HC Deb 03 July 1961 vol 643 cc1095-125

On and after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, section one hundred and eighty-seven of the Customs and Excise Act. 1952 (Licences to deal in and sell tobacco), shall have effect with the addition immediately after subsection (3) of the said section of the following subsection:— (3A) Notwithstanding anything in the said subsection (2), a licence under this section may be granted in Great Britain, subject to such conditions as the Commissioners think fit to impose, so as to authorise the sale of tobacco by retail from a registered goods vehicle specified in the licence and being the property of and plying from the premises of the person authorised to sell tobacco at those premises; and this Act shall have effect accordingly as if the vehicle specified in a licence so granted were premises of the person authorised to sell tobacco there."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. Wilson

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

I move the Clause formally. I would have been prepared to speak on it, but I know that my hon. Friends have rather more powerful arguments than I could deploy at the moment.

Mr. Pavitt

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) for formally moving the Second Reading of the Clause. My task is to try to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to accept this very reasonable proposal. What we are seeking is to get the Government to move a little with the times in the matter of retail distribution. They seem to ignore the fact that year after year, when we discuss matters arising from the Finance Bill, people's shopping habits change as do also the services which are rendered to consumers.

In recent years there have been changes in shopping habits because more and more women have been going out to work. It is necessary to provide some facilities to enable people to shop more effectively at times and in places convenient to themselves. The Clause seeks to change the situation regarding the sale of tobacco which has prevailed since 1825. In that year the first Excise Licences Act covering this matter definitely provided that licences could be granted only where the premises were fixed. This procedure seems to have been followed in all subsequent changes of legislation. The only move away from it was made in 1951 when the slight concession was granted that when a shop was being erected and temporary arrangements were made in the interim for selling from a vehicle it was permissible to obtain a licence to enable tobacco and cigarettes to be sold from that vehicle.

This provision inevitably meant that whenever such a licence was granted one had to be sure that eventually a shop would be erected on the site in question. The technique of selling from mobile shops has grown up since the war on sites which are not at all temporary. The vehicles function, as it were, in their own right as a means of retail distribution. As to mobility, we had the anomalous provision made abundantly clear last year that as long as the owner was prepared to take the wheels off or chain a coffee stall to the ground it was possible to regard it as a fixed site for licensing purposes. In 1952 the law was changed and licences were granted to coaches, buses, trains and other means of travel. This means, therefore, that mobile shops, which are a legitimate means of trading, are now singled out to be discriminated against in this matter of licensing.

I have an interest in the co-operative movement and I should like the Economic Secretary to address himself particularly to that aspect of this problem. In the co-operative movement, each society of which is registered under the Industrial and Provident Society Acts, there are 4,063 mobile shops. Each of these is part and parcel of a chain of retail distribution, covered by 573 separate organisations, each being owned and controlled by the members shopping with it. What we are asking is that the members should retain their freedom of choice to purchase cigarettes in the shop which they partly own in that it belongs to the society of which they are members. A member is not forced to join a co-operative society; he chooses to join. It is a voluntary association which a person joins in the same way as he might choose to join any other association. We claim that, having chosen to become a member and trade mutually with his fellow members, he should have freedom of choice to shop with the society and not be forced to shop elsewhere.

There is a limited amount of shopping that goes on for cigarettes and tobacco. This is a kind of service which is applicable mostly to rural areas. Too often in this House we are London-minded, Manchester-minded, or Glasgow-minded and do not give sufficient consideration to the people who work on the land away from the towns. These people are able to take in an order once or twice a week from a mobile shop. Just as they are able to buy their bread, sugar, milk and tea from a mobile shop from their own co-operative society so they should be able to purchase the packet of cigarettes or tobacco that they require.

Looking back over the history of this matter, one of the things that worry us is whether the Government are discriminating against the co-operative movement. I am in favour of the normal retail distributive outlets, the small tobacconists—

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have an interest in distribution. Will he tell me whether the Clause would apply, as I think it would, to private trade mobile shops just as it would to co-operative society mobile shops?

Mr. Pavitt

Yes, most certainly. I am referring to only one sector of retail distribution. Any firm enterprising enough to emulate the co-operative movement by providing such a service to the people ought naturally to receive precisely the same benefits. I am talking about the whole business of seeking to serve consumers; in the case of the co-operative society, the purpose is to give service to consumers who are also its own members.

A ground of resistance sometimes put forward from the Treasury Bench is that there is already an adequate coverage. We are told that there is one licensed retail outlet for every forty smokers. We were told last year that there were 420,000 retail outlets. Yet in spite of the terrific coverage, an amazing thing is that in the last two or three years there has been a growth in the number of home cabinets in use. These are provided by manufacturers in peoples homes so that those people, their friends and their neighbours can obtain a supply of cigarettes.

I want to make it clear that this is not a matter of granting tobacco licences to mobile hawkers, sellers going from door to door selling cigarettes and tobacco. A mobile shop is clearly defined by the Customs and Excise authorities. They have agreed on eight points which show clearly what a mobile shop is. The points include the following: a mobile shop must be clearly distinguishable from a delivery van; it must have a well-lit interior and have certain windows, either in the roof or in the sides; the access and entry has to be well safeguarded; there must be adequate space for salesmen and customers to move about within the shop; if it is a self-service store, there must be a separate counter for wrapping the purchases; there must be adequate selection facilities, the goods being on display, so that they are not just brought out from a box, but the purchaser can see them and choose for himself. Other points are clearly laid down. Thus, there is no difficulty in defining the difference between a mobile shop and a delivery van. Even the height of the step into the mobile shop is laid down by the Customs and Excise authorities; it must not be more than 1 foot 5 inches high.

If it is possible to have such a definition so that a mobile shop can be clearly recognised, why is it impossible for this concession to be granted so that folk can purchase tobacco and cigarettes from it just as they can from any other shop?

