held a total of 292 consultations. We were not even required to consult any one of those organisations. When we considered the order dealing with unit pricing of cheese, which used the negative procedure and was enacted by a Labour Government, there was a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 32 trade organisations, 20 consumer organ- isations and five enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 57 consultations. The regulation dealing with price displays in pubs, which again was a negative resolution regulation, embodied a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 19 people in the trade, 19 consumer organisations and four enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 42 consultations.

I can give further examples. We always consult. In principle, I am happy to accept the new clause. There is a dilemma, however, and since the right hon. Gentleman takes a delight in these matters of drafting statutory instruments perhaps I can explain it to him. The Renton Report dealing with the drafting of legislation recommended that amendments like this ought to be textual and not made by way of a new clause. It suggested that there should be a textual interpolation rather than an addition by way of a new clause. The way in which the new clause is drafted runs contrary to the recommendations of the Renton Committee.

If the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House would like to take it upon themselves to defy the recommendations of the Renton Report I shall not quarrel with that. I simply say that the responsibility will belong elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman can then have the statutory requirement to consult on 9B orders. I hope that that is satisfactory.

Turning to Amendment No. 9— —

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about this not being a textual amendment, I am sure that he will realise that it was difficult to table such an amendment when the Bill was not published.

I do understand that. However, it could have been drafted as a textual amendment to the 1963 Act. I do not want to prolong our proceedings by reading from the Renton Report. I simply draw it to the attention of the House.

Turning to Amendment No. 9, I have to point out that there is statutory provision for consultation under Section 9A orders. I would have thought that it was not necessary to write this wording into the Bill. Clearly it would be in the forefront of the minds of consumers and of the Government that the supplemental order would be an essential part of the negotiations. It is superfluous to add the requirement contained in Amendment No.9.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 33, at beginning insert:

'Subject to subsection (3A) below'.

With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

This is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 3. It amounts to a restriction, to be written into the Bill in subsection (3), of the Secretary of State's powers to amend Schedules 1A and 3. Amendment No. 2 deletes the restriction on the phasing-out from use for trade purposes of certain units which were written into the Bill by an Opposition amendment carried in Committee. The principle has, however, been accepted and a Government amendment has been tabled which will have much the same effect—although not an identical effect—as that Opposition amendment.

I turn now to the substantial amendment in this group, which is Amendment No. 3. This substitutes a new form of words for the words that we seek to delete by Amendment No. 2. I have looked carefully at the effects of the Opposition amendment that was carried in Committee, which related to the inch, the foot, the mile, the pint and the gallon.

The Opposition amendment would have a number of effects. First, it would prevent the wholesale abolition of the mile, the inch, the foot and the pint and would require further legislation to introduce a power to sweep away these units of measurement, across the board. The Government have decided to accept that principle. Secondly, the Opposition amendment, except in relation to the sale of motor fuel, would not prejudice orders enabling the Government to restrict the measures in particular sectors of the trade.

The second effect of the Opposition amendment would be to preserve the use of the gallon for the sale of motor fuel. The amendment as drafted would have that effect. Indeed, it was intended to have the effect of preventing the metrication of the sale of motor fuel. The gallon, for the sale of motor fuel, is already phased out except at retail level. The spirit of the Opposition amendment in Committee would have been contrary to existing practice in all but the retail trade in the sale of motor fuel.

We have some serious problems about the use of imperial measure for petrol pumps. First, virtually every pump now manufactured in this country is metric. We have the cost of converting to imperial, and not the other way round. A second and increasingly serious problem is that the older pumps are unable to cope with deliveries at high unit costs. One day we shall have to convert in the interests of the consumer. Over the past few years about 20,000 new pumps have been sold with imperial-metric facilities in expectation of metrication—about one-sixth of the total number of pumps.

The added complexity of dual facilities results in a minimum additional cost of £10 for single-grade models and £20 for blenders. Those figures do not include the hidden indirect costs arising from the need to maintain a non-standard United Kingdom production. As exports consist almost entirely of metric pumps, the indirect costs have an effect on the United Kingdom industry's competitive edge in selling to other countries. However, some 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of total production goes for export. Metric provision for the home market would give greater scope for increased exports.

The problem has become so serious that recently we have had to authorise the sale of petrol from some of the older pumps at half unit pricing. I am not trying to make out an argument for the immediate transition from the sale of petrol in gallons to its sale in litres. I have never proposed to do that in any sector. I have always said that such a decision would be subject to consultation and judgment as to the practicability and desirability of the change. I feel that the House would be imprudent not to recognise the possibility of that change taking place.

The Government amendment leaves Parliament free to debate the terms of the sale of motor fuel. It leaves it free to debate and deal with the matter on some future occasion, but in the meantime it allows into the Bill a safeguard against the gallon being swept away right across the board in one fell swoop. Of all the items that were mentioned in the Opposition amendment, the only change is in respect of motor fuel. I hope that the way in which I have put the matter will commend itself to the House as a reasonable compromise.

I am extremely gratified that the Government have been forced to introduce Amendment No. 3 as a direct consequence of the victory that the Conservative Opposition enjoyed in having a similar amendment carried in Committee. At one time it looked very much as if the Minister of State would not budge an inch, or, rather, 2·54 centimetres as we should have been forced to say if we had not won the amendment in Committee and if the Minister had not accepted at least the spirit of the amendment and produced his own version of it.

The House should not be under any misapprehension as to the significance of the amendment. We have won for the country the preservation of the foot, the inch, the mile, the pint and the gallon. We no longer depend on ministerial undertakings or assurances, as the amendment is being made to the Bill. This is a significant achievement. It is just as well that this has happened, because as recently as 11th October the Minister, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), said:

"The completion of the metrication programme will eventually mean changing to kilometres, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not by any means a priority."—[Official Report, 11th October 1976; Vol. 917, c. 24.]

The Minister has made the right conversion from metric back to imperial, and we are grateful, but as I look at the Labour Benches and recall the debates in Committee I ask myself where the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) is to be found, the advocate of the CBI, the NFU and other such powerful organisations. The hon. Gentleman is nowhere to be seen, and he was the sole voice in support of the Minister of State. The Secretary of State is sitting beside the Minister of State and looking robust, but he is silent on this occasion. Who is here to support the Minister? I cannot imagine for one moment that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has come here to support him.

Or the CBI.

Indeed. Such organisations are now totally bereft of their advocates. We now have the Government, the Opposition and the consumer. Perhaps that is as it should be.

The Government have substituted their own amendment for the one that we inserted in Committee. As we have heard, they have done so for drafting purposes. The argument was pretty narrow, but that has often been the position when debating these matters. So be it. We shall be magnanimous on this occasion. We have won so much, and if the Government want to make a narrow drafting point we are prepared to accept it. In doing so, we accept the superiority of the Government draftsmen if nothing else. The important thing—the House and the country should recognise this—is that we have won the argument.

During the debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House the Minister of State professed his perplexity as to how the mile could possibly be used as a term of trade or a measurement of something sold. I remember his saying in Committee—I do not wish to misquote him—that people did not buy a mile of wire or a mile of sausages. That is fair enough, but one thing that is sold by the mile in every city, town and village is the service sold by taxis. I remember the time when they used to sell it at 8d. a mile. That was a long time ago. I hope that we shall have no more argument along those lines from the Minister of State. Although the mile, for the sake of speed limits and road signs, will not come within the Bill, I hope that the precedent created in the amendment will be noted by those who will be dealing with related legislation at a later stage.

I am still concerned about the gallon of petrol. The Minister's arguments have not convinced me entirely. He said that one-sixth of the retail petrol trade is now using metric pumps and that they are having to be converted to imperial measuring. Clearly, that is a very small proportion of the total number of pumps. Surely we must consider the inconvenience to consumers when, before very long, they will have to multiply by two the price registered on the pumps because of difficulties with the metering equipment. When petrol goes metric they will not only have to multiply by two but carry out an additional calculation to decide how many litres they need to travel a certain distance and how many litres they can afford when making a comparison of price between the litre and the gallon. That is not a small point, and it is unfortunate that the Minister has not accepted that part of the amendment, although I accept that he has moved quite a long way.

We have a compromise amendment although the batle has been won. A peace treaty has been negotiated. This is a historic amendment in the annals of metrication. It means for the British people that the mile, the foot, the inch, the pint and the gallon can remain in legal usage as long as the people, through their elected representatives, wish them to remain. Through the amendment, we have avoided the statutory ban. Above all, we have shown that when the people really want something, and when their representatives in this House put their case and stick to it through thick and thin, despite all the representations made by the high-pressure organisations, the CBI, the NFU, the TUC, and so on, and their advocates, that case must prevail. I hope that in some small way this victory will renew the jaded faith that some of our people have in parliamentary democracy. I thank the Minister of State for his contribution through the amendment.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that the amendment was due to the Tory Opposition. It should be put on record that it was very much due to the Scottish National Party Opposition in this House. It was also due to my own humble efforts by voting in the right direction—a vote which struck a blow for the people who have not yet been brainwashed into metrication. It shows that, once in a while, with a bit of luck in a Standing Committee, Governments can be made to shift their position. To that extent, this case vindicates parliamentary democracy, and I am glad that I was there to add my weight in the right direction.

