Select committee: Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee
Sixth Report - Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme
HC 1346
Published 29 April 2021
Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee Mineworkers' Pension Scheme Report on parliament.uk ↗
At a glance6 recommendations and 12 conclusions · Government response published 5 July 2021 (deadline 29 June 2021)
The government's response
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.
What the committee recommended 18
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Sources
- Sixth Report - Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme ↗The committee's report, HC 1346, parliament.uk
- Fourth Special Report - Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2019–21 ↗The government's response, 5 July 2021, parliament.uk
Recommendations and conclusions 18
-
1
The Scheme’s Trustees had little choice but to accept the Government’s proposal to divide future... Conclusion (the committee's words)The Scheme’s Trustees had little choice but to accept the Government’s proposal to divide future surpluses on a 50:50 basis, as a condition of securing the Government’s guarantee during the negotiations in 1994.
-
2
The Government failed to conduct due diligence during the 1994 negotiations and undertook no empirical... Conclusion (the committee's words)The Government failed to conduct due diligence during the 1994 negotiations and undertook no empirical analysis or evaluation to inform or support the 50:50 split it proposed. The Government was negligent not to take actuarial advice.
-
3
The 50:50 split was, and remains, arbitrary. Conclusion (the committee's words)The 50:50 split was, and remains, arbitrary.
-
4
To date, the Government has received £4.4bn from the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme. Conclusion (the committee's words)To date, the Government has received £4.4bn from the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme. This is already more than the 1994 expectations of what the Government would receive. The Government is also due to receive at least another £1.9bn, on top of 50% off any future surpluses.
-
5
The Government has not paid any funds into the Scheme since the surplus sharing arrangement... Conclusion (the committee's words)The Government has not paid any funds into the Scheme since the surplus sharing arrangement was put in place in 1994.
-
6
Many former mineworkers have chronic health issues directly related to their former occupation, and the... Conclusion (the committee's words)Many former mineworkers have chronic health issues directly related to their former occupation, and the former coalfields are amongst the most deprived areas of the UK. Sadly, their numbers are also decreasing year by year. Over half of Scheme members receive less than the average pension. Given the success of the Scheme, and the vast sums which have been paid to the Government, it is unconscionable that many of the Scheme’s beneficiaries are struggling to make ends meet.
-
7
We recognise that the Government’s guarantee is important, has contributed to the success of the... Conclusion (the committee's words)We recognise that the Government’s guarantee is important, has contributed to the success of the Scheme, and has benefitted Scheme members. However, we are not convinced by the Government’s argument that its entitlement to 50% of surpluses is proportionate to the relatively low degree of risk it actually faces in practice. The number of Scheme members and the relative size of the fund has fallen significantly since 1994. Yet, the Government’s ‘price’ for the guarantee has not been adjusted to reflect that fact. With no formal period review mechanism built into the agreement, pension members remain tied to an expensive arrangement.
-
8
Given that the Scheme has continued to produce strong returns despite the 2008 Financial Crisis... Conclusion (the committee's words)Given that the Scheme has continued to produce strong returns despite the 2008 Financial Crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, there is little reason to believe the Government will be required to pay into the Scheme before it is wound-up. Even if, in extremis, the Government is required to financially contribute at some point in the future, realistically its contribution will not come close to the (at least) £6.3bn it is currently due to receive in total.
-
9
Whether or not the Government knew in 1994 that it would disproportionately benefit from the... Conclusion (the committee's words)Whether or not the Government knew in 1994 that it would disproportionately benefit from the arrangement, and whether all parties thought it was fair at the time, 24 Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme is irrelevant. It is patently clear today that the arrangements have unduly benefited the Government, and it is untenable for the Government to continue to argue that the arrangements remain fair.
-
10
Governments should not be in the business of profiting from mineworkers’ pensions. 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.
-
11
The Government is disingenuous in claiming the Trustees are content with the terms of the... Recommendation (the committee's words)The Government is disingenuous in claiming the Trustees are content with the terms of the current arrangements. The Trustees have been clear that they are not - and never were - happy with the terms, and that they would welcome any changes in members’ favours. The Government should not mistake the Trustees’ acceptance of the deal for contentment.
-
12
We are disappointed by the Government’s dismissive approach to proposals to review the existing arrangement. Recommendation (the committee's words)We are disappointed by the Government’s dismissive approach to proposals to review the existing arrangement. The Minister’s claim of openness is contrary to the approach successive governments have taken since 1994. The Government must approach any future discussions with the Trustees with a genuinely open mind, and with the best interests of the pension members in mind.
-
13
With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the Government has already profited greatly... Recommendation (the committee's words)With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the Government has already profited greatly from the Scheme. The Government must acknowledge that continuation of the arrangements in their current form deserves a review and a better outcome for pensions should be found. The current arrangements should be replaced with a revised agreement in which the Government is only entitled to a share of surpluses if the Scheme falls into deficit, and the Government has to provide funds. In that event, the Government should be entitled to 50% of future surpluses up to the total value of the funds it has provided to make up any shortfall. Such an arrangement takes account of the vast funds the Government has received thus far and the significant reduction in the risk it faces, and would ensure that neither party will be out of pocket in future.
-
14
Whilst we have called for the 50:50 split to be replaced with a more appropriate... Recommendation (the committee's words)Whilst we have called for the 50:50 split to be replaced with a more appropriate arrangement moving forward, we believe pensioners should also receive a more immediate uplift. We recommend that the Government hands the £1.2bn it is due to receive from the Investment Reserve back to miners, and sets out its proposals for how and when this will be administered in response to this report.
-
15
The Government’s guarantee has undoubtedly benefitted the Scheme’s members by providing vital security that the... Conclusion (the committee's words)The Government’s guarantee has undoubtedly benefitted the Scheme’s members by providing vital security that the value of pensions will not decrease. However, the price of this guarantee is no longer fair.
-
16
The beneficiaries of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme toiled in dreadful conditions, to keep the country’s... Conclusion (the committee's words)The beneficiaries of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme toiled in dreadful conditions, to keep the country’s lights on. Many now live with industrial diseases caused by the dangerous nature of their former occupation. The least they should expect in return is the secure retirement they were promised decades ago. Yet, successive governments have failed to deliver this.
-
17
The Government must now accept its moral obligation to the Scheme members, and acknowledge that... Recommendation (the committee's words)The Government must now accept its moral obligation to the Scheme members, and acknowledge that continuation of the surplus sharing arrangements in their current form robs beneficiaries of the financial security they have rightfully earned.
-
18
Our recommendations set out equitable arrangements which would go some way to redressing the sense... Recommendation (the committee's words)Our recommendations set out equitable arrangements which would go some way to redressing the sense of historic injustice felt by the Scheme’s members. The Government must consider them carefully.