 Felly, ddim yn cael ei ddweud yn siarad, mae'i dd hitsu'r swindddol iawn i gyfle hwnnw o'n rwyf. Rwyf wedi'n ddweud, ran oedd y cyfلكir uchydig gyda ni'n bedou i siarad. Mae ychydig yn ei wneud ei ddweudio i ddim yn gweithio rydyn ni'n gweithio gyda ni'n mynd i gydig i adeiluatio eu cyflym. Yna yw'r regis USAYm yn y Mercedes-B Neustad, ond I反 ddweudden yn carvedrach ddweud. Rwy'n fawr i chi gweithio i'r dde CMY—wg ddweud ar y dyfodol—y'r unigbeth ar gwaith i chi gweithio i ei ddeud. Rwy'n ddweud i chi gweithio i'r ddeud, yn cael i chi'n credu i'r ddeud, yn lai i'r gwleithiau gyda buttons i ym dus ym mwyol fwy o pryd yn cael i'r sylwfr chewnteliaeth cwmpwysol, yn digwydd ar ddweud ddeud. Rwy'n ddweud i chi gweithio i'r ddweud ar 7 mlynedd, Ms Graham? I thank those members who signed my motion. Let me commend the report by the Westminster Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, whose unanimous cross-party report and the pursuit of this injustice by my colleague Owen Thompson MP for Mlydd Lothian brought me to this debate, and I may add also to the Scottish Government, which has written to the UK Government supporting the recommendations. With not only Penicook, Goldbridge and Newton Grange in my constituency, once at the heart of coal mining, and indeed with a maternal grandfather who was a Welsh miner dying prematurely from injuries sustained in the pit well before I was born, I have a deep interest in what happens to miners and mining communities. I also unfortunately witnessed at the time in the 80s the mounted police charging into men fighting for their livelihoods and communities. A little bit of historical context of the pension arrangements. Currently, we have arrangements put in place in 1994 when the mines were privatised. Since then, the UK Government has benefited from 50 per cent of the surplus in the funds to the extent that it has received, and this is key, without contributing a penny to the tune of £3.1 billion and additionally £1.3 billion from the investment reserve. There is a further £1.9 billion in the pipeline. I have never seen a billion, but that is a lot of money. The committee held an inquiry, and as I said unanimously recommended, that the 50-50 split should be reviewed and as an interim that £1.3 billion should be redistributed to the miners. The humongous sum contrasts with the actual pension miners received. The median is £65 per week. Such that 50 per cent of members obviously receive less than that, 25 per cent less than £35 a week and 10 per cent less than £18 per week. So, at the metaphorical coface of life and paying for everyday bills, many miners are on the bread line. While thousands have been injured, like my mother's father, and died not even having enjoyed their pensions, it is estimated that 7,000 members die each year. Remember, it was a job that was inherently dangerous, led to poor health and, by its very nature, now is compounded by susceptibility to Covid, with predictably those underlying health conditions. Against all that, in my view, it is an affront to justice that the UK Government creams off billions and has responded to the report with a rejection of all the recommendations. What is the justification? It claimed that the guarantee that the UK Government will plug any deficit is a reasonable defence if that scheme is vulnerable to failure. The reply from Anne Marie Trevellian, Westminster Energy Minister, was, I quote, the Government continues to believe that the arrangement agreed in 1994 was fair and beneficial to both scheme members and taxpayers. Scheme members have rightly shared in the benefits, but the Government has taken on all the risk. The reality is that, even through the 2008 financial crisis and to date, the fund has thrived as the free billions are harvested by the UK Government. Where is the evidence of risk, if any? Is it commensurate with a 50-50 split? I would add that the previous schemes assigned the surplices at 70-30 in favour of the miners, the beneficiaries. The UK Government has a sad track record in its attitude to the miners, starting as I referenced with the brutality of the treatment of decent folk defending their jobs and communities. That was compounded by the recent remarks by Boris Johnson. I quote, thanks to Margaret Thatcher, who closed so many coal mines across the country. We had a big early start and we are now moving rapidly away from coal altogether. Crass remarks, but quite in keeping with the disdain for the coal miners and their communities and compounded now by the rejection of a review of the pension scheme. Irony of Irons, the Westminster Government, is now controversially considering opening a fresh pit near Whitehaven when it will, of course, need coal miners. That is quite contrast with this Government, and I will also say the Welsh Assembly, which is not the Government that is providing a pardon for miners convicted in the 1984-85 strike action in Scotland. As I say, it is also written to the UK Government supporting that Westminster Committee's recommendations. Whether or not you have a mining community, I urge you to pursue that with your own MP to support the select committee and shame the Government at Westminster for what makes them once do right by the miners by accepting the unanimous recommendations, as I have said, of the cross-party select committee. After all, the Westminster Energy Minister has said in a letter and reply to Owen Thomson MP, that there is a chink of hope. I am unable to accept the conclusions and recommendations. However, I hope that, as a result of my discussion with the trustees, we