I speak in this debate as a non-smoker. From my experience in the Medical Practitioners Union before I come into this House I am convinced that in the main smoking and lung cancer are linked. Therefore, I am not necessarily anxious to persuade people to dash out and buy more and more cigarettes. I am well aware that the granting of these licences might mean that more people will smoke and that this may lead to more lung cancer. In 1935 there were only 1,800 deaths from lung cancer but last year there were 20,000, and that might be thought to be a reason why I should speak against the Clause. But I am concerned very much about the principle of equity. I do not believe that we can alter people's habits, certainly not their smoking habits, by prohibition. Whenever prohibition has been tried, it has had an effect opposite to that intended.

7.45 p.m.

Therefore, although I am not anxious to see a growth which would benefit tobacco interests, and although I consider that the way in which T.V. advertising is aimed at teen-agers to persuade more and more of them to form the smoking habit is pernicious and horrible, I recognise that at the same time, in all fairness, and equity, if people wish to smoke they should have as much freedom as people who do not wish to smoke, and for those who live in rural areas this means the right to be able to ask for what they want at the mobile store.

I hope that this year the Economic Secretary will be able to accept the Clause and that the House will accordingly finally see Measures taken along the lines proposed in the Clause.

Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

I ask the Economic Secretary to accept the Clause in the interests of people who live on new housing estates or in rural areas. Very often the houses on housing estates are built before the shops, and then the only opportunity the people have of being served is by means of a mobile shop. It seems ridiculous that mobile shops should be able to sell the other things the people require but cannot sell tobacco and cigarettes to them merely because the Treasury will not accept this Clause.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has mentioned, many houses are in remote areas where it is impossible for the occupants to get service unless they are visited by a mobile shop. Therefore, from the point of view of the consumers, and the point of view of the concern, whether a cooperative shop or otherwise, which seeks to serve the consumers, I suggest that it is stupid that such mobile shops should not be allowed to give a complete service in the commodities which a normal shop would be able to supply.

As has already been pointed out, the provisions in respect of mobile shops are fairly well laid down by the Customs and Excise authority. Also, mobile shops are supposed to conform—I am not saying that every one of them does—to the regulations laid down under our public health legislation

Because of that, and because mobile shops provide an essential service to people living in remote areas and on housing estates in the early stages, we ask the Economic Secretary to look at our proposal in the light of modern conditions and from the point of view of giving a complete service, as a normal shop would do, to people who have no other alternative unless they travel long distances and spend a great deal of money on bus or rail fares.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom (Sheffield, Brightside)

I think that I was one of the earliest people in this country to start the modern travelling shop. That was many years ago. I think that it was one of the first in the co-operative movement. I want, however, to make it quite clear that the modern travelling shop is not confined to the co-operative movement. The problem of selling cigarettes under licence is not restricted to the co-operative travelling shop; it is also the problem of many other travelling shopkeepers who supply out of the way villages with the goods that they require.

A few weeks ago, when I had been ill, I was recuperating in a caravan in a quiet little village. I went to watch the grocer of the village pack his travelling shop to take goods around other villages in that locality. That showed that travelling shops are not restricted to the co-operative society. In that case, a private trader was doing most of his trade by this kind of venture. We have always had this difficulty about the selling of cigarettes. There has also been the difficulty—a point not yet brought out in the debate—with regard to certain kinds of drugs which cannot be sold in travelling shops. For a long period this agitation has continued not only to be allowed to sell the kind of drugs that are prepacked but also cigarettes.

A paradoxical situation is that if a salesman on a travelling shop takes an order for goods in the same way as his counterpart in the fixed shop and prepares those goods in the warehouse of that travelling shop he is allowed to prepack cigarettes, put them in the mobile shop and deliver them to customers and accept the money at that time. This is an anomaly that should be corrected. It is an anomaly which is liable to create misuse and abuse in respect of travelling shops. A problem with the mobile travelling shop is, within a given number of working hours, say a working week of 44 hours, to keep it on the road and selling goods for as many hours as possible. That is a scientific problem of approach for the travelling shop salesman. They have therefore to prepack in warehouses licensed for tobacco and cigarettes. They cannot be put on the van and sold at the request of customers.

Travelling shops are not just a means of delivery to customers. They are more than that. They are satisfying the requirements of the customer. In these days of supermarkets and tremendous multiple establishments it is rather gratifying to know that some of the smaller establishments, the little shopkeepers close to the customer are surviving better than some of the supermarkets. This is because of their close proximity to the customer. The mobile travelling shop supplies that need. Many people living in out of the way villages have jobs to do which may sometimes make it difficult for them to get to a shop. In some of the new villages, the only way for people to be served is by mobile travelling shops.

These travelling shops can be packed from top to bottom with all kinds of requisites for people who cannot get to the shops, not only to grocery establishments but in some cases to suppliers of dry goods as well. They supply the needs of people in the villages, especially the new villages where it has not been possible to put up shopping centres. Even in cities like Sheffield where new estates have been created, some of them with thousands of houses, it is sometimes a considerable time before the necessary shopping centres are provided to satisfy the needs of the people. These travelling shops satisfy those needs.

Many of the old type small shops have gone. There was a time in Manchester when there was one shop to every fifty of the population. The mobile travelling shop doing its job properly in the villages or in the new estates in the cities or towns is providing in some cases for thousands of customers, giving them first-class service on their doorsteps, and satisfying all their needs, with the exception of certain drugs and cigarettes.

I ask the Economic Secretary to face this issue fairly and squarely to see that the private traders or the co-operative traders who have to resort to the business of travelling shops to satisfy their customers are given an opportunity to sell cigarettes. A few days ago I was concerned with a relative of mine in the purchase of a garage. He said, "I am going to get a licence to sell cigarettes in the garage." But for the travelling shop there is no opportunity to sell cigarettes unless customers have previously given an order for them. It is only by a prepacked order that cigarettes can be supplied in that way. That is an anomaly which ought to be corrected speedily and for all time by the acceptance of this new Clause. I hope that the Government will not dodge this issue—which affects the private trader as well as the co-operative trader—but will face it fairly and squarely.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Percy Holman (Bethnal Green)

I support the new Clause which has been so ably spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I do not often discuss the problems about which hon. Members opposite should be adequately informed but of which they are so frequently painfully ignorant. Most of these mobile shops form part of a more economic method of distribution. They have come to stay. Their numbers are growing. The Cooperative movement has over 4,000 engaged in all types of retail distribution—about half of them being in the grocery trade. Private traders are also adopting them on an increasing scale. They serve the remote regions, not only of Wales and Scotland but of Kent and Surrey, even within 30 and 40 miles of London—in villages which cannot be adequately provided with local shops upon an economic basis because the turnover would be so small in relation to the cost.

