I've been having a running debate with my local council over statutory notices - the sort where they announce road closures or parking restrictions etc. They always quote distances in metres. I've pointed out the illogicality of this when there is an absolute requirement, (as they seem to admit), to have physical signs displaying imperial distances. Unfortunately the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations don't specifically refer to statutory notices.

Has anyone got any ideas for moving this debate on. Ideally I'd like to find some regulation that is as clear cut as the Traffic Signs Regulations, but have not managed to track anything down yet.

The Weighta and Units measures require that *all* notices, signs etc be in metric units except for those specified in the order. Traffic signs are one of the items that are not required to be in metric untis.

That fact that you put "not required" in your post leads me to believe that you are unsure about your statement. It's not a case of "not required" - they're "not allowed".

I have studied the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Road Traffic Act 1988 and cannot find any clause in those acts that prohibits the use of metric measuerments on road signs or endorses theuse of Imperial measurements on road signs. These acts do however require that the Secretary of State publish designs of approved road signs. The current set of approved road signs are given in Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 1519: The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.

None of the designs in that document approve metric signs, but if one looks at the fine print, one finds

"SECTION 2
"GENERAL PROVISIONS
"Authorisations by the Secretary of State
"8. Nothing in these Regulations shall be taken to limit the powers of the Secretary of State under section 64 of the 1984 Act to authorise the erection or retention of traffic signs of a character not prescribed by these Regulations."

What this means is that the Secretary of State can authorisie metric signs without recourse to Parliament. It follows therefore that before any metric sign is removed, it shuold be ascertained whether or not the Secretary of State authorised that particular sign.

My conclusion is that metric signs are *NOT* illegal, they are merely not authorised.

Since a date some time ago (3 or 4 years?), the government *ordered* - by means of a local authority circular or similar - all local authorities and certain other public organisations to use only metric measurements in all official documents, e.g.

public notices
tender documents
leasing office or industrial property
planning applications
maps
Council minutes
taxi fares.

The government claimed there was an E.U. Directive requiring this to happen and indeed there is one. However, normally E.U. Directives only become operational in the U.K. after the (rubber-stamping) process whereby the Houses of Commons and Lords ratify each Directive i.e. enact it in a British statute (Act or Regulation) - which I think did *not* happen in the case of the use of metric units in official documents.

If my analysis is correct - and I am not sure - then the government has purported to require Councils to use metric in official documents without Parliamentary authority to do so.

It also raises the amusing question of what sanction(s) the E.U. would apply if, say, Chipping Sodbury District Council decided it was going to use Imperial measures in some or all of its official documents.

Another point raised is 'what is an official document?' A tourist guide? A footpath leaflet?

A conspiracy theorist might suggest that someone or some people somewhere have decided we'll all go completely metric as soon as possible, like it or not.

I'm not sure if any realistic action can be taken to restore Imperial to official documents. It might be helpful, however, if someone could obtain the circular which instructed Councils to go metric.

Tony Bennett

>then the government has purported to require Councils
>to use metric in official documents without
>Parliamentary authority to do so.

So why didn't they resist when there was no legal authority ?
Oh, I forgot, beaurocrats, the metric system pleases them.

>A conspiracy theorist might suggest that someone or
>some people somewhere have decided we'll all go
>completely metric as soon as possible, like it or not

Ahh, there we go, I've been waiting for the "Illuminati" theory for quite a while now...

>Left-hand drive vehicles with km/h-only speedos would
>be of course be very useful to swap between units of
>the forthcoming European Army

Oh my god, but what about the "traditional enemies" ?!
(src: Paul Birch)

Ralf

During the 1970's most aspects of UK life were metricated - at least most aspects that did not impinge directly on the man in the street.

Very early on in the Thatcher government the Metrication Board was disbanded (on the eve of publication of a requirement to use metric measure for teh sale of loose goods). The Thatcher government then went soft on enforcing metrication law.

The recent governmetn circular has IMHO been merely a noticfcation to local councils that the law will be enforced.

Martin,

The endorsement of UK units is in Schedule 16, on page 330 of the 1994 Traffic Regulations.

It is not necessary for the 1994 Traffic Regulations to state that metric is illegal (or unlawufl or unauthorised) for it to be so. Metric signs are unlawful by virtue of the fact that they are not expressly authorised.

This is because the burden of law for the public sector is the reverse to that for the private sector. In the private sector, freedom is assumed until the law says otherwise. In the public sector, the law must state what is lawful. This is because people in the public sector have power over others. The law is the means by which this power is constrained; government is permitted only the power allowed by the due process of law.

The issue with metric signs is that local government is pushing ahead with a metric conversion without that due process having been complied with. This Association makes a similar objection is the 1994 metric regulations that make metric compulsory for retail transactions; these regulations did not follow the lawful process. The principle reason why the metric martyr traders lost their Court case was because Lord Justice Laws said implied repeal does not apply to certain Acts, which is a constitutional bombshell.

With reference to authorisations by the Secretary of State, we have been advised by the Department of Transport that metric distance signs will not be permitted while the standard system remains miles and yards.


To Tony Bennett,

The government's guidance note to "Use of Metric Units of Measuremetn by the Public Sector" is undated but probably produced in 1995. The DTI have placed this on the internet at this location: http://www.dti.gov.uk/access/metric_p/index.htm

The EC directive to which this guidance note was a response required metric for "public administration" purposes. The exemption relating to the yard and mile probably referred to road signs, not distances in public sector literature. However, it depends on how one reads the sentance.

Martin,
You say: "...the Metrication Board was disbanded on the eve of publication of a requirement to use metric measure for the sale of loose goods".

For clarification, the Metrication Board was disbanded in 1980 as a result of the winding down of the late-1970s metrication effort that ended with the withdrawing of the compulsory metrication orders in 1978. The publication of the requirement to use metric that you refer to must have been the November 1979 EC metrication directive. The current metrication drive (1979-2002) is not related to the 1965-1980 programme (despite DTI protestations to the contrary).

One of the unawswered questions concerns the interaction between the DTI withdrawing metrication in 1978-80 and the Foreign Office (we think) signing up to metrication in Brussels in 1979. Was the latter a reaction by remnants of the Metrication Board to bypass Parliament's will in the former? Or did the Foreign Office neither know nor care, and simply saw metrication as a bargaining counter to gain some concession in Brussels?