New Clause.—(WHOLESALE LIQUOR LICENCES.) (Hansard, 30 May 1963)

§ MT. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I think, Sir William, that with new Clause No. 72 it would be convenient to discuss the next new Clause, No. 73—"Soliciting orders for liquor at unlicensed premises"—which is also in my name.

§ The Chairman
Yes, that would be possible.

§ Mr. Mellish
I hope that tonight I can make it a treble of acceptances by the Government as they are in such a good mood. I will be frank, and tell the Committee that I was asked to put down these Clauses by the National Federation of Off-Licence Holders Associations of England and Wales. This is a very reputable body, and although I see that one hon. Member is shaking his head, I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would agree that it provides a good example of all that is best in private enterprise. There is here no State ownership. These are ordinary folk with shops where there are off-sales of intoxicating liquor. They are governed by licence. They have to go to justices and obtain a licence. Having obtained a licence, they must conform to the terms of the licence. They are restricted to certain hours. They can open only at a certain time. They are by law compelled to close at a certain time.
The Clause is introduced because for some time now they have been concerned and worried about unorthodox trading which takes place in the sale of intoxicating liquor. In 1961 Parliament made considerable changes in the licensing laws. I pay tribute to the right hon. 1690 Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), who was in charge of the Measure at the Home Office at that time. He steered the Bill through Standing Committee and the House of Commons in a very excellent way. It was an important Bill. It extended the licensing hours. However, the Committee will agree that no fundamental change was made in the basic principle of the licensing system, whereby the sale of liquor to the public is controlled still by licensing justices by means of the grant of a justices' licence.
In recent years there has been a growing practice for intoxicating liquor to be supplied in wholesale quantities to private individuals employed at town halls, Government Departments, large undertakings, etc., and for the liquor to be subsequently redistributed by such individuals in small quantities to other persons employed in the same undertaking. Any transaction involving the sale of liquor without a licence is a serious statutory offence. It has always been considered that the distribution of liquor by unlicensed persons was effectively controlled by the provisions contained in Section 239 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, which makes it an offence to solicit orders on unlicensed premises. However, legal opinion has now revealed that the existing provisions are drawn up in such vague terms that it is doubtful whether they are capable of effective enforcement.
My argument is that, unless some action is taken to put in more precise terms the present law relating to the sale or distribution of liquor by unlicensed persons on unlicensed premises, the whole principle of our licensing system will be completely undermined.
I will give some examples of what is going on today. An unlicensed branch of a chain store and an unlicensed mobile shop are free to take orders for liquor and pass them on with impunity. For example, the licensed trade may object to a licence being granted to a particular branch of a shop, and the objection may be sustained; but the application for a licence in a nearby country branch may slip through and all the trading may be done through that branch.
The London Transport Executive, a body I normally support in most things, has a sports club at Cheam. This enables the executive to get liquor at wholesale 1691 prices without any licence. It in turn uses the facilities of that club and is able to deliver liquor in bulk to all its transport depots.

§ Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)
Who does the executive pass the order on to? Is it to a wholesaler or to the actual distiller?

§ Mr. Mellish
The executive gets the liquor from a wholesaler. I was coming on to deal with how the liquor is obtained in the first place. I am sorry I have not made it clear yet, but I intend to do so. A great deal of intoxicating liquor is sold there without any licence being required whatsoever and it is being obtained in the first instance from a wholesaler. A wholesaler's licence is very easy to get. It is a matter of filling in a form. Provided the wholesaler guarantees to sell X number of cases and X number of bottles, that makes him a wholesaler. The difference is that retailers, for whom I am arguing tonight, have to conform with certain licensing laws. It is an abuse arising from the wholesaler and the supplies from him that my argument is directed to.
I am advised, for example, that there is a very large wine company in London —I will not mention its name—which supplies members of a certain trade union—N.A.L.G.0. —if it is a trade union. I suppose it is. It sells wines and spirits to N.A.L.G.O. at greatly reduced prices.

§ Mr. Richard Marsh (Greenwich)
It may help my hon. Friend's case if I tell him that I understand that the same company sells wines at Christmas to the staff of the head office of the Transport and General Workers' Union.

