HL Deb 21 March 1995 vol 562 cc1202-10

7.37 p.m.

Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the draft order to the House, it is appropriate to recall the commitment that the House made to the future of coal industry social welfare during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994.

At the outset, I hope it will be helpful if I say a few words about the arrangements that the directors, who are also known sometimes as "the Council" of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation (CISWO)—a Companies Act company—and the trustees, who include all the directors of the company, have been making to ensure a secure and sound future for miners' social welfare services.

In short, instead of having a Companies Act company at the centre of those arrangements the aim is to have a charitable trust—the CISWO trust. I understand that the acronym CISWO is pronounced "KISWO" in Wales but "CISWO" in the North of England.

Noble Lords

"SISWO"!

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, as I come from the North of England I shall call it CISWO and I make no apologies for that.

Towards that end, CISWO resolved on 10th March that the company—that is, itself—should be wound up. The specific purpose of the draft order before the House tonight is to enable the transfer of CISWO's functions to that trust in accordance with Section 12(3) of the Miners' Welfare Act 1952. The assets will follow on the liquidation of CISWO.

Section 12(3) provides that if a resolution is passed or an order made for the winding up of CISWO, any functions of that organisation shall be transferred to such a body or person as may be prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State. Such a resolution was passed on 10th March, and I ask noble Lords to support the decisions taken by the CISWO directors and trustees of the CISWO trust, by affirming the draft order before the House tonight.

There is a long tradition of social welfare in this country's mining communities. As a statutory arrangement it stretches back to the Mining Industry Act 1920, although its antecedents go back long before that date. It has been the concern of this House and of the Government that the core services provided should continue after the privatisation of the coal industry. Coal industry social welfare embraces a wide range of activities. To take just a few examples, them are some 4,000 to 5,000 annual placements at convalescent homes; holidays for the seriously disabled, and recreation and recuperation at day centres such as at the popular Miners' Centre for the Disabled at Pontefract. Each year there are nearly 12,000 counselling sessions or visits by CISWO's team of 17 social workers, supported by an army of volunteer helpers. CISWO organises sports, competitions and recreational activities—in part through company sponsorship—for the disabled as well as the able-bodied. CISWO provides administrative support to independent miners' welfares; to convalescent homes and trusts—including the Coal Industry Benevolent Trust and the Miners' Welfare National Education Fund.

It was clear from debates in this House last year that these services, and especially those services for the disabled, the old and the infirm, are greatly valued. The Government took careful note of the depth of support for existing services. Noble Lords may recall that our approach involves funding of £17 million; £5 million taking the form of an annual payment of £1 million for five years by the new coal companies, and £12 million taking the form of capital endowments from British Coal.

I am sure that some noble Lords would have liked CISWO's successor to receive more money, but we believed that the settlement provided a sound and sensible basis for meeting the central concerns for CISWO's support to the old, infirm and disabled. We are encouraged that CISWO, mindful of the opportunities open to it when it becomes a national charity, is laying plans with local and regional organisations and private companies for future programmes and sponsored activities.

It has been accepted that CISWO's place is in the voluntary sector. Noble Lords did not, I believe, dissent from this arrangement. But we should remind ourselves why. Essentially, charitable status is a more flexible arrangement. As a Companies Act company, CISWO presides over 400 miners' welfares, area trusts and convalescent homes, each of which is an independent charity. Yet CISWO itself does not enjoy the benefits of charitable status. The change of status increases the range of options for making the best use of what resources are now available.

CISWO will in the future be looking further to a wide range of sources of support and funding. As a charity CISWO will be best placed to do this. The directors of CISWO independently set up a trust in 1991, though that has lain dormant since. They, however, agreed at a meeting held on 15th February this year to a supplemental trust deed. Following the making of the order for which the approval of your Lordships' House is being sought tonight—and which was approved in the other place on Tuesday, 14th March—the CISWO trust will now be able to perform all the functions up until now carried out by the company.

Continuity of strategic direction and service is essential. It is therefore reassuring that the eight existing trustees (and former directors of CISWO Ltd.) will remain as trustees: that is, four British Coal members and four trade union members. The supplemental deed also puts in place new arrangements for the governance of the trust. There will in all be twelve trustees: four representing employers, four representing employees and four general trustees. Current trustees fill the employer and employee categories. Anticipating CISWO's evolution as a major charity in the voluntary sector, four general trustees will be appointed to complement the skills of the other trustees, so that the trust may derive added value from the experience of the current British Coal and trade union interests.

