Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recognise Liz Smith’s first point, which was about changing consumer activity. She will be familiar with the evidence that the Scottish Retail Consortium has provided about different patterns of spending. We have now seen an uplift in goods that were not in demand as much during the pandemic. In lockdown, purchases of food and at garden centres increased, but goods such as clothes and footwear were purchased less. That is changing; we are monitoring the figures closely and will consider the situation as part of the work on the retail strategy.

I am happy to take away Liz Smith’s point about debt so that I can speak to colleagues and look into it further. We have provided extensive support—more than £4.3 billion—to businesses throughout the pandemic, and a lot of businesses on our high streets and in town centres will continue to benefit from our comprehensive package of non-domestic rates relief.

On Liz Smith’s second point, I could talk at length about the subject. We have a commitment to taking forward community wealth building legislation later in the parliamentary session. As Liz Smith knows, a key pillar of community wealth building is procurement. I want to work with local authorities, our health boards, other public bodies and the private sector to leverage their financial clout so that the money goes in to support local economies. I very much look forward to having a conversation about that with Liz Smith and other members across the chamber in due course.

As I made reference to in my original answer, it is for local authorities to decide how they allocate their funding. We have given a fair settlement to local government over the past 10 years—10 years of austerity that was inflicted on us by Westminster.

The point that I would put to the member is very simple. As he is aware, health is becoming an increasing part of the budget, and it has priority. If he wishes to see increased resourcing for local government, it is incumbent on him and his colleagues to identify where that resource should come from.

A Scottish Government analysis highlights the harmful impact of UK Government welfare reforms on the most vulnerable people in Scotland. A report from June indicates that key policies of the UK Government, including its callous decision to cut universal credit by £20 per week as of today, will reduce social security expenditure in Scotland by £586 million by 2023-24. The situation is particularly worrying as the cost of food and energy increases, the furlough scheme ends and national insurance contributions are hiked. The UK Government’s senseless and harmful decision to remove that lifeline while the cost of living rises will hinder communities across Scotland and demonstrates why full powers over social security should be held in the Scottish Parliament instead.

I whole-heartedly join Bill Kidd in doing so. The Scottish Government’s analysis shows that the cut will result in an extra 60,000 people in Scotland, including 20,000 children, being pushed into poverty and hundreds of thousands of others into hardship. The reality is, as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has said, that the cut will

“effectively knock out the benefits that the Scottish child payment brings into families”.

That is why there is, unsurprisingly, such broad political opposition to the cut—except, of course, among the Scottish Conservatives, who were happy to defend that callous cut last week in the chamber.

The Scottish Government does not underestimate the severe impact that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the arts and cultural sector in Glasgow, which is hugely important to the wider city economy and Scotland’s cultural life.

Councils are autonomous bodies that are responsible for managing their own day-to-day business. They must deliver services as effectively as possible. It is for locally elected representatives to make decisions on how best to use their resources to deliver services to their local communities. How that is done is a matter for each council.

Glasgow City Council will receive a total funding package from the Scottish Government of almost £1.5 billion in 2021-22 to support the provision of local services, which includes an extra £29.8 million to support vital day-to-day services; that is a 2.2 per cent increase over 2020-21. Glasgow City Council has already been allocated an additional £221.7 million to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown through the local government settlement, over and above its regular grant payments.

The Scottish Government has supported organisations and individuals in Glasgow during the pandemic with more than £18 million through Creative Scotland’s culture organisations and venues recovery fund and other Covid-tagged funding programmes. I would be happy to provide more details on that to the member in writing.

We understand the difficulties that Scotland’s retail industry faces as a result of the global pandemic. In recognition of that, the Scottish Government has provided businesses with more than £4.3 billion in support since the start of the pandemic.

We continue to support the retail sector and other businesses as we rebuild the economy following the pandemic, including through retail strategy, town centre review and city centre recovery task force work, as well as the Scotland loves local £10 million multiyear support programme.

As the member will be aware, in Scotland we have the most generous package of rates relief anywhere in the United Kingdom. Indeed, we were the only part of the UK to give full non-domestic rates relief for hospitality, leisure, aviation and retail. That was an investment of more than £700 million.

As the member will appreciate, decisions around NDR will be taken as part of the budget process. I very much look forward to his constructive and informed contribution to that process later this year.

I thank my colleague Christine Grahame for bringing her important motion to the chamber for debate. I also thank members across the chamber for their contributions.

It is clear that, although many decades may have passed, this is still a live issue. That point has been captured by many members. Richard Leonard’s contribution reflected on the need to right historic wrongs, which is—as I think that Carol Mochan expressed it—not much of an ask.