§ Mr. Mellish
That is all the more reason why it should be stopped. If I find it necessary to argue against my friends, I do so. There is no reason why, if trade unionists want to buy beer, they should not get it from the retailer and pay the proper price for it, as I do. Why should anybody in Transport House get privileges which I do not get? Most of them get better salaries than I get, because we pay our Members of Parliament such bad rates of pay—but I should be out of order to pursue that.
1692 I understand that provident societies may also act as collectors and solicit orders for intoxicating liquor when taking orders for other commodities. It is as if they say, "If you buy A, B, C and D, we will get you intoxicating liquor at wholesale prices." The Customs and Excise know what is going on and are not vague and innocent about it. It is going on in a big way. The licensing trade feels that this method of trading strikes at the whole licensing system and that there is nothing to stop persons under the age of 18 from obtaining liquor in this way. It is asking that the law be amended in such a way as will restrict the holder of a wholesale licence and the holder of a justice's licence from being able to supply liquor to unlicensed premises. It is recognised that this is a difficult task and that there is a difficulty in drawing a line between merchants supplying a genuine association for legitimate purposes of stocking the cupboard of their headquarters—perhaps that is Transport House—and the problem of supplying one member of staff of a large hospital who is buying on behalf of 300 nurses.
The Board of Trade, I understand, is not able to enforce Section 239(2) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, because it contends, on the advice of its lawyers, that the words used in it are incapable of legal definition, and in no case brought to its notice could it be held that orders for intoxicating liquor had been taken or solicited contrary to the law.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is well briefed on this matter. I have read from a brief which I have been given, for I am not an expert in the sale of intoxicating liquor or an expert in very much in the House. Although I am arguing on behalf of the wines and spirits trade, I do not like either wines or spirits.
I have put forward a genuine anomaly which is creating concern among people for whom I have some respect. They serve a useful purpose in the community. I become annoyed about the people who manufacture intoxicating liquor, the brewers and the distillers, because they do not help very much. I wish that they would co-operate with what I call the genuine retailer who is selling their wares. I have said before, and I repeat, that the publican and off-licensee is by and large 1693 a credit to Britain. We get very little trouble from these people and from the way in which their houses are run. We should encourage them. If there are anomalies, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to admit that there are and to tell us what can he done. I realise that it is difficult. I hope that the hon. Member will continue in the very pleasant way which he has shown on the last two Clauses and will concede the case which I have made.

§ Mr. Hirst
I support a good deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I have some interest in the matter, which I have declared to the Committee ad nauseam, and I hope that it will be accepted that I have and will be taken as read. I congratulate the hon. Member because I know what is at the back of his mind—to ensure that there is reasonable fairness and justice within the law. We do not want anyone to get advantages which they should not get outside the legitimate use of the licensing system—and that is a view in common throughout the Committee.
There is a tremendous difference between the two new Clauses in this regard. Unhappily, I must say that I do not consider the first one practicable. I accept absolutely the arguments and intentions of the hon. Member for Bermondsey, and I only wish that someone would introduce something which would be practicable. I do not know whether it is possible for the Treasury to do so, because what is required, unfortunately, is foreknowledge on the part of the wholesale dealer as to what is going to happen to the liquor after he has sold it. That is a difficulty with which we have to contend here.
It is, of course, illegal for the customer to sell the liquor unless he holds a licence or a club certificate. What is happening is that someone in a canteen or business house who is a staff member buys as an agent on behalf of other people at preferential rates in order to get round the clear intentions of the Licensing Act. I should be grateful if we could get over this because it is not fair to people who are doing ordinary business, paying exceptional rates and conducting their business in a proper way.
1694 I cannot say to my hon. Friend that he should accept this new Clause, but I hope that thought will be given to the matter to see whether the objects which the hon. Member for Bermondsey has put forward, in much better detail than I am doing, can be met.

§ Mr. Mellish
I would certainly withdraw the Motion and new Clause if I were promised that an appropriate Clause would be introduced on Report.

§ Mr. Hirst
The second new Clause is much easier, and I do not see why it should not be accepted. It seeks to prohibit the taking of orders for intoxicating liquor at unlicensed branches of merchants licensed elsewhere. It is a perfectly straightforward matter, and has been argued before. I have never heard why it cannot be answered. It is practicable, and it does not have the difficulties of the first new Clause.
I should like my hon. Friend to consider it most carefully, and if he has not come here with certain advice—because, knowledgeable as he is, he cannot know everything about the Clause, although I very much admired his technique today—I should like him to give particular attention to it. However difficult it may be to deal with the first new Clause before Report, I think that the second one should be accepted.