The mobile shop is a valuable asset to sparsely populated areas, and I include in those areas certain villages in the green belt round London. The people in those villages know that the mobile butcher or the mobile grocer will arrive at a certain time. There is probably no hardware shop in the village and a mobile one is very useful. I have telephoned through an order for cigarettes and those cigarettes have been delivered to me on the same day by a mobile shop which is also selling other goods. The cigarettes having been ordered and pre-packed, the mobile shop can deliver and receive payment for them.

The situation of these mobile shops in relation to the sale of tobacco and cigarettes is as foolish as that which existed before the recent Betting and Gaming Act, when a bet which was telephoned was legal but one which was made with a street bookmaker was not. This situation is just as stupid, and it seems to have grown up as a result of the consideration of the same interests—in other words, to make it easy for those who have telephones and difficult for those who have not. It is a question of class interest.

The mobile shop is now an economic factor in our life—a factor which, combined with the permanent shop from which it operates, will be of ever-growing value to this country in enabling the population to spread out, thereby reducing the densities of our great towns and allowing the development, under automation, and electricity, of village industries. The concentration of agricultural workers in relatively small villages will mean the use of the mobile shop if they are to be adequately served.

Many of us may think that the tobacco industry is too large. It provides the Treasury with its biggest source of revenue. Slot machines are allowed in private houses, in hotels and even in the streets, provided they are locked and chained to a permanent establishment. They can serve cigarettes for the whole 24 hours of the day. But the sale of cigarettes is still prohibited in mobile shops. How illogical, foolish, unintelligible and mid-Victorian. In my fifty years of business in the public life of this country I have repeatedly discovered that it takes generations to get sensible ideas into the heads of the typically conservatively-minded elements in this country.

The mid-Victorian idea that mobile shops are wrong is now thoroughly out of date. Many ideas have spread gradually when once they have been propagated and have suddenly been taken up by conservative-minded persons who adopt them as new ideas, not realising that they are expressing something which others have been advocating for forty or fifty years. I hope that the same thing will happen in the case of the mobile shops and the sale of tobacco and cigarettes. I hope that the Conservatives will give way on this point.

Incidentally, the Treasury is likely to gain if the new Clause is accepted. I therefore ask the Government to consider the point afresh and to make it possible for these shops to sell cigarettes and tobacco. They are quite distinct from delivery vans. I ask the Treasury to reconsider its antiquated, Conservative, unprogressive stand, and to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Norman Dodds (Erith and Crayford)

I also support the Clause, and I rise to express an opinion on a different aspect of the question. So far the emphasis has been on the service which mobile shops can render to people in isolated areas and villages. My hon. Friend got as near as 30 or 40 miles to London, but I can show hon. Members built-up areas—not isolated places—only five, 10 or 15 miles from this House, where the mobile shop renders a great service. I am speaking of the great housing estates, which all too often have been provider1 with only a limited number of shops.

On those housing estates there are many elderly people, with very poor ous services, no motor cars, and no ability to ride bicycles. On those estates the mobile shop is doing a tremendous job. It is most inconvenient for the elderly people who live on those estates not to be able to obtain cigarettes and tobacco. For several years a good case has been made out on this point, but as the years have gone by it has seemed that a good case is not enough for the Treasury. It is not enough to ask for a sensible service to be provided for the people on the new housing estates in north-west Kent. It seems that unless a case can he made out that a certain provision will be to the advantage of the Surtax payer, the Government Front Bench will express no understanding of it. I ask the Treasury what case it has to deny this service to old and young on housing estates within a few miles of this House, never mind about towns and villages.

Mr. Redhead

I am also in favour of the new Clause. I shall repeat to some extent what I endeavoured to say last year, when I moved a similar provision. I want to go into the argument before the Economic Secretary indicates what his present intentions are, because I want to try to anticipate his primary consideration in approaching the matter.

He will no doubt tell us, quite correctly, that the tobacco dealer's licence is not a revenue raiser but a revenue safeguard. I agree that that is the purpose of the tobacco licence. That provision is now more than 100 years old. It was introduced to enable the Customs and Excise officer to identify outlets for tobacco in order that there should be a check on any possibility of illicit trafficking in stolen or uncustomed tobacco. It was to safeguard that very substantial revenue raiser, the Tobacco Duty itself, that it was first conceived to be necessary to have this licence duty, not for revenue but as a form of limitation. It was laid down and has been insisted upon that such a licence should be issued only for fixed premises.

We must take into account the fact that whatever the necessity for that originally—when admittedly there was a very considerable risk of dodging the main tobacco duty and trafficking and hawking of tobacco which was fairly widespread in those days—it must be recognised that such risks are today exceedingly small. After all, the trade itself exercises a rigid control on the sources of supply. I cannot imagine that today there is any widespread abuse in this connection. Although last year the Economic Secretary said there was still a degree of trafficking in uncustomed tobacco, he did not say to what extent that existed or what evidence there was of any large scale difficulty of that kind.

In any event, the necessity for the licence to identify even the fixed premises no longer has the validity it originally had, for now it is palpably clear to everybody by the display of tobacco and cigarettes from whence they are being sold. I should be interested to know in the process of checking on these outlets how many visits Customs and Excise officers make today to the ordinary retail tobacconists' premises where licences are granted. I suggest that a rigid adherence to this old limitation is completely out of date. It has produced some entirely absurd situations.

What is argued for here is not for a great expansion of the tobacco industry, not even for an advantage to that industry, but to serve a simple consumer need. When the habits of shopping have changed and the needs of people are met in other ways, not only by the mobile shop, in many cases the housewife today finds her opportunities for shopping very limited. Delivery at the household is a very considerable advantage. We have the absurd position that tobacco and cigarettes can be delivered, not merely by a mobile shop but by a van, tricycle, bicycle or by foot if need be, provided an order has been placed at licensed premises beforehand.