I feel that we are witness to a new edition of "Dr. Finlay's Casebook". I acknowledge that it was through the assistance of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) that this important blow was struck for British traditions and the weight of public opinion.

It is particularly disappointing for me that the Secretary of State left in a huff a few minutes ago. I was going to say some extremely nice things about him. I was going to congratulate him on being appointed Secretary of State. I debated on so many occasions with him when he was at the Department of Employment that I am glad to see that he has received what I consider to be a just reward in a very difficult Department.

I was also going to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, through the Minister of State, he had become a standard-bearer for British imperial traditions. I was going to point out to him that some people are born to greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman, through the agency of the Minister of State, has had greatness thrust upon him as the Secretary of State who took this right and important decision. But all that the right hon. Gentleman did while my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) was speaking was to sit looking grumpy and disapproving in a superior way, rather like a bishop looking in the window of a sex shop. I thought that that was hardly worthy of the occasion.

We are grateful to the Minister of State for the complicated way in which he introduced the amendment. I do not quite understand the new aspect of the position of the gallon. As I understand it, the gallon will be able to remain permanently, not only in connection with the sale of petrol but in connection with the sale of any other articles. Is that correct?

The position is that the Government are denied the opportunity even of putting an order to the House to disqualify the use of the gallon universally across the board, without prejudice—indeed, the Opposition amendment in Committee was on the same lines—to the power to introduce particular restrictions, but then again only with the affirmative consent of the House of Commons.

I am grateful that that has been made clear to me. Unfortunately I seldom buy a gallon of beer, although I expect that the hon. Member for Galloway often buys a gallon of whisky. That is something that we can now usefully continue to do. However, it is no part of my objective to waste the time of the House by over-indulgence in satisfaction. I think that this is the end of the present road. It is the end of the present road on which we were not sure whether we would be continuing in kilometres or miles. Now we are entering a new road, the measurement distances of which we know.

The decision which the Government have sensibly made today is among the few which, during my 16 years in this place, have been totally in accord with the views of the ordinary man and woman in the street. I am thankful to say that at least, thanks to the Conservative Front Bench, the Union Jack has been nailed to the mast in the pubs and petrol stations of this country.

I think that occasionally there is merit in hon. Members who did not serve on a Standing Committee, and, therefore, who do not aspire to any expertise in the matter under discussion, commenting on the achievement of their colleagues who did serve in Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) knows, I have not been entirely in agreement with the attitude that she and her colleagues have taken through the Bill, but in this case I congratulate her most warmly on a signal victory for common sense, for public opinion and for the future of the pubs, the motorist and many other people.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and I were at the then transport part of the Department of the Environment during the Conservative Government, we discovered that preparations had already started on the repainting of signs in kilometres in anticipation of the possible will of the House of Commons. He and I found this extraordinary, and I think that I can quite properly reveal that he put a stop to it—at least, he did his part in doing so. It is right that, now that the Conservative Party, with such assistance as the Scottish National Party was able to provide, has succeeded in retaining the mile, the foot and the inch, that should be properly recorded.

Presumably, subsection (3) of the clause allows the Government

"without prejudice to the power … to add. vary or remove any restriction—".

The Minister of State has made plain how he sees that, but I hope that he will feel it appropriate to intervene again if only to help one who was not a member of the Standing Committee by underlining what I understand to be the case—that it is not within the intention of the Government to seek to vary the sale of goods in gallons, feet or inches. I understood him to say that.

Perhaps I may make the position clear. Leaving motor fuel aside for the moment, the effect of the Opposition's amendment would have been to prevent the Government from removing for use for trade across the board generally the inch, the foot, the mile, the pint and the gallon. We have accepted that principle, but without prejudice to the right—used in the past in other circumstances—to restrict the use of one of those units of measurment in a particular sphere of trade. Right up to the retail level, the gallon is not used for the sale of motor fuel, and it might one day be sensible to restrict its use right up to the retail point.

The amendment is without prejudice to that power and without prejudice to asking for a further restriction on sale at retail level. But that would still be open to debate, and it would still require the affirmative consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

That explanation makes it crystal clear. The reasons for the Minister's reservation are perfectly apparent, and they are acceptable to me.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester again. She will be able to remain "five feet two with eyes of blue" for the foreseeable future.

I think that the Government also should be congratulated, in the sense that at least they are accepting the amendment without having any particular argument against it.

I understand what happened in the Committee. For very good reasons, one of the members of the Government side was not there. I am absolutely delighted that he was not there, because anyway I think that the whole Bill has been a bit of a nonsense. I voted against it on Second Reading. I am not sure whether I shall do so on Third Reading, because I think that there will be collusion between the two Front Benches to ensure that the Bill goes through, and I do not particularly want to waste my vote. But the Bill really is a bit of nonsense, and anything at all which helps to mitigate that nonsense is a good job well done.

If there are to be congratulations, let me congratulate the Conservative Front Bench and those hon. Members who voted in a particular way. I also congratulate the Government now on putting forward the amendment and accepting the arguments that were made.

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in the House this afternoon. I have tried to accept some of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have tried to believe that something positive is being achieved in this measure. I regret to say, however, that I cannot find anything positive whatsoever, and in that sense I am an old imperialist—an unashamed imperialist—in this matter. Nevertheless, despite the unnecessary nature of the Bill, there is something positive in it that is worth supporting. If there were a vote on it—which there will not be—I would willingly vote for that part of it, if not for the Bill as a whole.

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'transitional or other supplemental or incidental' and insert

'consequential, incidental or supplementary'.

With this we may take Amendment No. 11, in Clause 8, page 9, line 41, leave out 'incidental or supplemental' and insert

'consequential, incidental or supplementary'.

The amendment is put forward merely to achieve consistency in drafting and to avoid doubt about whether there is any substantial difference between three provisions in the Bill, all of which appear to have exactly the same purpose but each of which is differently worded. I have chosen the wording from section 9B(3)(d) of the 1963 Act—which is Government drafting—as the most happy form of words.

By Amendment No. 11 I have tried to bring the other two wordings into line, so that we have consistent drafting throughout, with nobody asking whether there is any substance in the difference in the wording in three provisions which seem to have the same purpose.

'The effect of the Amendment No. 4 would be to omit the word "transitional". When orders are made they will certainly have to have transitional provisions. One of the transitional provisions which they ought to have relates to contracts, which the House discussed for about half an hour quite recently. If the word "transitional" were missed out, it could well be that that kind of provision would have to be omitted.

With regard to Amendment No. 11, I understand that it does not matter a tinker's cuss whether we put in "supplemental" or "supplementary". As it makes no difference at all, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

I cannot understand why the example that the Minister has given is not consequential and why we have to have the word "transitional". Surely it is entirely consequential. To have these three provisions each differently worded, but each intending exactly the same thing, is shockingly bad drafting. I do not think that it is bad drafting on the part of Parliamentary draftsmen. Probably three draftsmen took the separate clauses and did not get together on them. It is the Minister's job to get them together and to have consistent wording in the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 5, after first 'the', insert 'classes of'.

With this we may take Amendment No. 6, in line 8, leave out 'persons' and insert 'classes'.

We discussed this matter in Committee, when I pointed out that orders under Section 9B of the 1963 Act could, by reason of paragraph (c) at the top of page 4, prescribe the individuals to whom those orders should apply. It is not only a matter of cases and circumstances or the classes of persons. By the use of the words "the persons", this provision could apply to any individual person.

I pointed out in Committee—I shall not repeat the whole argument here—that when we are legislating by a Bill which will become an Act we should make certain that, if we deal with any individual person apart from the general public, such a person or persons should be given an opportunity of petitioning the House against the Bill. It has to be a Private Bill or it has to be a Hybrid Bill which will allow petitions. When the Secretary of State makes orders, as he is given power to do under the new Section 9B, there is no such procedure. Orders under Section 9B will not even be subject to the affirmative procedure. They will merely be subject to the negative procedure, and it will be pure luck if they ever get debated in the House at all. If they are really to affect individual persons, it is quite wrong to legislate in that form.

I thought that the Minister made it clear in Committee that he did not intend to make orders affecting individuals and that he intended orders to be against a class of individuals. He said:

"'Persons' could refer to retailers dealing with a particular class of commodity. If there were to be a changeover in respect of, say, the sale of confectionery, it might be necessary to apply the regulations only to those who sell confectionery. That is why the word 'persons' was chosen.

If there is a changeover from imperial to metric which proceeds in chronological stages—which applies first to manufacturers, secondly to wholesalers, and thirdly to retailers—it may be necessary to specify that the persons affected by requirements of regulations under Section 9B should be, in the first instance, the manufacturers, in the second instance the wholesalers and in the third instance the retailers.

The word 'persons' enables us to take a class of persons to whom the regulation would apply."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28th October 1976; c. 60–1.]

I invite the attention of the Minister to that last sentence. If that is his intention, let him restrict the provision to that. As it stands, it could go far beyond it in picking out individuals for some purpose—the use of these regulations merely for classes. My amendment would restrict the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations to naming a class of persons by reference to what they do—manufacturers, retailers or wholesalers—or any of the goods with which they were dealing and the circumstances in which they were dealing with them.

Although I have intentionally in this amendment sought to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State, if the amendment is accepted I do not think that those powers would be restricted any more than the Secretary of State and the Minister intend they should be restricted in practice.