§ Mr. Marsh
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I hope that the Financial Secretary will not assist these particular reactionaries. My hon. Friend will be well aware that we on this side recently discussed in great detail consequences which stemmed from personal attacks on colleagues. While the penalties are apparently limited, none the less one would hope that that would deter my hon. Friend from pursuing this issue.
I believe in the need for competition as a spur to efficiency in industry and commerce. It is perfectly reasonable and is a typical Labour Party policy. It is our intention after the next election to construct a number of public companies in order to increase the degree of competition in British industry, and in direct competition with existing companies. I also believe that the consumer has a degree of right to freedom of 1695 choice concerning how he conducts his activities.
The point at issue is the very widespread practice of people who purchase alcoholic drinks through clubs and associations at below the normal retail price because they buy in bulk. There must be very few hon. Members who do not at Christmas time purchase their drinks at privileged prices. I speak only for myself, of course, but I should be pleased to hear the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) say that he has always paid the full market price for the liquor which he purchases.

§ Mr. Hirst
I am pleased to oblige the hon. Gentleman. I have already declared that I am a director of a brewery. So I do not have to go in for the illicit trading which this Clause seeks to try to prohibit.

§ Mr. Marsh
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a degree of Orwellian equality in which all men are equal but some are more equal than the rest. Be that as it may, I think it is a harmless practice.
I can appreciate the problem of the retailer.

§ Mr. Brewis
It is not confined only to members of clubs, but the ordinary private individual can purchase liquor direct from the wholesaler.

§ Mr. Marsh
I want to come to that point, but I do not want to pursue this long as I am deliberately making a noncontroversial, non-party speech in the hope that hon. Members on both sides will be able to support it.
There are two arguments. One is about the interpretation of the law. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey, I think his interpretation is open to question. The other one is on whether or not this is a fair method of trading. There is enormous economic waste in this country in retail distribution because retail distribution is so hopelessly inefficient. It seems an extraordinary argument from one of my hon. Friend's political persuasion to suggest that one has to go through a retail outlet if there is no apparent need so to do.
My final point is that anything which increases the number of outlets for the 1696 sale of alcoholic liquor in this country, subject to the controls which are imposed in public houses and elsewhere, is to be welcomed. This country has more extraordinary liquor laws than any other country in Europe. I do not know whether it is possible to have a survey into this but I should have thought that the peculiar problems which an adult in a civilised country like Britain has in getting a drink at certain hours of the day must have a deleterious effect on the tourist trade.
I hope that the Economic Secretary will give the matter more consideration before he gives way to what appears to be, on the one hand, a peculiar reading of the existing law and, on the other hand, a degree of special pleading—

§ Mr. Mellish
I am sorry that my hon. Friends brings in an argument about special pleading. Thousands of retailers are involved in this, and the point is that conformity is incumbent on some people and not on others, though all are selling the same sort of stuff. What I am arguing is that all should be subject to the same law, and that the law should not apply to some sections and not to others. My hon. Friend and I are both motorists. He would not expect that I should be allowed to drive just as I like and not be punished if need be, while if he were to drive as he likes he would be punished.

§ Mr. Marsh
Having met my hon. Friend at the Elephant and Castle recently when we were in our respective cars, I am not sure he puts that into practice all the time.
One can appreciate the point of view, but there is a perfectly reasonable point of view against it—the point of view of the consumer which I should have thought deserving of equal consideration.

§ Mr. Walker
I wish to support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) and add to them the problem connected with a sphere of retailing which is very much connected with my constituency, the mail order houses. There is an increasing sale of wines and spirits from mail order houses. It is becoming increasingly popular, because it is a way in which customers can choose items they wish to secure and obtain a degree of credit. 1697 Those in lower income groups who want a celebration at Christmas time or in connection with a wedding can use the facilities of a mail order house and obtain wines on a basis which enables them to obtain a degree of credit which is made available. New Clause No. 73 would prevent any mail order house selling intoxicating liquor through its normal processes. This would be a curtailment to be deplored.