can reach a mutually acceptable way forward. Can I suggest that you get writing and let's hope that that's not just easy words but that there are actions to follow before more miners are in penitude and others die before they even receive their pensions? We now move to the open debate. I call Annabelle Ewing, who will be followed by Colin Smyth. As the MSP for Crown and Beath constituency, I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate on the mine workers pension scheme. I congratulate my SNP colleague Christine Graham for securing this important debate. Christine Graham has just outlined in some detail the background to the privatisation of the scheme in 1994 and the financial arrangements put in place at that time. In essence, as we have heard, in return for a UK Government guarantee, there was to be a 50-50 split of any surplus. Some 27 years later, since the scheme was privatised, during which time the Government has accrued around £6.3 billion under the scheme without having, as we have heard, paid in a single penny, very serious concerns have been raised about the plight of the miners who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the scheme but who receive very low pension pay-outs and are struggling to make ends meet. As the MSP for former mining communities in Crown and Beath constituency, I very much share those concerns. I would wish, in the short time available today, to highlight some of the key issues emerging from the April 2021 report of the Westminster Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Of course, those issues led the committee to conclude unanimously that the scheme must now be reviewed and a better outcome for miners achieved. First, the option of a 50-50 split for a guarantee was presented at the time as a ffeta comply leaving the trustees with no choice but to accept. Second, the 50-50 split was entirely arbitrary. Indeed, the committee concluded at paragraph 17 and I quote, 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 that it proposed. The Government was negligent not to take actuarial advice. What a damning conclusion, Presiding Officer. Third, the UK Government has not paid it in a penny over the lighter on the scheme but has accrued, as I said, some £6.3 billion. Indeed, it was noted in evidence before the committee that such an arrangement must be viewed as highly unusual and that, in fact, it would not be allowed today. Fourth, the UK Government has received more than was expected with the scheme having performed strongly, notwithstanding the global financial crash and the Covid pandemic fifth. The median pension, as we have heard, is a meager £65 per week. Moreover, as we have heard, half of the members in fact receive less than that and that notwithstanding the chronic health issues facing many former miners and the deprivation suffered in the communities in which they reside. Sixth, sadly, the number of pension members is decreasing by approximately 7,000 members per year and therefore the time to sort this is running out. Seventh, the role of a guarantor is surely not to make a profit at the expense of the beneficiaries of the scheme. Eighth, there would be minimal risk to the UK Government as guarantor in changing the split to favour the beneficiaries given the strong performance of the scheme, the considerable surplus that the UK Government has already accrued and the reducing number of members of the scheme. Indeed, the question was posed at paragraph 39 of the report by the head of pension strategy at co-pension trustees limited. I quote, what is the true value of a guarantee that is extremely low risk and extremely unlikely to be used? Presiding Officer, it is quite clear that the scheme requires to be reviewed and that as soon as possible. It is neither fair nor appropriate and the scheme is also fundamentally flawed in its design. To date, the UK Government has set its face against such calls for a review and for an immediate transfer to the minor beneficiaries of the £1.2 billion currently in the investment reserve fund. To many former miners and their families in my Cowton Beath constituency, that intransigence and indeed hostility on the part of the UK Tory Government will come as no surprise whatsoever, for they have been on the sharp end of that for decades. In conclusion, I would urge the Scottish Government to do all that it can, even though, of course, the power here lies with the Westminster Government, but nonetheless, to do all that it can to urge the UK Government to do the right thing and to ensure that, here in Scotland, we have a voice for former miners and their families, and we are determined to see right done by them. I am immensely proud to represent the south of Scotland that I am a region that really is steeped in Scotland's mining history. As Christine Grahame highlighted, Midlothian was one of those proud mining communities. In fact, at one time, it contained 26 collars employing 11,000 miners across the country. Of course, today, house is a national mining museum. Neighbouring East Lothian is home to the earliest documented coal mines in Scotland between Trinent and the town of Preston-Pans, where the local labour club ensured that local children were still being fed a hot meal after school every day during the minor strike. In a region where Scotland's coal fuels run almost continuously from the west to the east coast, some of the most valuable coal seams are in Lanarkshire, paving the way to making it the seat of the iron smelt industry at one time. On the west coast, in Ayrshire, around 14,000 coal miners at one time mined 