Select committee: Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee
Conclusion 10
Sixth Report - Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme
Published 29 Apr 2021
Paragraph 49
Addressed to Department for Business and Trade
Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee Mineworkers' Pension Scheme All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
Governments should not be in the business of profiting from mineworkers’ pensions. We are therefore disappointed by the Government’s argument that the 1994 agreement is a success because the public purse has had strong returns from it. The Government is not a corporate entity driven by profit-motives, and should not view miners’ pensions as an opportunity to derive income. We also note that allowing the arrangement to continue would appear antithetical to the Government’s stated aim of redressing socio-economic inequality and ‘levelling up’ left-behind communities.
From: Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, Sixth Report - Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme (HC 1346), paragraph 49, 29 April 2021
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 5 July 2021 (deadline 29 June 2021).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government states it is "unable to agree to the Committee's recommendations" and continues to believe the 1994 arrangement "was fair and beneficial to both Scheme members and taxpayers".
- It does not accept that it has benefitted unduly, saying the arrangements "have been a success and benefitted all parties".
- It does not accept that the Trustees had no choice in 1994, noting they "could have declined the offer of the guarantee at that time".
- On changing the terms, it says BEIS Ministers "would be happy to have that discussion" if the Trustees want to leave the guarantee arrangements, but notes the Trustees have indicated the guarantee is worth more than the share of surpluses.
- It is "happy to consider ways to improve benefits", but says this "has to be weighed against the risks to taxpayers". It states that receipts go to the Exchequer and were never intended to be ringfenced for members or coalfield communities.