Yet a casual sale, made without an order, from a van which is taking quantities of other goods and household necessities to the buyers constitutes an offence even though there is no suggestion whatever that the tobacco sold has not borne duty in the ordinary way. In fact it will have been drawn from licensed premises to which the vanman will be accounting.

There are all kinds of potentialities for getting round this provision. Let us be honest about it. I am not pinpointing any one in particular. I am sure the Economic Secretary realises that a considerable degree of evasion goes on. He may say that there is no need to make this extension but to try to go on enforcing a rigid adherence to this old provision, which can be readily and easily evaded, only brings these regulations into contempt. We ought to recognise the obvious and legitimise this procedure in a way which reputable traders can follow and can derive the same advantages as those who get round the existing regulations.

8.15 p.m.

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the perfectly absurd and ludicrous devices to which even the Customs and Excise have had to resort in trying to meet this problem. We have had the example of a coffee stall which, if it is on wheels and theoretically mobile, cannot have a licence, but, if the wheels are removed or sunk into the ground or lashed to stakes, a licence can be granted. One can travel on a train or bus or other licensed public transport vehicle and buy tobacco and cigarettes, but they cannot be bought from a van or mobile shop which is pursuing legitimate business by delivering to households. On a railway station I can buy tobacco and cigarettes which are taken on a trolley pushed around acres of ground. Because the station is regarded as fixed premises, the licence can be obtained for the trolley. Yet in similar circumstances it cannot be provided for the mobile shop.

Last year the Economic Secretary referred to the fact that the Treasury had had some consultations with the Cooperative Union. I emphasise that this new Clause is not drawn exclusively for the benefit of the "co-ops". There are many other establishments which would quite sensibly take advantage of the provision we seek to introduce. The Economic Secretary said that there had been consultations with the National Union of Retail Tobacconists, but he did not tell us what views had been received from that body. There was a little suspicion on this side of the House that probably same vested interests came into the picture and urged him to resist tile proposal last year.

It is no business of the Customs and Excise to determine in the issue of tobacco dealers' licences whether it is appropriate to allow anyone to have such a licence on grounds of competition or existing facilities for obtaining tobacco. Such a licence should be granted where the regulations are complied with to whoever may apply for them on payment of the appropriate trifling licence duty. This new Clause does not contemplate the introduction of vast new sources of supply. All it seeks to do is to ensure that those who are already licence holders for fixed premises shall have the sensible facility of being able to deliver to customers along with other goods they may sell in that fashion.

As has been mentioned, this would have the double advantage from the Treasury point of view—unlike so many proposals made in these debates—that it would add a little to the revenue to the extent that additional licences were taken out. I again emphasise that this new Clause is drafted with the due regard for what might be the legitimate purpose behind the tobacco dealers' licence, namely, the purpose of safeguarding the major revenue on tobacco itself. It is not for a moment suggested that such licences should be issued to vehicles willy-nilly without any sort of regulation. On the contrary, it is proposed that the licences should be subject to such conditions as the Commissioners think fit to impose for the purpose of safeguarding the major revenue, that it should be in respect of a registered goods vehicle specified in the licence and being the property of and plying from the premises of the person authorised to sell tobacco at those premises I suggest that these provisions provide all the reasonable safeguards that we could require for the purpose of protecting the major revenue. I hope that the Economic Secretary will not once more reject this proposal but will recognise that here is a legitimate consumer need and an opportunity to tidy up what has become an anachronism and in the minds of the public very much a piece of fussy red tape.

May I remind the Economic Secretary of the words which he used last year when this matter was debated? He said: We have, as I have said, considered this again, and we have reached the conclusion that, although in particular cases it would be a limited advantage to a number of consumers, the need for a general extension in present circumstances is not made out. I interpose here the comment that I think that my hon. Friends today have demonstrated, coming as they do from a variety of constituencies, that there is a consumer need for this concession. The hon. Member continued: However, I must tell the House that, in my view, this is not a conclusion which must stand for all time. We made a thorough investigation as a result of the approach made to my predecessor as Economic Secretary not long ago, and we have considered the matter again. As I say, this is not a conclusion which must stand for all time. Circumstances may change and we will certainly keep the matter under review. However, I could not at this time advise the House to accept the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 6th July, 1961; Vol. 626, c. 525.] Having kept the matter under review; having, I hope, taken the further opportunity of obtaining evidence about the demand and the need for this simple extension; and realising that the new Clause is adequately drawn from the point of view of safeguarding the revenue, the Economic Secretary will, I hope, give us a more favourable reply than he has on previous occasions.

Mr. Barber

The effect of the new Clause is to authorise the issue of licences for the sale of tobacco from a registered goods vehicle owned by, and plying from the premises of, a person already licensed to sell tobacco at those premises.

There is one minor point on which I correct the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Redhead). He must have misunderstood something which I said last year. If my recollection serves me right, the National Union of Retail Tobacconists did not approach me last year or this year. Probably the misunderstanding arises because my predecessor, now Minister of State to the Board of Trade, caused an inquiry to be made in 1959, before I went to the Treasury, and in the course of that inquiry the Customs and Excise consulted the National Union of Retail Tobacconists.

Mr. Redhead

If I misinterpreted what the hon. Gentleman said last year, I apologise. All that was in my mind was that at some stage or other there had been official consultations with that body.

Mr. Barber

On the other hand, I was pleased to hear the hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends point out that this new Clause would affect not only the mobile shops owned by the cooperative societies but any mobile shop and that, consequently, we are considering the matter at large. I was sorry that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Holman), in what was otherwise an interesting speech by an hon. Member who obviously knows a great deal about the matter, said that there was some form of class interest in this proposal. I do not know where I stand in that; I live in a village in Yorkshire which is very well served by a first-class mobile shop, and I am not prejudiced about the benefits of this mode of sale.

The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) referred to the history of the matter and pointed out that it was considered by the Labour Government in 1951 and that it was then decided to make an extension of the law to allow sales of tobacco from mobile shops but only in certain very limited circumstances. Those circumstances were to meet an exceptional and temporary need. The Labour Government at that time took the view that it was not right to go further than that. The law remains as it was after that change was made in 1951.

