MESSRS. J. M. BALFRY, BORDON (Hansard, 15 February 1967)

§ Miss J. M. Quennell (Petersfield)

I wish to raise the case of Messrs. J. M. Balfry, of Bordon, and their concession from the War Department. This is the case of a small family business which finds itself in desperate straits because of the extraordinary behaviour of the Administration in their dealings with that firm. I contend that the Administration have been dilatory and monstrously unfair. Messrs. Balfry, on the other hand, have sought by every means in their power to meet the requirements of the Ministry and have leant over backwards to be helpful. The only result is that at the end of about 37 years of negotiations they face the prospect of being thrown out on the road a few months hence, with no premises, no goodwill, and nothing to show for generations of service to the Armed Forces of the Crown.

I have a thick file of papers here. The Minister need not be alarmed. I have the documentation for every statement that I am going to make interleaved with my notes, so that I can establish the truth of everything I say.

Messrs. Balfry were established in 1894 in Bordon, on a concession or encroachment granted from the then Minister of War. Their business originally was to supply newspapers, refreshments and sundries of all descriptions to the men who built the camp before the arrival of the troops, who were destined for the South African wars. The first Balfry then supplied a similar service to the troops of those days, even moving with them when they were on exercise under canvas, when he, too, went under canvas and moved with his supplies.

The requirements of the soldiers of those days were somewhat different from those of the modern soldiers. The Balfrys have always moved with the times and their encroachments have been renewed over the years. Their premises were built on land owned by the War Office, but the land on which they stood remained the property of the War Office. That was, and is to this day, the nature of their tenancy.

However, in 1930 the War Office initiated discussions the purport of which was that the firm should move their 576 premises so that the War Office could use the land on which they stood for other purposes. Messrs. Balfrys were willing to do so, but negotiations were broken off by the War Office, on account of the need to curtail their plans. Again, Balfrys agreed. In 1937 the War Office opened negotiations once more, with a view to the Balfrys' moving so that the land on which their premises stood could be redeveloped for military purposes. In 1939, war broke out and the War Office dropped its negotiations. Messrs. Balfrys agreed to this.

This story will not bear endless repetition, although it repeated itself after the war. Again, Messrs. Balfrys agreed to negotiations, and when the War Office wanted more time they agreed to the negotiations ceasing. This, to say the least, must have been very unsettling to any firm trying to plan its future. Perhaps Messrs. Balfrys are used to it by now, for by now the firm was in the hands of the fourth generation of the family that had founded it, and the peculiarities of the administrative side of the War Office were a Mendelian factor inherited by each generation from its immediate predecessor.

When the Ministry of Defence, for the fourth time, initiated negotiations with the object of getting Messrs. Balfrys to move their premises 300 yards from their present site, on which they had been since the 1890s, Messrs. Balfrys again were willing to treat. Messrs. Balfrys' business is defined by the terms of their current agreement with the War Department as a newsagent, tobacconist, confectioner, the sale of soft drinks, and sundries including the sale of patent medicines and toilet requisites. Nowhere during these protracted negotiations has there ever been a breath of criticism of the service that the firm has rendered to the troops and garrison. The commander has been at pains to try to avoid any interruption of the service that Messrs. Balfrys offer to the troops and their families, which they cannot get from N.A.A.F.I. The firm supplies goods to the officers' mess, the corporals' club, and sergeants' mess, and has done for years.

In a letter in 1964, the garrison commander wrote: This firm has had an encroachment since 1894, and the site of their present shop is 577 required for the extension of the building site for the new married soldiers quarters. They have given excellent service to the Army and we wish to allow them to perpetuate this. Two years ago, in April 1965, he wrote: Time should be allowed for Messrs. Balfrys to build their new shop on the corner of San Domingo Square and at the same time to carry on in their present location so as not to interrupt business or inconvenience the troops and families. It is anticipated that their present premises should be demolished in 1967, which should coincide with the completion of the new industrialised building. Thus, by 1965 matters had seemingly progressed to that point where the phasing of the new encroachment and its development, with the transfer of the business to the newly created site of the shop, could be actively married to the termination of the old encroachment. Messrs. Balfrys expected that they would have their new shop, on a 99 year lease, nearly built by that time, and the demolition of the old shop was not unnaturally planned for early this year.

