Nationalisation of the Drink Trade

White Ribbon, Volume 20, Issue 5, 1 June 1948, Page 6

Nationalisation of the Drink Trade

By Cecil Heath, BA/

Recent political tendencies in many countries have focussed public attention n |k»ii the possible nationalisation ot the drink trade. It becomes necessary, therefore, for the temperance reformer to re-examine the position and to see how far theory and practical experience justify an attempt to deal with the drink problems along these lines. Two distinct approaches can be made to the theory of the nationalisation of the drink trade and advocates of both have, on numerous occasions, expressed their view*: 1, Nationalisation ha> been suggested a> an instrument to be used for the ultimate elimination of the liquor trade. 2. Nationalisation is advocated as a means of consolidating the position of the liquor trade in the national life by ridding it of many of the abuses which are alleged to form part of private trading in intoxicants. It will be seen at once tha* these two approaches are mutually contradictory. Both cannot be right, and we arc therefore justified m turning to the record of experience to test the validity of the two opposing theories. From this record it can be stated conclusively that never in human experience ha* the nationalisation of the drink trade led to its elimination or even tended in that direction Rather, the various* experiments have demonstrated quite clearly that nationalisation presents no real solution to the drink problem. It is merely an alternative method of supplying drink, and its advocates tend to become licensing reformers whose objective is no longer the elimination of the drink habit from the life of the individual and the drink trade from the social life of ti e community. Let us exam ne in greater detail some of the arguments which are put forward in fa.our of nationalisation and test them in the light of experience. Tha Profit Motive Primarily it is claimed that under nationalisation an/ motive to make profits is eliminated, and secondly that thcie is no attempt to push the consumption of alcoholic beverages. These claims completely ignore the fact that there is Mich a thing as public profit as well as a private profit, and that no guarantee exists that the motive of public profit would not be a most |*owerful factor once the drink

Barrister at Law of the Middle lemple, London, England.

trade lia> been nationalised. in all form* ot government the ministers, who art responsible for tlie finances of the State, exercise tremendous political l»ower and, when an instrument for raising revenue quickly and easily is under the direct control of the State, then inoral considerations are apt to take second place to financial policy, in Great Britain, as in most other countries, the post office is a nationalised institution, but this does not prevent the authorities from making a very large profit from its operations and by the use of every form of advertising, seeking to extend its services to the public and to increase the financial returns. Drink Advertisement# The argument is frequently pul forward that the nationalisation of the drink trade would eliminate drink advertisements, yet there is no actual guarantee that anything of the kind would take place. It is generally agreed that all incentives to encourage the consumption of alcoholic beverages are undesirable and anti-social, but the prohibition of drink advertisements is by no means a necessary accompaniment of nationalisation. In fact, there i> no reason whatever why drink advertisements should not be prohibited where the drink trade is carried on by orivate enterprise and there are quite ■* number of examples in the world, wher* a policy of this kind is pursued. The second claim that is made for nationalisation, that it encourages a policy of the disinterested management of the liquor trade. But such a viewjioint is very difficult of comprehension, as it seems impossible to conduct a commercial enterprise successfully, if you push the theory lo its logical conclusion. If tiie managers of the State public houses are to he encouraged to sell as little drink as possible, then the business will be ruined. On the other hand, if the business is a financial success, it will be a moral failure. In countries where nationalisation is in operation the managers appear be promoted in accordance with their capability’ to run their liquor shops successfully and,

•Prepared for the oiutn on Methods of Dealing with the Drink "'raffle at the World’s W.C.T.U. Convention. June 7, 1947, delivered by Miss Dorothy Staunton m the absence of the author, —“The Lnion Signal.” July 2fi. I r M7.

m Lrcat Britain, where we have a limited experiment in public ownership, running alongside a privatelyowned liquor trade, it has been notorious that the general managers of the State enterprise nave eventually become identified with the private trade and have been numbered amongst its outstanding figures. It was Sir Ldgar Sanders, formerly general manager ot the publicly-owned Carlisle experiment in Great Britain, who later became the director of the brewers’ society ami who was responsible for initiating the brewers’ advertising campaign launched to capture young Britain for the public house. The advocacy by the temperance movement of the nationalisation of the drink trade would involve, on grounds of supposed expediency, the abandon ment of those fundamental principles on which the great structure of tempera tee truth has been built. For more than a century we have been building up throughout the civilised world, an ever-strengthening case against the liquor traffic on moral, social, physical, economic and spiritual grounds. Any proposal to acquire such a traffic as State property i> thoroughly illogical and anti-social. Nothing can justify the purchase by the State of a business which, when run by private individuals, has earned the inoral reprobation of the com muiiity. If the State enters into any business it should be one which is rightly available for the whole nation and all its citizens. A strong case can be argued for the nationalisation of railways, postal arrangements, water and gas, electricity and even the supply of certain essential foods, such as milk and bread. These trades expand with national prosperity and the well-being of the community is increased. On the contrary any expansion of the liquor trade can only be viewed with dismay by social reformers, for a nationalised liquor trade gives it a respectability which it has never previously enjoyed. TJte stigma winch now rests upon it disappears when it becomes a Government institution, and this situation is especially harmful to our younger citizens, for whose well-being the State is specially responsible. Public utilities may well be nationalised but not public nuisances.