4 million tonnes of coal annually. I certainly care-hardly founded the Ayrshire miners union, ultimately leading to the national union of Scottish mine workers. Even in Dumfrieshire, where I live in Ayrshire, many may not associate with coal mines. Deep mining was integral to the economy as far south as Cannon Bay in Rowanburn and, more recently, in upper Nistial from the Fault Head mine in Kirkconel, the largest local pit until it closed in 1968, to the opencast that continued until just a few years ago. Many of my own relatives worked in those upper Nistial pits until the demise of the industry in the 1980s. Some retired, and I should declare an interest there, now mining pensioners today, but some had to move out of the area to the north-east to find work in the oil industry. If there is one lesson that we must take from the demise of the pits and the devastation that is inflicted on our communities, many of which are still not recovered today, we must have a just transition for our oil and gas sector that creates new jobs for those who will be lost. Never again can we have Government inflict such economic vandalism on communities and then walk away leaving industrial scale levels of unemployment. However, I am not content with the pain inflicted in the 1980s on coalfield communities by that and from those crass comments that are joking about pit closures. Her prodigyche Boris Johnson has added insult to injury by failing to write the injustice of the mine workers pension scheme. As we have heard since the Tories privatised British school in 1994, the treasury has stripped out 50 per cent of any surplus. I will indeed, yes. I asked the member to acknowledge that we had a long period of Labour Government when the actions that I personally support, the proposition that the committee, the base select committee makes, there were all those years of the Labour Government. So the member cannot stand up and say what he is saying without accepting his party's culpability in the current situation as well. If anti-Tory rhetoric is very tiresome. Mr Smith. Mr Kerr, I know that you do not like to hear about the record of your Government, but the reality is that Labour's policy on this particular issue is very, very clear. It was the Tories who privatised British school in 1994 and it was your Government that created the injustice that is being held right today and is still being rejected right at this moment in time. Your Government has taken £4.4 billion that should have gone to miners and their families, not Tory ministers, but miners who have toiled the way down the pit creating the wealth and prosperity. Frankly, this is the thanks that Mr Kerr's Government gave them right today. Mr Kerr, enough of the sedentary interventions, please. If Mr Kerr wants to intervene again, I am happy to take his intervention, but I think that I have made my position absolutely clear. I am proud of the fact that our manifesto in the 2019 election made absolutely clear that we would redress and change this particular policy. Some of those pensioners that I have talked about have been left scrimpant on. As we have already heard, a pension is less than £65 a week. If there were ever communities that would need that extra spending power of local people having a few more pounds in their pockets, it is our coalfield communities that are in desperate need of regeneration. Labour's position on this is very clear. We believe that the share in the arrangement should be changed whereby 90 per cent of any surplus stays with the miners. That was in our manifesto at the election. The fact that the Tories choose not to adopt Labour's policy of restructuring the pension scheme is obviously unsurprising, but frankly it is vindictive that they still do so in the face of calls from some of their own MPs. It is a testament to the fighting spirit of all those campaigns on the issue that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee in the UK Parliament conducted an inquiry into the pensioners scheme. It made clear that the current 50-50 split of surplus was, as Annabelle Ewing highlighted, arbitrary. It is also simply unfair, yet the UK Government continues to reject putting right that injustice that miners and their families have suffered. That is frankly shameful. Many of those former miners are affected by the justice of elderly now. They paid their fair share into the pension scheme while they worked at high time. They received their proper share out now in their later years. In many cases, those mine workers sacrificed their health, working in dark and dangerous conditions to create the nation's wealth. Wealth, frankly, remains unfairly distributed. A proper pension pot in retirement is not an aspiration, it is a right that those miners deserve. Douglas Lumsden, who will be followed by Richard Leonard. I thank Christine Grahame for raising the important debate. I am pleased to see her focus on Westminster and the importance of the work that is done by the UK Government on behalf of our mining communities across the United Kingdom. There is strength in that partnership and one that has brought benefits to our miners through the pension scheme. It has been mentioned already that there was an important inquiry by the slack committee, and it heard evidence from all sides. However, one thing that all participants agreed on was that the guarantee offered by the UK Government was essential to secure the benefits that the scheme has enjoyed. Indeed, the report states that the pension scheme made gains a 6.2 per cent in 2020 far outperforming other schemes. The typical