The first general trustees will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and their successors by the trustees at the time. We are consulting the existing trustees on whom to appoint. We are seeking people with experience of voluntary sector management and organisation; financial management; delivery of regional and local health, welfare or social services; public relations and publicity. Noble Lords will be well aware that the role of trustee places substantial obligations and responsibilities on individuals. I am pleased to note that the former CISWO directors, who have guided and supported the activities of CISWO over the years, are prepared to continue their commitment, and give their time and energies to the future development of coal industry social welfare.

There was also some concern on a separate issue in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill last year and in another place earlier this month on the issue of recreational land. That issue, legally speaking, is entirely distinct from the question of the approval of the draft order before your Lordships' House. But nonetheless I think it is appropriate to mention it. That concern was that British Coal land used by miners' welfares, and by local communities, for sport and recreation should continue to be used for those purposes. I emphasise here that I am talking about British Coal land, not CISWO land. Ministers gave assurances that the Government's objective was that British Coal land currently in active use for sports and recreation would wherever possible be retained for those purposes. That remains our position. CISWO and the National Playing Fields Association are closely involved in our discussions with British Coal about this matter.

There is also concern about allotments in many of the pit communities, and that has been raised in another place quite recently. We are actively pursuing with British Coal the future for the allotments and, as of now, no decisions have been taken.

In conclusion, I would say, as I mentioned earlier, that the charitable trust is now in place. It is the essential complement to the winding up of CISWO and the transfer of its assets and its functions. I believe that CISWO can look forward to the future with confidence. It has a substantial secure income, committed trustees and staff, and widespread support in this House and in the coalfields. It should continue to flourish, providing its services as effectively in the future as it has for many years past. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee.] —(Lord Inglewood.)

7.45 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the order. Secondly, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the miners themselves. Long before the welfare state, the miners had introduced essentially their own mini welfare state in many areas. One should not forget what they achieved in health, in education, in providing libraries and in so many other areas. We are at the end of an era and I wish to place on record that some of us have not forgotten what the miners achieved in their great years.

There are three or four points of a substantive nature that I wish to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, anticipated me by saying he knows that noble Lords feel that the funding package should have been more generous. He would not be pursuing his role correctly if he had not said that he thinks it is as generous as it can be, and I would not be acting out my part fully if I did not say that I think it could have been more generous. However, both our comments are on record. I feel that a little more money could have been found to provide more certainty about what is likely to take place.

The noble Lord referred to land. His honourable friend in the other place spoke on this matter on 14th March and was forthright on the subject of land. He said categorically that, The land under the control of CISWO will remain under its control unless it reaches a particular agreement with the National Playing Fields Association for that organisation to look after the land. Any terms and arrangements would have to be satisfactory with such an agreement".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/95; col. 787.] I do not wish to read out everything his honourable friend said but he did add, The Government have given assurances that the land will be maintained for recreational use". He further added that that was rather complex and it could not all be sorted out at that time. Will the noble Lord confirm that the statements, which to me read like an absolute guarantee—there are no ifs or buts about what his honourable friend said about the land—are still valid? Will he also confirm that between 14th March and today there has been no backsliding, and that what his honourable friend said in another place about the land can be accepted as absolutely the case, with no ifs or buts?

The Minister's honourable friend was slightly less committed in the case of allotments, although he seemed fairly committed. In particular, he pointed out that he would have nothing but trouble if he could not give a definite commitment on allotments. I understood the noble Lord himself to say much the same today.

An issue which was raised in the other place—and I understand why—was the fact that part of the future cost will be borne for five years by the three relevant companies. Can we he assured, since we are now discussing a charity, that those companies will certainly produce an appropriate covenant format which is as tax efficient as possible in order to maximise the benefit to the charity?

The other point which was raised in another place and which I did not feel was answered satisfactorily is what happens if one of the contributing companies defaults on its obligation to pay? I do not say that the companies will default. None of us would remotely hope that reputable companies, as these are supposed to be, would default. Nonetheless, there is a technical question to which I would like an answer.