§ Mr. Hirst
We are only trying to ensure by the Finance Bill what the licensing Acts do not ensure, that sales are made from licensed premises and not from unlicensed premises.

§ Mr. Walker
New Clause No. 73 says: If any person solicits, takes, canvasses or procures orders for intoxicating liquor either directly or indirectly at premises in respect of which a licence is not held". All the agents of a mail order house take orders on premises which are not licensed. If this Clause were agreed to they would not be allowed to do so. It would have the effect of stopping the sale from mail order houses.

§ Mr. du Cann
I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for raising a subject about which there is undoubtedly a great deal of feeling both in the Committee and outside. I am sure he would wish me to say, and the Committee would agree, that those for whom he has spoken are most worthy and admirable people. There is no question about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) asked if we had been giving thought to this matter. He and the Committee may like to know that I received a deputation a little time ago from the National Consultative Council of the Retail Liquor Trade, led by Councillor Webb, which first gave me an interest in this subject. So it has been considered. I should like to follow what the hon. Member for Bermondsey said and to describe the situation in general. Put in a nutshell, the position is that some licensed wholesalers, and also some licensed retailers, have been expanding their businesses by offering wines and spirits at cut prices through certain channels. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and the hon. Member for 1698 Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) gave examples of wine societies, institutions, office associations, sports clubs, and now we learn, even the sanctum sanctorum of the trade unions. Retail organisations are opposed to this, although some of their own members are offending in the matter. They sought to establish that this kind of activity was prohibited by, and illegal under, Section 239 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952. Legal opinion has not upheld that view.
Trade associations have been very reluctant to accept this conclusion, hence no doubt, the present debate. They have made substantial representations to the Customs about it and have been told that there is no Revenue ground on which any change in the law could be justified. It is clear that the excise control of liquor is in no way affected by the situation which is developing. I want to make that point clear. I shall come to social considerations later. They, perhaps, are another matter. The hon. Member for Bermondsey raised in particular the question of sales to young persons. These are of course subject, irrespective of who is selling anything or handing it on, to the ordinary restrictions imposed by the ordinary law. I wish to give a clear warning on this point. It is that sales to persons under the age of 18 by a collector would certainly make the licensed trader from whom that collector accepted his supplies liable for a breach of the law. I think that that is a substantial safeguard against the kind of social danger to which the hon. Member for Bermondsey has properly drawn attention.

§ Mr. Brewis
Suppose that one gets through the post a catalogue of such-and-such intoxicating liquors and one sends off a cheque and the liquor comes straight from the distillery, who will check the age of the person supplied?

§ Mr. du Cann
There are always the practical problems, but that does not affect the legal position. Young people may fill football coupons, or young people may masquerade as older people and go into public houses, but the law is firm and it is the Government's intention to see that it is applied.

§ Mr. Mitchison
I am speaking off the cuff but I think that circulars from moneylenders usually contain the qualification that no money is to be loaned 1699 to persons under the age of 21. I wonder whether mail order houses selling liquor in this way are obliged to put qualifications on any circulars they issue or to make the qualification in any public canvassing they do.

§ Mr. du Cann
I cannot honestly say that I have ever received a circular from money lenders, but I dare say that what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) says is entirely correct. The hon. and learned Member drew attention to the fact that there is a class of trader who probably for his own protection stipulates that he will not do business, as far as he is able to prevent it, with persons who are minors. That is obviously a matter of common sense and protection. I am not qualified to say what is the practice of mail order houses but their legal responsibility is entirely clear and any prudent organisation would be well advised to take precautions. Whether they will do so after reading this debate at this late hour of the night I should not like to say, but the law on sales to young persons is entirely clear.
The proposed new Clauses seek to assist the desire of the trade to control the position by a double move. The first part would be to take away the price advantage by preventing a wholesale dealer giving wholesale terms to members of an association or club, and so on, except for purchases of not less than wholesale quantities. This would rule out the system currently adopted. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, blushing with his success in getting his new Clause accepted by the Government, will find himself right again in saying that this is not a practical proposal. One cannot inquire into people's minds. I could not advise the Committee to accept that new Clause for that reason.

§ Mr. Mellish
Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the present system of issuing wholesale licences is very undesirable in that there is no need of any proof of the suitability of the wholesaler and no inquiries are made in the district? Hardly any question is asked. and almost anybody can obtain a licence to sell a commodity which is subject to very tight laws when anybody else sells it on retail premises.

