Remove Red Tape

Weights and Measures

These regulations include technical requirements for certain classes of measuring equipment such as measuring container bottles, beltweighers and automatic catchweighers and quantity labelling of certain drugs, foods and cosmetics.

You can find all 17 regulations that relate to weights and measures below to the left.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Should we scrap them altogether?
• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

8 comments on “Weights and Measures”

1. Matthew Lucking on August 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm said:

   The Weights and Measures regulations should not be scrapped. They, along with the Weights and Measures Act and other associated legislation assist to ensure fairness, consistency and accuracy in the thousands of transactions we all take part in every day. They become particularly important for high cost goods where fraudulent trading would be most detrimental to the consumer. With the cost of fuel on the rise and the cost of certain foods likely to go up, the consumer needs to know that they are getting their money’s worth for their money! I do not think that a non regulatory code would suffice, sometimes it is necessary to ‘enforce’ the requirements and this is where a code could fall flat. For simplification and merger considerations we could look at other Countries methods for regulation – for example the NSAI in Ireland have a Legal Metrology (General) Regulations, 2008 which lists many types of equipment and requirements, giving the errors allowed in trade use in a schedule at the back – all in one easy to find place.Comment Tags: #regulation, merged, simplified
2. Ronnie Cohen on August 6, 2011 at 9:32 am said:

   This Red Tape Challenge is about identifying and eliminating waste and inefficiency. The use of the dual measurement system where the UK continues to use two incompatible systems (imperial and metric) is costly, unnecessary, wasteful and inefficient. The UK could standardise on the metric system, which is a world standard, is suitable for all purposes and can meet all our needs.

   The current system requires more complex calculations, extensive knowledge of the myriad multiples used in imperial, many conversion tables and greatly increases the chances of error. In some safety-critical environments such as nuclear power construction, this could be very serious. NASA lost a spacecraft at a loss of $300m because of a mix-up between two measurement systems. It costs us money as well. If you ever wondered why cars cost a lot more here than in other EU countries, the failure of the UK to conform with European standards is a major reason. Increased costs of separate production lines are passed on to consumers. A grossly disproportionate number of bridge strikes by foreign lorries is probably caused by use of imperial restriction signs which many foreigners do not understand. The requirement to use imperial units on road signs leads to larger, much dearer and more cluttered road signs whereas metric ones could be much cheaper and simpler. Dual unit signs and pairs of separate metric and imperial warning signs are especially wasteful and inefficient.

   The Magna Carta document of 1215 recognised the need for a single measurement system. No country needs two systems.

   You can show that you are serious about the Red Tape Challenge by completing metrication and abandoning imperial units. If you are not willing to do that, it shows that this is just a populist gimmick. It is about time that you stood up to those law-breakers who call themselves Metric Martyrs and Active Resistance to Metrication. It is about time that you faced down the eurosceptics and their supporters in the tabloid press. For the anti-EU brigade, opposition to metrication has become an article of faith even though the EU and metrication are separate issues. They are not doing us any favours.

   Show that you mean it when you say that you will take the hard decisions to cut waste and inefficiency by completing the metrication programme. The rest of the Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland have done that and are not going back to imperial. We should do so too.Comment Tags: dual, imperial, measurement, metric, metrication, system
   • SwanseaSteve on September 1, 2011 at 10:34 am said:

     “Hear, hear” on 95% of the above, Ronnie, but I think you’re wrong on the reasons cars cost too much over here. UK-built cars are built to metric standards the same as they are the world over, and it’s been like that since the 1980′s at the latest. Even the USA’s automotive industry has gone metric.

     The construction industry has been metric for a long time. No way would a nuclear power station be built in feet and inches!

     But as for the rest: yeah – why are our roadsigns *still* in units no-one understands any more? Why do supermarkets *still* get away with selling pints of cow’s milk in this century? There is a load of money being wasted because our weights and measures laws still have these loopholes permitting just a few things to carry on being done in Imperial measures, and those loopholes should go.