I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I have not the slightest intention of making capricious use of the powers conferred on the Government or of going round victimising individuals by making them display conversion charts or obey dual marking regulations.

The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) caught me with my own words when I described the practice which would be normal in making orders in respect of a class of persons. The only reason why the word "class" has not been inserted in this provision is that it raises a problem in that the insertion of a reference to "class" would be too limited in its effect. It might be desired to require the display of conversion charts and, in a case where the number of persons concerned would be too limited to form a class—for instance, where a single nationalised industry was concerned—the amendment would prevent the use of the powers.

That is the only reason why we did not put in a phrase like "class of persons" and have used the single noun "persons". There is no hidden intention to make capricious use of these powers against individuals. Indeed, if such a capricious exercise of the powers were undertaken, it would be an unexpected use of the powers, it would probably be ultra vires, and certainly it would be subject to the hybrid procedure in the other place.

I accept the Minister's assurance that he has no intention of using these powers capriciously, but that is no answer for putting them in this form in the Bill. The one case which the hon. Gentleman said would be restricted if the word "class" were inserted is if lie wished to make an order affecting merely one nationalised industry. Surely that would come within a class, although it might be one nationalised concern. It is covering wide circumstances and a wide class of people. But to refuse to put the word "class" into this provision merely because he might wish to apply these orders to a nationalised industry is not a good answer to the amendment.

If the Bill stands as it is, it gives the opportunity for an order to be made against perhaps one firm or one manufacturer. One nationalised industry can stand up against it. But it may act very unfairly upon one manufacturer. He will be faced with an order which is subject only to the negative procedure, which is subject to some hon. Member spotting it in time and putting down a Prayer, which would be subject to time being found by the Government for it. Obviously, the Minister cannot envisage something like that happening. But there may he one individual who will be affected or who may be overstepping the line in some way. It can happen, and while the power remains in the Bill it can always be used for that purpose.

I think that it is reasonable to ask for the power to be restricted to an order against a class of persons, and I ask the Minister to think again about this.

I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 39, at end insert

'and for the word "twenty" there is substituted the word "fifty"'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 8, 18, 19, 15 and 20.

The Minister accepted the principle of this amendment in Committee, and on that basis he asked me to withdraw it. I am grateful to him for putting his own amendments on the Notice Paper. I move my amendment formally, and invite the hon. Gentleman to address the House on his own amendments.

My amendments do what I promised they would. They meet the convenience, the principle and the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that they bring intense satisfaction to him.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 22, leave out 'certificates or other documents' and insert 'or certificates'.

This, again, is a probing amendment. Usually one describes an amendment as "probing" in Committee. Unfortunately, I did not table this one in Committee. However, I probed the matter on the Question, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill". The probing brought out nothing, so I decided to table this amendment on Report.

The amendment asks the Minister what he means by saying that inspectors can charge

"for services or facilities provided by them, or for authorisations, certificates or other documents issued by them".

That might mean a letter, a note or any other little communication.

I hope that the Minister will explain this to enable me to withdraw the amendment, but he must put on record what he means by "or other documents".

The Community obligations referred to arise from various EEC directives on the harmonisation of laws so that technical barriers to trade can be removed. These directives already go far wider than what we understand as the weighing or measuring equipment with which the 1963 Act deals, and we need to be ready to cope with new directives as they are adopted. For example, there are already directives on the calibration of ships' tanks, on instruments for measuring the volume and weight of grain and on devices to be incorporated in petrol pumps and similar equipment. All these types of equip- ment, and the more well-known examples of weights and length measures, need to go through the process of testing to qualify for various marks or documentation in one form or another which act as "passports" into the other EEC member States. Not to be able to prescribe the fees may hurt this country where it can least afford it—in its potential to export—since the local authority inspector will not do the work unless he can charge a fee.

An example of the sort of documentation which can arise in these directives is in the one on calibration of ships' tanks. In the directive there is a series of annexes detailing the papers to be prepared—not just a certificate, but various supporting diagrams and tables concerned with the layout and features of the cargo or fuel tanks. It is this sort of requirement which needs to be covered by the regulations under Clause 6 so that the United Kingdom is not in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis its EEC competitors.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 10, line 7 after 'amending', insert 'or suspending'.

I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because he let us into the secret in Committee that on his brief he originally had the word "accept". However, someone had scratched it out and put "think again". The Minister said he thought he had better think again.

I explained to the Committee in the course of moving this amendment in Committee that the Statutory Instrument before the House relating to the licensing of bulls referred to suspending the parent statute under which every bull had to be licensed. After explaining that with great care to the Committee, I said that the Minister might think that I was talking a lot of—then I corrected myself and said "A lot of that animal". Yet Hansard, in its magnificent way of interpreting what I said, recorded me as saying that the Minister might think I was talking a lot of "fandanelo". It may have exactly the same meaning as intended, but it was not what I said. This amendment is not a lot of fan-dangle.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the bull he had in mind was to be licensed by the pound or the foot?

I cannot tell my hon. Friend that. I would if I could. I said in Committee that I knew the Minister was on the horns of a dilemma and that I hoped he would look at the right end of the bull.

In making the orders under this clause, however, the Secretary of State may well wish to suspend the Act of Parliament, but giving him power to amend or modify it does not give him the power to suspend it. We have the precedent in the Statutory Instrument about bulls, so let us follow that precedent and give the Secretary of State power to suspend the statute.

I must advise the House that as the clause is drafted it is wide and adequate enough to permit

It may be unnecessary, but I am tired of that word. If it makes the Bill clearer and if it follows a precedent already before the House, the addition of two words can do no harm. Personally I think it is necessary, hut even if it is not the two words make the Bill clearer.

I would hate the Secretary of State to say that he had to bring in an amending Bill in the future because the parent Act did not allow him to suspend it. We might be frustrating the powers of the Secretary of State by not adding these two words. As we are all getting so nice and friendly and pally, I think that the Minister should give way and let me have my two words.

I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in page 11, line 17, leave out from "sections" to "3" and insert:

"(pre-packed or other goods), 6 and 7 and Schedules (pre-packed and other goods)".

I have given the Opposition notice of this and I mentioned it during the first debate. It is purely a consequential amendment.

I express the opinion that this is quite unnecessary. It the Minister wants these words in the Bill just to please himself, he should let me have mine in as well.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Is the Minister moving the Third Reading formally?

Yes, I am, but with the leave of the House perhaps I may reply to the debate.

I thought that the Minister was trying to move the Third Reading furtively and without saying anything, but I retract that suggestion since we have an assurance that he will reply to the debate.

We have a Bill before us on Third Reading which is very different from the Bill which the House considered on Second Reading on 18th October. It would be more appropriate now if the Short Title of the Bill were "Metrication Muzzled". The Bill was amended twice in Committee and subsequently in a manner which goes a long way to meeting the spirit of the amendments that were moved in Committee.

It is fair to say that it is a greatly improved Bill, and we may take justifiable pride in the fact that our efforts on each of the major points have met with either a total or considerable concession on the part of the Government. Important measurements have been preserved. The statutory metrication of basic foodstuffs, particularly important to poorer families, is to be delayed—not as long as we should have liked, but on a far wider range of items. Therefore, I think that the Minister has been fairly generous on this point.

We have also had acceptance from the Minister of the spirit of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) with regard to weighed-out goods, so that small shopkeepers and consumers alike will be spared that change for some considerable time. At the same time, a number of the points raised in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading have been met as a result of the amendments that the Government have agreed to and the concessions which have been made.

Here, however, I should like to refute—I am sure that the Minister would want to do this as well—the imputation made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that there was some sort of collusion between the Government Front Bench and ourselves. I thought at one point that I could hear violins playing when the hon. Member for Walton was speaking. For one moment, I thought that he was actually going to support the Government. However, I am not quite sure whether in the end he had got, as the Minister said, quite as careless as that.

I should like to make it clear to all interested parties, both inside and outside the House—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—that, by the amendments and the concessions, the delays and exemptions that we have obtained have in no way added to the uncertainty of business and industry. Far from it. They have afforded a greater degree of certainty in some cases, and particularly in one case, because an assurance is no longer so much an assurance but is actually written into the Bill.

The Minister of State has wisely adopted a strategy of appeasement—wisely because if he were to do otherwise he would not only be flying in the face of amendments carried in Committee but flying in the face of public opinion. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has made such concessions as he has made gracefully, and for that we are extremely grateful.

Having said that, I must say that we do not like the Bill. Speaking for myself —I make no bones about it—I do not like metrication at all. However, our main objection to the Bill is that it involves the statutory imposition of metrication. As I have said many times, I do not think that this is necessary or desirable. If people want metrication, let them have it. If they do not want it, do not ram it down their throats. If business and industry want to go metric, they can do so, following consultations with the Government, by voluntary agreement. As I said in Committee, trade and industry will always have to take into account, in doing so, the wishes of their customers in a free enterprise society. That is the important reason, among others, why we do not think that statutory metrication is necessary.

As I have also said many times, in many cases those who want compulsion in business and industry want it because they fear that metrication will be unpopular and they would like to be able to say to their customers "The Government forced us to go metric." I fear that with this Bill the Government are falling into that trap.

