Lords Sitting of 23 June 1966

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Manchester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

INVESTMENT IN COMPANIES IN STERLING AREA
3.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give instructions to the Bank of England to treat favourably requests from British companies who, by remittance of funds, wish to take up rights issues in companies in the sterling area in which they have a substantial interest.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the remittance from the United Kingdom by companies of funds for investment in Austrlia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Republic is covered by the voluntary programme which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech. Special problems of individual companies will be considered on their merits, bearing in mind the general principles of the programme and the overriding need to strengthen the balance of payments, which is the purpose of the programme. Companies have been asked to discuss their investment programmes with the Bank of England. These discussions provide the opportunity to go into any problems.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I know all that? What I am asking is: will he convey to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there really are occasions when this is a serious problem and that the credit standing and status of the company concerned in the
394
Commonwealth countries may depend very substantially on what percentage of the equity is owned by the British company? This goes further than just a question of remitting funds from this country to other sterling areas. I hope that this matter will be taken seriously.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may well have been aware of what I said in reply to his Question, but it is possible that other noble Lords who may have seen the Question did not know quite as much as the noble Lord. This is a matter of importance and perhaps the noble Lord will remember the contents of the letter that the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed to a hundred companies which, if I remember aright, provide 90 per cent, of the overseas investment, in which he uses the words:
"The voluntary programme is a new development in our economic policies. I have asked the Bank of England to keep in close touch with the Treasury and to report to me any special difficulties that may be encountered."
The Bank of England has set up a special department to give advice and to have consultations with companies which would wish, as in most cases they do, to adhere to the voluntary programme. But where special difficulties arise the procedure is there: there is this channel of communication, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated in his letter, between the Bank of England and the Treasury. Therefore, if there are companies that are in the special difficulty which the noble Lord mentioned, the machinery and the opportunity are there.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has read the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to the Canadian Club at Ottawa a few weeks ago in which he said that the brightest feature of our balance of payments was our receipts from foreign investments? Is it not a pity that this brightness should be dimmed by the restrictions that the Government are imposing?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have read that speech and I would commend to the noble Earl the speech of his noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in a debate some months ago on the economic position, in which the noble Lord agreed

395
that with the present balance of payments position there was a need to take all necessary steps to protect it.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, is it not the case that all the applications made so far have been turned down, which shows anything but a sympathetic approach to the problem? Is it not placing a great strain on the spirit of voluntary co-operation when the applicants know that almost certainly their applications will be turned down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, back to this House from the Soviet Union and hope that all the efforts he made on behalf of British exports will be fully realised. I am not aware of what has taken place between the Bank of England and the applicants regarding this voluntary programme. I will certainly inquire. But at this stage I have no information that I can give to the noble Lord.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that if the British companies are not able to take up their rights, then the British interest will be diluted even to the point of loss of control; and that this could be a very important matter?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am aware of that, and so is my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is one of the points that the Bank of England will take into consideration.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that machinery exists for this. I know that the machinery exists. What I have asked, and I am asking again, is whether he will say that these cases will be looked at sympathetically.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if you set up the machinery then it is the intention, as has already been expressed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer I think, in my earlier statement, that all these applications will be considered on their merits. I do not want to go further than that. I have established that there is this channel between the Bank of England
396
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to the use of that machinery that we should look.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord used the rather ominous phrase, coming from the Party opposite, that each case will be looked at on its merits. Who is to decide on the merits—the Bank of England or the Treasury? Because the merits might be considered very differently by one or the other.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the first instance it is the Bank of England, and I think that that body can be expected to look at all cases on their merits (to use the word I used earlier) sympathetically, bearing in mind, of course, the very special need at the present moment in regard to the balance of payments.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does that mean that when the Bank of England have looked at the case on its merits the Treasury, when it gets to it, will look also at the case on its merits?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have not suggested that any advice that the Bank of England gave in this voluntary programme would be referred to the Treasury. The phrase I used—and perhaps the noble Lord will read what I said earlier—is this:
"I have asked the Bank of England to keep in…touch with the Treasury and to report to me any special difficulties"
that may arise. I thought that would have been perfectly clear to any Member of your Lordships' House.

BOTSWANA INDEPENDENCE BILL [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for, and in connection with, the establishment of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, under the name of Botswana, as an independent republic within the Commonwealth. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the Plant Health Bill and the Advertisements (Hire-Purchase) Bill, which follow, are Consolidation Bills which will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PLANT HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
ADVERTISEMENTS (HIRE-PURCHASE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD COHEN OF BRIGHTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is with a certain amount of trepidation, as one who has only recently become a Member of your Lordships' House, that I rise to introduce a Private Member's Bill, but I do so because I think the time has come to focus the searchlight of publicity on a problem which has been in the minds of our legislators for a very considerable time and which, as I am sure your Lordships would agree, should now be dealt with.
The Bill which I am submitting deals, as its Title shows, with the sale of goods, but the main purpose is to protect the consumer against what are loosely called
398
"guarantees"—guarantees which minimise, and in some cases almost eliminate, the purchaser's Common Law rights. As your Lordships will realise, purchasers should have statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act. It is rather clumsy to keep on repeating "Common Law" and "Statute Law", and therefore the device I shall use in this speech is to refer to the purchaser's existing rights at law.
I am sure it would interest your Lordships to be informed how I first came to be acquainted with this problem. About six months ago I purchased a small car for my daughter. On the second time when it was taken out the car started to overheat. My daughter was not an expert driver, and she took the car to an agent of the firm which manufactured the car. The agent looked at it and said, "You should drive it back to the town where you live, and there the main agents will doubtless deal with it." She drove it back. As I say, she was not an expert driver, and on the return journey the car overheated very badly, and when she arrived at the town the cylinders were scored because of the overheating.
The people at the garage said they were very sorry, but what was wrong was that the thermostat had not worked, and so the overheating had occurred. I said, What are you going to do?" They said, "We will supply a new thermostat and you will pay for its installation". I said to the firm, "That is not the question. Because the thermostat was faulty a very great deal of damage has been done." In fact, the damage done was to the extent of £84. The reply to me was: "Read your guarantee. We are responsible merely for replacing the thermostat which caused the difficulty."
I am not one of those people who take these difficulties lying down, and some very heated correspondence took place between the manufacturers and myself. I do not think—I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate this—that the normal person would have been so successful as I was, because as the result of the correspondence I got a new engine put in. I should be very sorry for any—I will not say less important person, but any member of the public who possibly might not be able to obtain publicity for a case like this, because he certainly would not have been so successful.

399
A normal person would have been faced with the cost of reinstating the engine at £80, or having a new engine because there had been a faulty part when the car was purchased.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House the name of the manufacturers of this car, because I think it is in the public interest that we should know?
LORD COHEN OF BRIGHTON: My Lords, I should prefer not to do so; I do not think that it would be right. There are a number of motor manufacturers, and we (when I say "we" I mean the Consumer Council) can give you the names of motor manufacturers who are prepared to give guarantees which do not take away the rights of members of the public. There has been correspondence between the Consumer Council and other motor manufacturers to try to persuade them to come into line, and the Council have had a certain amount of success. For instance, Fords have come into line. But I think that it would be very unfair if I gave the name of the firm concerned in this case and there was a great deal of publicity against them. I am hoping that they will come into line.
My Lords, I am going to say this. Motor car guarantees do offer some benefits, and quite considerable benefits, to the consumer which in certain cases go beyond the limit of their legal rights. I refer to repair and maintenance facilities which are available locally in the United Kingdom, and to a more limited extent abroad. In practice it is, of course, a great benefit to be able to drop into a local agency and obtain service and spare parts without question or delay. Many manufacturers also run a voucher scheme whereby the motorist can be assured of periodic after-sales service at a fixed cost at any agency of that kind. In general, it has become accepted that the owner of a new car still under guarantee should obtain prompt service at any garage within the manufacturer's franchise.
It is also true—and this is very important—that at the same time the guarantee withdraws some of the purchaser's existing rights which, as I say, arise under the Sale of Goods Act; and so the purchaser having lost these rights, is thrown on the good will of the manufacturer. He gains
400
a little but he loses considerably more. The policy of the Consumer Council, and the policy which I am submitting to your Lordships, is that any guarantee should add to, and not subtract from, the purchaser's existing legal rights. That is done by a number of firms. They give guarantees which they specifically state are in addition to the purchaser's existing legal rights. What I am asking, and the Consumer Council has been fighting for it for some time, is that when guarantees are given, they should not take away rights but add to them.
Arising from these matters—that is, arising from the difficulty over the car to which I have referred—I obtained a report of the Consumer Council, I read the Report of the Molony Committee and I studied the recommendations therein. The Molony Committee was set up by a previous President of the Board of Trade, the Right Honourable F. J. Erroll, to deal with the whole question of consumers' rights. It reported—I want your Lordships to note this date—in April, 1962. A large number of recommendations were made by that Committee but, unfortunately, it appears that Parliamentary time has not been available to implement them, and the matter has been deferred for eventual comprehensive legislation.
Having said that, however, I should add that it is not the case that the whole of the Report has been deferred. Steps have been taken to deal with two of the matters raised in it. I refer to the passing of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, and the action taken regarding advertising, and I accept at once that the rest of the recommendations may await comprehensive legislation. Yet I realise that it may be some time—indeed, some considerable time—before the promised comprehensive legislation becomes the law of the land. Having said that, there is one glaring example of what almost might be called a malpractice, which could be dealt with very simply, and this is the purport of my Bill.
As I have indicated a little earlier, when purchases are made, there is a growing practice of giving what are loosely called guarantees—guarantees which take away the purchasers' existing rights. I have referred to the car trade, but the problem arises with a very large number of articles. In Section 14 of the