As far as I know, the Co-operative Union Ltd. has ever since then sought a further extension of the law in order to permit mobile shops to sell tobacco without first having to establish an exceptional and temporary need. In 1959 the Co-operative Union approached my right hon. Friend, the present Minister of State, Board of Trade, who was then Economic Secretary, with a request that the law should be amended. I remind those hon. Members who were not here when the matter was considered previously that my right hon. Friend asked the Customs and Excise to inquire into the proposal and, as I said a moment ago, discussions were held with the Co-operative Union and the National Union of Retail Tobacconists. At that time our conclusion was that no change should be made. The matter was raised again on Report and in Committee of the Finance Bill last year. I then said, as the hon. Member rightly quoted, that circumstances can change and that we should keep the matter under review.

In January of this year the Co-operative Union wrote to me and asked whether it could send a deputation to see me in order to state its case. As hon. Members appreciate, at that time of the year Treasury Ministers are inundated with requests to receive deputations. I replied explaining the position, and the Co-operative Union, I thought very generously, did not press its request to see me. In view of what I had said last year I concluded my reply to the Union with this short paragraph, which I think I should read: If there are any further facts which are not in your memorandum of October, 1959, and were not brought up during the course of last year's Finance Bill, perhaps you would write to me again and let me have them. I want to be sure I have not overlooked any new developments. Mr. Wood, the secretary, replied on this aspect that his committee in the circumstances are content to rely upon the submissions which were made to your predecessor and which are embodied in the memorandum of October, 1959. There has not been any fresh development … He went on, We continue to receive inquiries from cooperative societies about the matter, and towards the end of last year some difficulties were experienced at Worcester where the local Customs and Excise officer did not appear to be aware that mobile shops could deliver parcels of tobacco and cigarettes which had been expressly ordered by customers. That is another point which has not been mentioned. The letter continued: It is still of sufficient concern to co-operative societies for one of them to have placed a Motion on the Agenda for the Co-operative Party conference at Easter. This does not finally decide the matter, but it is clear that there have been no fresh developments over the past year.

Mr. Loughlin

Precisely what does the Economic Secretary mean by "fresh developments" in this context? The only real fresh development that can take place is an extension of deliveries from travelling shops. Is he suggesting that there has been no extension of travelling shops since the last small departure from the rigidity of the law in 1951? I was concerned with this before I entered the House. From my knowledge of distribution, there has been an enormous extension of the use of travelling shops in sales of all kinds of goods.

Mr. Dodds

Does not the hon. Gentleman's own Department take an interest in the changing habits of the people? Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that slum areas have been cleared? In those areas there were selling points at the corner of almost every street. The people who formerly inhabited those areas have been moved out into new housing areas where there is a very limited number of selling points. The new areas contain many elderly people. There is now a better case than there was a year ago.

Mr. Barber

I am sorry, but both the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) have misunderstood what I was saying. I was quoting from a letter which was sent to me by the secretary of the Co-operative Union.

Mr. Loughlin rose—

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Barber

No, I will not give way until I have made this point. Then I will give way again. In that letter the Secretary said that there had not been any fresh developments. The letter went on with the words which I quoted to the House fairly and accurately. This was in reply to a request I made. I said: I want to be quite sure that I have not overlooked any new developments. I am making no more of this than the quotations I read to the House. I have made a fair extract from the letter.

Mr. Loughlin

To be perfectly fair, the Economic Secretary asked whether there had been any fresh developments. It may well be that his request was read in the context of his reference to the previous year's memorandum. In that sense there may well not have been any fresh developments. He is using the term "fresh developments". The only fresh development that can arise is either a diminution or an extension of services with travelling shops.

Mr. Dodds

The Economic Secretary said that I misunderstood him. I do not misunderstand him. I heard what was said. Does not the Treasury make its own inquiries? I pointed out to the Economic Secretary the change which had taken place consequent upon slum clearance. Does he rest his case purely on the letter, or does the Treasury take any interest in the changing habits of the public?

Mr. Barber

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue with what I have to say, he will find that I have a considerable amount more to say to him. He may not be satisfied at the end of it, but we cannot carry on with this story if I am interrupted all the time.

Mr. Dodds

The hon. Gentleman should not misquote.

Mr. Barber

There is no question of misquoting. The letter I received was a very fair and frank reply from the Secretary of the Co-operative Union to my request. I said in my letter: If there are any further facts which are not in your memorandum of October, 1959, and were not brought out during the course of last year's Finance Bill, perhaps you would write to me again and let me have them. That is all that I am saying. It was a very relevant factor to consider when carrying out the undertaking I gave last year to keep this matter under review.

From the point of view of the public, whom we in the House must consider very seriously, I do not say that there is not the occasional case in which a mobile shop selling tobacco, other than one which can be licensed under the existing law, would not be advantageous. It would be advantageous to me in my circumstances in the Yorkshire village of which I spoke.

Mr. Chapman rose—

Mr. Barber

No, I will not give way. On the other hand, as the hon. Member for Willesden, West said, there are now about 420,000 licensed tobacconists, to take his figure. He said that that worked out at about one licence for every forty smokers. The provision introduced in 1951 has substantially achieved its main object of meeting the demands for tobacco at new housing estates. Both the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) referred to new housing estates and the position which arose where houses were built before shops were built. My understanding of the 1951 legislation is that that was just the sort of case which it was designed to cover. If the hon. Lady or the hon. Gentleman knows of any cases where it does not seem to be working properly and will write to me, I shall be very happy to ask the Customs to look into it, because it is just that sort of case which the 1951 legislation was designed to cover. The 1951 legislation, while covering that case, is of very limited application. That is so because it is necessary to establish that the need is of a temporary nature.

From the point of view of the Revenue there is, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West pointed out, obviously an interest in knowing and controlling the points of sale of tobacco or, at least, in preserving the right of access which licensing confers. The present new Clause attempts to meet this point by restricting sales to registered goods vehicles operated by persons who are licensed to sell tobacco at their premises, but that would establish only the base from which the vehicle operated, and would not impose any limitation on its freedom to sell tobacco away from the base. In particular, it would not limit sales at particular points or on particular routes, and there would be no satisfactory Revenue control over a vehicle free to travel wherever the driver thought that business might be found.