Here it is that the troubles of the Balfrys really begin. Last year the Minister of Defence for the Army issued a circular, two paragraphs of which play an important part in this story. They effectively removed the control of the encroachment from the Army and placed the firm in the hands of the area manager of the N.A.A.F.I. This circular requires all concession holders to obtain the area manager's agreement to any change in their business. Messrs. Balfry's did not anticipate any difficulty in this connection.

The firm was not, after all, changing the nature of its business but simply changing its site, and that at the strong behest of the Army. Indeed, the Army Land Agent is one of those who is trying to hurry it along as fast as possible. It therefore proceeded to secure planning permission and engaged shop fitters and architects and entered into commitments which have involved it in expense—and all in good faith. Its plans have been drawn up on the assumption that it will secure the necessary agreements to its changeover without much difficulty.

However, when the new circular was issued, Messrs. Balfrys again approached the area manager of N.A.A.F.I., at the behest of the Land Agent. By the terms of the circular, they have to secure his agreement and decision to proceed with 578 the new premises. That application went to the area manager and they had no reply. They then telephoned the gentleman, who came to see them. He told them, I am sorry to say, that, circular or no circular, he would not take a decision of that nature and that they would have to go to the head office of N.A.A.F.I.

Having received that piece of intelligence, they therefore approached the head office, routing it through the War Office, as they had been instructed. That was on 2nd August. September passed and they had no reply until about six weeks later. In that reply, the N.A.A.F.I. told them that it had the strongest objection to Messrs. Balfrys continuing the business and trade which they had maintained for over four generations from the 19th century. Balfrys, they claimed, were only and primarily a newsagent.

However, it condescendingly agreed that the firm should be allowed to continue to sell all those things which people very seldom want, which Balfrys had never stocked and which the British soldier seldom buys. I have a list, if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is interested in it. I will quote only a few of the items because it is fairly long. It includes postcard views, Easter cards, pens, pencils and ink, and indoor games usually sold by stationers. I must say that the indoor games usually sold by stationers are not generally bought by soldiers. The list finished up with petrol lighters, which were, oddly enough, not objected to.

To this objectionable letter, Balfrys replied on 19th September, protesting that they had been tobacconists and confectioners supplying sundries to the troops since the last century. This is true: I have seen the records and have photostats of their early receipts as tobacconists. They pointed out that the proposal would reduce their turnover to one-fifth. It would drive them out of business and deprive the two partners of their livelihood. Considering that the senior partner, a Miss Balfry, is nearing 60, this is a deplorable blow.

That letter went back on 19th September and, considering the urgency—Messrs. Balfrys had assured the Army that their present premises would be available for demolition in early 1967—which is what it is now—it is incredible that the N.A.A.F.I. head office should 579 have allowed this delay to continue. There was no reply to that letter until nearly a fortnight ago, 31st January, 1967. I believe that this was quite deliberate on the part of the N.A.A.F.I. It knew it had the firm in a cleft stick and meant to keep it there until it had moved it.

During this correspondence, the Ministry of Defence Land Agent had been trying to get the N.A.A.F.I. to a meeting at which the Army representatives, Balfry's and himself could thrash out the difficulties. On 18th January, he wrote that he had written to the N.A.A.F.I. urging them either to come to a quick decision on this matter or to meet him on this basis with Army representatives in order amicably to settle the outstanding points of difference. This is what N.A.A.F.I. has refused, despite the pressure from the Army and the Land Agent, throughout these protracted negotiations, which is why I say that its behaviour towards Messrs. Balfrys is quite intentional.

The Army Land Agent again had no success whatever and it is clear that the N.A.A.F.I. was determined to be as un-co-operative as it could and it was. On the last day, Messrs. Balfrys were informed that N.A.A.F.I. would condescend to allow them to sell tobacco in addition to the other thingss mentioned, but refused to entertain the idea that they should continue to exercise their concession under their 1955 contract with the Army.

