LICENSING ACT 1964 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) (Hansard, 19 July 1967)

§ Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Langstone)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 123 of the Licensing Act 1964; aid for related purposes. The objective of the Bill is very simple: to introduce what I might describe as a modest reform to Section 123(1) of the Licensing Act, 1964, by providing for simple straightforward machinery of appeal. I am, in a sense, indifferent to the precise form that the machinery takes, and I would be happy to discuss it in great detail with the Home Office.

The case which I hope this morning to present will confirm that there is urgent need for machinery to be established. I was told a few minutes ago that the Betting and Gaming Act provides machinery of appeal to deal with precisely this type of case, whereas in the Licensing Act there is no such provision for appeal.

The case concerns a Mr. Fitt of Portsmouth. It would be easy to illustrate the case if I could display photographs of the site of the licensed premises in question, but we know that that is impossible. I have the photographs in the Lobby and will be glad to show them to any hon. Member who may be interested.

After the long hours of the midnight watches, it would be refreshing to you, Mr. Speaker, and not a strain on your pastoral loyalties, if you could imagine placing yourself for a moment on top of one of the finest viewpoints—Portsdown Hill—and looking down from Chichester accoss to the Isle of Wight and almost to your own territory of Southampton. That is the point where Mr. Fitt saw the possibility of building licensed pre- 2038 mises, and he made application for permission to do so, in the first instance to the planning committee of the City of Portsmouth. The application was granted and he was given a licence to erect two-storey licensed premises with catering facilities. That began in December, 1960.

In September 1961, having been granted his application, he offered the licence with the planning consent to a local brewer, thinking that this was probably the easiest way to achieve his objective. The brewer concerned declined the officer.

In February 1963, Mr. Fitt made his first application to the licensing planning committee, as opposed to the planning committee, for the necessary document known as a no objection certificate. On that occasion, the local Portsmouth Brewers' Association opposed the application. In March 1963, his application having been rejected, Mr. Fitt applied to the Portsmouth Council to convert the planning permission which he had received to permission to build nine flats. For a variety of reasons which need not concern us, that application was refused.

In September 1964, Mr. Fitt made his second application to the licensing planning committee. This, too, was opposed by the brewers. We can take it as read that throughout the rest of the story the local brewers' association, for reasons which need not concern us, opposed the application. The second application was similarly refused.

In November 1964, Mr. Fitt made a third application. This time he introduced support from the local coach proprietors, who carry large numbers of people to this viewpoint to enjoy the views and the amenities which it offers. On this third application, he again met with refusal.

In May 1965, a fourth application was refused. After that rebuff Mr. Fitt decided to organise an opinion poll, which he did with great success and great objectivity. The result of the poll, covering a large number of local residents, was wholly in favour of establishing this amenity on the top of Portsdown Hill.

In November 1965, Mr. Fitt made his fifth application. At that stage, it was known that the only other public house in the area would be seriously affected 2039 by a road development scheme, the details of which had been announced. Again, he met with refusal.

In July 1966, Mr. Fitt made a sixth application. On this occasion, however, he decided as a test case to apply for a club licence as well as a general licence, and that was granted. The House can draw its own conclusions from that. It was not Mr. Fitt's objective, because to confine the amenity to the narrow membership of a club would deny it virtually to all the citizens of Portsmouth or of any other city who choose to come to this outstanding scenic point on the South Coast to relax and enjoy themselves. So, again, the general application was refused.

In May this year Mr. Fitt made his seventh application. By this time the premises were completed, and the very elaborate road reorganisation affecting the other licensed premises in the area was well under way, and, of course, there had been considerable local and national publicity.

But, of course, the answer to all this is that he was not given and still has not this essential no objection certificate, and that debars him from appealing his case in open court with an ultimate appeal to quarter sessions.

Irrespective of the general merits of this application—and I would not presume to judge the merits because I think that the bodies immediately concerned with these things often know more than is known to the general public, so that what may appear an apparently untenable position is more tenable than we imagine —irrespective of the merits, which I believe in this case to be absolutely over- 2040 whelming, it seems to me an intolerable situation, and that exercise of discretion of this kind conferred by law must be subject to appeal on the grounds of mala fides, or gross incompetence, or undue pressure of local vested interests, which was a ground which was applicable here, although again I do not presume to judge. But I do ask leave to bring in the Bill because, obviously, this sort of situation could recur in applications of this kind, and it seems to me essential that the citizen should have some redress, and it is a redress which at the moment in this area he does not possess at all.

The Bill which became law last week unfortunately did not cover this point, as I hoped it might, and so we require a change in the law, and it is perfectly clear, and we also require to get urgent reconsideration of this case, and as I understand the Home Secretary has power under Section 119(3) to order the local licensing planning authority to review its decision, I do hope that the Home Secretary, having listened to the evidence this morning, will indeed use his powers under that Section to order a review of the case.