ORDERS SPECIFYING SPECIAL AREAS (Hansard, 26 April 1978)

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 33 and 37.

§ Mr. Hooley
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you not putting the Question on Amendment No. 3?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The answer to the hon. Member is the same as that which I gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) a moment ago.

§ Mr. Barnett
The new clause and the amendments that go with it split the original Clause 4 into two, so that provisions that enable the Secretary of State and Ministers to enter into arrangements are separated from the provisions for specifying special areas. The aim is to clarify the meaning of each part of the Bill. The wording of the new clause follows the Bill as originally published, with a reference to either or both of the designated district authorities and thus reinstates two lines that were deleted in Committee, consequential on the removal of counties from Clause 1.
The purpose, as I have said, is to clarify the Bill. We think that it is necessary to separate the provisions that enable the Secretary of State and other Ministers to enter into arrangements with local authorities and other bodies from the provisions that enable the Secretary of State to specify special areas. The new clause also restores some words that were deleted from Clause 4, to which I have just referred.
I come now to Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 23 and 33. In his speech on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend explained that the purpose of Clause 4 was to give statutory recognition to the partnerships and other arrangements that Ministers might have with local authorities in order 1456 to tackle inner city problems. He said then: Even though there is nothing at present to stop Ministers from entering into such arrangements without statutory authority, we thought it right to give them recognition in view of the possibility that the Minister's participation in the development of a programme or partnership might be said to conflict with his statutory responsibilities, for example, those relating to planning or compulsory purchase."—[Official Report, 9th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1695.] While all the partnerships established so far have involved my right hon. Friend or Ministers acting on his behalf, it is just conceivable that arrangements might be entered into which did not involve any Secretary of State—unlikely, but perhaps it is conceivable.
These amendments give to all Ministers involved in co-ordinating arrangements for the purposes of alleviating special social need in an inner urban area, whether the Secretary of State is involved or not, the same protection as the original wording gave to Ministers involved with the Secretary of State in such arrangements.
I hope that this is sufficient explanation of the new clause and the amendments.

§ Mr. Alison
I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation of New Clause No. 3, which at first sight appears to be a similar provision to that which already exists. However, it allows me to touch on a point which was of some concern when it was considered in Committee and which has not been fully and satisfactorily explained in the debates that we have had so far. I make the point now as it gives the Minister notice that I shall want to raise the matter when we come to another part of the list of amendments and new clauses.
There is a curious division between the lesser and the greater luminaries in the local authorities, or the "needs world". if I may so put it. I refer to the areas of special social need to which reference is made in the first two lines of Clause 4. Those areas of special social need are then designated. However, we have the curious hybridity in Clause 4 that is reflected in another part of the Bill. In Clause 7(5) that is made clear, where it is stated: This section shall apply in relation to a district (other than a designated district) … which the Secretary of State has entered into arrangements under Section 4(1). 1457 It seems that that is the dog that does not bark in this plot. It is the Holmesian dog that does not bark. This is the area of special social need that fails to be designated. That is for reasons that are entirely within the gift of the Minister. He has the power of designation under Clause 1 and yet there is held to be—Clause 4 makes this clear—such a thing as an area of special social need that does not get the benefit of designation.
I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to throw light on the problem. Why is it that we have to have the rather shadowy area of special social need that is contained in the first two lines of Clause 4, an area of special social need existing in any inner urban area, which nevertheless fails to get designated and, therefore, fails to get any of the benefits or provisions for which the whole of the rest of the Bill makes provision? This undesignated area of special social need is a shadowy entity, but there is no doubt that it exists. As I have said, that is made clear in Clause 7(5) where it is stated: This section shall apply in relation to a district (other than a designated district). Why is it that we are having to include in Clause 4 some elaborate provisions for a special area—the special area is the subject of the new clause—when we have within the same clause a non-special area that is still held to be one of special social need? Special social need is referred to for both sorts of district, that which is designated and that which is not. However, those areas that succeed in becoming designated become, as it were, special, special areas of social need. I hope that the Minister understands the problem with which we are landed.
There is the paradox that the whole of Clause 4 deals with areas of special social need but we find that within such areas there shall be an area of special social need, which is one that is a designated district. That is what we are designating as an area of special social need by the new clause, but that does not alter the fact that the beginning of the clause refers to two types of area, one designated and one not. Both types of area are referred to in broad terms as areas of special social need.
The position is slightly confusing and muddling and it would be interesting to know why the Minister wants to include in Clause 4 the second-class citizen 1458 of social need, the area of special social need which occurs in Clause 4(1) but which does not go on to be included in the designated group. What is it that the Minister hopes to do in such areas? What special powers will they enjoy? Why is it that we have to have the rather hybrid feature of Clause 4, with the rather muddling designation of speciality applying to both groups? I hope that the Minister has the nature of the problem.

§ Mr. Guy Barnett
At this stage I shall not attempt to answer all the questions that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has asked. I shall deal with some of them at a later stage. Part of the answer to the question that he has asked lies in the confusion that has existed in several hon. Members' minds about the meaning of "area" as opposed to "district". He will note that the beginning of the clause reads: If the Secretary of State is satisfied that special social need exists in any inner urban area … he may … enter into arrangements ". Later in the proceedings, if I have the opportunity to do so, I shall give the hon. Gentleman the explanation to the problem that he has presented. I shall try to make the position as clear as possible at that stage.