LICENSING REFORM

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 71, 17 December 1928, Page 12

LICENSING REFORM

Sir, —In your issue of the 29th instant in a footnote to iny letter, you say. “We would refer our correspondent to the Carlisle system as an outstanding example of successful reform.” I take it that in speaking of reform you mean a real reduction in the consumption of intoxicating liquor and of the evils assoelated therewith. Judged by this standard, Carlisle does not appear to be a success. In 1925 lhe British Government set up what was known as the Southborough Committee, to inquire into systems of disinterested management of public houses. This Committee sat until 1927, and took a body of evidence so bulky that on grounds of public economy it was not printed in full. The Committee’s report with regard to Carlisle is as follows: “It does not appear that any greater reduction in the number of convictions for drunkenness has been achieved in recent years in Carlisle than has been achieved in many other cities and towns. As regards the consumption of intoxicating liquor iu Carlisle, it does not appear to us to be established that the reduction of public houses by approximately 50 per cent, and the improvement of those retained has led to a reduction in the quantity of intoxicating liquor consumed beyond that common to the res’ of England, Scotland ami Wales in the post-war period.” Then the committee goes on to say, “We are not satisfied that a case has been established for the extension of the scheme to any other particular area or place.” Sir Edgar Sanders, who was iu control of the Carlisle system as general manager, gave evidence before the Southborough Committee, and when being cross-questioned with regard to the establishment of special bars for women, he said: “This question of women in public houses is an extraordinarily difficult one, and iu certain parts we were forced to segregate the women in certain houses. You cannot altogether cut out a certain class of women from the public house. They are there for certain -purposes.” Referring to a certain public house, Sir Edgar said: “It was because of the class of women that went there that we made that particular provision for them.” I wonder, Sir, do you consider it a desirable example to follow? Do you think it would be a reform if the public houses in New Zealand provided special bars for a special class of women? These bars in Carlisle were packed. According to one witness, twenty women were found in a place which could not comfortably have accommodated more than six, and. in some cases the women were found seated on the floors. The convictions for drunkenness for women show that Carlisle city, with a population of 52,000 add, had, in 1921, 1922, and 1923 more convictions for drunkenness amongst women than the whole of the rest of Cumberland with a population of 220,000. For a five years' period since the war, 1920 to 1924, in spite of the total convictions for drunkenness being less than the pre-war figure, the percentage of women convicted has risen to 23.16. As a matter of fact, the convictions for drunkenness show that Carlisle was less sober than 60 out of 81 boroughs in Great Britain where they had no State-control system. It is highly significant that the Liquor Control Board for Carlisle has never published the figures for the consumption of liquor in that district. Moreover, the licensed premises contain features that are contrary to the English licensing law. For example, there is a kinema at the Annan place which is connected with the public house premises, whereas the English licensing law says no kinema must be connected by u covered way with licensed premises. Then there are upstairs bars, undesirable back entrances, and the like, which would not be tolerated in other parts of Great Britain. Moreover, a feature is made of seeking to entice young people, women and children into these places, where they become familiar witu the public house atmosphere. It would appear, therefore, that upon being closely investigated, the Carlisle system does-not warrant your description of it “as an outstanding example of successful reform.” The Bishop of Carlise, who favours the system, said, in September, 1926: “It was sometimes said that under the present system it was much easier for girls and women to go into a public house by themselves, whereas they formerly ' only went there with men. That was quite true.” Of course, if your view of a reform is something that will make the hotel bars more attractive and enticing to girls and women, you will consider the Carlisle system successful, but I believe that such is not the view of the majority of citizens of New Zealand.—l am, etc., FOR THE BEST. Wellington, November 30.

Sir,—-Your comment in “Notes of the Day” states, “The intolerant nll-for-notli-ing attitude (of Prohibition leaders) has made it impossible for the Government to legislate for the reform of the traffic.”

This statement presupposes that “reform” is a social necessity, to which the majority of electors would agree. Thus, a lead from the Press would be appreciated. If, as you infer, the methods of the N.Z. Alliance are discredited, others—the Press, for example—must show the way. However, over a period of eighteen years steady reading of Hansard, I have never yet come across a statement where the N.Z. Alliance has opposed “reform,” neither have I found the slightest indication of “reform”—other than referenda amendations —being initiated b.v other-than N.Z. Alliance propaganda.—l fi in etc.. .... J. H. FIELDHOUSE, Masterton, November 29.