It is monstrous that the N.A.A.F.I. can dictate to the Army that it should breach its own contracts with concession holders, but that is, apparently, the position. Even more disgraceful, it is clearly against the Army's own wishes and it is deplorable in the case of firms with such an outstanding record of service to the Armed Services. If the N.A.A.F.I. does not like Balfrys, why does it not buy them out?

Now the N.A.A.F.I. agrees that Balfrys shall sell newspapers, which the N.A.A.F.I. does not sell anyway and which amounts to 20 per cent. of Balfry's turnover, and tobacco, which amounts to 57 per cent, on last year's figures. On this last item, although it is a concession a weakening by the N.A.A.F.I., Balfrys 580 know quite well—as does every other tobacconist—that the price control on tobacco is in doubt and, if there are cuts, they will not be able to compete in tobacco. Therefore, this matter is unsettled.

The firm must, therefore, be able to develop other lines if need be. It must be allowed a diversity of trade if it is to find the capital burden of about £10,000 which, after all, at the Army's instigation, it is willing to undertake and which is involved in transferring its premises to the new site and developing it. Even without this consideration, it would be quite indefensible, in equity, for the N.A.A.F.I. to say arbitrarily that this firm or any other must curtail its trade by about 30 per cent.

This would not provide a fair and proper return for the long hours which the two partners put into the business. A newsagent begins his hours much earlier than the ordinary worker and this is a trade which the N.A.A.F.I. cannot offer.

Another factor also comes in, which affects my constituents in Bordon. There are nearly 1,000 civilian workers employed in the Bordon Camp. They go in daily and cannot use the N.A.A.F.I. premises. They depend on Balfry's for their tobacco, sweets, biscuits, tea and coffee and the things they need for their daily "brews-up".

Without Balfrys trading on their present basis, these workers will be deprived of any opportunity to get the things they need for their refreshment during the day. They cannot use the N.A.A.F.I. In their interests, I ask that Balfry's should be allowed to continue the trade which they have given so long to civilians and Army alike. It is disgraceful that, even today, after all these protracted negotiations, Balfry's have not even been allowed to see the draft lease of their new premises, because of the deliberate blocking of the N.A.A.F.I.

Not only should Balfrys be given a lease forthwith, but the whole basis on which these concessions have been given should be altered. Balfry's have been working on the assumption, based on further assurances, and statements in correspondence, that they will get a 99-year lease from the Army, but their concessions to trade are not transferable. Therefore, they cannot create a goodwill 581 which can be sold, because their concession is terminable at six months' notice.

Balfrys have, in effect, no security of tenure whatever. This has never worried them in the past. Over the years they have learned to like and trust the Army. They have confidence in the Army. They have trusted the Army implicity. Now the Army has no say whatever in these concessions. It is the N.A.A.F.I. which controls concession holders' livelihoods. Balfry's certainly have not very much confidence in the behaviour of the N.A.A.F.I. in their case. I must say that I do not blame them.

I hope very much that, after this debate, the Under-Secretary of State for the Army will get the general manager on a long toasting fork in front of a red hot fire and keep him there for a darned long time. I ask that Balfrys should be given a 99-year lease, as has been promised to them verbally and as has been mentioned in documents from the Army, together with an amended concession which will give them security of tenure and enable them to create the goodwill to which they are entitled so that the senior partner, after the many years of service which she has given to civilians and the Army alike, should be able to retire decently, which I think her long years of service entitle her to do.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Army (Mr. James Boyden)

I commend the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) for her systematic preparation of the case. I am particularly grateful to her for letting me have a sight of it first. I hope that I shall be able to suggest something which will lead to a solution of this problem. I cannot take responsibility for 37 years of the Army. I do not think that I can manage more than about 37 days. However, I will endeavour to be as helpful as I can.

Messrs. Balfry have provided a very useful service to the Bordon Garrison. I accept that they make this service rather wider than the N.A.A.F.I. can, in the ways the hon. Lady put to me. I hope very much that the hon. Lady's speech and what I have to say will re-cement the good relations which have existed between Balfrys and the Army.

