Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 68. Is it a new provision, or does it relate to earlier legislation, in particular the 1964 Act? In how many instances do premises—in this case, club premises—straddle local authority areas? We dealt with that when we discussed pubs straddling licensing areas in various parts of the country, but we did not come to any agreement or discuss the scale of the incidence. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why this provision has been included. Is it simply lifted from earlier legislation, or has there been a growing problem in the intervening years since 1964 where licensed premises such as clubs fall on the boundaries of relevant licensing authorities? Does the definition of ''premises'' refer to one particular building? Are we talking about adjoining buildings, a group of buildings or buildings that are separated geographically but in the same town or village? Why is the provision included and what is the scale of the problem?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

I can confirm that the provision is new. The clause provides the means of determining which is the relevant licensing authority for the purpose of part 4. It provides that the relevant licensing authority for these purposes is the authority in which the premises, or the greater part of the premises, is situated. It approaches the determination of the relevant licensing authority in the same way that the Bill approaches premises licences. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Where club premises straddle two or more authority areas equally, there could be a problem. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many of those there are, but they must be rare. I have been informed by geographers that boundaries mainly go down the middle of highways and that buildings are usually on either side of them and not in the middle. However, I have also been told that in some market towns there might be a club or pub in a building that was formally a market building and the new configured boundary could go straight through the middle of it. Can the hon. Member for Isle of Wight give us an example?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

No, but to extend the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, it is conceivable that a large university in a conurbation such as London might have three or four premises, all of which together form the student union. I am not sure whether student unions are covered by the clause, but that is an example.

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

The Committee should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming up with that example. I, too, have found a couple of examples. There are very few premises that straddle boundaries, but Earls Court is one. There are also a few pubs on islands in rivers—boundaries often follow the course of rivers. The Bill is merely anticipating a problem and offering a solution. We do not know of any clubs that are so situated, but I am sure that we can dig some up before the end of proceedings.

Mr Malcolm Moss (North East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

The Minister suggests that there are not many incidences of the problem. Why, then, has his Department seen fit to introduce a new clause for a situation that is hardly worth mentioning?

Dr Kim Howells (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; Pontypridd, Labour)

It does happen occasionally, and, with great respect to the hon. Member for North Devon, the last thing that I want is to give food to lawyers. The clause provides an important mechanism for the resulting uncertainty, and will benefit clubs and local authorities alike.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.