We object to the principle for which the Bill stands. We still do not believe—although the concessions that we have won will mitigate against this—that it will be possible completely to avoid confusion and higher costs to consumers. We call upon the Government to proceed with the utmost caution. Our Standing Committee debates have shown them to be still very largely unprepared on a number of important points. We ask them not to act until the fullest preparations are completed or before the businesses and industries concerned are absolutely ready, and, above all, before consumers can be adequately safeguarded.

For our part, we shall want to scrutinise very closely any orders made under the Bill and to reserve the right to oppose them whatever the circumstances may be if we consider it necessary to do so. Fortunately, as the first order cannot be laid before April 1978, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames has said, the problem is largely academic, because by that time we are likely to be the Government of the day and we shall be in control of the situation.

It is still a relatively rare parliamentary phenomenon that only a fortnight after we have had the Second Reading of a Bill we have reached its Third Reading. When we recall what progress has been made in between, it is even more remarkable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said, it has been a great triumph for common sense and in the interests of the shopper as well as, one would think, the shopkeeper.

Unfortunately, one has to put these minor triumphs in their perspective. Last week was the week in which we managed to save the mile, the foot, the inch, and the pint—but failed to save the pound. A drop of 6 or 7 cents in the value of our currency is a much more significant factor than any that we have been discussing in relation to the Bill in its implications for the economy and the people of Britain. It will have the effect of pushing up prices, very fast and high. That is why we have been concerned, throughout the passage of the Bill, to urge caution and natural evolution on the Government. We are naturally delighted that the cogency of our arguments has achieved such effect and that the Minister has been prepared to recognise the points put.

The case for the Bill always was an overstated argument. It has been overstated in many ways. It has been overstated in terms of the simplicity of the system. It will be a continuing irony that many of the new weights which are being introduced, such as 125 grammes and 250 grammes, represent vulgar fractions of one-eighth or one-quarter, which have little relation to a simple decimal system of measurement in units of 10.

It has also been overstated that this combining of two systems of measurement at the same time will cause great confusion and bewilderment among the public. Here particularly has been taken in aid the many hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren who have been educated in the metric system. I can only speak as I find. My son is a modern mathematician and is as metricated as anyone, yet he finds no difficulty at all in the pleasure of recording his height as 5 ft. ½ in, no difficulty in identifying and locating a pint of milk in the refrigerator, and no difficulty in bowling a good length on a cricket pitch of 22 yards. Just as some children become bilingual as they grow up without even knowing it, just as Molière's Bourgeois Gentilhomme was speaking prose all his life without realising it, so people cope with two systems of measurement and will continue to do so. There is no reason at all for the Minister to rush headlong into metricating our way of life far beyond the wishes of public opinion.

I should like to draw attention to what is a mini minor triumph for many people in outlying areas of Scotland. In his mood of generosity the Minister was able to accommodate an amendment that was moved in my name to allow coal to be sold by volume rather than by weight. This demonstrates the independence of the people of the outlying islands of Scotland and their common sense. Here we have a situation in which, if the Minister were to press his principles to the limit, it would make coal more expensive for those people. It might also make coal unavailable to them.

The present rather old-fashioned system—charming, none the less—is very suitable to their needs. There are steamers puffing to the islands and the less accessible parts of the Scottish mainland with coal on board, which they then offload. There is no cheap means of packing it in prescribed weights on loading and there is no weighing machinery available on unloading for the weight to be calculated, so the people in the islands are very happy to buy coal by volume because they depend upon these supplies. Therefore, on behalf of the people of Scotland, I am happy that the Minister has accepted our amendment.

I should like to express my personal pleasure at this because in preparation for moving the amendment I spent three weeks in Scotland during the recess, visiting such places as Tobermory, Craignure, Iona and the outer islands of the Inner Hebrides, such as Coll and Tiree. I also absorbed most of the late lamented Sir Compton Mackenzie's book "Whisky Galore". When one has the atmosphere of Scotland one understands that these practical matters are paramount and that we should not, from our ivory fastness here at Westminster, seek to undermine another way of life: and, as we so often discover in our discussions of consumer affairs, progress in consumer protection very often means a higher price. The people of Scotland and the outlying islands do not wish to pay higher prices and we have no wish to make them pay higher prices faster than they will have to anyway because of inflation. I am delighted that in two short weeks—at almost the speed of sound—so much common sense has been incorporated into the Government's proposals.

I congratulate the Minister on remaining urbane throughout the Committee stage, even when he was defeated, and I put on record my appreciation of his conciliatory attitude to the problems of the remote areas of Scotland—which have a distinctive way of selling solid fuel—and over amendments passed in Committee. The Minister is an example to his colleagues, and I hope that they will follow that example.

I cannot pretend that I have ever believed in metrication or decimalisation. I do not see why the French Revolution should still be dictating to us 200 years later.

Charlemagne's librae, solidi and denari were good enough for him and would be good enough for me. They provided two barriers before reaching the pound, whereas the present system provides only one. I do not know whose foot provided the measurement for a foot, but it is good enough for me, and I am pleased that it has been decided that it will be good enough for us for a long time. These measures were also good enough for the people who placed certain standard measures in the wall of the staircase leading from the Principal Floor of this building to the Committee Floor. I am pleased that the statute of Lord Palmerston will not have to be removed and disposed of in the River Thames, or wherever the inconoclasts or Red Guard would like to throw it.

I cannot give my blessing to the Bill, though I dare say that some of my hon. Friends—the lovers of new things—will bless it. The ordinary consumer will bless it all right! Hon. Members will be able to receive those blessings as they go about their constituency business.

Like the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), I am puzzled to know why decimalisation and metrication were not wedded. If we are to have goods packaged in 125-gramme containers, we are thinking in halves, quarters, eighths, and so on. This seems to be a clear sign that the human mind works in vulgar fractions, even though we have 10 fingers and 10 toes. I sometimes think that the only reason that the presence and absence of SNP Members is reported in the Press with such assiduity is that it is possible to count to 10 without taking off one's shoes.

It would have been better if we had allowed the imperial system to wither away, if the people of this country so wished. Some years ago I was arguing with a girl in Brittany that she ought to speak her native language more often. She said that her people could not use it for official purposes because they did not use the metric system for counting in their language. Even 200 years after the French Revolution, the parts of France with their own language have not adopted the metric system.

We should not force the well-tried imperial measures down the road to extinction as we are, at least in part, by this Bill.

I am pleased that the House has reached the Third Reading of the Bill and that the Government will be given the enabling powers to bring in metrication in an orderly way.

I said on Second Reading that I thought that the Opposition were taking an opportunist line on metrication. Having listened to them since, to me they seem to have a Jekyll and Hyde approach—a split personality—on the subject. It is difficult to know whether it is Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde speaking.

I was unable to be here for the Report stage, because I was meeting a deputation, but I understand that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) chastised me for quoting the CBI. I did not quote only the CBI; I quoted also the views of consumer organisations, the Retail Consortium, the TUC and most of the organisations that have recognised that there should be an orderly transition to metrication in this country. I challenged the hon. Lady to mention one organisation on whose behalf she was speaking.

She spoke on behalf of the British people.

It is true that when we introduce changes there is sometimes a reaction from people who are unwilling to see such changes. However, the argument now is how to bring in metrication. The Conservative Party is committed to the principle. The Treaty of Accession to the EEC says that we should accept a system of metrication. When the Conservatives were in power, they said on a number of occasions that they wished metrication to be introduced.

Some of my hon. Friends held up the Second Reading of the Bill because they were not satisfied that there had been enough consultation with consumer organisations. I praise the Minister for the way in which he has since consulted outside organisations. There has been a great deal of consultation about the reservations of some of these bodies.

It is no use hon. Members talking vaguely about speaking on behalf of British housewives when there are organisations in this country—recognised consumer bodies, the CBI, which represents large sections of industry, the TUC, which represents trades union organisations. and the Retail Consortium, which represents a large sector of retail trade—which have made serious representations to the Government and which hope that the enabling powers in the Bill will be approved by the House. We should take careful note of these representations.

Of course, we are sometimes conservative, with a small "c". We wish to carry on with the old imperial system rather than change to metrication, but we must recognise that children are being taught metrication at school and are told that although their school books include problems involving imperial units they should not attempt these sums. They are not learning the imperial system.

We shall get into grave difficulties if we teach our children metrication and they then go into shops having to purchase goods measured in imperial units.

We have had arguments about the mile and the pint. Some hon. Members have been like Don Quixote—tilting at windmills. The Minister has given assurance after assurance, and the amendment now included in the Bill should satisfy those who were trying to suggest that there was to be a change in the measurements.

The hon. Member said that we should not be vague. Does he draw a distinction between compulsory progress towards metrication and voluntary progress towards it? They are completely different, and the hon. Member's failure to draw that distinction totally vitiates his remarks.

We had that argument in Committee, and I do not wish to repeat it. Decimalisation was compulsory. We cannot have two systems operating. The metric system is being introduced. If we have large packets with small contents, some being sold under the metric system and others under the imperial system, the consumer will face tremendous difficulties.

We are not suggesting that metrication will come in from an appointed day. The Government are taking enabling powers to bring it in in an orderly fashion. I appeal to the Opposition not to attempt to make political kudos by creating false fears among people that metrication will be brought in within a month. That is not so. The Government are taking enabling powers which will enable them to lay orders before the House to bring in metrication in an orderly fashion. Parents are concerned about their children knowing the metric system. We must go forward. The rest of the world has gone metric. The Opposition may still crave for the old Empire and want to hang on to the imperial system, but things are changing. We cannot afford to get off at this time.