I mention that because if anything were to be done on the lines wanted by hon. Members opposite, I am not sure—in fact, I doubt very much—whether it would be appropriate to do it in the way that has been suggested. It is perfectly true that the new Clause contains the words … subject to such conditions as the Commissioners think fit to impose … but, of course, if one tried to impose some limits for better control by prescribing routes or the like for particular vehicles, the Customs would inevitably be drawn into conflict as between one trader and another which, quite frankly, I do not think would be desirable, and which this House would not want.

Therefore the important point I am making is that if we were able to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite, I do not think that it should be done in the way that they suggest in this Clause—

Mr. Mitchison

How should it be done?

Mr. Barber

Perhaps I may just continue for the moment.

The other point is that the limitation proposed is virtually meaningless because anybody can, with very little difficulty, find premises from which he can take out a licence even if he is not intending to sell tobacco there, and anyone who had a vehicle and did not have a licence for premises as is required in the new Clause would simply apply for two licences together for a total cost of £2 for four years. I therefore think that hon. Members will agree that what is said to be the safeguard in the new Clause would not be any safeguard at all.

The position is that as there has been no change in the circumstances over the past year—and this, I think, is admitted on all sides—there is prima facie no case for a change, so I came to the conclusion that no action was called for. This new Clause was not put down during the Committee stage and, having been put down first on Report, there has been no opportunity to consult other trade interests. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Willesden, West, who referred to equity, will agree that it is relevant to consider other trade interests, and I would mention only one reason why I think that this is so.

The hon. Member for Brightside said that in his experience the object of anyone operating a mobile shop was to keep it on the road for as many hours as possible. A mobile shop is not a shop as defined for the purposes of the shops closing hours, and it follows that a mobile shop can operate at times when the law requires other shops to close. Obviously an aspect like that requires very careful consideration. What I therefore propose is that, even though there have not been any fresh developments in the past year, during the course of the next year we should again consult with the trade interests concerned—both interests like the Co-operative Union and the other retail tobacconists—which we could not have done in the short time since this proposed new Clause was put down.

But since there has been no change in the situation since last year it would be quite wrong for the House to take a decision now, before these consultations have taken place and, with these assurances, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not press this proposed new Clause.

Mr. Mitchison

I feel very sorry sometimes for junior Treasury Ministers who have to defend what is obviously indefensible on grounds that are obviously illogical and for reasons which can hardly appeal to any sane person. I am sorry to say that this is just a case in point.

May I remind the Economic Secretary that the proposed new Clause is not put forward on behalf of any trade interest or of the co-operative movement in particular, but in the interests of the general public, or, at any rate, that part of the general public—a considerable part—which likes occasionally to smoke. These are the people about whom we are concerned. If the co-operative movement is so interested, it is because that movement has been serving that public particularly well. That is the ground of their interest in the matter.

I must turn to a few facts of life in this country. One of the obvious things is that the number of shops varies largely in apparently similar cases. The shopping pattern in one big town is different from that of another, and so also with other habits. For example, the amount of mushrooms eaten in one big town is considerably less, for some absurd reason, than the quantity eaten in another. Accordingly, the number of shops varies.

But there are, especially in the country, at present two types of places where the shopping position considerably affects the proposed new Clause. The first of them is the Economic Secretary's Yorkshire village. The hon. Gentleman seems to have left it well behind, but I can inform him that I live in a village up in Scotland where we are about one mile—either way—from the shops. This is not a particularly remote place, but like our neighbour, we do most of our shopping from travelling vans. Just to show that there is no discrimination, some of these are co-operative vans and some are private traders. They go all round from the co-operative store or the trader's centre, not only to the village about which I am speaking but to a great many others. And, of course, this happens in a great many parts of the country.

The other is the widespread new town or similar development under the Town Development Act, where the number of shops always tends to be rather small and, because of the better provision of gardens, the distances from the shops are considerable. A great deal of van shopping is done in these places, and a good deal of it is done by the Cooperative movement and, equally, by private traders.

This is a matter of the convenience of the public at large, and the practical point is this—and this is the absurdity of the business—there is nothing at present to prevent someone from ringing up one of these centres and saying, "I want this or that" in the way of cigarettes or tobacco, and then those goods are delivered by a mobile van. It is like saying, "You can deal with the customs on a minicab basis, but you cannot have a taxi arrangement." It is ridiculous to say, in these circumstances, that there will be a large leakage or that such and such may happen. I am sure that the Economic Secretary will know that I am not referring to him personally when I say that it is wrong for him to talk all this rubbish.

8.45 p.m.

It is really quite off the mark when the real difference is simply whether a person orders in advance or whether the van comes round and one is able to choose between this or that packet of cigarettes or this kind of tobacco or the other. That is all there is to it. There is the party opposite, the party of the consumer's choice and all the rest of it, obliging the consumer to order by telephone. It must be some secret opposition by the Postmaster-General who does not want his telephone revenue interfered with. There can be no conceivable objection from any other point of view.

Then we get into ridiculous positions. Think of a coffee stall having its wheels taken off or being tied to a stake. Really, if the law is quite as silly as that, surely it is about time one changed it. Surely it is a good enough reason to change it when it is obvious that people—not traders nor Co-operative stores but just ordinary people—want this very simple facility.

Then the hon. Gentleman says, "This is not a decision for ever." But that was what he said last year. He says, "There may always be a change in circumstances." What sort of change does he expect? Does he only deal with changes which have the character of earthquakes and which take place suddenly? Suppose that there is a continuously rising demand, as there is bound to be with these new towns growing up. At what point does he take official notice of it? Exactly how many million people have to be slightly inconvenienced by a proposed change before the hon. Gentleman can attend to it? As for all this correspondence with the secretary of the Co-operative Union, this was put to the hon. Gentleman last year and he gave the answer that I have just indicated. What is the use of putting it to him again?