member's pension is around 33 per cent higher in real terms than it would have been had it received only the actual earned pension up to privatisation. The member mentioned the slack committee's report. I wonder whether he agrees with his summary conclusion. The Government should also relinquish its entitlement to the investment reserve and transfer the £1.2 billion fund to miners to provide an immediate cash uplift to former miners. Does the member agree? Mr Lumsden, happy to give you the time back. The report also mentions that the fund is in a much stronger position because of that guarantee. The conclusions of that report state that the scheme has continued to produce strong results despite the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid pandemic. It is agreed by all parties that that is only due to the guarantee that the UK Government continues to provide for the scheme. In 1996, there was a report by Binder Hamlin that concluded that no one was expecting the extent of future surpluses. The agreement was made by the trustees and the Government for a 50-50 split in good faith. All parties signed up to that and all parties were content with that. The split was agreed on the understanding that the UK Government, as we have said already, would guarantee the scheme. It is this guarantee that is meant that the trustees could invest in more high-risk investments that have undoubtedly paid off. It is widely accepted that the bonuses would have been less or nonexistent had the scheme not been guaranteed and one witness at the inquiry even suggested that the pension payout may be smaller if the Government guarantee was not in place. Christine Grahame I honestly just seek clarity. Do you agree with the findings of the cross-party select committee that you and Conservative Party members should know better than to refer to you through the chair? Does the member agree with the findings of the select committee that had a Conservative representative? I commend the resilience and toughness of select committees at Westminster. Mr Lumson I absolutely agree with the committees at Westminster. I often see differences between the committees at Westminster and here. The findings are there, and I think that that is commendable. The minister has also said that our hard door is open to talk with the trustees, as you mentioned yourself. The trustees of the scheme have always prioritised the protection of the bonuses, which is right and proper for them to do. For that to take place, the Government has to have a means by which to secure those bonuses in a time of deficit. No one knows what the future holds. The minister, in her evidence to the committee, was eloquent on that point. We do not know how the fund will perform in the future, or if there will be future deficits in the fund that require the guarantee to come into effect. No one could have predicted the success of the fund. I turn now to the question of review. The minister was very clear at the committee that our hard door was open. I met with union representatives on 21 June. At that meeting, the minister asked the trustees to consider whether they would be willing to include the Government guarantee in any future discussions around surplus sharing and the investment reserve. I believe that the minister is still awaiting our reply. The Government has been fairly open in their discussions. They are more than happy to discuss a change to the surplus. That would mean removing the guarantee. To this point, the trustees have not been open to this. In conclusion, Scottish miners in all our constituencies have benefited from the strength of the guarantee offered by the UK Government. Their bonuses have been more than they could have expected without that guarantee, and the strength of the scheme is clear. I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this most important debate before this Parliament, because the pits may be gone, but the miners, their families and mining communities remain, and their voices must be heard in this Parliament. Progress on the pardoning of miners needlessly arrested, charged and convicted during the 84-85 strike was a victory for the principle of justice in the last session of Parliament. In this session of Parliament, it is right that we move from the principle to the enactment of justice, and I welcome that. But other historic wrongs have to be righted too. Since the day the coal industry was privatised and so the mine workers pension scheme was in effect privatised as well, the UK Exchequer has not paid a single penny into the scheme, but it has taken £4.4 billion out of the scheme. When this was put to the Prime Minister in the 2019 election, he said this, and I quote him, We will make sure that all their cash is fully protected and returned. He said that no Mansfield miner is out of pocket. It was a promise made not just to the Mansfield miner but to the Midlothian miner and to the Monmouth miner as well. So let me be as clear as I can be. This pension's betrayal of Boris Johnson and his repugnant view that Margaret Thatcher was some kind of eco-warrior, that her war on the miners was a big early start, is contemptuous, but it is not anti-Scottish, it is anti-working class. Those retired miners, those widows in Mansfield, Midlothian and Monmouthshire all have the same concerns, the same hardships, the same challenges, and we should not falsely divide them. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee called for reform of the scheme. Those calls were supported by the pension scheme trustees, but not by Boris Johnson's Minister of State for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, who shamefully twisted the truth claiming that the trustees supported her when they did not. They supported the Select Committee and the miners. In the end, the question for all of us is this. Do all those years of hardship and suffering of struggle and sacrifice by the miners, do they account for nothing? We know the hazards, the dangers that forged those bonds underground have also brought in their wake chronic health conditions, which is why this betrayal of the miners by this Government and this Prime Minister is a question of ethics and justice as well as a standard of living. This is a poignant time for those of us who place a value on working-class history. Two days ago, we marked the 71st anniversary of the Nock Shinock tragedy. This Sunday, we shall assemble a Ock and Geek to remember the 47 miners who were killed there 62 years ago. In so doing, we rededicate ourselves to remember the dead but also to fight for the living. It was the pioneering Labour MP John Wheatley who said presciently in 1926, the miners are fighting alone but they are fighting the battle of the whole nation. If they lose, said Wheatley, we all lose. So this struggle for justice, today's struggle for justice, is not a struggle for the miners and their families alone. That is why they must not lose this fight. It is why this Parliament must support them to win, because making no mistake, a victory for the miners will be a victory for social justice everywhere. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Leonard. I now call Emma Harper, who will be followed by Katie Clark again around four minutes, Ms Harper. I congratulate Colleen Christine Graham on this debate this afternoon, although this is not a debate that is directly relevant to Scottish Government policy, I absolutely agree that it is important for us politicians and role models and as leaders of society to call out comments that are completely unacceptable. The comments made by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's decision to close the minds as given the UK a big early start on tackling climate change are not only unacceptable, they are deeply offensive. Those comments show nothing other than the contempt with which the Prime Minister and the UK Government hold for former mining communities in Scotland. Many of those are located in my South Scotland region. Just as Christine Graham has invited the Prime Minister to visit the National Mining Museum in her constituency, I too am sure that many of members in former mining communities in my area would welcome in discussion with the Prime Minister on his views of mine closures under Mrs Thatcher as well. The reality of what the mine closures meant has been highlighted by ex-miner, Rob Wilson, when he said about the mine closures that they had no bearing on issues of tackling the climate emergency. Rob said that it is only here because of the coal, socially and economically. It made these local communities. The Tories did not give a second thought to the social catastrophe that they were creating. Rob even put it into his Scots-language poems in his book, Accent of the Mind. The right to work, that was all we asked, demands that the Tories said went too far for tellies, holidays, mibies or car. I will never forget it. It has left its mark. It festers there yet somewhere in the dark. I have written to the Prime Minister also inviting him to join such a discussion, and I have agreed to organise it. Unsurprisingly, I have not had any response yet. Christine Grahame has laid out the detail from the report of the money, the billions of pounds that should go to the miners. Annabelle Ewing described the pension amount of as little as £65 per week. The report that has been mentioned talks about the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, an arrangement that was made between the Government and the trustees of the mine workers pension scheme. In the 2000s, the coal fuel communities campaign argued for a review of the surplus sharing arrangements, arguing that the guarantee had been struck on actuarial advice. With hindsight, it may have been too cautious in that a 50 per cent share of an unexpectedly large surplus was too much. The consequences have been obviously a problem for our miners. As Annabelle Ewing has noted, there is not very many left now that would benefit from even any reforms. I would like to ask the minister to do whatever he can to support the miners in this continued effort to make sure that they are better benefited for any information that comes out of this. We will work to select committee report. I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this debate to chamber today. I congratulate Christine Grahame on securing this debate and bringing the campaign into this Parliament. She is absolutely right to raise the issue and the work of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has already made its position clear. I hope that, going forward, we will try to give the issue as much attention as possible. There has been a great deal of discussion of history in this debate today. Of course, the history of mining in Scotland is a brutal one. It was a history of what they called thurlage, which was basically slavery. The conditions of the miners and mining communities were absolutely appalling, not just coal mining but tin and iron ore. The reason is that many communities that we all represent exist, because people often literally worked beside their workplace and had moved, often walked from another part of the country completely