| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Mar 2003 : Column 935—continued
David Hamilton : The Minister spoke earlier about the miners' convalescent homes, which are a big asset to CISWO. Numerous people in Midlothian and throughout Scotland use those homes. If CISWO is forced into a position where it has to look at its own resources and sell off assets to try to keep its service
going, those homes could be a casualty. Will the Minister assure us that that will not be allowed to happen?
Mr. Wilson: I certainly do not want CISWO to be forced to sell convalescent homes. My information is that CISWO can protect its core functions and social provisions under the proposed financial arrangements. If that is not the case and if I am told authoritatively that it is going to be forced to sell convalescent homes, I shall certainly look at that, but I obviously need hard information rather than a hypothesis. We have offered £200,000 per annum for three years, which would enable the organisation to develop and put in place a long-term strategy to deal with the issues and responsibilities that I have described.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone rightly spoke about CISWO's role in regeneration activities, for which huge amounts of money are available. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has approved grants of over £40 million to more than 500 projects to support coalfield communities. The national coalfields programme has a budget of over £390 million, which is currently creating 3,680 jobs. The sixth round of the single regeneration budget awarded over £180 million to 16 schemes in coalfield areas. We have allocated an extra £28 million over three years to local authorities to tackle housing problems in coalfield areas.
That is an area where there is no disagreement. My hon. Friends who are here tonight have been extremely active in making representations on behalf of the coalfield communities. In response, the Government have introduced all those programmes that are of benefit to coalfield and former coalfield communties. I therefore emphasise that it is not about money. If we are going to start talking about all the money that has gone to coalfield communities, I would point out that coalfield health schemes are enormous and unprecedented. We are talking about a narrow subject—CISWO's role in the midst of that activity.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): If it is not about money, what is it about? We are talking about a third of the Lord Chancellor's furnishings. Every morning, you used to pay a sum of money into CISWO, but that has all gone now, except for about 7,000 or 8,000 people. It is not only the contribution from the old Coal Board, it is the miners' money as well. We even have a post office in a miners' welfare office in my constituency—it came up with an offer when the post office closed. It also looks after paraplegics. We are not talking about a great sum of money. Will my hon. Friend remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the millions of pounds that go to the Treasury as a result of the 50 per cent. clawback from the miners' pension fund? We are asking for a tiny bit. Yes, the Government have ploughed money in, but I urge them not to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. Let us get that little bit of money that we need for CISWO.
Mr. Wilson: I was relieved to hear my hon. Friend suggest that we approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not the Lord Chancellor. I am alert to the point that he made—a lot is going in, but some things are more difficult to do and justify than others. It is not as if we are turning our back on CISWO—we
are offering £200,000 a year. It is not as if the functions that have been described will not be funded in other ways, including the substantial provision from the Government that we all agree is justified.I do not regard the purpose of our debate as putting the lid on this. I am listening to the arguments.
Mr. Skinner: The Minister is not putting the lid on, and the ink is not dry.
Mr. Wilson: I never put the lid on things; the lid is never on till the fat lady sings.
There is a real debate to be had. I responded to the point about convalescent homes, for example. If I thought for a moment that such work was in danger, I would be every bit as concerned as everyone else. To some extent, CISWO must look to itself. It is not as though the present situation has crept up on it. There was never any understanding, as far as I am aware, that the 1994 settlement was a guarantee of £1 million a year continuing. With that sort of notice, CISWO has had the opportunity to transform itself, as other organisations have done, into a body that accesses money on its own behalf, as well as accessing money for mining communities.
Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): My hon. Friend says that he would re-examine issues such as convalescent homes if they ever came under pressure. We all appreciate that. CISWO runs many organisations. In my constituency, in the village where I live, there is the Maltby widows' club. Those are all miners' widows. CISWO runs an administrative service for such clubs. There is every likelihood that that club
would fold if it did not get that service, which CISWO has been providing for decades in coal communities, although probably no one knows about it. I hope that my hon. Friend will keep his eyes open to all the activities that may come under pressure as a result of the reduction in funding.
Mr. Wilson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree that it is a bit odd that all those activities, which are not specifically mining-related or DTI-related activities, are funded by a grant from the Department of Trade and Industry. We have said that we will continue to provide money for those functions that are specifically related to the responsibilities of the DTI. Perhaps we should all work on other potential sources of funding. Ultimately, nobody is interested in where the money comes from, as long as it is available to sustain activities that I recognise are necessary in mining communities.
At a time when so much has properly gone into mining communities, as the nation repays its debt to mining communities, I do not want the positive outcomes and impressions to be negated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested, because of a grievance. We all know that there are small historical issues that continue to niggle away. We have tried to deal with them one by one, in a way that is fair and which addresses past problems and past history in the industry. Our position is that £200,000—[Interruption.]
Perhaps I should move on. I recognise that a number of organisations, including—
The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
- Adjourned at seven minutes to Eight o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |