Chris McDonald MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  Far from trying to ignore issues, I am trying to explain that it is quite a complex situation. I have already acknowledged that there are concerns in particular sectors and with particular companies, but as I have said, I think it is important to take a more balanced approach. Overall, in my view and the Government’s view, and according to the economic numbers that I have presented, the Windsor framework is in fact having a net positive effect on the economy in Northern Ireland. For example, the company Evri has invested in Northern Ireland being home to the new EU gateway. In Lisburn, PRM Group, which is a major chilled and frozen food distributor, has said that this influenced its investment decision, as well as the growth of its business. Businesses in other sectors, from medical devices to advanced manufacturing and consumer goods, have made a similar call. I recognise that if businesses and consumers are to benefit from the Windsor framework, they must have access to clear advice and guidance. In our response to Lord Murphy’s review, the Government committed to strengthen our offer, and we are taking action in that regard. We are building on the comprehensive support available through the free trader support service beyond 2026, and work is under way to progress the £16.6 million regulatory support service, which will provide clear and targeted support to help businesses to trade across the UK and EU markets and to benefit from Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access. I am personally grateful to businesses and civic stakeholders for their engagement on this project as we design and build the new service.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this important debate—its importance was reflected in the urgency and tone of his remarks. I thank him for his comments, particularly those on the importance of the Union, with which I agree. That is why I would like to start by very much refuting the hon. and learned Member’s assertion that it is the policy of this Government to enable Northern Ireland to step out of the United Kingdom. I am sure that he does not fully mean that, although he is clearly very concerned about these issues of trade. I acknowledge those concerns, but the situation is more complex than his remarks have perhaps allowed for. Clearly, if there were a simple solution to this that would deliver all the benefits he has described for Northern Ireland, the Government would want to move to that solution, but it is more complex than that. Through my remarks, I will try to address the many points that he and other colleagues have raised, and I will perhaps be able to elaborate on some of that complexity. First, I will address the hon. and learned Member’s point about unfettered access. The Government remain fully committed to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. I also want to be clear about the importance of the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place in that market. The Office for the Internal Market highlights the importance of the internal market and of the sales to the rest of the United Kingdom, equivalent to around a quarter of Northern Ireland’s economic output in 2021. In 2024, which is the last year for which we have published data, Great Britain accounted for 52% of Northern Ireland’s trade in goods, and that figure is broadly the same as it was in 2018, indicating the robustness of Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  Hopefully, the hon. Gentleman heard me outline some of the measures that the British Government are taking to enable businesses in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to trade freely with one another. As we are in the dying seconds of this debate, I hope that Members will not mind if I do not take any more interventions, because I want to confirm some final statistics that I think are important. Sales from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK reached £10.9 billion in 2024, and that figure was up by 0.8% on 2023. The UK internal market is expanding, not shrinking. As I have set out in detail, the importance of the Union and the many ways in which this Government are committed to maintaining and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland run through all the points that we are making about how we interact with the Windsor framework. To conclude, I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for raising these points. Hopefully, he has heard from me that the Government are committed to the internal market, and that we are committed to the Union and the economic prosperity of Northern Ireland. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member did indeed raise the issue of diversion of trade and I was just about to address it directly. He gave some figures, but there is a more complex picture and perhaps I can just illustrate some of it. Great Britain and Northern Ireland trade remains robust, with over £17 billion in goods moving into Northern Ireland from Great Britain in 2024. The independent monitoring panel confirmed that the internal market guarantee—that 80% of Great Britain-Northern Ireland freight moves as “not at risk” goods—was met in 2025, and the latest figures confirm that 96% of goods moved under freight did so within the internal market system. We expect the panel’s next report shortly.