PUBLIC HOUSES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26957, 17 December 1948, Page 5

PUBLIC HOUSES

PROPOSED STATE CONTROL STRONG CRITICISM IN HOUSE OF COMMONS NZPA Special Correspondent LONDON, Dec. 15. The Englishman’s beer and his local public house brought some fun into the House of Commons when the Licensing Bill was read a second time. Underlying the merriment, however, was also some acerbity, for it seems that beer and public houses may add some flavour to the general election campaign. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to provide for the State management of public houses in the new " salel-' lite towns,” which are to be built in various parts of the country. There have been State public houses in Carlisle for 30 years, which have been alternately praised and criticised and which it is suggested should be a pattern for further State public houses. The Bill also, proposes checks on bottle parties in London and bottle shops. Most of the criticism of the Bill centres round State public houses, and several Socialists are not at all happy about the proposals. Three voted against the Bill and others abstained. “Hostile to Policy”

Among the Labour objectors to the Bill is Mr Tom O’Brien (Labour, Nottingham West), who, in a letter to Mr James Griffiths, Minister of National Insurance, said that the measure had received no serious consideration from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Mr O’Brien added that the “main sentiment of the party is hostile to a policy which will bring down on our members in constituencies all the resentment of people whose uses of. public houses are interfered with. They will hold our party responsible for the price of beer for licensing restrictions, for the management of houses, for everything, in short, they object to—from the open ing and closing times to the quality of the only liquor they will be permitted to buy in State-managed houses. They will say our party is responsible for everything they dislike, and we shall get it in the neck in our constituencies.’’

Mr O’Brien also had an exchange of letters with the editor of the Labour Party’s Daily Herald, in which the fact was debated that Carlisle public houses made no provision for the playing of darts. This preliminary and earlier object to the rule that people must drink while sitting in Carlisle, together with much newspaper discussion of the Bill, has whetted general interest in the House. One Labour “ angle ” was that the attack on the Bill was inspired by brewing interests. >■ Strength of State Beer

The Home Secretary, Mr Chuter Ede, made it plain that the initiative of the opening of new public houses in new towns was not going to be left to brewers. He admitted that State beer was somewhat weak, but said other types were sold if the demand was sufficient. “I went to Carlisle 14 years ago.” said Mr Ede. “ I formed a high opinion of its hotels. I have been back since ——”...

“ Did you try the beer? ” asked a Conservative.

Mr Ede: I did not try the beer. I took an expert with me. “ Name? ” shouted members, but Mr Ede was silent on this point. His “ taster ” apparently found the Carlisle beer good, and Mr Ede went on to say that entertainment was provided by pianos, and dominoes could be played if there was no gambling. Then Mr Ede came to the controversial subject of darts. “Some people,’’ he said. “ liked darts, and others did not. In fact, in one place in Scotland where darts are openly useddaughter)—it is said that there is very little demand for the game. I think that is rather a pity, because it is not merely a game requiring great' physical skill. It is one way I know of teaching higher mathematics to the proletariat.”—(Loud Socialist laughter.) ‘ Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, speaking for the Conservatives, denounced the Bill as a gross interference with local rights. “It is an attack from Whitehall on one of the last bastions of local control, and deprives many people of what should be their inalienable heritage—the right to choose their own draught beer,” he said. “ Obviously the Home Secretary and the Cabinet seek powers of possession by which public ownership and State management are to be imposed step fcfr step. We believe that the only excuse for this Bill is the thin edge of national-, isation.”