It is a fair distance in either miles or kilometres from Aberdare to Pudsey, but in many instances I must agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).

I have not balked the principle of metrication, but I take issue with the hon. Gentleman that we have ill served the consumer by this process. We have gone a fair way to restore some sense of public credibility in the metrication process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the public are ill favoured towards it. I know that the Minister is deeply conscious of this fact.

The discussions that we have had have gone over the ground time and again.

The Bill will probably achieve its Third Reading tonight. The Minister then has the consultation period within which to try to proceed industry by industry or sector by sector. I encourage him to go through this process with reasonable speed so that there can be an orderly programme sector by sector. The hon. Gentleman will not find many industries wanting in providing the time or the opportunity to agree on the correct and most orderly way to make the transition. The transition will involve an enormous lead time in terms of machinery, information and communication. A substantial lead time is equally involved in seeing that the precise ranges of metric weights, as translated into their new form, meet the most obvious consumer needs. I am fearful that a whole range of different prepacks could be offered at different metric equivalents rather than the simple imperial measures of 4 oz., 8 oz. and 1 lb. units.

I am sure that the Minister recognises the importance of having in each industry or sector dates by which the change can be achieved. The amendments relating to April 1978 and 1980 provide the ground work to enable this to be done. I believe that it is necessary for him to work on that basis.

I hope that the Minister will stiffen the resolve of the Metrication Board to realise that the problem only now begins—namely, that it must have the resources with which to guide the public at the time of conversion irrespective of what it has already spent.

Finally, the Minister has already accepted the need for consultation with the various trades. On weigh up, I ask the Minister to consult the confectionery industry before deciding whether to omit it from the list of industries whose products are to be exempted.

The inevitability of metrication should be carefully cultivated industry by industry to ensure that there is less muddle, more order and more preparation. That is the best possible ground work to safeguard the consumer.

As I said on Second Reading, I do not regard this Bill as a desirable and necessary measure. I recognise that metrication has gone a certain way and had gone that way prior to this measure being thought about, but I see no reason for endeavouring to force the pace. I think that we have been quite mistaken in taking the steps we have taken to give the Government power to cut off the use of imperial measures. Therefore, I wish that this Bill had not come before the House.

I recognise, as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) pointed out, that many august and important organisations support metrication and argue in favour of the Bill. I pay full tribute to the erudition of all the experts, but at the same time I maintain with complete confidence that the majority of ordinary people accustomed to the use of imperial measures would not, if they could be properly consulted, regard these organisations as speaking for them. In my opinion, ordinary people will find the change to metrication extremely confusing and difficult to cope with. I am sure that, over the years, there will be many complaints about the effects of this measure.

Many people will never grasp the new system of weights and measures. They will be left in a state of continual confusion. I think that it would be much better to allow the imperial system to wither away in its own time.

The Opposition have failed to oppose this measure in principle, as was perfectly clear from their amendment on Second Reading. I am opposed in principle to what the Bill seeks to do. We should not have legislated for this change at all. None the less, I recognise that the Minister has taken no end of pains to make this measure less pernicious than it might otherwise have been. I know from the consultations which many of us have had with him, apart from discussion on the Floor of the House, that he has been most concerned to mitigate the worst effects of this measure. At the same time, I still feel extremely unhappy about what we are proposing to do. Therefore, I appeal, even now, for some caution to be exercised by the Government when fixing the cut-off dates. I believe that, even with the lengthening of the period now proposed, the situation is not satisfactory, and that whoever happens to be in charge of these affairs at the time ought to proceed with extreme caution.

I certainly do not welcome the Bill. I regard it as a mistake. In these circumstances, if there were to be a Division, I certainly could not support the Bill.

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) put my views so accurately that I need not repeat them. My hon. Friend wants this measure brought in in an orderly manner and, it is fair to say, with deliberate haste. I believe that is a correct description of his views. It certainly is of mine.

I found myself for the first time in this House abstaining on Second Reading of a Bill. I abstained consciously, because it confronted me with a conflict of right with right. I believe that this Bill is right in principle and that the Government have shown courage in bringing it in. Indeed, I believe that any Government, in present circumstances, would have brought in a Bill of this kind.

I believe that there was right, and still is, on the side of the Bill. It is a right which, in my view, arises from the needs of British industry. If all of us wish to be credible in giving support to British industry then I believe we must support this principle.

Secondly, I believe it was right on much broader European grounds. We committed ourselves under the Treaty of Accession and I believe that it is right that we should honour that commitment.

Thirdly, I believe it is right to give to our people, however unpalatable a matter might be, a sense of definitiveness so that the necessary preparations can be made by our industry and by the public.

Although I found that the principle of this Bill was right on Second Reading, I had severe reservations about some aspects of it. I think the Government and their advisers were misguided in having brought into the Bill the gallon, pint, mile, foot and the inch. This was one of those cases where the desire for tidiness and for a systematic covering of everything—which unfortunately underlines so much of our legislation—went beyond common sense.

I can remember several times, in the various Departments of Government in which I served, when the desire of civil servants to be logical and comprehensive, estimable qualities in their own right, conflicted completely with the common sense of the British people. I believe that it is the role of politicians, and particularly of this House, to weigh the logic, reason and the comprehensiveness of official advice on the one hand and at the other end to weigh the needs and desires of the British public. I believe that the Bill ends up a better Bill because it has merged the two rights together.

However, I believe that there was a moment when it became a conflict of wrong with wrong. There was a wrong on the Government's side in bringing in the gallon, mile, inch and the rest, which they did not need to, and there was a wrong on the Opposition Benches whenever it appeared as though we were going to resist the whole process—irrespective of the effect on British industry—simply because we were not prepared to swallow the removal of the gallon, the mile and the inch.

Fortunately, as so often happens in Committee on Bills such as this, and with a reasonable Minister and someone like my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who has managed consideration of this Bill with grace and effectiveness, the Committee was able to change a conflict of wrong with wrong into a negotiated settlement so that we now have a Bill which best meets the needs of industry and the public.

I would make three points to which, 1 hope, the Minister will reply. The Bill, as its Short Title indicates, is not just about metrication. I quote the relevant phrase, which states:

"to make provision for the alleviation of shortages of food and other goods."

I doubt if these matters, which are technical, and which merely revise previous statutes, commanded very much attention either in Committee or in the public. I draw attention to the short title and to Clauses 10 and 11 because, in my view, this country may be facing shortages before we know it. I believe that we shall be facing shortages of food because we are not treating our agricultural industry properly. I believe that we shall be facing shortages because we are simply not able, on foreign exchange, to afford to import the food we shall need. Therefore, it may well be that, while not in the least intending to raise anxieties of that kind, the Government, because there was a tidying-up exercise to be done, have equipped themselves with powers to deal with a problem not clearly visualised as yet but which could arise in this country before very long. It is right to put on record that this Bill equips the Government with powers to deal with shortages of food and of other goods which could arise in our country.

The second specific point that I would put to the Minister concerns one related industry—the weighing machines and scale makers. I have no interest to declare in this industry whatsoever, but I have read its literature and I have been approached by it in my constituency. I direct my remarks to the Minister, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who may well find herself in office when it comes to putting the Bill into effect. I take it that the date of 21st April 1978, in respect of prepacked goods, means that the Minister will do nothing before that date. I hope very much that he will get cracking soon after that date. It is important that the industry and the trade should know precisely that this is the target date at which they ought to be aiming.

The date of 1st January 1980 reflects some effective negotiations by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I congratulate her upon that. I know it is a date which is somewhat earlier than she herself would have wished. I hope that the Minister will regard that date before which he cannot act as being a specific date at which point he would propose to act. Whether that is so or not I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that he have in his mind a date so that there can be certitude in the industry.

What I am essentially saying is that it the weighing machine industry and the scale makers are to tool up, equip themselves and make themselves ready to build the new metric scales and new metric weighing machines, they must have a reasonable certainty that at some point in future the switch is to be made. Otherwise we shall find ourselves in a position where they have not tooled up or made preparations and the date will come out and most of the new metric scales will have to be imported from the long-run productions of Germany and France.

That cannot be in the interests of this country or our balance of payments. I hope that the Minister will at least give an assurance that he has it in mind that there shall be "M" days so that the industry and trade will be able to work to them. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of what I am saying.

I recognise the repugnance of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for metrication, and I feel much of it myself, but I hope she will not commit herself, or the next Conservative Government, to refusing to bring in the necessary orders so that there can be certainty in this matter. I realise that she preferred the whole matter to happen voluntarily and gradually as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) does. It would have been much better if it had been done that way, but I have grave doubts whether it would have happened in an orderly way if it had been left to the untidy voluntary procedures which are the only alternative. I am reminded of a certain African leader whom I once went to and who said that he was going to stop cars driving on the left and change to the right. There were so many casualties that he said it should be done gradually.

I realise that the change from left to right is not exactly the same thing as a change from one kind of measure to another, but there needs to be clarity and certitude in the minds of the trade and manufacturers and I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester will not commit the next Conservative Government in such a fashion that they will not be able to carry this out.