to live beside the mines that were built. It was very clear in the select committee report that the principle was that the Government should not be benefiting and profiteering from miners' pensions. That is the principle. I have always argued in the trade union position that pensions are deferred pay. The principle is that those miners have paid into their pension scheme. We have heard a number of contributions highlighting the poor amount that many miners receive from their pensions from the scheme. I understand that some widows are in receipt of as little as £8.50 per week. Many of the miners that receive pensions are still struggling with work-related illnesses as they get older. There are many issues about justice. It seems to me that, listening to the Conservative party contributions, I appreciate that they find the anti-Toray rhetoric tiresome and that they are attempting to detoxify themselves. It seems to me that this Government at a UK level and the Conservative benches here should be living up to the consequences of the actions that they have forced through in the 1980s to that pit closure programme and the devastation that that caused to communities up and down the country. The communities that we are talking about are not benefiting from the social economic justice that the UK Government claims that it stands for and are definitely not benefiting from levelling up with the kind of reaction that they have received from Boris Johnson to this select committee report. Those communities are still suffering from decades of deindustrialisation, of poverty and a lack of economic justice and a lack of jobs. Generations literally have campaigned for economic justice for those communities since the 1980s. I would be delighted to give way to the gentlemen. I respect completely the argument that Katie Clark is making, by the way, but she was a member of Parliament during the time of the last Labour Government where this issue could have been dealt with given the nature of the agreement that was reached in 1994. I said that I was tired of the anti-Tory rhetoric, but both Labour and the Conservatives are parties to what this agreement consists of. Therefore, I think that the partisan approach that is being taken by the Labour Party is ill-suited to the argument. Katie Clark. I am grateful to the gentlemen. I appreciate the point that he is making, but I would point out that, unfortunately, it is now more than a decade since Labour has been in power. The reality is that, as time has gone on, it has become clearer that the balance of risk is one that is very much against the miners. I understand the point that his colleague was making earlier that the Government has taken on risk and has acted as a guarantor, but the principle surely is that it should be those that paid into the scheme that benefit from the scheme. The select committee looked at those issues in detail and came to the conclusion that the Government had been negligent at the time and that the only just solution now was that the benefit should be given to those that paid into the scheme, who live in some of the poorest communities in this country. Therefore, what I would say to Mr Kerr is that, if his Government at a UK level is serious about its levelling up agenda, it is a very simple step that they could take that would put money into those communities, that would be an act that would show very clearly that they want to right some of the wrongs of the past and that they want to make sure that those communities are given a fair chance. There are many other steps that should be taken. That is a simple step. I hope that, at the end of the debate, we are united that this is a step that the UK Government should take and that it would be a simple step that would make a really significant difference to many people's lives. Thank you, Ms Clark. I now call on Carl Mocken, who will be followed by the minister, Ms Mocken again, four minutes. To this day, the legacy of mining in the miners who made it happen are everywhere across South Scotland, particularly in my home area of Ayrshire and indeed in Midlothian, as referenced in the motion. This is not just a legacy left on the earth but a legacy of social, cultural and political energy that continues to reverberate. I am speaking today to celebrate that legacy and the dedication of the miners who broke their backs for our country. They have not been forgotten by me or by the Scottish Labour Party. Hopefully, with a bit of common sense and decency, we can get them the pension they deserve. It is not much to ask. I know that there are those in other parties who would like to think that they saw off the miners long ago and thought that, although many are now retired or sadly no longer with us, the legacy of that industry lives on in the solidarity, grit and shared experiences of those communities. However, it also lives on in the poverty that we have heard about, now seen in many of the ex-mining communities, and the struggle by miners themselves to achieve financial security for themselves and their families. Now that their livelihoods and the highly skilled well-paid jobs that came with it are all but gone. I am disheartened to say that, nearly 40 years after the process began, we are still having to stand up and defend miners and their families against a Tory Government that simply did not care, a Tory Government that saw destroying the power of the working classes as a priority above all else. Why would we expect any different now? It is likely that the treasure will earn around £23 billion from the miners' pension fund in real