Mineworkers’ Pension Schemes: Nottinghamshire

Debate between Blair McDougall and Ian Lavery

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for securing this debate, for his leadership on behalf of miners and also for taking the time to recognise and remember today’s anniversary. The poet Ron Cook described Aberfan as the day

“when the world stood still and the mountain moved”.

Aberfan was one of those tragedies that so overwhelming in its injustice that it is painful to think about, but that is precisely why it is essential to remember.

My hon. Friend’s speech also brought to mind a story I read of the Victoria colliery disaster in my own constituency, where 63 men and boys were killed. The bodies were laid out in the churchyard of St John’s church in Barrhead, where the local women faced the unimaginable horror of having to identify the remains not just of a husband but of a son. I will come to what miners are owed in a moment, but it is right that we recognise at the start of this debate that those debts cannot be repaid by anyone. My hon. Friend says that this is not about money, but as we discuss money and pension schemes and their distribution, we remember that, my God, the miners earned every penny of it.

As my hon. Friend will know well, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme dates back to 1946 and the mineworkers’ pension scheme to 1952. When the British Coal Board was privatised in 1994, the schemes were closed to new entrants and the remaining employees were given the right to participate in successor schemes. The Government of the day gave the mineworkers a guarantee: the value of the fund would not decrease—this would ensure that pensions would continue to be paid—and the Government would take half of any surplus from the investment. The other half could be used to improve benefits through bonus pensions. For the miners’ scheme, this surplus sharing arrangement has continued, although this Government have not taken any money from the scheme since we came to power in 2024. For the British Coal staff scheme, the surplus sharing arrangement was ended in 2015, and future benefits were fixed, ensuring that pensions could be paid. The aim is to return the reserve to Government in 2033.

Since the 2015 changes, the scheme’s investments have performed well, building up a reserve of £2.3 billion. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the campaigners who, all the way through this, have spoken up for miners, ensuring that they get what they deserve. Today, there remain almost 150,000 members of the two schemes, the vast majority of whom are receiving their pension. Five thousand of them are in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and 37,000 are across the east midlands. The average age of members across the two schemes is 76, as hon. Members have said. The group includes 30,000 widows, with an average age of 84.

We owe former mining communities a debt of gratitude for their contribution to national prosperity, and we must acknowledge and recognise the hard work and sacrifice of coalminers, who powered this country for decades.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I must declare an interest: I am a member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and a former miner—probably the only one in the Commons at this moment in time. We must recognise that the Labour party had in its manifesto in 2017, 2019 and 2024 that it would seek justice for the mineworkers in the pension scheme. It is only when a Government are elected that they are allowed to deliver on their manifesto, and we actually did that. We made a huge difference only a few months ago. There is a lot more to do, and I ask the Minister what other people have asked: can he give assurances to the members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and the families and widows, that he will do everything in his power to ensure that in the Budget next week, miners in our coalfields are given full justice?

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of miners throughout his life. I will come to the specifics of the scheme and his ask in a moment, but he is absolutely right that issues like this are exactly why all of us came into politics in the first place; we came into politics to deliver for individuals like these.

Previous Governments have failed to ensure that former British Coal employees got the amount of pension they deserved. In 2021, the Select Committee looking at the mineworkers’ pension scheme recommended that the Government take no further funds from the scheme, transfer the reserve to scheme members and review the surplus sharing arrangements. That Conservative Government declined to accept those recommendations, but miners, as my hon. Friend said, deserve those historical wrongs to be righted. That is why the Government are implementing those recommendations, for both schemes.

We continue to guarantee both schemes, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid. As has been said, in 2024, one of the first decisions we made was to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve in the miners’ scheme for use as bonus pensions. The hard work of colleagues on the Labour Benches increased those incomes by 32%—an average of £29 per week.

We have also transferred the £2.3 billion equivalent in the British coal staff scheme. That led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 per week in scheme members’ pockets and, as has been said, that went into local economies. That is direct support for the pensioners and local communities who powered this country for decades.

However, as all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have said, there is more to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raises important questions. We are in that terrible pre-Budget period when lots of Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and ask for patience. I have to do the same, but I recognise that we are dealing with people who are incredibly advanced in years and cannot afford to wait indefinitely.