§ Mr. du Cann
That is a parallel to some extent with tobacco licences, but the law is designed to protect the revenue and we are entirely satisfied that it is being protected.
The second new Clause is an attempt at a wider solution by rendering these transactions illegal by tightening the wording of Section 239. The difficulty with this new Clause is not only a matter of drafting. According to the best advice available to me, the Clause does not make any difference to the interpretation of Section 239. It is the hon. Member's argument that Section 239 is in any case defective. I must say that the new Clause is equally or even more defective because it will not achieve the purpose which the hon. Member has in mind. Therefore, I must advise the Committee again not to adopt this new Clause.
We have this situation. The hon. Member for Greenwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) are in favour of no action at all being taken in this matter. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley are in favour of some action being taken. The matter really comes in sum to this: there are no Revenue grounds for altering the law. There may or may not be social grounds. This is a matter for discussion, and perhaps for argument. We are not discussing the widest social aspects of the matter; that is to say, whether or not liquor should be sold at all. We are not engaging, so to speak, in a temperance debate. What we are discussing is the simple and narrow question, as the hon. Member for Greenwich suggested, of the methods of distribution that should be adopted.
I must make it clear that, so far as the Treasury interest is concerned, the Government are obviously loth to interfere with existing practices, let alone to stop the development of new practices; whereas the hon. Member for Greenwich suggested that these are possibly in the interests of and favourable to consumers in general. It must be appropriate that traders should develop their businesses as they see fit. There can be no social objection to that. In a sense, one can draw a parallel with trade in more ordinary goods, in the sense that if people band together 1701 to buy refrigerators cheaply, jolly good luck to them. I do not say that retailers in general do not render splendid service. If people like to go and buy things from traders who do not give them service, that is a matter for them—

§ Mr. Mellish
That is an unfair argument, to talk about a retailer selling refrigerators. This is also the fallacy in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh). We are discussing the retailer who is licensed. He has to go before the magistrates and conform to certain conditions according to the law. If he were just an ordinary retailer with none of these restrictions, I would not be arguing this case. Of course, may the best man win and may the cheapest price prevail, but this argument is so unfair. We cannot, on the one hand, impose conditions on a retailer and, on the one hand, kick him around.

§ Mr. du Cann
There are many classes of retailers who have to conform to various 'legal requirements, in connection with the welfare of their staff and all the rest of it.

§ Mr. Mellish
Are they subject to the licensing laws?

§ Mr. du Cann
Broadly speaking, this is simply a matter of trade discipline. If the trade objects to these, so to speak, private enterprise efforts, it is really up to the trade, basically speaking, to regulate itself.

§ Mr. Hirst
With respect to my hon. Friend, he has misunderstood this Clause. I am sorry, because he has been doing magnificently. He has churned through thousands of technical matters today, but honestly he does not know what he is talking about. I do not want to be rude, but he really does not. Certain hon. Members do know what they are talking about. Does my hon. Friend suggest that we can all set up shops and have no licensing at all? If so, why on earth have we spent so long dealing with a licensing Measure recently? This is not a case of the ordinary trader. It is a case where the laws says "You have got to be licensed to sell liquor." We object to people selling it in a business which is not licensed.

§ Mr. du Cann
I am sorry that I should disappoint my hon. Friend, for I thought that I was giving a sober explanation, even though it is a little late in the day. I remind him that I did describe the position under Section 239 of the Act. I have advised the Committee—as the hon. Member for Bermondsey has agreed—that there is no law being broken here. I have added to that that there is no Revenue problem. It is a social problem, and, broadly, it is a matter of trade discipline. It is a battle of interests, to put it like that.

§ Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)
I am sorry to butt in, but it is not just a social problem. It is a licensing problem. My hon. Friend must not try to assure the Committee that this is merely a social problem when it is, in fact, a question of some traders being licensed to deal in certain goods while others are not. We either abandon the whole principle of licensing or we must maintain the law as it stands for licensed premises.