401
Sale of Goods Act 1893, there is the implied condition that goods should be of a merchantable quality for the purposes for which they are bought, so that the purchaser can be assured that the article he buys will do the job for which he has purchased it. Unfortunately, with the growth of trade, this practice of giving guarantees has crept in, unknown to the ordinary purchaser.
Arising from this case of the car trade, I said to my wife, "If you have a guarantee when you buy any article, do you sign it?" She said that she did. I asked, Do you read the small print on the back of the guarantee when you sign and accept it?" She replied, "No". I will guarantee to your Lordships that 90 per cent. of the ladies of this country who accept guarantees gaily sign the form accepting the restriction of the rights which they should have under the Sale of Goods Act, without reading the words on the back of the guarantees. The extraordinary thing is this. Under the 1965 Act, which arose from the Molony Committee Report, for the purchaser of an article under hire purchase up to a cost of £2,000, no guarantee, no matter how the guarantee is worded, can in any way reduce the right to which the purchaser is entitled by law. But if he buys for cash, his rights can be taken away. What we have done in this Bill is to follow for the cash purchaser the same principle that applies to the purchaser by hire purchase. We have based the Bill on the 1965 Hire-Purchase Act: almost word for word, we have said that the purchaser by cash should have the same rights as the purchaser who borrows. Surely that is reasonable and sensible. I cannot understand how there can be any question or query on whether this is the proper thing.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I have here an interesting case which highlights the position very strongly. Mr. Aubrey Diamond, a member of the Council of the Consumers' Association, who has helped with the provisions of this Bill, wrote an article in the Law Guardian in which he gave the factual story of the managing director of one of our largest electrical appliance manufacturers, who had purchased a new car. It was not a success, for in the first month the gearbox broke down. Clearly it was faulty from the time it was made, and he
402
took it back to the supplier. He contemplated a claim for the loss of use of the car, but in due course the gear box was replaced under the manufacturers' warrant. Then came the blow: he received a substantial bill for labour charges. He exploded, but he was told that he had not read the guarantee, from which it was clear that he had to pay the labour charges. And he had to pay.
He went straight back to his own electrical firm and asked to see their form of guarantee—and lo and behold!, the form of guarantee had exactly the same words as those of the motor car guarantee of which he complained. There is a happy ending to this story, because it led to the revision of the guarantee of one of our largest electrical companies, and, arising from this case, the British Electrical Appliance Manufacturers' Association have recommended to members that they should use guarantees which do not take away existing rights. This question has been highlighted both by the Consumer Council and by an exciting article in the Sunday Times.
In asking your Lordships to accept this simple Bill, I am well aware that it is the Government's eventual intention to introduce comprehensive legislation, but I am afraid the emphasis is on "eventual", and because of the pressure on Parliamentary time it may be some years before purchasers have that protection which should be enshrined in the law of the land. For many years lawyers have appreciated the unfortunate implications of these alleged "guarantees" from the buyer's point of view. It was nearly thirty years ago that Parliament first moved against this practice, in the Hire-Purchase Act 1938. It seems to me, as it seems to the Consumer Council, that the time is long overdue when the simple proposal in this Bill should become the law of the land.
I should like to thank the Consumer Council, and in particular Mr. Aubrey Diamond and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, very warmly for the great assistance they have given me in the preparation of this Bill. I am well aware that the answer of the Government may be that the Molony Report recommended comprehensive legislation and that they are moving in that direction. I accept that. But there is no reason why we

403
should not immediately add this protection to the consumer. It has been done for the consumer under hire purchase. Why should we not take the further step of giving the same protection to consumers by cash? These small words on the backs of guarantees are a growing evil. I feel that your Lordships, who have been so progressive on a number of matters in the last few months, will wish to see consumers protected in the manner proposed in this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cohen of Brighton.)
3.29 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would wish to express its gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton, for having brought forward this matter, and to congratulate him on the way in which he has done so on this first occasion on which he has introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House. I would, at the outset, express full support for the purpose of the Bill. I would also, if I may, congratulate the noble Lord on his courage in venturing into a field which is perhaps more complicated than he was aware of in introducing his Bill.
I have no illusions about my own lack of expertise in this field. Indeed, it is one in which the Committee on Consumer Production, including its distinguished Chairman, Mr. J. T. Molony, Q.C., expressed doubt as to their own interpretation of the law as it was then, and still is, apart from the changes effected by the Hire-Purchase Act 1964. The Molony Committee expressed clearly their
"wish to assimilate the law of sale and hire-purchase"
in favour of the consumer, and that is plainly what the noble Lord desires; that is, to bring the standard of protection for consumers afforded by the Sale of Goods Act up to that contained in the Hire-Purchase Act in this field.
The Molony Committee laid down three propositions (it is paragraph 431 of the Report) which they described as fundamental. The first was:
"the retail purchaser should not be exposed to 'contracting-out' ".
The second was:
"the law should be the same on sale and hire-purchase".
404
And, thirdly:
"the law should be the same in England and Scotland"—
and in case my noble friend Lord Brecon is here, I should add, presumably, Wales. Taking the last point first, I think that perhaps the noble Lord has followed the text of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965 a little too closely in copying the last line of that Act and excluding Scotland from the scope of his Bill. That is not in accordance with the Molony Committee's recommendation, and I suggest that it would be a mistake. Hire-purchase legislation was consolidated last year, not only in an English Act, but also in a Scottish Act along similar lines.
As I see it, the main provision in the noble Lord's Bill is the one which is contained in Clause 3(1), to which he himself referred, and which says:
"Except as provided by this Act, the conditions and warranties specified in sections 12. 13, 14 and 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 shall be implied in a contract of sale of goods notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary."
For my part, I would agree with the noble Lord that the most important element in this subsection is the prevention of contracting-out of subsection (2) of Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, which deals with merchantable quality. I would willingly agree with a Bill which provided for this; that is, to ensure that, in the great majority of cases, the consumer will get an article of merchantable quality where the article is new, provided that the article was "bought by description. "It would not, however, cover those contracts of sale where the seller does not normally deal in goods of that description. In this respect, the Bill does not go so far as the Molony Committee wanted, and it might be possible to put this right at a later stage.
Nor does it cover those cases where the buyer has examined the goods and has not spotted a defect which the examination ought to have revealed. The Molony Committee said that they would not wish that provision to be altered; and I agree with them. I also agree that the seller should not be allowed to contract out of the provisions in sections 12, 13 and 15, dealing with title to sell, quiet possession, freedom from encumbrance and correspondence with sample. However, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord

405
the Lord Chancellor whether, as regards correspondence with sample, there is any overlap in the Bill, or even contradiction with other legislation; for example, as regards seed and other agricultural and horticultural products. Here again, this is something which could be put right in Committee.
For all these purposes, and particularly to ensure the merchantable quality of brand new goods, I have no doubt that this would prove a useful measure. What I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell us is how it will fit in with the Trade Descriptions Bill, which we all hope to see again soon, in the matter of "description". It might prove confusing if the considerations applying in civil actions under this Bill were different from those applying in prosecutions for misdescription under a revised Merchandise Marks Act.
Then there is the question of guarantees. It is one of the curiosities of the Bill that, on the face of it, it does not emerge that this is the main purpose which the noble Lord has in mind; but it is a purpose, I can assure him, with which I have the utmost sympathy. I think it is still recognised that, on the one hand, not all contracting-out is concerned with guarantees, and, on the other hand, there are perhaps certain types of guarantees where the manufacturer's right of recourse against a retailer is purported to be taken away—and one always has to say "purported to be taken away". There may be some cases where it is really to the advantage of the consumer that that should be so. It may well be that the manufacturer is better able to fulfil the responsibilities that he assumes than the retailer. In fact, some manufacturers make it a condition of their guarantee (as, indeed, I think is the case even with the Government themselves in dealing with certain supplies; for example, to war pensioners) that nobody tinkers about with the goods; it must be the manufacturer himself who deals with them. There are those points. I do not think it is absolutely clear that contracting-out of the conditions of the Sale of Goods Act should be banned altogether. Nor do I think that the Bill actually does that.
Where I think the Bill may fall short of the expectations expressed about it is in regard to "fitness for purpose".
406
Under Section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, the circumstances in which there is an implied condition that the goods are fit for the purpose for which the buyer requires them are somewhat restricted. Not only must the goods be of a description which it is the seller's normal business to supply, but the buyer must also make known to the seller the purpose for which he requires the goods in such a way as to show that he relies on the seller's skill or judgment; and where the goods are sold under a patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for purpose at all.
As the Molony Committee pointed out, sellers are generally pretty cautious—and this means retailers generally, of course—about expressing an opinion in response to a direct question whether an article is fit for the purpose for which the customer requires it; and rightly so, for it is not easy for a seller to know exactly what are the purposes the customer has in mind, and the customer rarely expresses them as fully and as clearly as he may wish, or imagine he has done. In this respect, the consumer is more likely to be protected by revised Merchandise Marks legislation than by this Bill, in that the purpose for which the goods are designed will generally be made known in advertising. But that protection will not extend to redress for the consumer, at least if the new Bill is on the same lines as the Bill introduced last Session. The first of the Molony Committee's fundamental propositions was that
"the retail purchaser should not be exposed to contracting-out'".
By and large, they regarded the trader as well able to look after himself. But the Bill does not apply only to sales by retail. It covers any contract of sale in which the total purchase price is under £2,000, except where the buyer is a body corporate. In this the noble Lord has again followed the Hire-Purchase Acts rather than the Molony recommendation and the pattern of the Trade Descriptions Bill. The effect is that many traders, including not only partnerships but a great many retailers, would be treated when buying in the same way as consumers. Quite apart from that, it is not self-evident that £2,000 is the right limit to apply in this Bill or, indeed,

407
that there should be any limit at all so far as consumers are concerned. The limit of £2,000 in the Hire-Purchase Acts was influenced by the kind of car likely to be bought on hire-purchase. It may be it would cause much more trouble to draw a distinction between cars of different values in the case of contracts for sale by retail. If there is to be a limit on value for consumer protection, I am not sure that £2,000 is not rather too high.
I have only one other question to ask. The Molony Committee recommended that contracting out should be permitted not only in the sales of second-hand and imperfect goods but in sales by auction. I do not think the noble Lord referred to that part of his Bill which enabled those selling second-hand or imperfect goods to contract out of the conditions of Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act, provided that the contract is in writing and that due notice is given to the purchaser. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton, to tell us, when he comes to wind up the debate, whether the Bill is intended to cover sales by auction. If so, is he satisfied that in contracts for sales by auction it would be possible to comply with subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3? Those are the subsections which deal with second-hand purchases or purchases of goods containing a defect. Clearly it would be neither practicable nor just to make it impossible for the seller by auction to contract out of any of the conditions and warranties in Sections 12 to 15 of the Sale of Goods Act, certainly where second-hand or defective goods are being offered.
No doubt, if this Bill commends itself to your Lordships in principle, there will be a number of drafting Amendments to consider in Committee, but I shall not trouble your Lordships with them now. Apart from the question of principle it seems to me there are really only two questions. First, does the Bill go quite far enough, and in some cases, perhaps, does it go a little too far? Second, does it fit in to the framework of forthcoming legislation on merchandise marks and sale of goods? I think noble Lords would agree that it would be a mistake to pass a Bill of this kind which did not fit in with the framework which is envisaged.
408
If the Bill does fit in with the framework it seems to me there is no problem; we can amend the Bill in those respects in which it does not go far enough or in which it goes too far. If, on the other hand, it does not, or if the Government have not yet decided on the framework of the future sale of goods legislation, I would suggest that your Lordships will wish to consider whether it is worth while at this stage to proceed with the Bill. But so far as that is concerned, I shall look forward to hearing what guidance the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has to give to your Lordships.
3.42 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to support the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton, is putting before the House. He said a number of kind things about the help which he has had from my Council, both from members of it and from the staff, and for that I am duly grateful to him. I hope that together in this alliance, one on each side of the House, we may be doing something which will really be of service and help to the consumer. We are on a difficult subject, but it is one in which we are most anxious to try to assist in the rather tangled and difficult situation which exists at the present time. The noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton, has made a compelling speech about the need for the Bill and we, in the Consumer Council, have collected evidence to build up the case for the Bill which, of course, we put at the disposal of the noble Lord when he was drafting his Bill.
The Sale of Goods Act 1893consolidated the legal rights and duties of buyers and sellers of goods. In those days the law was chiefly fashioned for men bargaining as equals as merchants or in the market place. It could not have been foreseen at that time that the Act would become perhaps the most important safeguard for the ordinary shopper in the normal, everyday running of a modern consumer economy. As the noble Lord has said, we are dealing chiefly with those sections of the Act which afford implied conditions and warranties for the goods purchased. The great flaw in the Act which has now declared itself to every eye is that the seller is quite free