I hope that the Minister will say a word about the Metrication Board. It appeared from the original Bill—I think I am correct—that it has cost £900,000 in one year. Will the Minister say how the Board has spent that amount of money and how much it will spend in the years to come? We should be able to handle these matters with more prudence and economy.

Overall, the Bill has been massively improved. As one who abstained on Second Reading, I shall support the Third Reading, thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

I should like to answer the three questions raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). He was being far too dramatic in forecasting shortages. In the Second Reading debate I gave the example of the temporary shortage of sugar which occurred a couple of years ago and said that it was necessary to have a relaxation in case a similar occurrence made it necessary to import packs not strictly within our weights and measures legislation. It would be to attach too much importance to Clause 10 to suggest that it was necessary because we expected shortages in future.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to get cracking with weighing machines. As a Minister, I find that half the people ask me to get cracking and half ask me to slow up. I try to steer a course somewhere between the two. I cannot dictate the programme. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said that I had not prepared a timetable. I am not a metrication dictator and neither are the Government, certainly not in the interests of one group. When the Bill is enacted the Government have to consult all interests involved. After these consultations, bearing in mind the balance of payments question involved with weighing scales, the Government will lay down a timetable that will be in the best interests of consumers and the country as a whole and will bring certainty and reassurance.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked me about the Metrication Board. I do not propose to start a lengthy debate on that subject. I pay tribute to the Board for having gone a long way on a voluntary basis. Much of its work is below the surface and perhaps not fully appreciated by the average consumer. The sooner we complete the metrication process the sooner we shall wind up the Board and thereby save public money.

I am grateful for all the congratulatory remarks that have been made. Had

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords Amendments No. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

These are drafting amendments designed to ensure that the Bill is consistent in using the plural form when referring to districts and corporations.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this we may discuss Lords Amendments No. 4, 25 and 26.

The Opposition have sought to amend the Bill at every stage of its passage throughout both Houses so that it provided for new town tenants to have some kind of power to buy the houses in which they were living when the new town housing stock was passed to the local authority. The Opposition have striven hard and the Bill has returned from another place with a new clause.

It is an odd provision which is so out of keeping with the rest of the Bill as to require an amendment to the Long Title. It is out of keeping with the moderate and considered approach of the Bill which concerns the responsible management of a considerable slice of the public sector housing stock by public authorities. It is out of keeping with the rights of local authority tenants who will not be affected by it. It is out of keeping with the future responsibilities of the local authorities to which these assets are being transferred, and it is also out of keeping with the rights of new town tenants at large since it will apply only to those who are affected by housing assets transfers.

That the amendment has been repeatedly moved at almost every stage of the Bill demonstrates that the Opposition are preoccupied, if not obsessed, with the sale of council houses. They have taken every opportunity, however marginal or misconceived, to indulge that preoccupation. The Bill has placed the Opposition in a dilemma. They want to push sales, but the Bill is mainly about something else—the future management of new town houses. The Opposition can find no better vehicle for their proposals. Their amendments would produce an arbitrary and peculiar statutory right to purchase for certain tenants in certain places at certain times.

On each occasion that such an amendment has been proposed, we have had to point out a number of difficulties in the drafting. We have never wished to make too much of this, because Oppositions inevitably have difficulty in drafting an amendment free of any defects. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some interest that each time the amendment has been moved it has contained defects.

I believe this to be the result of two factors. First, fundamentally the amendment does not belong in the Bill. Secondly, I believe it extremely difficult to provide in legislation a statutory right for people to purchase the house in which they live, let alone to do so when a transfer of houses from new town corporations to local authorities is taking place. In view of that, rather than concentrate on the amendment I intend to deal once again with the Government's policy on sales of corporation and council houses as a whole, which is the real point at issue.

We on the Government Benches are opposed to the indiscriminate sale of publicly-owned dwellings. Our belief is that sales are not an end in themselves.

Rather, in any considered policy, the selling of council or corporation houses should he the consequence of an overall approach to housing, an approach moreover, which goes beyond the public sector's contribution. The selling of council houses and new town rented dwellings is only one part of the whole picture of the local housing requirements and should be seen as such. Any decision as to whether to sell should be considered in the light of the contribution which it would make to meeting those requirements and the effect it would have on the capacity of the local authority to provide good, attractive housing for those who have to look to their local council for a home.

Indeed, I am particularly worried about the degree to which the amendment would pre-empt the right and duty of the local authorities that will acquire these considerable assets to consider and apply their future housing policy. They will take on a considerable responsibility. Certain local authorities may wish to make certain dispositions in the light of the consideration of the housing needs of their areas. Together with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would want to rely on the perception of a democratically-elected local authority, chosen to represent the district, to make the right dispositions to meet the housing problems and needs of its area.

I can see great advantage in the Bill in so far as for the first time in the areas about which we are talking it will be possible for a local authority, once the transfers have taken place, to look at its area comprehensively. In the very nature of things, that has not been easy as long as management has been split between the new town corporation and the district council that has built houses of its own accord.

It follows that where it is clear that in a particular district the public sector stock is more than adequate to deal with pressing housing needs it will be right to sell, provided that the terms are realistic and do not involve a loss to the public purse. The number of such localities will increase as further progress is made in eliminating housing shortages. That is why we have relaxed the ban on sales in new towns. We agreed with the new town development corporations that sales could be resumed in those new towns where this would be without detriment to those who could not afford to buy a house.

It is our policy within the public sector to ensure that locality by locality, a balance is maintained between the desire for extended owner-occupation and the needs of those for whom owner-occupation is not the right or even a possible form of tenure. We have therefore advised local authorities when contemplating sales to make a careful assessment of their own situation, and in particular of the need for rented accommodation and how the supply to meet it can best be achieved.

That is the kind of responsibility that will rest with the district councils when the transfer schemes have been completed. I am anxious to see them shoulder that responsibility. I do not want to see their ability comprehensively to appreciate the problems minimised as a consequence of the amendments.

7.45 p.m.

The new clause would undoubtedly cut right across this approach. In considering the needs of its district, a process which the presence of the new town will have made all the more complex, the local authority would be hampered by the anomaly that some tenants had, by law, a power to buy their homes, while others, for very good reasons, had not been given the chance to do so.

Therefore, the new clause would distort the options available to a local authority to which new town houses are to be transferred. It could even pre-empt those options and deprive existing tenants of receiving authorities of the chance that the authorities could otherwise give them to buy their homes, because in some places selling on a small scale might be acceptable while massive selling would not be acceptable. Why should the law give some tenants what in practice would be an unfair preference over others?

The Opposition have had a good run for their money. Perhaps I should say "the Tory Opposition", because the new clause and the associated amendments were carried only because of predominantly Tory votes in another place. The Opposition have made their point. This House has consistently and wisely rejected what their amendments seek to do. I am confident that it will do so again now.

The Minister said that the Opposition were obsessed with the sale of council houses. It seems to me that the Minister and his party are obsessed with enforcing their view against the wishes of those who live in the area concerned.

During the passage of the Bill the Government have said from time to time that they are not opposed to owner-occupation. The new clause, for all its possible defects, gives them an opportunity to show that that is so in practice.

What is wrong with giving those who live in new town houses the right to buy their own homes? The Minister told us today that that right would be out of keeping, because it would not apply to local authority tenants. I should like all local authority tenants to have the right to buy their own homes, but the Bill is limited to new towns, and therefore the amendment provides the statutory right for those in new towns to buy their houses on the transfer of the assets.

The Minister said that the Government had been flexible, but, through Whitehall, he is telling the Runcorn Development Corporation that it may not sell a single house to a tenant even if he wishes to buy. The hon. Gentleman talked about the elected local authority being given the opportunity to make decisions and said that the amendment would take away that opportunity by giving, instead, a statutory right to buy. What the Government are doing, not by legislation but by directive, is to tell the new town development corporation "You may not sell houses, even if you wish to".

I stand firmly by the view that I have expressed many times during the passage of the Bill, that those of my constituents who wish to buy their new town houses should be entitled to do so. I have no reason to believe that the development corporation's view has changed in any way since its chairman, with the chairmen of the other development corporations, pressed on the Government the desirability of their being able to sell new town houses if they wished. I do not see why the Runcorn Development Corporation should not be able to sell new town houses to tenants who wish to buy.

What is the waiting list in Runcorn for the tenancy of a development corporation house? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if houses were sold to sitting tenants it would lengthen the waiting list, because the houses thus sold would go out of the pool of available housing?

I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a substantial waiting list for houses in Runcorn New Town because it is an attractive town and there is a demand from people to live there, but it is wrong to say that the effect of the clause would be to lengthen the waiting list. Those who want to own the houses which they now rent have no alternative accommodation. There is no other stock in the area for them to buy. If they have changed their jobs and moved to the area, their only opportunity lies in buying a house in that new town. I believe that people should have the freedom of choice to buy such a house if they wish. I am not saying that they should be forced to buy, but merely that they should have the opportunity to do so. That is also the view of the Runcorn Development Corporation.

Nobody would dispute that there is now a desire for owner occupation, particularly among young people who wish to own their own houses. We must remember that the new towns are largely populated by young people. In a time of inflation young people wish to take advantage of contributing to a capital asset that will help them to fight that inflation.

