An Ordinary Man's Thoughts on the Drink Question

VIII.—Why not an Agreed Policy ?

The test of a wise policy is its applicability to existing conditions and its capacity to encourage and to facilitate further adoance.—(From a pamphlet issued by the Temperance Legislation League.) IF the public grasped the irrelevance and wastefulness J- of the way in which the temperance controversy is being conducted they would not, I think, tolerate it. They would revolt against such senselessness. '

The situation, as I see it, is briefly this : most people, though they sincerely want sobriety and decent public- houses, are not greatly interested in the politics of reform ; they leave the proposals, which they find too intricate to follow, to the comparatively few persons who study such things. Many excellent and earnest persons assume that the reformers are acting wisely and subscribe enough money for the temperance propaganda. The brewers feel that the propaganda is so aimed as to be a direct attack upon their Trade and they spend similarly large sums on defending themselves. So far as accom- plishing reform goes most of this money might as well be thrown into the gutter. The Trade is not far mistaken in thinking that the propaganda is directed against it as a Trade. The truth is that the task of the early reformers was simply to prevent drunkenness, and they thought that the best means of doing that was to abolish the " drink traffic." There has been a great reduction of drunkenness, and the problem is now to improve public-houses, not to prevent the sale of drink ; but the methods and motives of the reformers have not changed sufficiently with the problem.

If the object is to get a high level of reformed and respectable public-houses throughout the land tli° money now wasted ought obviously to be spent on reforming the public-houses, not on conducting a superfluous fight. The Bishop of Liverpool's Bill, which, as I have said, holds the field as the latest effort in reform, seems to me more likely than any proposal I have come across to delay reform indefinitely. The alliance between those who want to abolish drink and those who want to screw up the public-houses to a better and more reputable service is fatal. I firmly believe that if the Trade were helped to reform itself, if it were told that it had nothing to fear if it observed a certain standard but everything to fear if it fell below that standard, we Should get something done. The Bishop of Liverpool's Bill does not destroy the Trade, but it immobilizes it. It has completely ignored the significance of that wise French proverb that the best is the enemy of the good. As the penetrating doctrine which I have placed at the head of this article has it, " the test of a wise policy is its applicability to existing conditions."

' The most powerful and, I fancy, the most popular school of reformers wants reconstructed public-houses like those at Carlisle. Why, then, not insist that the Trade shall supply them forthwith ? There is no essential difference between the Carlisle houses and the "improved" houses in private ownership. If an impartial stranger were taken into several specimens of both kinds he would not be able to say which was which.

If all those Who want reform but are not Prohibitionists would sink their formal differences about public ownership and private ownership and agree upon a policy, genuine progress could be made. This means, I know, an end of all attempt at co-operation between the State own.nr- ship school and the Prohibitionists. But that in my view would be an actual gain.

I said that I would make some positive suggestions. Here they are :—A definite challenge should be issued to the Trade to show what it can do. It professes to be capable of reform from within. Let it prove it. I should like to see an area given to the Trade for exhibition purposes. Carlisle has made a great noise. The evidence which the public ought to have will not be complete until the Trade has exhibited its alleged powers of self- reformation in an area corresponding to Carlisle. Per- sonally I am convinced from what I have seen that the Trade could " put up an excellent show." It has already done a good deal more than most people know. From the Trade's own point of view, of course, an. exhibition would be a danger because the maximum effort would tend to be exacted by the public afterwards as a minimum effort. I do not myself deprecate that danger, however, but rejoice in it. It is part of the challenge. The Trade would naturally be inclined to say that it could not compete against Carlisle, where the • Board is its own licensing authority and pays no taxes. But those unfair conditions, again, would be part of the challenge. The greater the victory in an uphill fight the greater the renown. The Trade would, of course, be requested to deal with the area in such a way that the scheme could be reproduced in essence elsewhere; that is to say, the exhibition must be economic, not merely spectacular. It must satisfy the tests of auditors.

How could the area be chosen ? There are great and obvious difficulties. In every area there arc rival brewery companies and they would have to call off their rivalry and amalgamate into one or more groups, at all events for the time being. After all, that has been done in Birmingham with remarkable success. Amalga- mation is the order of the day, and Mr. Sherwell has said that complete amalgamation of the Trade would be the nearest equivalent to "disinterested management" by means of State purchase. Personally I should dread complete amalgamation because I mistrust monopolies.