582 I want to spend a moment or two on the N.A.A.F.I. side of the case. I think that the hon. Lady was a little unfair to N.A.A.F.I. The N.A.A.F.I. is the Services' own trading organisation, providing not only shops but also clubs and social facilities for all three Services. Its obligations are worldwide, whether in a theatre of operations such as Borneo or in the present difficult conditions in Aden. Wherever Service men or their families need shops and clubs, the N.A.A.F.I. is there. The hon. Lady will agree in general terms that N.A.A.F.I. does an excellent job. I expect that she knows a fair amount about the worldwide services provided by N.A.A.F.I. Without the service it provides and the job it does, morale in the Services and in Service families would certainly suffer.

N.A.A.F.I. operates under very difficult trading conditions. It is a non-profit-making organisation. It must balance the losses from its obligations in the difficult and uneconomic areas against trading surpluses elsewhere. It must provide prices and a standard of service comparable with private traders. Its custom has to be confined by and large to Service personnel and a very limited number of civilians.

In the light of these trading conditions and obligations, it is wholly proper that N.A.A.F.I. should be given protection against traders who would otherwise operate on Army Department land. The N.A.A.F.I. cannot pick and choose the cream of the market. A private trader can do that. Unrestricted trade cannot be allowed to private traders on Ministry of Defence land. Once N.A.A.F.I. has undertaken the obligation to provide a range of goods to serve the families in the area, any consequent restriction of trading potential must affect the viability of N.A.A.F.I. and be to the detriment of Service interests. It is, therefore, Service policy to limit private trading on Service land where a N.A.A.F.I. is provided so that N.A.A.F.I. can provide reasonable services.

There are cases which merit special consideration. A trader like Balfrys may have had a trading licence of long-standing—over several years. Its cancellation may cause personal hardship, particularly when the business relies almost entirely on the military trade and provides the firm with its sole means 583 of livelihood. It is for this reason that we provide for an appeal by the trader against any action by the Army or N.A.A.F.I. which he thinks unfair. In this case there is an appeal to the G.O.C. in-C. of the Command, but Mr. Rickards, the present owner of Balfrys has not yet availed himself of this course of action. I hope that he will.

I come now to the details of this case. A new N.A.A.F.I. has been established at Bordon to provide a much better service for Service families in the area, and it would be most appropriate that any private trading on Service land which is to be continued should be fitted into the general scheme of things.

As the hon. Lady said, this firm has been there for well over 50 years. There have been no complaints at all about its service. The terms of its lease allow the firm to operate as newsagents, tobacconists and confectioners. The present shop and its store constitute the type of temporary structure which seems to outlive us all. It is hoped to remove this as an eyesore and get Messrs. Balfrys—that is, Mr. Rickards—set up in a proper way, in a way which I am sure he will find congenial both as to living conditions and as to shop conditions. I have seen the plans for his proposed shop and bungalow. It seems only proper that he should be given a lease in the same terms and covering the same commodities as are contained in the present lease.

To extend the range of his trading is, however, another matter which is of particular importance to the Services and to N.A.A.F.I. I understand that the firm sells a miscellany of items outside the commodities covered in the lease. I would not intend that this should necessarily cease, but what the commodities are and 584 the conditions under which they are offered ought to be a matter of agreement between Mr. Rickards, the Service authorities and N.A.A.F.I. I will give the hon. Lady the promise that neither she nor Messrs. Balfrys will find us rigid about this.

What I think is the best course of action—rather than to put precise terms about groceries, for example, in the lease —would be if Mr. Rickards, the Service authorities and the N.A.A.F.I. were to come to some gentlemen's agreement about what Messrs. Balfrys should sell. This would not be within the strict terms of the lease. I am sure that this is possible.

I apologise most sincerely to Messrs. Balfrys and to the hon. Lady for the delays which have taken place. There is really very little excuse for these. If Mr. Rickards will get in touch with the Southern Command and arrange a meeting with N.A.A.F.I. officials and with Southern Command, I am pretty confident that an agreement can be reached which will be satisfactory to N.A.A.F.I., satisfactory to Messrs. Balfrys, and satisfactory to the hon. Lady.