How does one persuade the Government in matters of this sort? What degree of public inconvenience has to be shown to them before they will do anything about it? What is at the bottom of the Customs' objection to this proposal? It is nothing to do with uncustomed tobacco, or we would not have the difficulty that I have just indicated. Are the Government really suffering from a form of acute inertia, a sort of new "Excisitis" which is apparently growing over them, a kind of creeping paralysis, an objection to any change, a complete blindness to the public inconvenience, unless the public inconvenience is loud enough to make the Government feel some inconvenience? After all, the business of the Government, and even of Customs and Excise so far as possible, is to adapt their arrangements to what the public want. I should have thought that was an elementary matter.

Then the hon. Gentleman says, "There may be a change of circumstances". After all, he is not talking about a change in the administrative difficulties, such as they are. How pleased he must have been to see the same Clause that he saw last year. He could repeat, as he did, all the somewhat inconclusive arguments which he used against it last year. If it is, in fact, the form of the Clause to which he objects, is it really right to deny the public an advantage because the Customs think that there might be some other and better way of doing it? Could we not be let into the secret for a change? Could we not be told, if it is needed to be done and can be done, how to do it? Would it be too much for the hon. Gentleman to take the initiative and propose a change himself?

I am very sorry when the hon. Gentleman asks us to wait another year in case there is a change in circumstances. He asked us last year to do something like that and we think that the moment has come to stir him up a little. We shall divide the House. We shall, of course, lose the Division and the hon. Gentleman and his supporters will have made one more contribution to the inefficiency of bureaucracy and the disconvenience of the public. I hope they will be happy about it.

Mr. Loughlin

I should like the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to tell us precisely what he means when he says that there have been no new developments and that if there are any new developments in the next year he will change his mind. I would take him back to the point that he was making—

Mr. Barber

I may not speak again on Report, but I wish to correct one error. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would have heard that I did not say that no action would be taken if there were no further developments. I said that, despite the fact that there had been no further developments, I proposed some action which would be taken during the coming year.

Mr. Chapman

May I correct that? Later in his speech, the Economic Secretary said that, because there had been no developments, there was no prima facie case for doing anything. What does he want?

Mr. Loughlin

I thank my hon. Friend for coming to my assistance, but I wish to go back to the point which the Economic Secretary persistently made in his reply, that the reason why he is not sympathetic to the new Clause is that there has been no new development.

Mr. Barber indicated dissent.

Mr. Loughlin

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He quoted a letter sent to him by Mr. Wood. He claimed that Mr. Wood, representing the Cooperative Union, had admitted that there had been no new developments for some time. Mr. Wood did not say that, and that is precisely the point that I wish to take up with the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Wood submitted a memorandum in which, no doubt, he detailed what he regarded as the reasons why the change should be made. He received from the Economic Secretary a letter saying that, while the hon. Gentleman could not possibly afford Mr. Wood an interview, if he cared to submit any further facts or information about new developments which had arisen, they would be taken into consideration.

Mr. Wood submitted his memorandum—the Economic Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—pointing out that there had been a considerable development in the use of travelling shops. Thereafter, Mr. Wood received a letter from the Treasury asking him whether there had been any new developments since he wrote the letter. His memorandum was dated 1959, was it not? What was the point of the Economic Secretary asking if there had been any new developments since 1959? Mr. Wood had already explained the situation and described the extension of this type of trading, and there was no point in his reiterating what he had said. After the Economic Secretary's speech today, one wonders what sort of new developments he wants.

We are dealing here with the requirements of the shopping public. There has been a tremendous increase in trading by travelling shops in both built-up areas and rural areas. The only new development which can take place in this context is a further extension of the use of travelling shops. The question for the Government is whether that development has gone sufficiently far to justify a change in the law to enable travelling shops to sell cigarettes and tobacco.

If the hon. Gentleman consults the trade next year, all that it can tell him is the degree of increase in this type of trading. From my experience in distribution prior to coming into this House, I believe that the increase year by year in this type of trading justifies a change in the law. We all know that the law is now in disrepute. If the driver of a travelling shop likes to assume that Mrs. Jones wants 40 cigarettes, and if he puts in an order for 40 cigarettes or, for that matter, 4,000 cigarettes, he can sell them from the van. If my wife decides to put her order in writing a week in advance, the travelling salesman can deliver to my house as many cigarettes as are wanted.

While I do not wish to attach blame to a particular sector of the distributing world, because here we are dealing with area multiples, private traders, small village shops and with the co-operative movement, I was surprised to hear my hon. Friends lay so much emphasis on the co-operative societies. I do not expect sympathy for the co-operative movement from the Economic Secretary, but. although he emphasised participation in this type of trading by co-operative societies, what he did not emphasise was that this is often the most uneconomic trading done by them. In trying to secure amendment of the law, they are motivated solely by the desire to give a service to their membership, since the profit on cigarettes and tobacco is often less than the dividend paid per pound's worth of purchases.

As I have said, the law on this matter is in disrepute, and it can be abused often and by all sorts of devious methods. All that we have to establish is whether the degree of travelling shop distribution justifies a change in the law. There can be no developments in the next twelve months different from those of the past ten years. This is not the first occasion that the Economic Secretary, in trying to find a method of staving off ultimate defeat, has said that the Government will have a look at this problem to see what can be done about it. The case advanced by the hon. Gentleman flies in the face of experience in every sector of distribution. If the hon. Gentleman rejects the wording of the new Clause and believes that it may well not be tight enough, there is no reason why, if he accepts the principle of it, he cannot so frame a proposal in another place—

Mrs. Slater

The Bill does not go there.

Mr. Loughlin

It goes there, but the other place has no right to amend it.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward J. Milne (Blyth)

I should like to refer to two brief points and particularly to part of the Economic Secretary's argument concerning the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). The Economic Secretary remarked that my hon. Friend had suggested that the travelling shops needed, and should be allowed, to work for as many hours as they wished. My hon. Friend spoke also, however, about the question of the 44-hour week and the fact that over a large section of distribution the actual working hours are 42 a week.