There is nothing wrong with the drafting of the order, which is admirably brief. However, I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to paragraph 2 of the order. It does not set out the aims and objectives of the charitable trust to which it refers. Can the Minister say whether the new trust differs in any material respect from CISWO, as it was constituted under the Miners' Welfare Act 1952, apart from the fact that it is now constituted as a charity? If there are any variations between the 1952 trust and the new trust can the Minister give particulars of the changes? It may be that that is so technical that the Minister cannot answer now and may have to write to me. That is the only point of substance that I have to raise.

I have a feeling that this will be the last time that we shall debate any matter of this kind. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the end of my remarks. An era has ended in this country. A great industry, in its original form, is no more. This part of the industry, in terms of what the miners did, is certainly no more.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, as the House will know, I expressed concern about the future of the coal industry and CISWO during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill. I am not entirely happy with the partial outcome of the talks between the Government, British Coal and CISWO so far. I do not think that everything has yet been finalised.

I ask, first, is the funding package really acceptable to CISWO? There will be a total sum of £17 million in the form of a charitable trust, £5 million (an annual payment of £1 million for five years) paid by the new coal companies, and £12 million in capital endowments from British Coal. Will that sum adequately cover the costs of securing the future of all those services which cater for CISWO's disabled—the old and the infirm—bearing in mind the wide range of welfare services and social welfare and benefits provided for more than 500,000 beneficiaries? We have had assurances only in respect of five years. There is also concern regarding the maintenance of the miners' convalescent homes, which the Minister mentioned.

Can we be assured of the continuation of the welfare trusts which provide recreation and sporting facilities in our coalfields, not only for miners but for everyone? We have to bear in mind the large numbers of unemployed and increasing numbers of part-time workers. As most have more leisure time there is a greater and growing demand for recreation and sports of all kinds in our mining communities. CISWO has built up and maintained a network of activities covering all sports cricket, football, bowls, angling, athletics and social clubs. One wonders at what level those will be maintained in the future.

That leads me to a more serious concern—the disposal of British Coal land. Forty per cent. of the miners' welfare organisations lease all or some of their land from British Coal. It is valuable land, including sports grounds, in all the coalfields. Speculators will be interested in developing those prime sites. How will they be safeguarded?

The Minister and my noble friend Lord Peston have already mentioned the many acres of allotments which may well come under the same threat. In Yorkshire alone almost 200 acres of land are leased by miners' welfare schemes from British Coal.

The changes proposed in the management of CISWO also worry me. Previously it was a balanced representation of management and men, union and Coal Board, with an alternating chairmanship. Under this proposal the trustees are made up of three groups—four employees, four from the employers and another four with general expertise. Therefore, the CISWO element may well lose out in relation to its future policy requirements since it is bound to be in a minority on the new board.

Furthermore, can the Minister allay anxieties about land leased for recreation and community purposes from the corporation? He mentioned the subject during the course of his contribution to the debate. Can existing users be given long-term leases and, if and when necessary, the leases transferred to, say, the National Playing Fields Association? That would be a useful safeguard, both for our recreation facilities and as a curb on the speculators.

I notice, of course, that the future financial backing of CISWO will in part depend on the new coal companies. I take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Peston that there will be a total annual contribution from the mine owners of £1 million a year. What if any one of them fails to make that contribution? Is there any penalty or sanction for financial failure?

In the wake of a catalogue of pit closures it was inevitable that CISWO and British Coal had to examine the future of CISWO; a splendid national organisation which has served the miners, their families and the coalfield communities extremely well. I hope that it will not be unduly shackled in the years to come, because I believe that it still has a great task before it.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I repeat two matters which have been raised by my noble friends. They are very important issues and I do so to emphasise their importance.

First, my noble friend Lord Peston concluded on a fundamentally important matter; namely, are the objectives of the new charity the same as the previous objectives of CISWO? I see that the Minister is agreeing with that. It is as well to have that on the record.

The second point is one which my noble friend Lord Mason raised—the question of grants. We said during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill that we did not believe that they were adequate. We repeat that now. While there may be little hope of any increase at this stage, or indeed at a later stage, we feel that the point has to be made yet again.

The Minister very properly recounted some of the benefits which have accrued to the mining community through CISWO. I am very glad that my noble friend on the Front Bench also mentioned what was in existence before CISWO. Everything was done by the miners themselves. That is something which those of us who come from mining families or mining districts regard as a major achievement under very difficult conditions. We remember the low pay and the difficulties associated with the mining industry at that time. One hopes that those achievements will not be forgotten in the coming years and, perhaps more importantly, in the initial stages. My noble friend Lord Mason gave figures which are on the record. However, we hope that that is not necessarily the end of the matter.