409
to exclude himself from these provisions. More modern hire-purchase legislation has put this to rights, but in the field of cash purchases the old anomaly persists.
During the passage of the Trading Stamps Bill in your Lordships' House in 1964 I introduced an Amendment that the Sale of Goods Act protection should apply in the case of a transaction where stamps were exchanged for goods in accordance with the arrangements made by the stamp trading companies. In reply to my proposal, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who at that time was sitting on the other side of the House and was a Minister at the Board of Trade, made the following remark:
"I think it would probably be almost the most difficult point to legislate on in advance of the consideration of the Merchandise Marks Act and the Sale of Goods Act, which are at present being considered by the Government. I would doubt whether it would be possible for us to include anything of this character in the present Bill. But I congratulate my noble friend on drawing attention to this difficulty, which I am sure is one we shall have to solve in the long run."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 259, col. 418; 25/6/64]
Then the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, repeated his assurance that the problem raised in my Amendment would be
"considered in connection with the consideration of the Sale of Goods Act as a whole."
It is perhaps worth mentioning that those assurances were given almost exactly two years ago, and as a result of those assurances which I was given by the noble Lord when he was on the Government Front Bench, I withdrew my Amendment.
Again, we discussed the matter in a House of Lords debate on the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, which the present Government brought in and which I so bitterly regret they have dropped at the present time. In this Bill a member of my Council, the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, mentioned that Section 17 of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 allows the seller to contract out of an implied warranty.
We argued that in the new Bill this right to contract out should be prohibited. I should like to give the House one example of the kind of guarantee that does a disservice to shoppers, to amplify those cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton, in his speech.
410
It is given with Marconiphone radio and television sets. I would make it clear that this is no reflection on the products of this company, which are well known and are an established brand. This guarantee excludes the buyer's rights under the Sale of Goods Act, and indeed goes beyond this. The many exclusions of the supplier's liability are too numerous to mention here, but they include no liability for valves or cathode ray tubes, nor for labour costs for repairs; the dealer's delivery costs are not included, nor a variety of other matters. It ends with a rather extraordinary but perhaps minor provision which declares that the guarantee is effective only in this country and that if the article is taken out of the country the guarantee becomes void. One can only wonder if people who holiday abroad with their transistor sets realise this.
This particular guarantee is discussed in an article in the monthly periodical, which my Council produces, called Focus. This is the kind of guarantee which sweeps aside virtually all the buyers' natural rights in the small print, and at the same time describes itself as a "guarantee". It offers little in return, and what it does offer the company would be required to do in any case—and more besides—if the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act had not been carefully excluded. This is, indeed, sailing under false colours. It is clearly dishonest to call such a restrictive document a "guarantee". One wonders, indeed, whether it is not the manufacturer who is guaranteeing himself against any possible claim by the buyer.
It is unfortunate that the word "guarantee" has gained so much currency. I say this because this Bill will, of course, prohibit exclusion clauses from all contracts for the sale of goods, where goods are bought from someone who trades in those goods. The fact that these "guarantees" or "warranties" are so often handed out with articles has obscured in many people's minds that the law confers adequate rights on the buyer quite apart from any document he may receive from the seller. The retailer who stamps his bill on the back with exclusions of liability for the goods he sells will be wasting his time, just as much as the manufacturer who puts exclusion clauses in his guarantee, if this Bill becomes law.

411
There has also been confusion as to whether a manufacturer's guarantee can bind the buyer; and this is indeed a lawyer's playground, no doubt because the circumstances vary with each case. I am sure the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor will give us some enlightenment on these matters. What is perfectly clear is that this Bill will govern whoever is the seller in law, and the Bill ensures that the buyer will get his remedy from that seller. Guarantees, whoever may continue to provide them, will then be able only to add to and not detract from the buyer's rights, which will be safeguarded by this new Bill.
This is only one sector of the field in which guarantees flourish; yet there are millions of radio and television sets in use in this country. The noble Lord has indicated all kinds of things which are sold throughout the country on the same terms. The extent to which people are deprived of their natural rights in the market place by means of these documents adds up to a formidable abuse. I will give just one further example, from the survey which was conducted by my Council, to illustrate a further point. Here is a man who bought a new car and within a few weeks it showed a number of faults which went far beyond those minor defects which one has come to expect in a new car. He took the matter to his local chief inspector of weights and measures, who wrote to the manufacturers on his behalf pointing out that the car might well be found to be not of "merchantable quality". The makers replied that, as the chief inspector had read their warranty, he would appreciate that they were unable (and this is the word they used) to replace the vehicle. Although the makers had gone some way towards satisfying the customer in this case, there is clear proof that manufacturers do invoke their guarantees against customers, and it seems that their freedom from liability has become an accepted fact of life to them.
One hopes it is not too old-fashioned to suggest that when one pays many hundreds of pounds for an article the seller is under a duty to see that the object one is buying works. No amount of talk about the special difficulties involved in complicated machinery can obscure the fact that one has paid a
412
price for such a piece of complicated machinery and one expects it to work.
We know that the Law Commission is labouring over the reform of the whole of the Sale of Goods Act; Lord Cohen of Brighton's Bill is concerned only with Sections 13 and 14, which deal with implied conditions and warranties. It is fairly clear that the results of the Law Commission's work will not be translated into effect for many months, or even perhaps years; meanwhile the present harm done to consumers will not be stopped. There is no reason, in my opinion, why Lord Cohen of Brighton's limited Bill should not step in meantime to clear up the field of guarantees and standard contracts, even if this only runs for a year or two and is overridden by a completely reformed Act. Here I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I hope this Bill will apply to Scotland as well as England.
Consumers have suffered very much in a real sense from chronic delays in putting matters to right. We have been put off both by the previous Government and other Governments, and I hope noble Lords will agree that if these delays have caused a good deal of impatience it has been justified impatience, as I have tried to show in my speech. I hope very much that the Government will no longer willingly allow the present unsatisfactory state of affairs to continue indefinitely. It will be a real boon to consumers who buy goods for cash to feel that they have been given the same necessary protection as Parliament has given to those who acquire goods on hire-purchase. It is a rational and necessary step, and I urge on the Government, and on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to accept this small but very important Bill.
3.55 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, as the House knows, this Bill gives effect to the main recommendations of the Molony Committee, Chapters 11 and 12. I should like, if I may, first of all to offer my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton both for the way he introduced this Bill and for what he said. I do not know how wise it is to say that I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as he sits on the opposite Benches, when he said he was in

413
entire agreement with the principle, because this is my own feeling. I am well aware, as are the rest of your Lordships, that when one says one is in entire agreement with the principle, it usually means one has certain reservations. My noble friend knows I have a reservation and I will come to that at the end, if I may.
I expect the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Brighton, knows, going back to the year of the publication of the Molony Committee's Report which was 1962, that we had a debate on the Report in your Lordships' House on November 14, 1962. If I would not be thought disrespectful, I should like to shorten the name of the Report of the Committee quite simply to "Molony", to save tedious repetition. If I may go back to November, 1962, and to the section dealing with guarantees—and I am sure those of your Lordships who are not particularly interested in Molony must be very wearied by constant quotations from the Report—obviously Molony can he progressive or otherwise according to what he is advocating or to what we who are speaking think. In common with the rest of us, I think certain of his recommendations were progressive and I think certain were defeatist, and I think that on guarantees Molony was completely and utterly defeatist. That is why I welcome very much what my noble friend, Lord Cohen of Brighton, has said this afternoon. Concerning the actual words on guarantees and the harm these can do, I think Molony left nothing to be desired because he said—and I quote:
"Most important of all the manufacturer may make himself the sole judge of whether or not there is a defect and whether or not it was inherent. The effect is to deny the purchaser any enforceable claim to have a defect made good free of cost."
And the Report went on to say that the purchaser has spent good money for an article which has broken down for reasons which, if divulged at all, are shrouded in such a technical fog that he can neither understand nor verify them and which have arisen in the course of careful and reasonable use.
Obviously I am sure my noble friend and all your Lordships here to-day would take no exception to that description. What I took exception to in November, 1962, and take exception to to-day, and what I think my noble friend ought to
414
take exception to, is that Molony did nothing about it. Molony was utterly and completely defeatist. He did not give us any recommendation which would have dealt with this particular matter.
This present Bill is the Sale of Goods Bill 1966, and it comes almost exactly four years after the Report of the Molony Committee. If we go back further than four years, if we go back some seventy years, to 1893, to the Sale of Goods Act, I think it is very interesting that the Molony Report said that, with very limited exceptions, representations which had been made to them were to the effect that this Act of some seventy years ago provided the consumer with a fair and rational system of legal rights upon which to base a legitimate claim for redress. The limited exceptions to this will be found in paragraph 395 of the Report.
I think this was true. Unfortunately, what I believe was true also, and what I think it still true to-day, is that we consumers are too little aware of our legal rights. In addition to that, the difficulty, the cost and the uncertainty of enforcing them by court action deter us from making the attempt. I would also think that we are deterred from making the attempt whether or not the merchandise cost a lot of money. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will have anything to say on this when he comes to reply. I am sure he knows that we laymen have a feeling that to go to law can be quite expensive, whether or not we are right. If he can help us on that matter, I think every shopper in the country will be most grateful.
As my noble friend said, the Molony Committee received a great deal of evidence concerning exclusion clauses. Having read the Report fairly thoroughly, what I think is interesting is that all this evidence was critical. Nobody spoke up in favour of these exclusion clauses. As Lord Cohen of Brighton has indicated, this criticism was directed chiefly at the guarantee cards customarily issued by manufacturers of mechanical and electrical appliances of all types, and strong exception was taken to the practice adopted by many trades of excluding, or, as Lord Drumalbyn said, of purporting to exclude, the statutory conditions and warranties.