I recognise that we have many challenges and many complex and wicked problems. However, when we are presented with an opportunity to right a wrong and to do the right thing, around which we can all unite, we must seize it. We must also learn the lessons of the importance of a just transition, so that there are not debates taking place in this Parliament decades from now because we failed to learn the lessons of previous generations.

I also recognise Annabelle Ewing’s contribution, which highlighted in particular a very important element of the BEIS Committee report. It is an excellent report, and I commend the committee on its work. To make a point that was picked up on by other members, the UK Government should not be engaging in profiteering—that is not the purpose of the pension fund.

I also recognise the contributions that illustrated the rich history of mining across Scotland and, indeed, the wider UK. I have only to look back a few generations in my family to find miners in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, and I recognise the often horrendous conditions that they had to work under.

I also recognise the contribution of Mr Lumsden, which seemed to be a statement of the UK Government’s existing position—I hope that he does not mind me saying that. I had some hope when Mr Kerr intervened on Mr Smyth, as I picked up the suggestion that Mr Kerr agreed with the recommendations of the BEIS Committee. [Interruption.]

He is indicating from a sedentary position that he does—I welcome that. Although there may be a difference of opinion across the Conservative group in this place, I hope that Mr Kerr will be full throated in supporting the Government and members across this chamber in calling for the UK Government to do the right thing.

As a new member of this Parliament, Stephen Kerr is making an excellent start. I fully encourage him in that approach and urge him to share it with Mr Lumsden.

The mineworkers pension scheme was established in 1952 and was closed to new members on the privatisation of British Coal, in 1994. There are more than 120,000 pensioners receiving benefits from the scheme, and more than 10,000 deferred members, with the average pension being under £100 per week. Indeed, I understand that 10 per cent of the pensioner membership receive less than £18 per week. Former Scottish mineworkers 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. Even in the past few decades of the industry, working conditions remained dangerous. Many former mineworkers continue to suffer chronic health conditions as a result of their occupation, which is a particularly acute issue, given 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 mineworkers played over many decades—including in the transformative period between nationalisation and privatisation of the industry—in extracting coal to fuel our communities and propel society into the modern age.

As other members mentioned, 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 mineworkers 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 affecting the mineworkers scheme or the arrangements set out in the UK legislation in 1994. It was right that, on privatisation in 1994, the UK Government provided assurances and a guarantee to former mineworkers 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 return for the provision of a guarantee, 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. The “guaranteed fund” provides inflation-proof pensions to former mineworkers and their dependants. There is an investment reserve, based on the £1.2 billion surplus that was bequeathed from British Coal days. Two other components complete the arrangements: a bonus augmentation fund for payments to members, and a guarantor fund, from which the UK Government’s share of benefits are derived.

I recognise that the scheme trustees would have welcomed the guarantee, which permitted an investment strategy seeking higher returns. It 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 a 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 well short of what has already been paid in.

I have read the report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which, as members are aware, sets outs key recommendations in relation to the arrangements that were entered into in 1994. The committee describes the 50:50 arrangements as “arbitrary”, as it found that no substantial contemporary assessment had been undertaken. They are also quite exceptional.

I agree with the findings of the committee, in particular, about the future division of surpluses. There is a strong case for a more equitable distribution of surpluses to scheme beneficiaries—many of whom are on low incomes—through an arrangement that better reflects the risks of scheme management and assurance. One of the committee’s key recommendations is to turn 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 that it continues to believe that the arrangement that was

“agreed in 1994 was fair and beneficial to both Scheme members and taxpayers”.

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 guarantee to be essential to the operation of the scheme, they must feel that they have little scope for alternative action. That is a crucial point to make with reference to what Mr Lumsden said, because the UK Government might say that its door is open, but, if it will engage in conversation only under the condition that the guarantee is to be removed, that is not openness or transparency and that is not engagement. That is what needs to change.

The National Union of Mineworkers has also called for a more balanced approach to the distribution of funds and the investment reserve. As I said, I note the UK Government’s position that ministers are open to further dialogue with trustees and to an arrangement that sees the scheme retain 100 per cent of surpluses. However, that appears to be entirely conditional on removing the guarantee, and that is not a genuine offer. It places the trustees in an invidious position, so it is not acceptable.

The UK Government has been a substantial beneficiary of the arrangements for a quarter of a century. The 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 mineworkers pension scheme, asking that the arrangements be reviewed so that former mineworkers can, in retirement, be properly recognised for the work that they undertook, on behalf of all our countries across the UK, for many years.

Those discussions should be transparent, should include expert input from actuaries and should 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 that the recommendations are given full consideration in mutually supportive discussions. I call on Parliament to support the recommendations of the select committee, and I again thank Christine Grahame for bringing this important issue to the chamber.