Another difficulty is that the Government could not possibly call upon the licensing justices to suspend their duties, their wills and consciences to make room for the exhibition. It is one of the chief glories of this country that the whole .Judiciary is independent of the Executive. I think a decision would have to be taken by some enterprising town, like Bristol or Notting- ham or Northampton or Newcastle, that it would form itself into an Exhibition Area, the licensing justices having already expressed their willingness to co-operate in the scheme, as has been done by those very enlightened and completely justified justices in Birmingham.

If I were a brewer and were thus challenged I should say, " Done with you ! Give me the chance." For if I were a brewer I should feel at present extremely uncom- fOrtable. I should feel that opinion was forming against My Trade as a whole because of the retention of small and disreputable boozing shops and because of the belief that during and since the War the Trade h is made very large profits. If invited by some town to the experiment the Trade would be wise to accept and foolish to refuse. It needs insurance for ,the future. And What a chance• for a courageous town to get a complete set of better public-houses and to become famous at the same time Is an agreed policy really possible ? This is almost the same question to my mind as, " Are we really practical people ? " I remember that there was something like agreed legislation in 1921. Mr. Gretton withdrew his Licensing Bill, as the Government refused facilities for it, and then representatives of the Trade and the Tem- perance reformers consulted and made joint recom- mendations to the Government. The result was the Licensing Act of that year. So that agreement is not impossible in itself.

In 1916 an attempt was made to indicate how the Trade could be enabled to reform itself, and it was decided by a Conference of the True Temperance Associa- tion, presided over by Lord Plymouth, that it would be good policy for the Government to give the Trade financial encouragement to raise the standard of its houses. A house receiving a certificate as an " Improved Public House " would be allowed to deduct fifty per cent. from its licence duty and would not be called upon to pay the compensation levy under the Balfour Act of 1904. I see that one of the signatories of the manifesto which was issued in support of that proposal was Mr. St. Loe Strachey, then Editor of the Spectator. The proposed financial help may have seemed justifiable at the time, but I suspect that it was too indulgent even then. It would be out of the question now. The Trade can afford reform—that is the common opinion. The principles of Lord Plymouth's Conference were embodied in the Public House Improvement Bill which has been introduced in Parliament more than once. The idea of the certificate, however, is excellent. A house holding a certificate could be given conditional security. " Do not fall below the required standard and you are safe." That degree of security is essential, for the expense of an " improved " public-house is enormous as compared with that of a mere drinking shop.

Now to turn from the Trade to the State. I believe that the State could render an invaluable service to the country if it would—as it has never done—regard temperance reform from the point of view of the consumer. By so doing its whole attitude towards the problem would be suddenly and profitably changed. The State might recognize that in the interests of the consumer it is just as important to license the publican as to license the house. The publican should not be just anybody of alleged good character, but a man whose work is regarded as a trained, skilled, and lifelong calling. The improvement through having certificated publicans would be enormous. Employment throughout the public-house service would cease to be a blind alley. It would become regulated, respectable, and socially useful.

Another desirable reform is to end the licensing of houses altogether and to put the licence in the form of a tax on the amount of drink consumed. This would help the well-conducted house as against the small house—the scandal of to-day—which sells ,a vast deal of drink yet gets off with very little taxation indeed because the licence is now fixed by the annual value of the premises. Moreover, the taxation should rise in direct proportion to the alcoholic concentration of the drink. Almost all alcoholism is caused by spirits, not by beer. There might be some difficulty in collecting such a tax, but this would almost disappear if the publicans were all responsible, certificated persons.

Finally the State might set up a permanent committee to inquire into the causes of drunkenness in particular districts. There are local epidemics of drunkenness. And the cause is usually discoverable. It is absurdly unscientific to make rules for the whole country on the strength of some local outbreak due to a special and perhaps temporary cause that could be easily removed if it were ascertained. One of the great merits of the Control Board in the War was that it made scientific inquiries with surprisingly good results.

I am persuaded that if the State would encourage reform in some such way as I have described the problem of drunkenness would be negligible at the end of a few years.

At present the Trade is penalized when it improves its houses—a nightmare policy. Under a rational policy we could get at last, even in the worst areas, real refreshment houses for the people ; houses where a man could take his wife, and a woman would like to be taken by her husband; houses which would not carry a stigma in their very name and of which as a civi- Iized nation we should not need to be ashamed.