415
On this particular aspect the Molony Report was quite categorical, and at paragraph 396 stated:
"The common purpose of all these arrangements is to deny to the consumer his statutory rights in place thereof to entitle him to 'service' for a limited period or to the repair or replacement of defective parts, usually subject to the proviso that he pays the labour charges and the cost of carriage".
Molony was in no doubt as to the opinion on this particular matter.
This brings us to quite a difficult problem: how far can the consumer be protected? Indeed, how far should the consumer be protected? I suggest that a shopper should be able to rely on the shopkeeper or the seller to the extent that articles sold by hint are fit for purpose and are of reasonable quality. I say "reasonable quality" because, whilst I should not expect that the cheaper version should be of the same quality as the more expensive version, I should expect all versions to be fit for purpose. I should have thought there was no argument about that at all. Hence, I would suggest that any consumer anywhere, buying any goods at all, has an inalienable right to two things: merchantable quality and fitness for purpose. I think that that proposition would be acceptable to all sides of your Lordships' House.
Molony suggested that their recommendations on this particular aspect should be made to apply to the consumer trade only—it is recommendation 103 at page 307. But they had great difficulty in suggesting any suitable definition of "the consumer trade", as indeed the House will see, if your Lordships look at paragraphs 432 and 465 to 470. In Clause 1(1) of the Bill which we are discussing today this particular difficulty is, as it seems to me, circumvented by providing that the Bill shall not apply to any sale in which the buyer is a body corporate. I am not too knowledgeable on this particular aspect, but I believe that this could give rise to anomalies. One example cited to me, and on which my noble friend might care to comment at a later stage, or on which the noble and learned Lord might give us his opinion, is the case in which one shopkeeper happens to have formed his business into a company, and another carrying on an identical business still runs it in his individual capacity. It has been
416
suggested to me that apparently the former will have no claim against his suppliers although he will be liable to claims by his customers, but the latter will be able to claim against his suppliers. However, as we all know, anomalies can always be found, and it seems to me that this Bill, as put forward by my noble friend, probably provides a more satisfactory demarcation line than any suggested in the Molony Report.
As the House will know, at the time when the Molony Committee reported, in July, 1962, the Hire-Purchase Act 1938 prevented contracting-out of some, but not all, of the conditions and warranties covered by the present Bill. Since then, the Hire-Purchase Act 1964, the relevant provisions of which now appear as Sections 17 to 19 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, has made it impossible in the case of hire purchase to contract out of any of these conditions or warranties. Therefore, what my noble friend is trying to do with this particular Bill is to bring the law of sale into line with the law of hire purchase.
My main criticism of the Bill is that its provisions ought really to be left over until a general review of the Sale of Goods Act has been completed. In referring to the Sale of Goods Act 1893 at the beginning of my remarks, I said that it was noticeable that both the Molony Committee and those making representations to it had felt that it was a good Act. In fact, the Report goes on to say that this Act has given clarity and certainty to the law affecting transactions of everyday occurrence. But there is another side, as one would expect, when one realises that we have moved from 1893 to 1966. At paragraph 473 Molony states, referring to this Act of 1893:
"It has precluded the judicial development that has advanced most branches of the law since Victorian days. While the law has stood still new selling methods have been introduced and an infinity of new types of complex goods have appeared on the market. The modern retail purchaser may find himself in his perplexity and ignorance at grave disadvantage".
Hence, I suggest that the need for review is recognised.
I support what my noble friend is trying to do. What I should particularly like is for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, to say that the Government had it in his individual capacity. It has been

417
in a comprehensive way. If my noble friend succeeds in pushing the noble and learned Lord in that direction—if any such push is needed, and I hasten to say that I do not think it is—I shall be more delighted than I am now that he has introduced this Bill. I am glad to support the work that he is trying to do.
4.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to associate myself warmly with everything that has been said about these exclusion clauses, and I particularly find myself in close agreement with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. I entirely agree with what she said about the Molony Report on this problem. Indeed, I do not think it is any sort of secret that I wrote that part of Law Reform—Now in which the Molony Report on this particular point was heavily criticised—at least, I should like to think that I criticised it heavily. And when I listened to the speeches of my noble friend and of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, I found that they are strongly of the same view. But, having said that, I think it would be a great mistake if this Bill were to be passed at the present time. There is another Bill in relation to misrepresentations, which is in much the same field as this one; and I was much in agreement with what was said about it by two of the noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches who are members of the Appellate Tribunal of this House.
It seems to have been overlooked, in connection with these recent Bills, that only a year ago we set up the most important body ever to be set up, the Law Commission, a body which is specifically dealing with this very point. This was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in her speech. I do not agree with her that it would be a good thing to alter the law for two years in regard to this particular matter. That would create chaos. Contracts last for a long time, and it would he quite absurd, in my respectful submission, to alter the law in this way in respect of an enormously wide range of some of the most important contracts to the ordinary citizen. That would inevitably lead to chaos. How are you going to deal with contracts made this year which are to operate over five years if you alter the law for only two
418
years? Would it not be very much better to wait for the Law Commissions' views on this matter? I imagine that they have a brilliant Parliamentary draftsman working with them, and I expect that they will produce this in the form of a Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made some very pertinent criticisms of the Bill which is before the House to-day. Those criticisms ought to be examined very carefully before we alter the law on this important matter. I agree with everything that has been said about the importance of getting this matter into order as quickly as possible, but the really important thing is that it should be got into order and should not be dealt with, so to speak, in mouthfuls.
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been in communication with the Law Commission on this question: I should be interested to know their views about it. It may be that the noble and learned Lord, who has power under the Act to give them directions in respect of particular matters, would indicate to them that in his view, and in the view of your Lordships' House, this matter is of such urgent importance that they might give it A.1 priority and possibly produce a Bill within the next Parliamentary Session which can be gone into thoroughly, so that the whole matter may be effectively cleared up. I hope that something of that kind will be possible, because I have been in on this business, as a law reformer, as an officer of the Haldane Society, and as a member of the Society of Labour Lawyers, for many years. It would be most unfortunate if we were merely to nibble at this important problem in the way proposed by this Bill, when we can get it properly and effectively cleared up by the Law Commission, a body which was established only a year ago for the purpose of dealing with just this sort of problem.
4.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government welcome the opportunity afforded by my noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton's Bill to discuss the very important question of exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods. There is no doubt that, as the Molony Committee said, in the 12th Chapter of their final Report, exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of consumer goods

419
cause considerable dissatisfaction and sometimes result in the purchaser unwittingly giving up valuable rights under the Sale of Goods Act in exchange for a manufacturer's guarantee which in practice may not be of much assistance to him.
As we lawyers all know, from cases we have had to deal with, there are, unfortunately, manufacturers who deliver a beautiful-looking guarantee when the main, if not the sole, object is to take away from the purchaser of the goods rights which he would have had if he had not accepted the guarantee. The Government, therefore, are not out of sympathy with Lord Cohen of Brighton's aim. Consumer protection is a matter to which they have attached considerable importance, as is shown by the fact that last Session they introduced a very extensive Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill, which would have not only greatly enlarged the field covered by the existing merchandise marks legislation, but also introduced some completely new protections for the consumer—for example, extension of the legislation to cover services, and new powers to require the compulsory labelling of goods. This extension was recommended by the Molony Committee, who thought that it should be given priority over the sale of goods. They carefully considered the question of priority as to which ought to be dealt with first, trade descriptions or sale of goods, and they recommended that trade descriptions should be dealt with first. The Government have accepted that advice and intend to introduce a Bill dealing with trade descriptions, like the one which was before the House when the last Parliament was dissolved.
If I may respectfully say so, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, was perhaps a little hard in saying that the Bill had been dropped. It was being strenuously pursued in this House when there came a General Election. The Government have not dropped the Bill at all; they are certainly pursuing it. The exact date for its introduction must, of course, depend on the state of the Parliamentary programme. But however sympathetic they may be to the object of the Bill, they take the same view as the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and the noble Lord,
420
Lord Chorley: that having properly and advantageously brought out into the open the serious questions arising from exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods, it would be better if my noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton did not attempt to put his Bill on the Statute Book at this stage.
As has already been pointed out by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whose knowledge and experience in this field are so extensive, the whole question of exclusion clauses covers a much wider field than the sale of goods, and it is important that, so far as possible, any restrictive legislation should follow uniform and consistent principles. It is a field in which piecemeal legislation should be kept to a minimum, and with the agreement of Ministers concerned the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have now set up a Joint Working Party whose terms of reference are as follows:
"To consider what restraint, if any, should be imposed on the freedom to rely upon contractual conditions exempting from, or restricting, liability for negligence or any other liability which would otherwise be incurred, having regard in particular to the protection of consumers of goods or users of services".
The subject of my noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton's Bill falls fairly and squarely within the terms of reference of the Law Commission's Working Party.
When the noble Lord first informed the Ministers that he had in mind to introduce this Bill the Law Commissioners were consulted about its possible repercussions on their operations, and both law Commissions have said that it would be embarrassing to them if their possible conclusions should be prejudiced by legislation on a narrow front. Therefore, the Government hope that, having obtained a Second Reading for the Bill, my noble friend will think it right not to pursue it further. He is, if I may say so, attempting to implement one part of the Molony Committee's recommendations on the sale of goods, but what his Bill is doing is to implement one part without touching the recommendations which went to the positive obligations arising out of a contract of sale. For example, it does not remove the limitation on the circumstances in which merchantability is implied. If Molony is to be implemented, these should be tackled before, or at least at

421
the same time as, the recommendations dealing with the exclusion of liability.
Apart from these considerations of principle, there are a number of respects in which the noble Lord's Bill could not, on its merits, be commended to the House. The first has already been adverted to by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I think by another Member of your Lordships' House—namely, that the Molony recommendations, as appears from paragraph 435, were aimed at consumer sales. The Molony Committee suggested, in paragraph 437, that in this respect the law should be the same for consumer sales as it is for hire-purchase contracts, and that is what my noble friend's Bill seeks to do. But it does so not only for consumer sales but for all sales below £2,000, and whereas £2,000 may be a rough and ready limit so far as consumer hire-purchase contracts are concerned, to distinguish them from commercial ones, it is on the face of it a much less suitable criterion for the sale of goods.
There must be a great many commercial sales of goods made between traders for articles worth very much less than £2,000. Nor would it altogether meet the case if the £2,000 limit were simply lowered, because then one would cut out a great many genuine consumer sales, and, after all, the middle range of motor vehicles. There is also, of course, the question of the body corporate, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, referred. In fact, the problem of finding a satisfactory definition of "consumer sales" is difficult and will need a great deal of consideration.
Then, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out, the Bill does not have any application to Scotland. The Molony Committee, in paragraph 438, recommended that no distinction should be made between the law of Scotland and the law of England in this respect. The Sale of Goods Act is, of course, an Act which applies to Scotland, but the Bill amends only the law of England and its application to Scotland would require much further consideration.
Thirdly, there are, perhaps, lesser points on which the Bill departs from the Molony recommendations. For example, the Molony Committee, in paragraph 453,
422
recommended that in certain conditions contracting out should be freely permissible where the sale in question is a sale by auction. This recommendation may require further examination, but the Bill makes no special provision for auctions.
Fourthly, Clause 3 of the Bill does not fully reproduce the Molony recommendations concerning contracting out of the implied condition of the merchantability of second-hand goods. As appears from paragraph 446 of the Report, the Molony Committee took into account the fact that consumer sales of second-hand goods are not usually in writing; yet under Clause 3 the right to exclude liability for a breach of this condition is confined to contracts in writing.
In a sense, some of these are, perhaps, Committee points, but as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, this is a very complex field and I think that these points are sufficient to show that, if the Government thought that the moment was opportune to legislate in this restricted field, this Bill would have to be radically amended. However, quite apart from any consideration of detail, the Government's opinion is that their proper course would be to show their sympathy with my noble friend's objects by recommending to the House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, but at the same time to advise my noble friend not to proceed further with the Bill. In substance, of course, this advice is the same as the two principal grounds already given by the noble Baroness. Lady Burton of Coventry, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—namely, in the first place, that it is not desirable, if it can be avoided, to prejudice the operations of the Law Commission's Working Party; and, in the second place, that when the Molony recommendations on the Sale of Goods Act are implemented, they should all be dealt with at the same time.
Might I add just two other points? I know that my noble friend Lord Cohen of Brighton is nothing if not a realistic man, and I would venture to remind him that there are now, I think, 28 Private Members' Bills already in the queue in another place, of which not more than about five, I suppose, can possibly reach the Statute Book this Session. It would, of course, he possible—and a course which might commend itself greatly to some Members