Perhaps I may refer to one aspect which is important to many of us with families in the mining industry. The Minister did not refer to the matter but I know that he will agree with me. Many of us who had the good fortune to undertake higher education received grants from CISWO. The grants were sufficiently important to make the difference between receiving or not receiving higher education. I hope that when considering what will happen in the future the trustees will bear that factor in mind.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether I am right on this aspect. I ask from sheer ignorance on my part. When CISWO becomes a charitable trust, will the bulk of the money, if not all of it, simply come from any outside organisation, body, person or individuals who can make a contribution to what will be the trust? I do not know enough about the legal side of charities to say whether that is the case.

As I understand it, the appointment of four general trustees will be made by the Government. I note that the Minister agrees. The character, nature and type of person are crucially important in the initial stages. Those factors will set the tone for the charity. Perhaps I may say this to the House. Under CISWO, and in pre-CISWO days of miners' welfare, there were two guiding principles regarding the administration of the scheme. First, there was the spirit of CISWO—the knowledge of exactly what was involved in providing help, and the good work which was carried out. Secondly, there was flexibility. That has not been referred to in this short debate. However, I hope that the board of trustees will make flexibility one of the most important guiding principles for the future.

I repeat what my noble friend said: that for all of us from the mining industry it is sad that today we come to what is, in effect, the end of an era. However, having said that, one hopes that the spirit of CISWO (that spirit will now come from the Government) will continue. There is a great deal to do and we look forward to the Government doing it.

8 p.m.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, this has been a useful debate. It has reaffirmed, I believe, a consensus in this House that, by transferring CISWO to the charitable sector and providing the financial settlement debated during the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994, we are creating a solid basis for its work to continue and indeed thrive. CISWO now has the opportunity and freedom to build on the settlement by extending its fundraising activities and taking full advantage of its charitable status.

A number of noble Lords have indicated a degree of sadness that this is the end of an era. I fully understand that. Indeed, it is the end of an era. However—this is an important point—it is not the end of CISWO. Just as CISWO became statutory in the 1920s—I briefly alluded to the history before that period—CISWO now has a future. It will be able to contribute to the communities, as it has in the past, albeit through a different mechanism.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked for confirmation that there has been no backsliding between this House and another place about land matters. I can give him that assurance. He then asked about the funding for the coal industry's element. The private coal companies will enter covenants to provide that funding. While nothing on this earth is absolutely certain, that seems to me to provide the necessary assurance.

Regarding the change from being a company under the Companies Act to becoming a charity, the purposes of the charitable trust reflect the purposes of the CISWO deed. If anything, that change (as I hope that I made clear earlier) will provide greater flexibility and possibilities for the work that is to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, referred to contributions. It will, of course, be easier for people to contribute tax-effectively because of the tax benefits relating to a charity. The order should assist in that regard. The noble Lord also raised the point on trustees. As we see it, the crucial point about the Secretary of State's trustees is that they will bring skills which will be needed in the new era. But clearly it is a joint enterprise and the trustees cannot possibly be effective unless they share the aspirations and spirit of the existing trustees. I believe that we can agree on that matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Mason, asked whether we believe the funding package to be acceptable in the circumstances. It is our belief that in the current environment what we provide will enable the core activities to be properly dealt with in the future. He also commented about the land. We are confident that the steps we are endeavouring to bring forward will come to fruition and that we shall be able to achieve the kind of endeavours that he wishes to see.

In opening the debate, I commended the commitment given and pledged for the future by the directors of CISWO who are now the trustees of the CISWO trust. Noble Lords will not wish me to omit to mention the advisers and staff of CISWO, led by its chief executive, Mr. Vernon Jones. During this time of change, their contribution has been great, and is recognised as such. CISWO has been maintaining its complex and dynamic range of services, which have been well appreciated over the years. Yet during recent months, the advisers and staff have carried much additional work, preparing for the transfer of activities from the company to the trust and making plans for future programmes as a charitable trust.

A special tribute must equally be paid to the many supporters and voluntary helpers in the coalfield communities who so effectively help to deliver CISWO's services and the services provided by convalescent homes and day centres. Their work is vital. It is well appreciated and long may it continue.

I commend the order. It represents the next chapter in CISWO's history.

On Question, Motion agreed to.