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Goods Trading: Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. He raises concerns around bureaucracy and paperwork, essentially, for small businesses, and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentioned our own House of Commons gift shop as well for low value items. I very much want to come on to this point in my speech, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it. I will start by talking about the general performance of Northern Ireland trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland’s goods exports within the UK and with the European Union have been strong. In fact, Northern Ireland’s exports to the European Union have outperformed the rest of the United Kingdom, increasing since 2019, whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom, exports have decreased in that period. It is therefore important to note that Northern Ireland does benefit from being a fundamental part of the UK internal market and having unique access to the EU single market. Of course, I do recognise—and the point was made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim—that this experience varies across sectors, companies and individual constituents, which is why this debate is so valuable. I will go on to talk more about that. I understand the challenges around this, but public authorities have a statutory requirement to have special regard for Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom internal market under section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. That guidance gives real statutory power to ensure that policymakers within the United Kingdom actively consider Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market when they are implementing the Windsor framework or making policy involving the movement of goods in the United Kingdom. Where that is the case, the statutory guidance ensures that those policymakers must have special regard for Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Most importantly, one part of having special regard means the need to facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the aim of streamlining trade between the two, and maintaining and strengthening the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market. The guidance ensures that policymakers must give that special regard considerable importance and weight above other factors in policymaking. That represents how this Government have implemented a key commitment in the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper published under the previous Government to ensure that proper process is in place to always consider both Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market and the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Members have spoken in detail about the Windsor framework and the challenges it brings. I would like to stress that the Government are wholly committed to the Windsor framework. The framework supports the peace and prosperity brought by the Good Friday agreement, one of the proudest achievements of our last Labour Government, and it plays a vital role in ensuring the smooth flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members. It is clear that the Windsor framework is delivering benefits and smoothing the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have already noted how the Northern Ireland-Great Britain supply of goods has been maintained through the implementation of the framework. Over 15,000 traders are now signed up to the UK internal market scheme, and more than 1,100 operators are registered for the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme and the Northern Ireland plant health label. Northern Ireland traders are benefiting from these facilitations, and businesses are choosing to invest in the dual market access that Northern Ireland uniquely offers. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim is concerned about the level of investment and believes that businesses will not wish to invest in Northern Ireland for that reason. On my recent visit to Northern Ireland, however, I saw significant investment from Boeing, Airbus, Navantia and many other businesses. It is clear that this is not a uniform experience across all businesses, but it has been possible for Northern Ireland to attract significant inward investment.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have listened carefully to the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks and those from the shadow Minister, and I will address them in a moment. I am grateful for the support of the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), and of the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), both of whom are unable to speak in the debate as a result of their positions elsewhere in the House. I opened by remarking on the constructive and careful consideration that the Bill has had in the other place; it is disappointing to see that the shadow Secretary of State is not taking the same approach. I will pick up a couple of the issues he raised. I am acutely aware of the position in which the previous Government left us, with uncompetitive energy prices for industry. If he had been attentive in some of the debates we have been involved in, he would be aware of some of the measures that I have taken to address that. Those include our energy-intensive scheme, increased relief on our supercharger scheme and our British industrial competitiveness scheme. I am determined to do more. On tariffs, I am not saying that making the decision on tariffs was easy, but the shadow Secretary of State would clearly throw British industry to the mercy of dumped steel on the global market. We will not make that decision. He mentions coal for coking ovens. He may be unaware that there are no coking ovens in Scunthorpe. They were closed on his watch. This Government are acting decisively and with purpose in the national interest, but the shadow Secretary of State is blinded by his ideological position on nationalisation. We believe that a steel industry, where necessary run by the Government and owned by the people, at least gives the opportunity to attract private sector investment. If the public interest test is met, that is the right thing to do. But if that does not convince the shadow Secretary of State, perhaps I can appeal to his sense of patriotism. I said on Second Reading that the England men’s football team had only ever won the world cup in a year when we had nationalised the steel industry. If he has any sense of duty towards our team and wishes them well, he should support nationalisation this time as well. Lords amendment 1 agreed to . Lords amendments 2 to 18 agreed to .