423
of your Lordship's House—for the Government to devote this Session entirely to Private Members' Bills, but I am afraid that that is not a course which any Government are likely to take.
Secondly, may I say that I think the composition of the Law Commission's Working Party shows how many interests have to be considered, and what practical matters have to be taken into account. The joint chairmen will be Lord Kil brandon, who is the chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, and Mr. Andrew Martin of the English Law Commission, and there are included representatives of the Scottish Office, the Confederation of British Industry, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, the Board of Trade, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Treasury Procurement Policy Committee, the Bar Council and the Law Society, and also I am very glad to say, Mr. Gordon Borrie of the Consumer Council and Mrs. Beryl Diamond of the Consumer Council.
May I say, in conclusion, how much the Government appreciate, and we all appreciate, the work which for so long has been done in this field by the Consumer Council? Due to their efforts, I think, large numbers of reputable manufacturers have already given up the kind of clause to which we so much object, and I hope that the discussion which has taken place in your Lordships' House this day may contribute to that end.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord resumes his seat on the Woolsack, may I say that I am not at all clear what happens if you contract out of a guarantee, or attempt to contract out of it. I listened very carefully to try to get some elucidation of that point. But if you can merely contract out of one of these so-called guarantees, will this not to some extent solve the problem?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, normally, as for example in the motor trade, the guarantee does not form any part of the contract. You sign a contract with the dealer and then the manufacturer sends you the guarantee. The thing to do is to send it back.
4.27 p.m.
LORD COHEN OF BRIGHTON: My Lords, may I just add to that reply, that
424
there are certain motor manufacturers who will not supply your car unless you accept the guarantee, which is most unfortunate?
I want to thank your Lordships, and particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for the kindly and courteous way in which you have dealt with this matter this afternoon. Obviously, I am not a lawyer, nor am I particularly skilled in the legal profession, but it seems quite clear to me that, basically, your Lordships agree with the principle of the Bill The question is: is it wise to press for the Bill to be proceeded with now, or shall we accept the Second Reading on the understanding—and I hope it is on the understanding—that as soon as possible we shall have this comprehensive legislation?
As your Lordships know, I have had assistance and a great deal of help from the Consumer Council, and what I should like to do this afternoon, if your Lordships agree, is to accept the position and the Second Reading, and then have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Consumer Council, who, as the noble and learned Lord has said, have two members on the Working Party which is going to deal with this matter.
There are a number of points with which I should like to deal, and a number of arguments which have been put forward and which I believe I could blow sky-high. But that would be just nonsense and would get us nowhere, and, obviously, if the Bill were to go forward, most of the matters could be dealt with by Amendments in Committee. But if we are quite sure that this evil—and I think it is an evil—and the general problem of consumer protection are really going to be tackled despite the very heavy programme of legislation which, as we all know, faces the Government—and, after all, this was first mooted in 1938 when Ellen Wilkinson had a go at it—and if we can be assured that what we have heard this afternoon will really light a spark that will get the thing going, so that this matter of consumer protection can be dealt with at a reasonably early date, then I feel that this debate will have been of great value.
I should therefore like to accept the courteous suggestion of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Mind

425
you, I felt very nervous indeed when I knew that I was coming up against the noble and learned Lord, because I had heard of his prowess in this House before and have listened to Members being very kindly and very generously but very efficiently dealt with, and I knew that I should be the loser in any fight with him. Nevertheless, I think we have voiced the need for the matter to be dealt with, and I hope that the debate will have the effect of setting the Government on the road towards dealing with this and the other points concerning consumer protection. Therefore, my Lords, I suggest, if your Lordships agree, that we give this Bill a Second Reading, and then I shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Consumer Council.
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MALAWI REPUBLIC BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Schedule 2 [Preliminary investigation and disciplinary committees]:
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, in paragraph 2(1), to leave out "eight" and insert "eleven". The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this first Amendment I should like to speak to both Amendments that appear on the Order Paper in my name. The effect of the first Amendment is to increase the size of the disciplinary committee from a chairman and eight other members to
426
a chairman and eleven other members. The second increases from four to six the least number of members of the committee who shall be elected members of the Council.
I have introduced these Amendments as the result of representations from the Council of the Royal College in the light of recommendations made by its Disciplinary and Parliamentary Committees. The point is simply that experience has shown that it is very difficult at short notice to muster a quorum of five from a membership of nine. It is felt that, in order to avoid any possible charge of dilatoriness in hearing charges or applications, it should be made easier to gather together readily the necessary number of members. This seems to be a sensible arrangement to adopt, and I hope noble Lords will agree that these Amendments should be accepted. I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("eight") and insert ("eleven").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, these appear to us to be very sensible Amendments. We are very glad to agree to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, leave out ("four") and insert ("six").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, there are just a few words that I should like to say upon it. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said on Second Reading, this Bill is quite an old friend now. I shall be almost sorry to see the end of it; but it has been with us for rather a long time now, and it is perhaps time for it to go to another place. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also said on Second Reading that he hoped we could improve the Bill still further, and I think he had particularly in mind a certain change in the constitution of the Council of the Royal College. I must confess that at one time I had some doubts whether the Bill would be improved in the way the noble

427
Lord wished. However, the Minister was impressed by the arguments put before him, and we are all now agreed that there should be 24 elected members on the Council. We have also negotiated the hurdles whereby we achieve this change. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on his persistence and determination, and to thank him very much for his helpful approach to this matter.
I am afraid I have disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Baler no, in not being able to go along with him by including fish in the definition of "animals". But I am sure that your Lordships learnt a good deal more about this subject—as I did—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baler no, for his instructive comments on this question.
In our discussions, references have been made to Schedule 3. I am glad that noble Lords have not pressed us to revise this Schedule before the Bill has completed its processes. I am sure your Lordships are right on this. There are a number of points, some of which have been drawn to my attention by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who is very interested in this particular Schedule, but these points must be carefully considered and discussed with all those concerned. It is better that we should allow time for a thoroughly revised Schedule to be produced rather than to hurry consideration of the issues involved and produce a half-baked effort that would not be reconsidered for some time. Noble Lords have shown in their discussions that the matters dealt with in Schedule 3 are important, and I am glad that your Lordships accept that we should wait to see the draft of an order amending the Schedule as provided in Clause 19 of the Bill.
I think this Bill as it now emerges in the light of our discussions—and we have kept up the improvement work even to-day—will be a most useful piece of legislation. It is right that the veterinary profession should be properly controlled and administered, and it is appropriate from time to time to bring these arrangements up-to-date. The veterinary profession today is recognised as having a high professional status. As public con-
428
cern about the health and welfare of animals has grown, whether they be domestic pets or farm animals, the demand for the services of the veterinary surgeon has expanded, and it is likely to continue to do so. The veterinary surgeon (or the "vet", as most of us think of him) has thus come to play an increasingly important part in the life of the community. As the owners of various domestic pets, we look to him to cure their ailments. As farmers, we look to him to advise us about the health and wellbeing of our farm animals. This has a vital contribution to make to the increased productivity of the agricultural industry. Indeed, ultimately, through his concern for the sources of much of our food supplies, the veterinary surgeon safeguards the health of us all.
Your Lordships will feel, I am sure, that on this little Bill we have spent our time to good effect and have made our contribution to the efficient working of the veterinary profession. I trust that the Royal College and its members will take it from there—at any rate, after the other House has approved our handiwork. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Champion.)
4.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we come to the end of the proceedings on this Bill which have stretched over quite a considerable time. I think it is right to say that it is only occasionally that we get an opportunity to revise the arrangements governing our professions, and that whenever we do so it is, as the noble Lord has said, a matter of importance to the whole community. If I may say so, the noble Lord made a speech of great felicity in moving "That the Bill do now pass", and I should like to associate myself with every word he said. The service that we have been able to render in handling the Bill illustrates the particular merit of this House in being able to deal with Bills of this description with a certain amount of leisure, and without any Party political bias or background.
I believe we have improved the Bill. We have certainly brought it into line with what the majority of veterinary surgeons seem to want. I think we shall

429
make it easier to obtain the kind of control that the public want to see maintained in this profession, and I think this House has in every way marked the respect in which it holds the veterinary profession and all that it does. As the Bill now goes to another place, I think we can quite literally wish it a very fair wind, because I think that the wind which we have generated here should carry the Bill rapidly through another place without much further trouble. I was a little sorry that it was not possible to deal with the Third Schedule, because it is always nice to finish the job at one time. However, I understand the difficulties in this case, and we look forward to the Order coming before this House in due course. In conclusion, I should like to thank the noble Lord personally for his patience and help in dealing with the Bill. I can only say that it has been a pleasure to handle it from this side of the House, and I am sure he will say the same from his side.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to express from these Benches our complete association with the passing of this Bill, and to express our thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who have been so thorough in their examination of it. I have not taken a great part in it myself, but I have listened to a great many speeches from noble Lords. I think we owe them a debt of gratitude. In my opinion, this is the sort of Bill that this House is particularly good at. We have a wide range of expertise here, and we have also the leisure—the Parliamentary, not the private leisure—to do it justice. I wish the Bill well in its progress through the other place, and I hope that it will not be delayed there unduly.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill passed accordingly.

BECHUANALAND: FOOD SHORTAGE AND WATER SUPPLY
4.45 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to deal with the shortage of food, crops and cattle as the result of drought in some parts of Bechuanaland and whether and when it is intended to provide an adequate water supply. The
430
noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I owe my interest in Bechuanaland primarily to my wife, who returned four days ago from a long stay (by no means her first) in a Bechuanaland village—a town, we should call it, a tribal capital called Mochudi. She has seen the effects of drought, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that she has done more than I should have ever expected one person could do to help the tribe in this matter and in other matters with which we are not concerned to-day, notably education.
The information I have had from her has been vivid and painful in detail, but for present purposes I can summarise the position from official reports. I quote from page 8 of Bechuanaland, 1965:
"1965 was the fourth drought year in succession for Bechuanaland and there was a virtually complete crop failure throughout the territory. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 head of cattle died of starvation. Farmers were handicapped by the fact that their oxen were in very weak condition as a result of previous seasons' droughts, and in many cases they were unable to take advantage of the early rains for ploughing. Large-scale importations of maize and sorghum were necessary, and from the beginning of 1965 emergency measures had to be taken to alleviate what threatened to become a serious famine."
On page 13 of the same report there is reference to "Tragedy for Bechuanaland", which refers to
"…the drought, the culmination of four, and in some areas, five, poor rainfall seasons. From the end of 1962 to the end of 1955, is was estimated that 400,000 cattle (almost one-third of the national herd) had died; 105,000 people were in receipt of famine relief rations, and the loss of crops virtually complete."
The population of Bechuanaland, when last counted in 1964, was a little under 550,000. So by the end of 1965 about one person in five was dependent on the emergency feeding programme. What is sinister is that with additional help this year more than half the population—I repeat, more than half the population—will be dependent on emergency food by mid-1967.
The Bechuanas I have met are cheerful, plucky, intelligent, hard-working people, and very friendly to this country. Bechuanaland is poor, and even an occasional tribal feast in good times falls far short of a City banquet. Emergency

431
rations, however, are neither a feast nor a banquet: they are given only to families where no one is earning, and as from July 1 a condition will be that the family—or such of them as can—work on approved rural development projects. That ration per head is 10 ounces of maize and one ounce of vegetable oil in a day. The current Economist from which I get that information comments that over the months to mid-1967 that will be a monotonous diet. My Lords, it is uncommonly short shrif—10 ounces of maize and one ounce of vegetable oil; that is all.
Now a word about the cattle. This is, of course, a cattle-raising country: beasts are their main wealth, their main product, their main export. In 1965, animal products accounted for 85 per cent. of the exports; labour abroad, largely in the South African mines, for 10 per cent. In such a country, with few other resources, to lose one-third of the total head of cattle is a national disaster, not only in its immediate results but also in the long-term consequences, unless the loss can be made good.
My Lords, there you have a summary of the background at the end of last year. I now turn to this year. On January 8th the most conspicuous headline in The Times read:
"Mr. Wilson organises drought relief",
and under it:
"Canada and Australia answer emergency appeals."
And the paper's political correspondent wrote as follows:
"A famine relief operation to get grain supplies to the drought-hit countries of Central Africa—Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Zambia—was begun yesterday by the British Government in collaboration with the Governments of Australia and Canada, the two great grain producing countries of the Commonwealth. Mr. Wilson sees it as a humanitarian operation to prevent death by starvation in an area which may well become a disaster zone if the drought continues…"
The Prime Minister, it appears, had telephoned Sir Robert Menzies and Mr. Lester Pearson
"who both agreed that a tripartite emergency scheme should be started at once, the object being to forestall a serious disaster."
432
The first action was to call for reports from the areas affected as to what was required, and it was expected that the first requests would be for maize and fodder for livestock. The Times leader on this was headed, "To the Rescue".
"There can be no doubt of the need,"
said the writer. Reports of distress had been multiplying. This was particularly true of Bechuanaland, where the emergency feeding programme supplied by World Food Programme had been in operation for the past six months. And the leader writer, after mentioning the figures I have already given to your Lordships, including the estimate that more than half the population of Bechuanaland would soon be requiring assistance, pointed out the need to ensure that this scheme tied in with the help already being given to Bechuanaland.
Unfortunately, my Lords, for at least three reasons the tripartite emergency scheme, as such, never got under way. In the first place, Australia and Canada met with transport and other difficulties, and could not do all that was expected. Secondly, the scheme was to include Rhodesia. Sanctions were on at the time, and co-operation with the régime proved impracticable. Thirdly, almost immediately there were heavy rains in some parts of the affected areas; in the Mashonaland part of Rhodesia, for instance, but not in Matabeleland; in Eastern South Africa but not in and around Johannesburg, where severe restrictions on the use of water came into force on January 14. The rains provided more than an excuse for not proceeding with the scheme: they gave real help, but not everywhere.
Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, one might think that the announcement of the scheme was somewhat overconfident, and one remembers that it was bound to reach, in Bechuanaland at any rate, a number of men in desperate difficulties and to appear to them as a promise of more help. But the reasons which hindered the performance of the tripartite agreement were not of the Prime Minister's making, and in fact there was a substantial increase in the help given. In the circumstances, however, Bechuanaland has, I suggest, a rather special claim to help. Bechuanaland was, after all, in the words of the Guardian newspaper at the time, "the hardest hit

433
area in Africa". I am not altogether surprised to read in an OXFAM advertisement on January 12:
"This famine has waited nine months for a headline."
In Bechuanaland the rains were little help; they were hard, but short. The Limpopo filled up. There were floods and burst dams. Within a short time the water had gone towards the Indian Ocean, with little or no permanent improvement of conditions; indeed, the parched ground shed the water the more readily.
Now I turn to what has been done and what remains to be done. I begin with emergency relief by way of food for human beings. Figures have been given from time to time, in answer to Questions in the Commons, but they are not always easy to follow. I will give the latest figures I have from an official Bechuanaland facts sheet published on May 1, 1966. My noble friend has a copy, and he will find them in the middle of the first column of page 5, converting Rands into a rough equivalent in pounds sterling. The figures are as follows:
"The world food programme of United Nations had donated famine relief foodstuffs valued at Rs.1,657,000—say £800,000—to Bechuanaland by the 31st March, 1966. United Kingdom emergency aid for famine relief amounted to Rs.552,000—say—£280,000 in 1965. Contributions from OXFAM, War on Want, the World Council of Churches, etc. totalled Rs.159,016—say, £80,000—by the 31st March, 1966."
It is not clear to what periods these figures relate, but apparently they are for a year at least.
The total of between £1 million and £1¼ million may seem a substantial sum, but if it is to be distributed among 300,000 recipients it will amount to only £4 per head, or slightly over 2½d. a day. I hope that someone is going to be a bit more generous. If you fed a city tycoon, a prosperous peer, or even a Treasury knight, on that sum for months on end, he would get very cross. The questions I want to ask my noble friend are: how much was contributed during the financial year 1965–66 or, if he prefers it, the calendar year 1965, respectively by the World Food Programme, by Her Majesty's Government and by other agencies, towards the relief of famine—human food in an emergency? What increases have been made, or will be made, as the result of what happened in
434
January, the realisation of the urgency and extent of the need in Bechuanaland? What will be the emergency ration for this year and next?
My Lords, there have been other contributions, smaller ones, by way of Colonial Development and Welfare grants and an Exchequer loan of £150,000 for projects associated with famine relief. But there are two outstanding matters about which I want to ask before I sit down. The first is the national cattle herd. Obviously, nothing could be more important to a cattle-raising country, and the folk in these villages cannot be expected to make good their capital losses by work in the South African mines or wait for some future industrialisation or development. This is an urgent need. How much has been contributed by way of cattle fodder, the requirement stressed in January? Even more important, how soon, by what means, and at what cost, is it proposed to restore the herd to its former numbers?
Before I leave the question of cattle I should like to mention shortly one matter. Pages 55 and 56 of Bechuanaland 1965 describe the growth of co-operative organisation and development since it began in 1964. This has had the active support and encouragement of the Co-operative Movement here as well as of OXFAM and "Freedom from Hunger". The Report refers not only to some progress made under very difficult conditions, but also to future plans for cattle marketing and for the creation of ranches where the condition of livestock can be improved before sale. Mr. Trevor Bottomley has, I am sure my noble friend will agree, rendered invaluable service in all this, as no doubt have others of whom I do not happen to have heard. I hope that every encouragement will be given by the Governments concerned to this most promising movement.
Lastly, the most important point of all. All this trouble is the result of drought. There is water in Bechuanaland—rivers, a large swamp, surface water can be held in dams, boreholes can be, and constantly are, made. What is being done to survey the water resources and find out how best to secure a proper and adequate water supply? To do that will mean the end of much human misery and loss—the starving children who appear in OXFAM advertisements. In Mochudi the

435
children have been fed by private gifts or by the community centre for nearly a year. It will mean, too, to the Treasury of this country and the equivalent to that in poor Bechuanaland, the saving of substantial annual contributions which otherwise appear certain to continue and likely to increase. This will be, in substance, famine relief in the right form. The call for it is the call of humanity, and ought not to be hindered by the coming of independence in Bechuanaland.
In this connection it is hard to find out what is going on. Has there been any recent and up-to-date survey of water resources and their prospective use? The Report, Bechuanaland 1964, mentions that the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund scheme for hydrological research into underground water resources in Bechuanaland was approved in January, 1964, but that the scientific assistant required for the work had only recently been recruited and staff shortages had not yet allowed a geologist to be assigned to this work full time. Bechuanaland 1965 is so occupied with the consequences of drought that it contains little or nothing about the water supply. Can my noble friend tell us what is being done and when, if ever, it is proposed to provide adequate water supplies? On May 5, 1966, an answer in the other place indicated a capital contribution in the financial year 1966–67 of £1,100,000 on water supply work. All I can say about that is that it must be no more than a beginning.
I have tried to be concise. This is a question of human suffering. I am here with a begging bowl, held out to the Government, to anybody who will contribute, whoever they are. And when they make those contributions they may have succeeded in saving a rather gallant people from disappearance, in saving a number of human lives, in saving a number of young children from starvation, which we find it difficult to contemplate in our more prosperous condition. Those who can answer that appeal, whether they are Governments or the private agencies who have already done so much, will be doing something which is right by any standards. There is no Party politics in this. There is only a begging bowl.
5.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure that we are all most
436
grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for asking this Question. Having heard his moving speech, I feel that all your Lordships will want to join together in expressing the deepest sympathy with Bechuanaland in her present plight, a plight which, by any reckoning, must be serious. I also welcome the Question because I hope that it will give an opportunity to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick to elucidate what to me has certainly been a somewhat confusing situation.
The Colonial Office hand-out of December 29 last year said it was possible that three-quarters of the population of Bechuanaland would be on famine relief by the month of July this year—that is to say, in a few weeks' time. On January 8 the whole area was declared to be a possible disaster area. Then, in the blaze of publicity which the noble Lord has described, the Prime Minister telephoned to the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada in order to organise a tripartite emergency relief scheme. A month or so later, in February, the Prime Minister stated in another place that we were then feeding, as the noble Lord has told the House, 105,000 out of a total population of 540,000. Incidentally, the population has probably increased to nearly 600,000 by now—at any rate, I imagine that it is increasing, although the increase is not likely to be accelerated by the kind of conditions they are facing at the moment. At all events, I understand that more than half of the population is now already on famine relief. This is rather a different figure from that given by the Minister.
From an answer given by the Colonial Secretary on May 5, 1966, it was made clear that no assistance had been received by Bechuanaland directly from any countries other than the United Kingdom. Again the Minister quoted the figure of 105,000 as the number of people to whom supplies have been provided. He added, however, that approval had recently been given for further supplies for up to 360,000 people for the twelve months beginning July 6 of this year.
I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, if he could give some estimate of the true figures, because some of these are a little confusing, and of what exactly the drought situation is at

437
present. I would also ask what has become of the Prime Minister's tripartite scheme. It was announced in January, but nothing seems to have become of it. Was this because the drought in Central Africa proved to be less serious, at least temporarily, than anticipated? Or did we not go ahead with the scheme because Australia and Canada withdrew? Or was it because of the Rhodesian crisis? Like the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, I should be grateful for further information, for this scheme, I regret to say, has been described, rightly or wrongly, as one of the greatest non-events organised by the Prime Minister since he took office. Was all that dramatic telephoning done before the Prime Minister made sure of his facts? If so, his action would seem to be most unfortunate and misleading, to say the least. I should like to know exactly what happened.
I should also like to know this. Have we given enough aid to Bechuanaland or have we not? On May 5 of this year, the amount of aid in 1965–66 was stated to be £458,000. The noble Lord mentioned that figure. In 1966–67—this year—it is to be £1,100,000, in addition to a grant of £245,000 and the Exchequer loan of £150,000. I understand that the World Food Organisation, War on Want and the Churches have also made substantial contributions. This obviously represents a considerable effort. But is it enough? I gather from what the noble Lord has said that he does not think it is.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for having raised this matter. I find various points confusing, and I think we should all give serious consideration to this subject, in view of the fact that Bechuanaland is to become an independent Republic in the name of Botswana later this year. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, at the conference the other day described Bechuanaland as being a model of orderly constitutional progress. I think they deserve our help and sympathy to the maximum. I look forward to the explanations of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, not only in regard to the somewhat confusing figures, but also as to the death of so many cattle, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and the supply of water; as to what is in fact being done there, and in regard to
438
the proposed co-operative marketing movement. We were all very moved to hear what an appallingly low ration exists in the country. I can only conclude by repeating our deep sympathy and our hope that the Government will be able to assist further.
5.11 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for raising this subject; and perhaps it is as well that it has been raised this week, so that we can get it out of the way, so to speak, before the Constitution Bill next week. I should like to say just a few words on the wider aspect of this problem. I have been associated with it for many years, both when I was in the office which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, now occupies with such skill and devotion, and also for six years when I was a director of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, from which I was peremptorily dismissed by Mrs. Barbara Castle just after she came into office. In spite of that, my heart is still very much with the work in Bechuanaland, and I have a great interest in it.
This question of water supply, as noble Lords used to the area will know, has always been a problem in that part of Africa. One of the reasons is the chancy rainfall, and a second is that the calcrete layer which holds the water beneath the earth is rather too low for ordinary grass (this, unfortunately, was one of the causes of the trouble with the groundnuts scheme). When people fly over Africa they see this enormous expanse of apparent grassland; they think how wonderful this is, and how many thousands of head of cattle it would sustain. But not a bit of it. This is scrub, and it is there because it has a very long root which can get down to the calcrete layer. When that scrub is pulled off and grass is sown, the grass tends to die, because it cannot get down through the calcrete layer to the water, with the result that, having taken away the scrub (and this is what happened with the groundnuts scheme), you produce a desert. The sun beats down, there is no shade, and the result is something like a concrete runway. I visited the groundnuts scheme at the time, and this is what happened.
The people in Bechuanaland, like everybody else in that part of Africa, are

439
particularly subject to this problem, and to the problem of drought. The year 1965 was, I believe, the worst year for drought in Southern Africa in this century. This came, unhappily, at the end of a series of drought years, and that is why we have there this appalling situation with regard to famine and the lack of water for cattle. And there is a famine, of course, because of the lack of water for cattle, which are, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has rightly said, the main source of revenue for Bechuanaland.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation looked some years ago at this whole problem in Bechuanaland and said: "We must tackle this in a big way, and tackle it from the point of view of the supply of cattle. "Up to that time, the cattle had been exported principally to South Africa, mainly to the Rand and Johannesburg, but also to other parts of South Africa. The South African dealers and butchers would come to Bechuanaland and buy cattle on the hoof, and the cattle would be taken down by rail, or otherwise, to South Africa. As can be imagined, this was a marvellous opportunity for the South African dealers and butchers, because there was practically no other form of outlet for the cattle. It was a monopoly market for them.
We decided that what we needed was another outlet for this cattle. In a drought year, such as 1965, previously hundreds of thousands of the cattle died, because they could not get down on the hoof to the railhead; and they were so emaciated, due to lack of water, that they died even on the rail. So we built an abattoir in Bechuanaland where the cattle could be killed on the spot, and they did not have the long journey to Rhodesia or South Africa.
In 1954, when the building of an abattoir was started, the off-take of cattle was 60,000 head and in 1965 the kill rose to 142,736 head of cattle. So in that time we had taken off from Bechuanaland a large proportion of the cattle export. The cattle owner was paid for his cattle on the spot, and they went into the abattoir and were killed. Some of the meat went as car case to Rhodesia or to South Africa. But we also established a cannery in co-operation
440
with an expert in this field in Johannesburg; and that meat then went, and still goes, to a number of European countries, including our own, canned. This was another extremely good outlet for Bechuanaland, and that is the sort of thing that has been happening.
This was a highly successful project and, having made it a highly successful project, the Commonwealth Development Corporation have now handed it over, on payment, of course, to the Bechuanaland Meat Commission, a statutory Commission established by the Government in Bechuanaland. So at this moment, when we are about to cease to have any further responsibility for Bechuanaland, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we have produced, through the Commonwealth Development Corporation, a public corporation, a first-class operation, in this sense, which will go to the benefit of the people in Bechuanaland; not merely to the farmers, but also to the public as a whole, because they will get the benefit of the substantial revenues that come from the abattoir and the cannery.
My Lords, this is the sort of action, I think, illustrated in Bechuanaland, which is needed in so many of these undeveloped territories like Bechuanaland. Here was a test case. Bechuanaland was a country dependent upon cattle, and the cattle were constantly being prejudiced by lack of water. How could we help them? It is no good putting down steelworks or anything of that kind. It is nonsense to think that the country can be developed in that way. It is necessary to look at the problem to see how it can best be solved with the means at hand, by technical assistance and money from this country. Successive Governments—for the Corporation is not dependent on a single Government—have sustained the Commonwealth Development Corporation; Parliament has sustained it; and this House, in particular, has taken great interest in the Corporation, and I think we can be proud of the work that the Corporation has done in Bechuanaland.
So far as the people are concerned, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. I believe that we should help them in every way we can. It is no fault of theirs that they are in this position. They have not spent large sums of money, as so many of these countries

441
have, on Odeon-type embassies, Cadillacs for Ambassadors, and that sort of nonsense. Every penny that has gone to the country has been spent there on projects for the benefit of the country, and I would support to the full the plea that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has so eloquently made for our help to these people in Bechuanaland.
5.21 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I take this opportunity of intervening briefly in this debate in order to underline what my noble friend Lord Mitchison has said concerning the desperate need of the people of Bechuanaland. My personal activities over the past few months have given me an opportunity of learning something of that need. However, I wish particularly to refer to a comment which my noble friend made concerning the development of co-operatives in that country, which serves to indicate their anxiety and their willingness to make their own personal contribution towards the development of the country.
It is always better, I think, in terms of helping a nation or a group of persons, or an individual person, if they are willing and capable of helping themselves, and I think that credit is due to OXFAM and to the British Co-operative movement for certain developments which have taken place within recent months, whereby, without a great deal of publicity, there has been a recognition of the contribution that could be made to the people of Bechuanaland by the development of co-operatives. OXFAM is associated in the minds of so many people with charitable hand-outs, but it is using a large proportion of its funds in order to make a practical contribution in assisting self-help in that country by the building of co-operative institutions; and, in turn, the British Co-operative movement has pledged itself to raising immediately a substantial sum of money, no less than £30,000, which from now on will be a continuing sum. I think that in itself is something which indicates not only the generosity of an organisation but a recognition of the close identity of their people with ours.
I think it is worth while to place on record the contribution which has been made by those two organisations, and I mention it on this occasion only because I think it might serve as some further
442
inducement as far as the British Government are concerned in giving additional aid to these worthy people.
5.23 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has said, we were greatly moved by the way in which my noble friend Lord Mitchison put his Question and, on all sides of the House, we followed what he said with interest and, I hope and believe, with great understanding. He made reference to the fact that some of his information had been derived from reports which had been given to him by Lady Mitchison, and at the outset I should like to offer my humble but deeply sincere admiration for the service which she has rendered to the people of Bechuanaland, among whom she spends, as I believe, some time each year. My noble friend mentioned the tribe with which she was staying. I gather she is now, officially or unofficially, the godmother of that tribe and she puts at their disposal qualities of energy and enthusiasm which I think must be quite unique. It is possible—in fact I know it to be true—that those same qualities of energy and enthusiasm sometimes bring her into mild collision with the central authorities in Bechuanaland. But however sharp the spur which she applies, I am sure the overwhelming feeling towards her is one of affection.
Having said that, I also want to make clear that in anything I say in reply to what has been said by noble Lords on both sides of the House, I trust they will not detect any note of complacency, because I know there is real need in that part of God's earth and there is greater need there, as my noble friend has said, than a good many people in this country or elsewhere sometimes realise. However, it must not be thought that nothing has been done or is being done, and I propose to set out some of the facts which may in part answer the pleas made by my noble friend.
I think it would not be useful for me to say much more about the extent of the need after the description which he gave. It has been said (and I give these brief facts) that following about five years of below average season's rainfall there was a total failure of the rains in the early part of 1965, and this drought precipitated the worst crop failure the territory had experienced for 25 years.

443
Virtually all the crops were lost and the cattle died for lack of food and water. The rains again failed at the end of 1965, and although there was relief this year, at the end of January and the first half of February, the heavy rains which then fell came too late to have any material effect on the wretched situation which had developed. The expectation now is that the famine will continue until crops are harvested in mid-1967. Cattle feeding in lieu of the normal grazing will have to be continued until November of this year.
That is the general picture and what it has meant in suffering to humans and animals will be felt much more keenly by people like Lady Mitchison who have seen it with their own eyes than by even the most imaginative of us in this Chamber. I was asked about the number of people affected, and I am told that the number of destitutes has not in fact risen so quickly as was feared. The current figure is about 114,000 souls.
I have to make it clear, however, that the immediate responsibility for dealing with this problem rests as a matter of political or legal fact with the Bechuanaland Government. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would not normally be involved except in response to requests for help. The present Constitution of Bechuanaland provides for internal self-government and, of course, on September 30 next she will achieve full independence as the Republic of Botswana. After September 30 responsibility will obviously be even more clearly defined, but prior to that the position is that Her Majesty's Commissioner there is required under the Constitution to act in accordance with Cabinet advice on all matters except external affairs, defence and internal security. I mention this partly to place it on record, but partly also to explain the difficulties which sometimes arise when Lady Mitchison has from time to time raised with Ministers in this country her points about famine relief which, strictly speaking, should be taken up directly with the Bechuanaland Government, or possibly with the local officials in the tribal area or with the appropriate Ministries in Gaberones.
It is, of course, true that Her Majesty's Government are concerned in the relief
444
work to the extent that it is providing aid. I have been asked by the noble Earl and by my noble friend about the tripartite scheme announced by the Prime Minister at the beginning of this year. I must say I rather regret the way in which the question was posed to me by the noble Earl. He seemed to think there was something mysterious. If there was any criticism to be made about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, it was that he allowed his compassion in this matter to move him to speedy action, but surely that is not to be deprecated?
The brief facts are that just after he announced this scheme heavy rains fell in Central Africa and it was found that the problem was not so acute, except in Bechuanaland and, to a lesser extent, in Basutoland. So far as Bechuanaland was concerned, it was thought that the arrangements I am now proposing to detail were a more efficient way of tackling the problem than through the tripartite arrangements which might have been set up had the difficulties with which we were to contend been spread over a wider area. I can say that all Bechuanaland's requests for aid so far have been met in full.
In the very early stages of the famine a National Relief Fund was established which provided emergency feeding for the first few weeks. Since then relief needs for both the human and the cattle populations have been met mainly on the basis of food supplies provided free by the World Food Programme, with Her Majesty's Government providing the sizeable funds needed to cover distribution and other local costs. It has also been necessary for Her Majesty's Government to provide funds for the purchase of foods needed prior to the arrival of World Food Programme supplies.
I was asked for some figures. £458,000 was provided by the United Kingdom by way of aid in 1965–66, and approval has been given for expenditure of £1·1 million in the current financial year on the human and cattle feeding programmes. In addition, since the onset of the famine Colonial Development and Welfare grants totalling £245 million and an Exchequer loan of £150,000 have been approved for purposes associated with famine relief. The C.D. & W. grants come out of the £2·6 million allocated to Bechuanaland for spending during 1965–67. This all forms part of the increasing