Liquor Trad* and Public H •alt h It is the duty of the State to safeguard public health and in many civilised countries steps are being taken

to improve the national health services. Uut there is no single agency operating to produce disease that is more potent than the Aquor trade. W'liat could he said of a policy which seeks to improve national health and yet sets up concurrently an official institution for the dissemination of disease ? \ further duty of the State is to maintain public order but, in making provision for the supply of intoxicants, the State is adding to its own difficulties and is throwing a more arduous task upon those responsible for the maintenance of public order. The piovision of social security also finds a place in rlie legislative aims of the post-war world. Investigators of the problem of poverty are unanimous that whilst * there is one kind of poverty which is economic in origin and can fie solved 1 y economic remedies, there is a secondary kind of poverty which is moral in its origin, because it is the result of the misdirection of family purchasing power. Amongst the causes of secondary poverty in the Western world the drink habit easily takes first place. Occupational Hazard Nor must it be forgotten that in making employees of the liquor trade the servants of the State, the State becomes responsible for the most notoriously dangerous of all occupations. Judging from the experience of t.reat Britain in this connection more than 1,500 men employed in the drink trade die each year, who would not have died, had they been engaged in ordinary occupations. Proximity to alcoholic drink is a temptation that proves much too strong for the average individual. Nationalisation of the drink trade has a deplorable effect upon the mind of the adolescent. A feature of education in many countries today is the recognition that mere scholastic training is not enough and that moral, ethical and spiritual training are essential in the equipment of a good citizen. As long as the liquor trade is in private lianas the State can justifiably teach t-hildrer. in the schools the facts about alcohol and the dangers of the drink habit. But what is to be the effect upon the mind of a child who discovers, after receiving such instruction, that it is the State itself which is supplying the alcoholic beverages against which he or she has been warned? Hitherto the arguments which have been used have been theoretical, but we now pass to the realm of practical experience. There have been a number of experiments in nationalisation in various parts of the world and in each case they reinforce the contention that this policy provides no remedy for the drink problem.

The Carlisle Experiment'

In Great Britain there has been for more than 30 years a limited experiment in public ownership. In the City

of Carlisle, in the north of England, public houses and breweries are the propc»ly of the Government and the Home Office is the responsible department for the management of the scheme. Undoubtedly the early experience in Carlisle in 191 b, when the trade was first acquired by the State, gave tremendous encouragement to the idea that progress in temperance reform could be made along these lines. It is not necessary to minimise the spectacular achievements of the Board of Control which was the responsible body tor the experiment at the beginning of its existence. The number oi licensed houses was rapidly reduced, Sunday closing was introduced and spiritless Saturdays were observed by order of the Board. At that time the city had to face an enormous increase in public drunkenness, owing to the temporary presence there oi a multitude of Irish navvies, who had been imported to construct a large munition works at Gretna Green. The new restrictions made ail immediate improvement in the situation and this was accelerated by the movement of the navvies to other districts when the munition works was completed. There was, therefore, a most impressive decline in drunkenness in the city. For some years Carlisle proudly boasted oi its improved sobriety, but, unfortunately, the position has not been maintained and, for the past quarter of a century, there has been no statistical evidence from Carlisle which would at all reinforce the case for this method of progress. Almost as soon as the 1914-1918 war ended, any zeal tor temperance reform which might have been exhibited by the Control Board during the war years, disappeared and the business has been conducted by the State as a purely commercial enterprise. From the financial point of view it has been an undoubted success. After being in operation for 10 years, the profits more than wiped out the capital expenditure involved in the purchase of the trade. During the 20 years between the two world wars, a comparison of the drunkenness in the 85 County Boroughs of England and Wales reveals the fact that Carlisle never occupied a place higher than 49th in tiie order of sobriety and, just before the outbreak of the recent war, its position was less desirable than that of 60 other County Boroughs. Whilst the number of public houses has been substantially reduced the size of many of those remaining ha' been considerably increased. There is no obvious attempt to stimulate the sale of food and non-alcoholic drinks as was once claimed by the advocates of the Carlisle system. The only acid test of any temperance reform policy is the answer to the question “What has been the effect on the consumption of intoxicating liquor?” Judged Hy this standard there is nothing to commend the Carlisle experiment.