Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham, Conservative)

I am uniquely qualified among those on this side of the Committee to raise the issue of miners' welfare institutes because I am probably the only hon. Member, at least among Conservatives, who is the son of a former miner.

I wonder whether the provision has just been lifted wholesale from the 1964 Act, without taking advantage of the opportunity to update some of the wording to reflect the current state of mining communities. It is interesting that subsection (5)(c)(i) refers to committees or boards consisting

''partly of persons employed, or formerly employed, in or about coal mines'',

whereas subsection (3) defines a miners' welfare institute as

''an association organised for the social well-being and recreation of persons employed in or about coal mines''.

That begs the question of why those who were formerly employed are on the committee, but I do not think that that line of questioning will be profitable or fruitful at this point.

I wonder why the Government did not take advantage of the legislation to broaden the definition of those who could be members of miners' welfare institutes by referring to those who were formerly employed, as well as those who are currently employed, thereby reflecting that in many coal-mining areas where such institutes are located there are few, if any, people who are employed in the mining industry.

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

Clause 66 applies the arrangements for qualifying clubs to a relevant miners' welfare institute. While recognising certain differences, it allows the institute's premises and its enrolled membership to be treated as if it were a club like other working men's clubs. Furthermore, anything done by the institute's trustees or management is treated as if done on behalf of the club. That is in many ways a crucial difference.

The Bill adopts the position of the Licensing Act 1964 in order to preserve the valuable tradition whereby miners' welfare institutes are treated like other clubs operating under club committees. Such institutes are enormously well regarded in their communities and are organised for the social well-being and recreation of persons employed, or formerly employed, in or about coal mines. As the hon. Member for Fareham knows, very few miners' institutes had bars until relatively recently. They were often forced, mainly in the late 1960s and 1970s, to incorporate bars or to begin to run bars. The coal mine closures during that time meant that the subscriptions to the institutes that had come directly from miners' wages were no longer being paid. As a consequence, the institutes had to find a way to generate alternative revenue.

The Bill sets down unique qualifying conditions for institutes because of their special nature. Two thirds of the institute's board or committee must include persons appointed or nominated, or appointed or elected from among persons nominated by one or more licensed operators within the meaning of the Coal Industry Act 1994, and persons appointed or nominated, or appointed or elected from among persons nominated by one or more organisations representing persons employed in or about coal mines.

If special circumstances apply to a particular institute and that is not possible, an alternative

condition applies. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter. The huge number of mine closures in the 1980s resulted in coal miners who were still quite young moving away from the villages during that shake-out and looking for jobs in other parts of the country. Under the alternative condition, at least two thirds of the committee or board must consist of persons employed or formerly employed in or about coal mines and persons appointed by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation or a body or person to whom the functions of the organisation have been transferred. The range of people is not limited to those who may have worked in the mine or even around the mine. I hope that that deals with some of the hon. Gentleman's questions.

A final condition is that the premises of the institute are held in trusts to which section 2 of the Recreational Charities Act 1958 applies. Those technical provisions are important. As the hon. Gentleman implied, they have been taken from the previous legislation so that those important institutions are not excluded from the privileges afforded to similar working men's clubs and their premises certificates.

I make it clear that many miners' welfare institutes function very well as clubs, have a healthy turnover and are active in their communities. I do not want to suggest—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to—that the decline of the coal industry has resulted in all those clubs being on their knees, because that is not so. Indeed, the committees and trustees of clubs have shown tremendous imagination and managerial expertise, often in association with progressive breweries, in turning those institutions into properties with excellent amenities for their communities. We should pay tribute to that.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I was interested to hear the exchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham because an opportunity may be being missed to draw on the experience of miners' welfare institutes, the details of which I was unaware. In some communities, commercial organisations, businesses, engineering firms and others run similar clubs and organisations for their staff and sometimes for former staff. In my constituency, the GKN Westland club was an example but, sadly, it closed down recently. However, as I understand it, the principal distinction between the institutions referred to in clause 66 and those referred to in clauses 62 to 64 is their government the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—and the fact that they are managed in part by the employers and in part by the members, employees or people acting on their behalf. That does not seem to be a system that is unique to miners' welfare institutes.

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

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and he is right because many other industries have their own version of miners' institutes, although elements of miners' institutes, because of the isolation of communities, are probably a little different. We are dealing not with

other sectors of industry, but with the transfer of legislation that worked well for miners' institutes into the new legislation. We are not missing an opportunity for other industries; the clause simply deals with miners' institutes.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I accept that and I do not intend to detain the Committee much longer. I am merely concerned that the omission of an equivalent clause covering such constitutional arrangements in other clubs, taken alongside clause 64(2), prevents other clubs with similar constitutional arrangements from enjoying the benefits of club certificates.

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

I do not believe that we are doing that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.