445
help which is being given to Bechuanaland. Possibly I might give the total figures. Over the past few years the figure of budgetary aid has risen from just under £1 million in 1960–61 to £2·66 million in 1965–66, and the final figure for1966–67 is likely to be even higher. The overall total of United Kingdom assistance for budgetary and development purposes during the seven-year period from 1960–67 will be over £19 million. We are therefore, I hone the House will agree, making a financial contribution.
I mentioned the World Food Programme. Food for 60,000 people was provided during September and October, 1965, and since then the W.F.P. has been providing supplies for 105,000 people. Approval was recently given for further supplies for up to 360,000 people to be made available on a food-for-work basis for the twelve months beginning in July.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Would he not agree that the most practical way in which we could help the people of Bechuanaland would be to provide pumping stations in the Kalahari desert, where I believe it is possible to find water if you bore deep enough?
LORD BESWICK: Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to say what we are doing in the rather more orderly way in which I have it set out.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the economists produced this figure of the emergency food ration. I am very much interested to hear how much has been spent, but is that the right amount—10 oz. of maize and 1 oz. of vegetable oil per head per day?
LORD BESWICK: I am proposing to deal with that. I had not finished. I was going to say that there had been no doubt some difficulties in the initial stages in the distribution of this food, and I thought the House might be interested in the kind of problem which I see was mentioned in one of the earlier reports of what has been done. It reads:
"There was some disruption of the normal distribution programme during February because certain roads became impassable on account of the heavy rains. Some lorries carrying supplies became bogged down or were held
446
up. Wash ways along the line of rail also meant that rail traffic was held up for short periods."
These are the kind of difficulties which are having to be contended with, even though the will and, to some extent, the finance is there to provide assistance for these people.
I was going on to give some details about the World Food Programme. I had said that approval had been given for further supplies for up to 360,000 people to be made available on this food-for-work basis. It is interesting to note what kind of work is expected of the people when given their ration of food. I am told that in the urban areas the sort of work upon which they will be engaged includes public housing for employees, schools and other public amenities, drainage schemes, storage sheds, tree planting, water conservation, market gardens and village sanitation: in the rural areas to provide dams, village roads, bush clearance, de-stumping of arable land, soil conservation works, and so on. I should also say that for the five years' period there will be a supplementary feeding programme for children and pregnant and nursing women. This, too, begins in July. Additionally the World Food Programme is helping with stock feed for the period up to November, when there should be grazing again available for the cattle. The total value of this World Food Programme aid is around £5·7 million. This is in addition to our direct aid.
I might mention that the United Kingdom also contributes through the United Nations Organisation their share of this World Food Programme relief. For the W.F.P. I see that our share amounts to the value of £2·2 million, half in kind and half in cash. I should like to say a word of appreciation of the help that has been given by the voluntary societies, some of which my noble friend mentioned. OXFAM have provided funds for boreholes and stock dams. OXFAM, War on Want, Christian Aid and the World Council of Churches have all played a part. I have details, but I will not go into them all. They have made available lorries for the transport of food. The Save the Children Fund and the Red Cross have joined together in a supplementary feeding programme for 12,000

447
children under five years of age. The Bakgatla Community Centre in Mochudi has also provided supplementary child feeding. One of the most active persons in collecting money in this country has been Lady Mitchison herself. I do not know whether I am entitled to say this, but I think it should be said because my noble friend has not been content simply to put the begging bowl in front of others.
Reference was also made to the Cooperative Movement. I was very grateful for the kindly words which were used about Trevor Bottomley and his colleagues. I am sure they will be appreciated. The Co-operative Movement, together with OXFAM, are now engaged in trying to collect money in order to continue this constructive work. I gather this aid is being greatly appreciated, and I hope my noble friend will be able to confirm this. He has said, and others have said too, that it is not enough simply to provide food and that there is a need for money in order to meet such things as taxes, school fees and fuel for cooking purposes. I should explain that the food-for-work scheme will require the performance of approximately 25 hours' work a week, and is limited to this amount precisely in order to enable recipients to do other part-time work in order to get the minimum of money with which to meet other needs. And I gather that it is not so much that in the shops there is nothing to be bought; there are supplies if a minimum amount of money can be made available to these people.
Lack of resources, of course, does not permit the Bechuanaland Government to provide money, but I hope that it will be felt that this way of part-time work in return for food, together with the opportunity of earning a certain amount of money, will go a good way to meet the needs. In any case, I am advised that, so far as Government and tribal schools are concerned, no pupil's education would be discontinued simply because the parents were unable to find the necessary school fees.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, my noble friend is kind enough to mention the community centre at Mochudi. That community school has been feeding the under-7 children at its own expense for a year now.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that this will be taken into account.
I was asked, and have been asked again by my noble friend, about my views as to the situation which would develop if Treasury Knights, or indeed noble Lords in this House, had to exist for long on the meal which is now made available under this food-for-work scheme. One might say that it is a diet which in some areas of the world, at any rate in the Western World, we should find completely inadequate. But I am told that it is the standard diet which was considered reasonable and balanced by the experts of the W.F.P. who went into this most carefully; of course it is possible to supplement this with sums of money which they are able to earn. Up to now, at any rate, it has also been supplemented by sales of cattle.
One criticism which has been made is that this food is given out at fortnightly intervals. I have been asked whether it would not be better if it were given out at weekly intervals, or, better still even, if there were a daily issue. Naturally this would be preferable, and I understand that in July consideration will be given to this possibility, although clearly this would create additional administrative problems. I have heard from my noble friend, although he did not refer to it specifically to-day, that tribes and not only individuals are short of money; and one reason why the Bakgatla are short of water is that they do not have funds to pay for the equipment necessary for borehole repair. No doubt revenues in Bechuanaland have been affected by the famine, but I am informed that it is incorrect to say that boreholes are left unrepaired because of tribal finances. All the boreholes in the Bakgatla area, according to my information, are owned by syndicates who are responsible for raising their own funds for maintenance purposes.
At present, two boreholes in the area are not being used—but this, I gather, is because the water is unpalatable—and the two newly drilled boreholes have yet to be equipped. If there are other delays in carrying out repairs to equipment, it is likely that this is due to the limited number of maintenance units and to the physical difficulties of getting them about

449
the countryside. But I agree with the noble Lord, and with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who intervened, that water development is of basic importance, and is, indeed, the major factor limiting development in Bechuanaland.
I only wish that a speech of mine in this House could solve the problem. But of course there is no easy answer to a physical situation of this kind. There is, however, a continuing programme of borehole drilling and equipping. Dams have been constructed to provide water supplies for the new capital at Gaberones and Lobatsi, and a number of stock dams have been constructed throughout the territory. The estimated total expenditure on the improvement of water supplies during the two-year period 1965 to 1967 is about £1 million. I agree that much more is needed.
An approach is now being made to the United Nations Special Fund for the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the development of irrigation in the Okavango Delta and the Limpopo River watershed. The total cost of this preparatory work alone will be around £650,000 in a three-year period. I have no doubt that some will say that Her Majesty's Government have a responsibibility to provide additional funds for this water development, but I can only point again to the total aid which has already been allocated to Bechuanaland, and to say that it is primarily for the Bechuanaland Government itself to decide priorities as between one form of economic development and another.
I might add just a word about the future; and first of all, about the development of the cattle herds when the feeding is available again. I am given to understand that efforts are being made to keep a basic herd for breeding purposes of around 200,000. It is hoped that this will be about the figure when the rains come and the crops are growing again. This is in addition to the large herds that are maintained by the bigger cattle owners. It will mean a lone haul ahead, but I am sure that the efforts which are now being made to achieve this minimum basic herd is the right policy. I would also mention that talks will shortly take place at the Ministry of Overseas Development on aid for Bechuanaland; or Botswana, as it will be after
450
independence. I hope and believe that what my noble friend has said about need there will carry some weight when discussions take place.
My Lords, I doubt whether I can add a great deal more to what I have said, except that, quite apart from money, there is a need for people to help. There is a need for human beings. You cannot have an administration without administrators, and one reason why the Food for Work programme could not be mounted before July 1, was not only that the necessary supplies were not there, but because the administrative staff were not available. I understand that three administrative officers and four of the necessary executive officers are already in post, out of a needed eleven, and that two more executive officers will be arriving early in July. But there is also a great need for volunteers with the necessary qualifications. So far, there have been four volunteers, out of an immediate total needed of sixteen, to serve with the voluntary services overseas. What is needed are volunteers with agricultural, engineering or building experience and qualifications, capable of supervising work on the community development projects.
LORD MITCHISON: Or water supplies.
LORD BESWICK: I should like to think that in addition to filling, to some extent, my noble friend's begging bowl, there might be a response to this appeal for voluntary service. If there are qualified people in this country who are moved to offer their services, then they should apply to the Voluntary Societies Committee for Service Overseas, whose address is 26 Bedford Square, London. I hope that there will be a response. I should like to think that there are many more people in this country who are capable of following the example of selfless service set by Lady Mitchison and also, if I may say so, by my noble friend.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, by virtue of the powers vested in him by Section 2 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, he had nominated the following fifteen Members of the House to be members of the

451
Ecclesiastical Committee established under that Act, and to serve for the duration of the present Parliament:

V. Brentford.

V. Chelmsford.

V. Gage.

V. Ingleby.

L. Burden.

L. Clitheroe.

L. Crook.

452

L. Egremont.

L. Hawke.

L. Hodson.

L. Luke.

L. Meston.

L. Royle.

L. Silsoe.

L. Spens.

House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.