The Government, in refusing in general terms to permit development corporations to sell new houses, are, for dogmatic reasons, stultifying the desires of those people. It is only Socialist dogma that prevents people who wish to do so having the opportunity to buy these houses. I hope that such an opportunity will shortly be afforded to them.

I have some feelings of trepidation about New Clause A because I see both sides of the argument. I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) that waiting lists play a large part in the attitude of local authorities towards the selling of their houses. My own local authority, which has a Conservative chairman, has concluded that it should not sell council houses, because the waiting list grows monthly.

However, in respect of the situation in the new towns, I believe that the Opposition's view is more correct than the Government's view. I made inquiries of a number of new town chairmen and found that most of them wished they could sell houses in their towns. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said that although there were waiting lists in the Runcorn area, there were not alternative houses available in the private sector for would-be purchasers to occupy. We believe that it would be much better if local authorities gave cash grants to council house tenants to enable them to move into the private sector where houses are available, so that the council properties thus vacated were left for members of the lower income groups to move into. Obviously that makes sense.

I agree with the Minister that these matters should preferably be left with the elected authorities, which is where the decisions should be made. I am sorry to hear that the Government have not yet given the flexibility to new towns to sell. Apparently, if that is correct, Runcorn has been forbidden to sell its houses.

No.

No doubt we shall hear more about that later. Is it a fact that the authorities at Milton Keynes and Stevenage can sell their homes? Is it now Government policy that they are entitled to do so, if they wish?

I thought that that position was very clear. The former Minister for Planning and Local Government had a conference with new town chairmen at which agreement was reached whereby new town corporations, whose housing list waiting periods were less than three months, and where there was an obvious desire to sell a number of corporation houses, could put proposals to the Minister to enable them to make sales. I understand that two new town corporations have already taken advantage of that situation. However, it was suggested that the district council should be consulted before such a decision was put to the Minister. The Government do not operate an inflexible policy against sales by a corporation.

We have not yet had a final decision. Schemes have been put forward, but we have not yet heard the outcome. That is the present position.

I believe that the clause brings the matter to a head. I see no objection to sales of new town houses. It seems to me that there should be a discount, that these houses should not be sold below cost, and that there should be restrictions to that end.

I understand that the Opposition are suggesting that authorities should induce new town corporations to sell houses if they wish to do so. That is a different proposition from what is contained in the Lords amendment. The amendment seeks to insert New Clause A, providing that a scheme

"shall include the statutory right for a tenant of a dwelling house to purchase".

If all the Opposition are seeking is that the corporation, if it so wishes, shall have the choice of selling, it is a wholly different position from that adopted in the Lords amendment. Does the hon. Gentleman dissent from that point of view?

No, I do not dissent from it, but up to now the fact is that the Government have not come clean on this subject. They are saying, "Yes, basically where waiting lists are short the new town corporations should be entitled to sell, but they must put up schemes to the Minister". We have not yet heard what has happened in the case of those who have presented schemes.

These provisions bring the matter to a head. I would rather there were no statutory rights, because I believe that the matter should be left to local authorities. I believe that, once the transfer has taken place, it is better for the new authorities to deal with the situation. The Government are dragging their feet, and in this instance I believe that the Opposition have got the balance right.

I am worried that there is no provision in the clause for local authorities to step in and repurchase. Nevertheless, I believe that the whole matter is something of a red herring. With mortgage rates of 12¼ per cent. and 12½ per cent. people will not be so anxious to buy their houses. I understand that in Slough the local authority is seeking to sell its houses but that the take-up is relatively slow. I do not think that there will be a rush for these homes while money is so dear. The experience in Stevenage some years ago was an unhappy one, because people who had purchased houses at flexible rates found the figure rising to as much as 14 per cent. and eventually returned to the local authority with the plea "Please buy my house back."

The merit of this proposal is that it brings finality to the matter. If the Government will not take action the tenant will have the power to force an authority into selling. In present housing and financial circumstances there has to be a much greater changeover to private occupation and tenant management. There have to be schemes enabling people to take a far greater share in the maintenance of their homes. This will all come out in the Housing Finance Review, which we hope to see in about a month's time. I think that, on balance, the Opposition have it right.

I had not intended to speak, but, as in previous debates on new towns, some strange things have been said during the course of the exchanges, and I have therefore been prompted to rise. The most curious thing is the suggested amendment from their Lordships. Because they may take leave of their sense there is no reason why we should follow suit. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who began by saying that there might well be a need for discussion of the whole question of council houses being sold to tenants. But has that got a place in this Bill? That is what the issue is about.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is right to refer to the question of flexibility. I am sure that he will agree with me that when we are trying to ensure the passage of a piece of major legislation relating to the transfer of assets from the development corporation to the council—a massive exercise—we should not be hampered by the political knock-about that we have seen on previous stages. This does not help those who live in new towns.

A number of hon. Members who are present tonight represent new towns. On every occasion that we debate this subject we fail to produce the clarification that it is suggested is required. Nothing is brought to a head. This means that we are letting down our people because of this political knock-about. I have no time for this, irrespective of the side of the Chamber on which I am sitting. New towns are precious to me, as they are to other Members. There are many things that we need to put right in new towns. We must ensure that we get a proper, integrated approach to housing and jobs. We ought to look more seriously at the development of unemployment in new towns. In my new town there is 10 per cent. unemployment, and I am worried about it. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I appear to be less than tolerant of any excursion into the realms of politics.

Basically we need to use our resources and energies to solve these problems. The Minister has rightly said that there is an element of flexibility. If people feel strongly about this they should take it further with the Minister. At the same time, the main element of concern in this Bill must centre round vesting date, when the local councils will take over responsibility for this major area of operation involving staff and the transfer of houses. In my constituency I am being asked at what date everything goes over to the local council. That is a fundamental question. There are others of the same nature. It does not help our credibility as Members of Parliament or assist with our concern for new towns if we constantly raise a question that is totally irrelevant to the state that we have reached with new towns.

The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) is quite right to say that new towns are precious to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. It is because they are precious, because we are concerned about those who live in them and because the Bill has to do with the transfer of assets that it is appropriate for us to consider the options for those who are affected by the transfer. We have to ask whether they should be transferred into council housing or be given the option to become owner-occupiers.

I return to the Government's observations on this Lords amendment, an amendment which the Under-Secretary was right to say has been changed a number of times since it was originally moved in this House. It has been changed because we have tried ad infinitum to meet the points of Government comment and criticism. It was changed in the other place at least once to meet the Government's wishes. It is a sad reflection that if the Government wanted to meet us they could have removed the technical deficiencies and ensured that the amendment was correct.

What we have seen is a rearguard action on the part of the Government, attempting to shore up what they see as their interests in public housing. The Government have consistently said that, in their view, if the amendment were carried we would be restricting the flexibility of district councils in their housing management. Council housing today is probably the most inflexible area in all our housing stock. We all know that a person in a council house will hang on to it because he will be unable to get a transfer unless he is particularly fortunate in his advertising and manages to exchange with someone in another part of the country. It is pretty difficult to move within a housing authority area even where waiting lists are short. People will not move. They believe that they have an asset and they want to hang on to it.

If we are honest, we know that part of the unemployment problem rests on the fact that people are not willing to leave their council houses. Far from encouraging flexibility, it is in the nature of council housing, more than new town housing, to create inflexibility. In the other place the Government Minister said:

"Need should be determined locality by locality in the light of housing needs and conditions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13th July 1976; Vol. 373, c.255.]

We all know that the housing waiting list is a notoriously poor indication of need in an area. I am surprised that an organisation like Shelter should so recently have devalued its case on the housing cuts by using the waiting list as an indicator of need.

We are here dealing not with local authority housing but with Government housing. This is housing that has been created by Government funds to set up a new town or provide jobs in a new area. On the whole, the investment has not been made by the local authority. I and other hon. Members have consistently suggested that local authorities should not have to make any investment. The Government have met us in large measure by making sure that the costs of development were borne by the Government. We are not denying anything to a local authority. In transferring the assets to local authorities, we are providing them with a bonus. We are not giving them anything that they had necessarily as of right.

I am having difficulty in following the hon. Gentleman's argument. He said that waiting lists were not reasonable indicators of housing need. I find that difficult to understand. Then he went on to talk about locality. Surely he is aware that, for example, the London satellite new towns were built in part to deal with the housing problems of those who lived in London. Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that waiting lists provide a good indication of housing need in an area. How can he justify the position he has taken up?

I have been the chairman of the housing committee of a London borough. I have reviewed the list on occasions when I was chairman, and whenever that was done we found that about 10 per cent. of those on the list were dead and that at least 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. had moved elsewhere. It must be remembered that the list is open to everyone. It is not necessary to prove housing need to go on the list. The hon. Gentleman and I could put our names on such a list. Such lists are not a good indication of need. The sooner the hon. Gentleman and his party understand that, the sooner we will begin to face up to the housing problem.

The Government have consistently said that there would be enormous administrative problems in arranging for a statutory right to sell at the point of transfer. We have heard about problems of specification, loan debt, compensation payments and sensible management, for example. The Opposition take the view that it is the job of the officers and those concerned with transfers to ensure that they meet the public's need and make arrangements to suit the public.