I listened with interest to the speech of the Economic Secretary and to some of the background history of this legislation. It appears to me that it is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Economic Secretary whom we have to convince, but that the hon. Gentleman rested his case upon the National Association of Retail Tobacconists. Obviously, that is the pressure group which has to be considered in this matter. The retail tobacconists do not, however, operate mobile shops and the hon. Gentleman is not likely to have pressure applied from that direction.

I have no wish to add to the already formidable arguments presented by my hon. Friends on this side of the House about allowing traders who already sell tobacco from their main retail points to extend that service to the travelling shops operated from those retail points. To wait a year or even ten years in the hope that the retail tobacconists will do something about this is a vain hope and the House can only divide on the issue.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 215.

Division No. 237.] AYES [9.02 p.m.
Ainsley, William Boardman, H. Brockway, A. Fenner
Awbery, Stan Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Bacon, Miss Alice Bowles, Frank Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Benson, Sir George Boyden, James Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Blyton, William Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Chapman, Donald Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rankin, John
Chetwynd, George Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, s.) Redhead, E. C.
Cronin John Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Crosland, Anthony Jones, T. w. (Merioneth) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Crossman, R. H. S. Kelley, Richard Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Rogers G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Darling, George King, Dr. Horace Ross, William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lawson, George Short, Edward
Deer, George Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Delargy, Hugh Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Diamond, John Lipton, Marcus Skeffington, Arthur
Dodds, Norman Logan, David Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Driberg, Tom Loughlin, Charles Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. MacColl, James Soskice, Rt. Hon. sir Frank
Edelman, Maurice McInnes, James Spriggs, Leslie
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McKay, John (Wallsend) Stonehouse, John
Evans, Albert Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Stones, William
Fletcher, Eric McLeavy, Frank Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Manuel, A. C. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Ginsburg, David Mapp, Charles Swain, Thomas
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C Marsh, Richard Swingler, Stephen
Gourlay, Harry Mendelson, J. J. Symonds, J. B.
Grey, Charles Milne, Edward J. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Mitchison, G. R. Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, w.) Monslow, Walter Thornton, Ernest
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Moody, A. S. Tomney, Frank
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mort, D. L. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hannan, William Moyle, Arthur Wainwright, Edwin
Hayman, F. H. Mulley, Frederick Warbey, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn-Arthur (RwlyRegis) Neal, Harold Weitzman, David
Hilton, A. V. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) White, Mrs. Eirene
Holman, Percy Oliver, G. H. Whitlock, William
Houghton, Douglas Owen, Will Wilkins, W. A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Padley, W. E. Willey, Frederick
Hoy, James H. Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pavitt, Laurence Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Hunter, A. E. Pentland, Norman Winterbottom, R. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Popplewell, Ernest Woof, Robert
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Janner, Sir Barnett Probert, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Jeger, George Randall, Harry Mr. McCann.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.)
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Craddock, Sir Beresford Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Allason, James Critchley Julian Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Arbuthnot, John Crowder, F. P. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Cunningham, Knox Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Atkins, Humphrey Curran, Charles Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Barber, Anthony Currie, G. B. H. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Barlow, Sir John Dance, James Harvie Anderson, Miss
Barter, John d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Deedes, W. F. Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton de Ferranti, Basil Hiley, Joseph
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Donaldson, Cmdr. C, E. M. Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Biggs-Davison, John Doughty, Charles Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Bingham, R. M. Duncan, Sir James Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Bishop, F. P. Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hirst, Geoffrey
Black, Sir Cyril Elliott, R.W.(N'wcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hobson, John
Bossom, Olive Emery, Peter Hocking, Philip N.
Bourne-Arton, A. Errington, Sir Eric Holland, Philip
Box, Donald Farey-Jones, F. W. Hopkins, Alan
Boyle, Sir Edward Farr, John Hornby, R. P.
Brewis, John Finlay, Graeme Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Fisher, Nigel Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Bryan, Paul Forrest, George Hughes-Young, Michael
Bullard, Denys Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Gammans, Lady Iremonger, T. L.
Burden, F. A. George, J. C. (Pollok) Jackson, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert Gibson-Watt, David James, David
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Glover, Sir Douglas Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Chataway, Christopher Goodhart, Philip Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Gower, Raymond Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Grant, Rt. Hon. William Kerans, Cdr. J. s.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Green, Alan Kerby, Capt. Henry
Cole, Norman Gresham Cooke, R. Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Grimond, J. Kershaw, Anthony
Cordeaux, Lt.-Coi. J. K. Grimston, Sir Robert Lebum, Gilmour
Cordle, John Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Costain, A. P. Gurden, Harold Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Courtney, Gdr. Anthony Hall, John (Wycombe) Linstead, Sir Hugh
Litchfield, Capt. John Partridge, E. Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Seiwyn (Wirral) Peel, John Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Longbottom, Charles Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Longden, Gilbert Pilkington, Sir Richard Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Loveys, Walter H. Pitt, Miss Edith Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
McAdden, Stephen Pott, Percivall Turner, Colin
MacArthur, Ian Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
McLaren, Martin Price, David (Eastleigh) van Straubenzee, Donald
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Prior, J. M. L. Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Quennell, Miss J. M. Vickers, Miss Joan
McMaster, Stanley R. Rawlinson, Peter Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Wade, Donald
Maddon, Martin Rees, Hugh Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mamningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Rees-Davies, W. R Walder, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank Renton, David Walker, Peter
Marshall, Douglas Roots, William Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Marten, Neil Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Wall, Patrick
Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Ward, Dame Irene
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Russell, Ronald Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mawby. Ray Scott-Hopkins, James Whitelaw, William
Maxweil-Hyslop, R. J. Seymour, Leslie Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Sharples, Richard Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mills, Stratton Shaw, M. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Montgomery, Fergus Shepherd, William Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Skeet, T. H. H. Wise, A. R.
MOtt-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Spearman, Sir Alexander Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Nabarro, Gerald Speir, Rupert Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Noble, Michael Stanley, Hon. Richard Woodhouse, CM.
Nugent, Sir Richard Stevens, Geoffrey Woodnutt, Mark
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Storey, Sir Samuel Woollam, John
Orr-Ewing, c. Ian Studholme, Sir Henry Worsley, Marcus
Osborn, John (Hallam) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West) Temple, John M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Page, Graham (Crosby) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Mr. Chichester-Clark and
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Mr. Frank Pearson.