We have been discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme with the trustees, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance benefits, and we have been making good progress. The Government will make an announcement once that agreement has been formally reached, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while managing wider funding risks. The Government and trustees have had very constructive discussions. I hope to be in a position to announce a way forward shortly, and I will continue to work with hon. Members towards that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Blair McDougall and Ian Lavery

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

We will absolutely discuss that. As my hon. Friend knows—because he talks to me about this issue at every available opportunity—we are determined to make sure that more of the value of that entire process remains in the UK, which is why we are putting £50 million on the table for exactly that sort of development work.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

The Royal Mail sorting offices in my patch are in absolute chaos—they are in meltdown—and I am really concerned that someone will end up in a tragic situation because of the lack of service. I have met Royal Mail on numerous occasions and there has been no change whatsoever—in fact, the service is getting worse. What can the Minister do to remedy the situation before somebody needs to be held accountable for a very serious situation?

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Debate between Blair McDougall and Ian Lavery

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask what assessment the Minister has made of the impact of Royal Mail’s failure to meet its universal service obligation on service users’ wellbeing and on the company’s recent decision making, which has contributed to this situation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a question that I know is on the minds of hon. Members across the House. The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s service has not been good enough, and we recognise the terrible impact that delayed time-sensitive deliveries, particularly relating to medical and financial matters, can have on the users of postal services, especially vulnerable users.

Obviously, Royal Mail is a private company and Ofcom, as the independent regulator for postal services, secures the provision of the universal postal service and sets and monitors Royal Mail’s service standards. As part of that monitoring regime, Ofcom publishes annual post-monitoring reports that consider developments in the sector and users’ experience of postal services, as well as the complaints and compensation data that Royal Mail is required to publish.

I have regular discussions with senior officials from Ofcom as the regulator, and in fact I am meeting Ofcom later this afternoon to discuss these concerns. Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million in October for failure to meet standards for 2024-25. This was double the previous year’s fine and the third consecutive annual fine for poor performance. Ofcom continues to monitor Royal Mail’s performance carefully to ensure that it is providing the service that customers expect. It has told Royal Mail that it must publish and deliver a credible plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement.

Ofcom is the regulator, but in response to concerns raised by hon. Members across this House, I met Royal Mail’s chief executive officer, Alistair Cochrane recently to set out the volume of complaints reporting service delays that I had received from colleagues.

In addition to that meeting, the Secretary of State has met Daniel Křetínský, the CEO of Royal Mail’s parent company EP Group and chair of Royal Mail’s board, to raise concerns about Royal Mail’s performance. Senior officials from Ofcom met Mr Křetínský that same day. The chief executives of Royal Mail and its parent company agree that there is more to do to meet service delivery targets and improve stability and reliability for customers. I know that hon. Members will continue to raise their concerns about the service in their areas, and for my part, I will continue to raise this matter, because the current situation is simply not good enough.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but this goes beyond the delay of a few inconsequential letters. It is not simply a case of receiving post; it is about that being timely and about sending post as well. In my constituency, these failures have led to people missing medical appointments and having financial issues, and to the hindering of democratic participation. One of my constituents missed urgent medical correspondence, turning a routine appointment into a potentially life-threatening emergency. It is not acceptable.

This is happening up and down the country in every single constituency. Allegations from within Royal Mail suggest that these failures may be intentional, designed to pressure the Government into weakening or removing the USO requirements. Royal Mail’s recent letter to the Business and Trade Committee denies operating a parcels-first policy, contradicting repeated internal testimony. It flies in the face of local evidence from the workforce. The letter also reiterates calls for USO reform, reflecting a long-running corporate direction. Over the past few years postal workers—key public servants, who were heroes during covid—have seen their terms and conditions eroded to the point that some can no longer buy additional holiday because doing so would take their pay below the minimum wage.

The Government need to take serious action against Royal Mail. Is it not an option to bring Royal Mail back under public control? This is approaching a situation where one of our constituents will lose their home, their health or their life through these persistent failures. The Government can and must take steps to maintain this critical national service.

[Blair McDougall]

I think my hon. Friend’s anger is shared by hon. Members around the Chamber when they hear the stories of people not just missing hospital appointments, but finding themselves with county court judgments and in other such situations that are entirely not their fault and due to failures of delivery. We have told Royal Mail it is not good enough, the Select Committee has told them it is not good enough, and Ofcom has told them it is not good enough. The seriousness with which we take this issue is exemplified by the fact that, as I said, the Secretary of State has convened that meeting. I have called in Royal Mail and, as I mentioned a moment ago, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise exactly the issues that my hon. Friend raises.