The Government, have said that it would be unfair to certain tenants if they were denied the statutory right to buy at the time of transfer. For instance, someone living in Crawley might have the right to buy at the time of transfer while someone living in my own town of Northampton might be denied that right. It is said that it would be unfair for Crawley to be given such a right while the people of Northampton were denied it. I do not think that is a realistic argument.

I also question whether the time that the Government envisage between the transfer of first, second and third generations of new towns will be as long as they have suggested. It seems to all my hon. Friends as we have gone through the months of debate on this subject that the Government's objections have been getting weaker and weaker. We started in May, when the Government were resisting the sale of any form of new town houses anywhere. In the summer we had the statement from the Secretary of State who was formerly masterminding the Bill that in certain circumstances he would allow the sale of new town houses. The Government have said that they are not against owner-occupation. The country awaits the day when they will say that they are for owner-occupation.

In considering the positive reasons for the amendment, I shall place on record one or two of the background facts. First, it is a pity that the Bill will get on the statute book rather later than we had hoped. It left Committee in May and was held up. It did not reach another place until 29th June. Consideration was completed in another place inside a month—namely, on 22nd July. I believe that the Opposition in both places have done their job in welcoming the Bill in principle, considering it in detail and moving the amendments that they consider right. The delay—there has been a delay—does not necessarily reflect on the Ministers now occupying the Govern- ment Front Bench but reflects on the Government's management of business in general. I hope that we shall have a statement from the Minister that in no way will there be a change from the original schedule.

When considering the amendment, it is worth reminding ourselves of the extent of sales in the past before the right hon. Gentleman put down the chopper. In 1971 there was the sale of 2,700 units. In 1972 15,500 units were sold and 7,200 were sold in 1973. It is relevant that against the total background, especially the present financial situation, we have seen a significant cut-back in public sector housing this year. It is a cut-back that I personally welcome, but its significance should be noted. It has been cut back from a forecast of 110,000 per annum in May 1976 to 90,000 for 1977 in August 1976. That is the latest forecast, and, as we all suspect, it may well be cut again. That is a 20,000 cutback, saving about £200 million, on top of which there are the restrictions on new towns and housing associations.

Another background factor in considering the merits of the amendment of which it is right we should remind ourselves is that about 53 per cent. of the homes in England and Wales are owner-occupied and about 31 per vent. are in the public sector. It is also right that we remind ourselves that about 75 per cent. want to own their own home. It is our job to mirror that desire.

Why have we pressed the amendment so strongly? We have done so because the tenants in the new towns want it. I shall quote from the Cullingworth Report. It is no good the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) shaking his head in dissent. It is the most recent definitive evidence that we have about the desires of tenants in new towns. I am setting out not my prejudices but the desires of new town tenants.

What date is it?

The report was published near enough 10 years ago; the Committee reported in 1968. Since that time the desire for owner-occupation has increased considerably. As an example I shall select two towns at random in page 67 of the report—namely, Crawley and Stevenage. Both towns serve the London area and are probably of greater relevance to the majority of Members in the Chamber. When tenants were asked how many believed that development corporation houses should be sold, 75 per cent. were positively in favour and 16 per cent. gave a qualified "Yes", while 9 per cent. were against in Crawley and 7 per cent. were against in Stevenage. That was in 1968. If the Government honestly felt that the attitude had changed, the least they should have done before presenting the Bill would have been to carry out a further attitude survey in those towns.

I am willing to wager that the attitude has not changed one iota. Labour Members know that just as well as my hon. Friends and myself. If we take into account the stock of public housing in the new towns and take the older towns of Stevenage and Crawley as reasonable examples in 1968—in this instance I concede that the figures may be a little out of date—it emerges that in 1968 only 11 per cent. of Stevenage was owner-occupied and 26 per cent. of Crawley. Those percentages are so far away from the national average and from the desires of the majority of people in the new towns that the House has a real obligation to ensure that owner-occupation is increased to somewhere near the national average.

We must remember that those who live in the new towns are no different from those living in other areas. They are ordinary people who want the ordinary things of life. We need to speak plainly in the House. We need to say plainly that it is our job to meet their aspirations, not to put difficulties in their way. We need to understand, as I am sure the majority of Labour Members appreciate, that people want a house with a garden. I think we all accept that. On the whole, that is what they want. The vast majority want to control their own home. They do not want a tenancy agreement and rules and regulations. They want to shut the front door and know that they are in their own home and will not have busybodies interfering with them. People want those conditions because they offer some independence of mind and some peace and quiet. They want the absolute security of tenure that will give them and their families a sense of freedom.

The majority of people in this day and age, or at any other time, want to benefit from any growth that takes place in the economy. There has been all too little growth in the past two years, but they want to benefit from any growth that takes place. They also want to benefit from any increase in the value of property. They want to have the benefit of the tax relief on mortgage interest, and that is no bad thing.

It is our job to ensure that public money is spent wisely. Probably we have all read with a gasp the report of a recent House Committee that upwards of £1,000 million was misspent by the Government in general. Labour Members know that selling is financially attractive. Indeed, the Secretary of State admitted that selling would be financially attractive. That is because at present levels we are not covering repairs and maintenance, let alone making a return on contribution on houses now being built.

The average rent for a three-bedroom five-person house in Northampton is £7·34 and the average cost rent is between £40 and £50. Therefore, it is costing the average taxpayer about £2,000 per annum per dwelling for new property now being built.

And the hon. Gentleman wants to sell the old ones.

I want to sell them all. Whichever way we look at the issue, whether it is in terms of newly built local authority housing versus the first-time purchaser or any other situation, the local authority house is costing us about £1,300 in subsidies compared with the first-time purchaser's mortgage relief costing us £290. If our proposals make sense to the tenant and if the Government believe, as they should, that they make financial sense to them, they should recognise that their responsibility is to use central Government money wisely.

We want to press home on the Government how important it is that they should use this money wisely. All the evidence suggests that we should take every opportunity to encourage people to buy. Transfer of these new towns is an ideal time. Then there are economies of scale, as the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) can confirm, in terms of the production and transfer of deeds. The process is simpler then. The survey I have referred to showed that there are worries among the tenants about the prospect of becoming council tenants, and it is morally right that we should, on transfer, give them the option to buy or to become council tenants.

By our amendment, no one would be compelled to buy. If a tenant did not want to buy, he would not be forced to do so. But it would give the opportunity to those who wanted to buy to do so. It is not too late for the Government to change their mind. The Government were ready to slap on a ban in 1974, and they are beginning slightly to relax it now. The facts are irrefutable. The tenants want what we propose, and it would be financially beneficial to the public, who invested the money in the first place. Labour hon. Members know, too, that the move towards greater owner-occupation is in everyone's interest, if not in the Labour Party's interest. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) made some astonishing statements, one of them about the unreliability of the housing list. As any London Member knows—and the hon. Gentleman must know it, too—the vast majority of the people on the housing list are there for very good reasons. We are not on it. People in such positions as ours would not be on a housing list. Naturally there are people with a greater claim and with greater need than others. The point that the hon. Member was making is irrelevant to the one that we have been trying to put throughout the Bill on this issue.

It is not the housing list that is of concern here; it is the average waiting period, which is a very different thing. It is the average waiting period not of anyone who happens to put himself on the list, but of very carefully worked out categories of people—and that means, as far as the new towns for London are concerned, Londoners in need. That is the issue with which we are concerned.

I recognise the Opposition's enthusiasm for home ownership, which is shared by most, if not all, those on the Government side of the House. No matter what the hon. Gentleman says, we are keen on home ownership. I make that statement clearly because some people suggest that we simply do not mind it, or are not against it. On the contrary, we are in favour of it. But we recognise also, as Government and party, that we have a responsibility to people in London and other major cities who live in housing need—for example, the elderly and disabled—and for whom the right housing cannot be found in the areas in which they live but can be found in new towns.

If there is a dogmatic attitude it is that of the Opposition. We have taken a flexible attitude, designed, as far as possible, to equate the needs of those who are in desperate straits with the natural desire, which we want to encourage, of people to own their own homes.

That is reflected in our sales policy, about which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding among hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) told us that his new town was apparently forbidden to sell houses. Without advice, I do not know precisely what the waiting period situation is there, but if it is less than three months, and if the new town corporation wishes to do so, it can do what, for example. Milton Keynes and Northampton have done—obtain consent for the resumption of sales of houses in its area.

Perhaps the word "forbidden" was a little unfair. The corporation did not achieve the criteria laid down by the Government.

That is precisely the point I am making. I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. These are the criteria that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture tried to observe when he was Minister for Planning and Local Government, and which the Government continue to try to observe.

The hon. Member for Northampton, South raised the question of the current delay which he says is taking place in our consideration of the Bill. I do not think that his case is tenable. An attempt was made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—who even went to the extent of writing to The Times because that newspaper appeared to agree with the Government rather than with him—to show that the delay in the Bill was the consequence of action by the Government rather than by the Opposition.

I do not want to get involved in that argument, but I want to be generous to the lion. Member for Northampton, South. There may be a case for certain elements of delay. Perhaps the original plans to get the first transfers going next year could have been difficult in the light of such considerations as the commitment of staff and the drawing up of transfer schemes. On the other hand, as the Bill now appears, and with the plans that we now have, I think that it will almost certainly be possible to effect a considerable number of transfer during the coming year, with a view to seeing that they take place early in 1978.

With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 20.