§ Mr. du Cann
I am surprised at the strength of opinion that there should be a monopoly of distribution in one sector. But I will not pursue that further because it must be the wish of the Committee that we come to a conclusion on the matter.
I repeat that there is no Revenue interest in this. There is no Revenue protection difficulty. It seems to us that it is a social question and a matter of trade competition. On the other hand, it must be right to consider the views of the Committee on a serious matter of this kind very carefully. It seemed to us, therefore, that the appropriate course would be to see that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is concerned, has his attention drawn particularly to the matters which have been discussed and described during the debate. That I certainly undertake to do.
In the light of that assurance, I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose warm feeling on the matter I quite appreciate, will not seek to press the new Clause.

§ Mr. Mitchison
I agree with a good deal of what the Economic Secretary said, but we must have the position a little clearer. The new Clause is in order on the Finance Bill. It relates to the practice of the Customs and Excise, and, though there may be no fiscal question directly involved, it still entails a real Treasury responsibility. On the other hand, as one hon. Member rightly said, the real question here is a licensing question. We are not here to conduct a temperance debate or a debate on whether or not there should be any licensing laws. This is a much narrower point. As it seems to me—I make no claim to special knowledge, and I have merely listened to the debate—here are provisions in the Customs and Excise Act which, presumably, have been introduced for some purpose, and there seems to be a genuine difference of opinion as to what they really mean.
Two fundamental points emerge. First, it is perfectly easy to get a wholesale licence. It is, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, rather like the tobacconist's licence which is now to go. The standard is much the same. On the other hand, a retailer's licence is a far more serious matter. It is really one of the engines of control over the sale of intoxicating liquor. We are not discussing the policy of it, but, assuming, as we must, that there is some reason for controlling the sale of intoxicating liquor, at least the people concerned ought to know what the law is. We must be quite clear that the broad purpose behind our licensing legislation is being achieved. Having listened to the debate, I am far from satisfied that it is being achieved.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee. I do not feel inclined to do so, and perhaps other hon. Members feel the same. Obviously, this cuts across the Floor of the Committee. But we should have an undertaking that the hon. Gentleman will see the Home Secretary and ask him to consider this. Then, if my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) does what I think he would be wise to do—withdraw this Clause—we may have an opportunity on Report to take up this matter again if an appropriate Amendment is fortunate enough to be selected.
The Treasury should, by then, be ready to state its considered views. 1704 We have heard the views of the hon. Gentleman, but, with respect to him, I did not feel that the Government had really got the point that was being raised. Some of the remarks about monopoly and the character of retailing were rather wide of the mark. It is simply a question of what is the intention of the licensing laws in this matter, whether that intention is being carried out, and whether there is some provision on the Statute Book the meaning of which nobody knows and nobody can enforce. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do as I suggest, if this Clause is withdrawn, and will take steps to see that the Government appreciate the issues involved if and when my hon. Friend and other hon. Members see fit to raise this matter at a later stage.

§ Mr. du Cann
If the Committee so wishes, I will certainly repeat that it is my intention to see that the matter is discussed with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to consider what he says. Naturally, we shall take into account the feelings expressed tonight.

§ Mr. Mellish
I am not happy with the reply of the Economic Secretary, because he did not seem to take the point. This is a matter concerning the licensing system and the injustice of it to those in the retail trade. I understand that the appropriate organisations have been telling the Government—and I presume that means the Home Office—for a long time but that no action has been taken. It is because of that that we have put on this short but, I hope, useful debate.
I will, on the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), withdraw the Clause. We shall try again on Report in the hope that you, Sir Robert, will select such an Amendment to give the Government a chance to tell us of their discussions with the various Departments concerned.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston)
I cannot say anything about the selection of Amendments on Report stage. That is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Hirst
I anticipated this situation. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider this matter between now and Report. The point has been misunderstood tonight. We are not going to get the answer by discussing it 1705 with the Home Secretary. This is an Excise matter.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put the thing very well. I am grateful. He was about 99 per cent right, which is more than most people have been about it. According to experience, it is not very easy for a back bencher to get an Amendment accepted on Report which has been considerably discussed in Committee, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will at least endeavour to look at this and perhaps be able to do something on Report.

§ Mr. Mellish
I am grateful for the co-operation I have had from a very unexpected source. In the light of the statement by the Economic Secretary, and in the knowledge that the Chancellor has listened to the debate—I know his intelligence in matters of this kind, so I am sure that he will discuss it and put something down on Report—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.