terms over the next 60 years, but equally that could grow to as high as £55 billion. All the wealth and so little of it is going to those who grafted for it. There was time when the Tories claimed to be all about getting Britain back to work in putting a pound in your pocket. I think that we can see now who's pockets are bulging from the miners' money. Fortunately, in Scotland, we have a majority against that callous injustice, and I fully support the call to give the £1.2 billion held in the investment reserve to the former miners. After all, that is what they are due. As is rightly mentioned in the motion, the great work of the Labour Government in Wales serves as a fine example for Scotland to follow, and I have no doubt attempts to do so will be supported by almost everyone in this chamber. I only despair that we even had to demand this. This distribution of funds should have been reviewed long ago. Thank you to the member for bringing this important motion to the chamber. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Mocken, and I call on Tom Arthur to respond to the debate. Minister, you have around seven minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking my colleague Christine Grahame for bringing this very important motion to the chamber today? I can also thank members across the chamber for their contribution. It's clear that many decades may have passed, but this is still a live issue. I think that that is a point that has been captured by many members. Reflecting on a contribution that Richard Leonard made of the need to right historic wrongs, what Carol Mocken said is that it's not much of an ask—I think that was the expression that Ms Mocken used. I recognise that we have many challenges, many complex or wicked problems, but when we are presented with an opportunity to right a wrong and to do the right thing where we can all unite, we must seize that. We must also learn the lessons of the importance of a just transition, so that decades from now we are not debates taking place in this Parliament because we have failed to learn the lessons of previous generations. I also want to recognise the contribution that was made by Annabelle Ewing. In particular, she highlighted a very important element of the Bays report, which I think is an excellent report and a commended committee for their work. That's also a point that's been picked up by other members, which is that the UK Government should not be engaging in profiteering. That is not the purpose of that pension fund. I also want to recognise the contributions of members illustrating the rich history of mining across Scotland and, indeed, the wider UK. I only have to look back at a few generations of my own family to find miners in Ayrshire and in Lanarkshire, and I recognise the horrendous conditions that they had to work under. I also want to recognise the contribution of Mr Lumsden, which, I hope he doesn't mind me saying, seems to be a statement of what the UK Government's existing position is. I did have some hope that, when Mr Kerr intervened on Mr Smith, I picked up that he suggested that Mr Kerr agreed with the recommendations of the Bays Committee. If my sedentary position is indicating his do so, I welcome that. However, I hope that there may be a difference of opinion across the Conservatives group in this place that Mr Kerr will be full-froated in supporting the Government and members across the chamber in calling for the UK Government to do the right thing. I would be happy to. I am being consistent with the position that I took when I was a member of the House of Commons, representing the Stirling constituency, where there were many retired miners who brought this issue to my attention. I am also being consistent as a former member of the select committee that produced the report. I believe that the Conservative colleagues that I have or former colleagues that I have that were on this committee will have received the evidence, and their unanimous conclusion is based on that evidence. Therefore, it is an easy thing to support. I do not belong to the UK Parliament now. I remember that the Scottish Parliament, my job is to hold the minister's Government to account. Therefore, I am free to comment on the UK Government at will. As he is a new member of this Parliament, I think that he is making an excellent start. I would fully encourage him that approach and to share it with Mr Alumson as well. The mine workers pension scheme was established in 1952 and was close to new members upon the privatisation of British Coal in 1994. There are over 120,000 pensioners receiving benefits from the scheme and over 10,000 deferred members, with the average pension being under £100 per week. Indeed, I understand that 10 per cent of the pensioner membership receives less than £18 per week. Former Scottish mine workers and their widows are among those pensioners. Inevitably, their numbers are sadly diminishing year on year. Over centuries, thousands of Scots lost their lives underground, and even in the last few decades of the industry, working conditions remained dangerous. Many former mine workers continue to suffer chronic health conditions as a result of their occupation, an issue particularly acute giving what we have collectively endured over the past 18 months. Of course, times have changed and our priorities for energy are rightly refocusing on sustainable and renewable sources as we strive for a just transition away from fossil fuels. However, we should not forget the critical historical role that mine work has played over many decades, including in the