     I’m not sure however that this is the forum for that debate! I get the impression that this discussion is supposed to be about weighing and measuring systems used in industry, and the regulations thereof…..
3. Paula Crowson on August 2, 2011 at 12:13 pm said:

   I dont believe that weights and measures legislation should be scrapped. For hundreds of years it has controlled all transactions that take place in this country to ensure that the consumer gets what they pay for. Even for comapnies there is a fall back if they themselves are defrauded- why should this legislation therefore go? The regulations governing specific equipment are there for a reason- to control trade use equipment ensuring its accuracy and consistency- again bringing a sense of “fair play” to consumer transcations. To revoke it would surely lead to more fraudulent trading. There is no doubt that some of the legislation could be simplified and perhaps bought into one meaningful piece of legislation but to revoke it all togther would certainly be a step backwards.
   • Terry Scuoler on August 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm said:

     Hi Paula,

     As you will see from my question to Ian below, I am interested in what, if any, scope exists for simplifying and consolidating regulation in this area.

     You touch on the point, which specific aspects of the legislation do you feel could be improved and how?

     Terry
4. Ian Turner on July 30, 2011 at 10:26 pm said:

   As the technical officer for the United Kingdom Weighing Federation (UKWF), an association of manufacturers, importers, and suppliers of all types of weighing machines. I would repeat the comments I made on the red tape challenge under the enforcement challenge. These follow my specific points that relate to this challange

   With regard to the specific regulations listed: All of the regulations relate to specific applications and types of instrument. The removal of any one of these would leave that specific application or type of instrument uncontrolled. This could potentially lead to inconsistent applications of legislations across similar type of instrument. e.g. water meters have three potential sets of regulations that may apply to them. The removal of any one of those three would leave large numbers of water meters already in the market place uncontrolled

   It must be remembered that may of the legal obligations in this challenge are implementing regulations for a wide range of Directives, so I am not sure how we would remove them even if we chose to do so.

   As far as I am aware the Alcoholometers and Alcohol Hydrometers (EEC Requirements) Regulations 1977 will be revoked from 1st December 2015 as a result of the repeal of 8 Old Approach Directives outlined in Directive 2011/17/EU

   Weights and Measures legislation has existed for up to 3000 years and has been referred to only recently to as “red tape” (see the earlier red tape challenge regarding weights and measures). I feel this is a pejorative term that fails to understand the function of weights and measures and other technical legislation in a modern international trading economy.

   Weights and Measures legislation operates at a number of levels; to prevent fraud in consumer and business transactions, to ensure trading confidence, to ensure government is collecting the correct amount of taxation on products such as petrol and alcohol and, the issue this website is most concerned with; to ensure proper market control for the buying and selling of weighing and measuring equipment. The main directives that relate to weighing and measuring instruments are intended to facilitate trade and provide common rules for the process.

   When these rules are applied consistently they bring benefits to legitimate economic operators such as opening markets and the developing of business and commercial opportunities.

   Where there is insufficient or unequal enforcement the market does not operate freely. Any non-compliant operators that have a lower cost base (i.e. not complying with “red-tape”) gain an unfair economic advantage in the market place.

   The challenges legitimate economic operators are facing are not the regulations per-se. Where UKWF members interact with enforcement bodies they are of the view that the legislation is generally well thought out and well implemented. The problem is the absence of meaningful enforcement against non-compliant businesses. The failure to resolve the legal non-compliances allows them to continue trading at an economic advantage compared to legitimate legal operators. This will undermine those businesses not only to their own detriment, but the wider economy as well

   This economic inequality can only be resolved by greater and more meaningful enforcement of the legal requirements, and amongst other things, not perceiving the law that governs market regulation as “red tape”, but as a crucial element of free and successful trade.
   • Terry Scuoler on August 4, 2011 at 2:30 pm said:

     Ian,

     You make some very important points about the role of weights and measures in the functioning of our economy.

     May I just check my understanding of one of your points?

     You don’t believe there is any scope for consolidating of regulation in this area because it would run the risk of certain types of instrument becoming unregulated?

     Terry
5. Philip Musgrave on July 29, 2011 at 4:12 pm said:

   These reguolations are essential to a well worked economy. The technical equipment regulations in relation to weighing and measuring equipment set out how they should be constructed, marked and tested to ensure fair and accurate measurement in trade, The majority of the pieces of equipment listed are highly complex industrial weighing and measuring equipment. Without these regulations the basis of weights and measures in trade would be lost and confidence in weights and measures eroded. The Various foods orders tell traders that meat, cheese and vegetables must be sold by reference to weight in retail establishments. There are exemptions for articles such as pies and where certain vegetables can be sold by number or bunch. These regulations set out the base for a fair market and in one form or another have been around for over 100 years. The Mearuring container bottle regulations are an important part of the average quantity measuring system used by most packers of liquid goods in the UK. They ensure that statistical accuracy is maintained. The stated mark is not an e mark but a reverse epsilon.