transformative period between nationalisation and privatisation of the industry and extracting crude coal to fuel our communities and propel society into the modern age. I understand that other members have referenced the national mining museum in the former Lady Victoria colliery in Christine Grahame's constituency, provides visitors with a vivid reminder of the conditions in which mine workers toiled and the gratitude owed to them by all of us. I very much hope to visit the museum soon. As the chamber is aware, responsibility for occupational pensions is reserved to Westminster, and this Parliament has no influence over decisions that affect the mine workers scheme, all the arrangements that were set out in the UK legislation in 1994. It was right that, upon privatisation in 1994, the UK Government provided assurances and a guarantee to former mine workers to protect the value of their pensions. It is also right that the risk to the taxpayer was acknowledged. The arrangements are technical, as has been touched on in the return for the provision of a guarantee, but the UK Government is entitled to a half share of scheme surplus, a so-called 50-50 share, with the scheme members. The fund has four notional sub-funds. A guaranteed fund provides inflation-proof pensions to former mine workers and their dependents. There is an investment reserve based on the £1.2 billion surplus bequeathed from British coal days. Two other components complete the arrangements with a bonus augmentation fund for payments to members and a guarantee fund from which the UK Government's share of benefits is derived. I recognise that the scheme trustees would have welcomed the guarantee, which permitted an investment strategy seeking higher returns, which has benefited members through bonus payments over years. However, at the time that the arrangements were entered into, it was estimated that the surplus might amount to £2 billion over the course of quarter of a century. In reality, the UK Government's dividend amounts to more than three times that figure. In the unlikely event that the guarantee is ever called upon, it is expected that the risk to the taxpayer would fall short, well short, of what has already been paid in. I have read the report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee, which, as you are aware, sets out key recommendations in relation to the arrangements entered into in 1994. The committee describes the 50-50 arrangements as arbitrary, having found no substantial contemporary assessment being undertaken. They are also quite exceptional. I agree with the findings of the Select Committee in particular about the future division of surplices. There is a strong case for a more equitable distribution to surplices to scheme beneficiaries, many of whom are on low incomes and an arrangement that better reflects the risks of the scheme management and assurance. One of the select committee's key recommendations is turning over the investment reserve to pensioners, which is a step that could have a material impact on thousands of low-income households. The UK Government has rejected the recommendations and has set out and continued to believe that the arrangement agreed in 1994 was, to use their words, fair and beneficial to both scheme members and taxpayers. However, the chair of the Select Committee has, understandably, responded in strong terms, asking the UK Government to reconsider. The scheme trustees are also disappointed, and given that they consider the essential guarantee to the operation of the scheme, they must feel that they have little scope for alternative action. That is a crucial point to make, in reference to what Mr Lumson said. The UK Government may say that their door is open, but if they are only going to engage in conversation if the condition is to remove the guarantee, that is not openness, that is not transparency, that is not engagement, and that is what needs to change. The national union of mine workers has also called for a more balanced approach to the distribution of funds and the investment reserve. I note the UK Government's position, as I said, that ministers are open to further dialogue with trustees and an arrangement that sees the scheme retain 100 per cent of surpluses. That appears to be entirely conditional, however, and removing the guarantee is not a genuine offer. It places trustees in an invidious position, so it is not acceptable. The UK Government has been a substantial beneficiary of arrangement for a quarter of a century, but time for it to stop taking and to do the right thing is long overdue. That is why, as members will be aware, I am writing to the UK Government and the trustees of the mine workers pension scheme asking that the arrangements are reviewed so that former mine workers can, in retirement, be properly recognised for the work that they undertook on behalf of all our countries across the UK for many years, including, Presiding Officer, those discussions should be transparent and include expert input from actuaries and have the interests of pensioners at their centre. Action should be taken as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that the concerns of many on this issue are heard by the UK Government and the recommendations are given full consideration in mutually supported discussions. I call on this party to support the recommendations of the select committee. Once again, I thank Christine Grahame for bringing this important issue to the chamber. Thank you very much indeed, minister. That concludes the debate, and I suspend the sitting of Parliament until 2pm.