• 14 Jul 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be back in the House today to see through the final stages of this Bill. The Government support all the Lords amendments before us. I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Minister Leong for so expertly guiding the Bill through its passage in the other place. I also wish to place on the record my thanks for the constructive approach taken by peers to the scrutiny of the Bill during its passage through the upper House, including the constructive and careful consideration from His Majesty’s official Opposition, Liberal Democrat peers and Cross-Bench peers. I thank them for their contribution. We have a responsibility to act now to secure the future of the UK steel industry. This Bill will assist in that by ensuring that steel production is secured, helping to restore domestic production to sustainable levels and supporting the Government’s economic growth plans where the public interest test is met. The Lords amendments before us strengthen the Bill in several ways. Amendment 1 ensures that the sunset power in the Bill may be extended only by increments of two years. This means that the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval at regular intervals to keep the principal transfer powers on the statute book. Lords amendments 2 and 3 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the costs that are likely to be associated with the exercise of the principal transfer powers, ensuring that such costs are considered in any decision making over the use of these powers. Lords amendments 4 and 5 upgrade the parliamentary procedure relating to continuity obligations and enforcement, ensuring that Parliament has increased scrutiny of these matters. Lords amendments 6 to 18 all relate to the appointment and role of an independent valuer and ensure that key considerations around environmental and health and safety liabilities are taken into account during any valuation exercise. A final decision on the use of the powers in the Bill has not been taken. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill will be subject to satisfaction of the public interest test, based on the relevant facts at the time of the decision. Steel has shaped our nation’s history, and this Bill is an opportunity to ensure its long-term success. The Bill enables decisive action for a strategically vital industry, defending our national security and supporting our critical national infrastructure, our economy and our national interest. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to support the Lords amendments before us today.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the reason we published our clean energy jobs plan, which identifies the demand for clean energy jobs in different parts of the country. We have also invested, through our clean energy technical excellence colleges in different parts of the country, to ensure that those skills will be available.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  British businesses were suffering from high energy costs as a direct result of the previous Government’s policy to tie us to fossil fuels. The things that we have done—lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in offshore wind and rolling out solar and nuclear—will bring down energy costs in the long term, but we need to do something now. That is why we have increased the benefit on our supercharger scheme. We have rolled out the British industrial competitiveness scheme starting next year, but that is backdated through this year, too. We also have specific support for industries such as ceramics and chemicals.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend knows how eagerly I am anticipating the return of tin production in Cornwall—I want it just as much as him and his colleagues. I would be happy to meet him to see how South Crofty and the rest of the Cornish industry can benefit from the Government’s schemes.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Small Modular Reactors: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, as do Great British Energy Nuclear, which has set a 70% target, and Rolls-Royce. Although we understand that these great export products, when built abroad, will necessarily have some overseas content, we need to do more to strengthen supply chains in the UK. We have a gap at tier 1 and tier 2 of the supply chain, and I am determined to work with Rolls-Royce and engage in some meaningful industrial development activity to see how we can encourage British companies to compete successfully in that part of the supply chain.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Small Modular Reactors: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  Great British Energy Nuclear’s SMR project could support around 3,000 peak construction jobs and many thousands more across the supply chain. As I saw for myself when I visited Rolls-Royce recently, the company and Great British Energy Nuclear are working together on developing an industrialisation strategy to strengthen British nuclear supply chains.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Small Modular Reactors: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman knows, I know Dounreay, Reay and the north-east of Scotland very well for personal and family reasons, and I also know how the local community relied on very good jobs at the power station for so long. This Government would be very keen to undertake more nuclear projects in Scotland. If he wishes to be helpful and persuasive on that, he really needs to address his concerns to the Scottish Government and particularly the Scottish National party, which stands in the way of Scotland realising its nuclear potential.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I will not detain Members for very much longer. Earlier, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned the former Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the many great things he did, one of which was his extremely strong focus on British manufacturing. The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about the opportunity we now have for reindustrialisation. Unashamedly, I lay claim to having recently introduced that word into the lexicon, and I am delighted at how quickly it has caught on. However, I hope people might follow me if I introduce a few more words: increasing British productive capacity; improving British productivity; and increasing our exports and our balance of trade to improve our manufacturing competitiveness. That way, we can reindustrialise, we can provide good jobs for working people and we can put pride back into working communities around the country. In the case of the ceramics industry, I am very much looking forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to ensure that it continues to be a great British industry into the future.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I am sure that those observing from the Public Gallery will have seen that there is huge support in Parliament for the ceramics industry, for its communities and for its jobs. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing the debate, and to Hayley for organising the petition. I am sure that many of the petitioners will have been following the debate and will have heard the support for the sector from Members, as well as from Ceramics UK and the GMB trade union. There were a number of speeches on several issues, and I will endeavour to address them all, but if I could sum up the debate in one line, it was probably put most succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee): “Thank you for the £120 million —can I have some more?” To which I have a short answer: “You’re welcome—and I want to do more.” I will talk a bit about what that “more” might be, and address some of those issues, because I do recognise that more needs to be done. It is important to recognise the pride of the communities we have heard about, because the ceramics industry is integral to the history and heritage of so many communities throughout the country. Staffordshire is the home of the ceramics industry, but it spans the whole country: we heard that it includes the china clay pits in Cornwall and extends right up to communities in the north of Scotland. There is also a diverse range of subsectors: bricks, pipes, tiles and tableware, of course, and advanced technical ceramics, with many applications in sectors such as energy, defence, medical and technology. I am most grateful today for the application of ceramics in air conditioning filtration systems—I thank the industry for that. The ceramics industry is represented in some great traditional and heritage tableware. It is very much possible to value things not only for their utility but for their beauty, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher). I am quite a fan of traditional Staffordshire stoneware. I also have a very special Dunoon mug with a Union Jack on it, and I want to let those in the Public Gallery know that I use it every morning for my first cup of tea. We heard about bricks from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), about the lifetime assessment of bricks. To be clear, I am very aware of the disadvantage in respect of bricks with a short lifetime assessment. I have bricks in my house that are over 200 years old and still doing sterling service. I am interested to hear more representations from Members throughout the House on that issue. We have of course talked a lot about ceramics, but my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) made a much wider point about manufacturing in her area of the east midlands. The issues facing ceramics are also faced by manufacturing industries around the country: high energy costs, the import of cheap goods and challenges with decarbonisation. The challenges have been exacerbated by the geopolitical instability due to the invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east, which has put pressure on our energy prices. The ceramics industry has continued to demonstrate resilience, and the people who work in the industry have demonstrated resilience, but I was very sad recently to learn of the closure of and job losses at Denby Pottery. I worked closely on that issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), and she represented the community so well in this place. There was also the closure of a tunnel kiln at Armitage Shanks. I pass on my personal sympathies to all the workers, families and local communities that were impacted by events at those firms, as well as at Royal Stafford and Heraldic Pottery. Manufacturing has now ceased at Denby Pottery, and the administrators were unable to find a buyer. My officials at the Department for Business and Trade worked diligently with the administrators to take the process forward. The Government’s priority now is to ensure that all affected workers are given the support they need. I commend Fran, Kate and Daizy and wish them every success with their new venture. I realise that my words may sound somewhat clinical to the workers and communities who are so rightly proud of Denby, so I want to take this opportunity to say how sorrowful I am that Denby has closed and that those workers, and others in the local community, can no longer work there. That is why I am so determined that we will fix some of the problems with the underpinning of the business environment, not only for ceramics but for other parts of industry. So many Members mentioned the ceramic industry support scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley thanked many people involved in the creation of that scheme—our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer played such an important role—but she was not able to thank herself, so I thank her on behalf of us all. I wonder whether the scheme would have been brought forward so speedily were it not for her work. It is important to recognise the scheme as a great vote of confidence by the Government in the ceramics industry. We are determined to work with the industry to provide support with decarbonisation, and I thank all my parliamentary colleagues who have advocated for it. A number of Members raised issues relating to the design of the support scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised issues around eligibility, consultees and so on. I reassure them that we are determined that the scheme will have the maximum eligibility to enable firms to win support for both capital and operating expenses around their decarbonisation, and to make that decarbonisation makes sense as well. This is perhaps an opportune time to firmly put down some of the myths around Government policy pushing up the price of electricity. Of course, that is not the case at all. After the previous Government, the UK was left in a position of high electricity costs, both for industry and for domestic consumers, because our electricity market is dependent on the price of gas. The cheapest form of electricity we have is solar, the second cheapest is onshore wind and the third cheapest is offshore wind. That is why the Government’s clean power 2030 mission is designed specifically to give this country a strategic and competitive advantage in electricity price from the 2030s onwards. It is particularly challenging to manage the period from now to 2030, because during that period our electricity is still set to a great extent by the gas price. For economic reasons alone, and to ensure that we have a competitive business environment, we need to work through that.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. The Trade Remedies Authority recently took some steps to try to speed up and reduce the cost of the process, but I understand that it is particularly difficult in a sector such as ceramics, in which there are so many small businesses—often, that is where a trade association might have a role. I will continue to work with the sector to understand the issues and to help, encourage and support companies to take cases to the Trade Remedies Authority where they feel that there are unfair trading practices. My hon. Friend thanked me in his speech for engaging with his private Member’s Bill, which I assure him I will continue to do. The ceramics industry has faced great difficulties in the business environment, as have many of our manufacturing industries. I am sure that the Government’s measures to support the business environment will also support other parts of our manufacturing sector. Just as people in the potteries are proud to be potters, so people in other manufacturing areas in the country—

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  This replays some of the conversations we have had on the Floor of the House. Ultimately, it is important to remember that the prices we are quoting take into account both the capital and operating costs. Our existing gas fleet would also require renewal if it was to continue beyond the mid-2030s, so there would be a capital and operating cost element for that as well.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I will allow one more intervention.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I will continue, but I will address a point that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He focused on the parts of the sector that are unable to electrify, which I am also very concerned about. Larger brick kilns and some sanitaryware items, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield spoke about in relation to his constituency, are difficult to electrify. The main decarbonisation options on the table are hydrogen, or biogas —that was not mentioned today but it could be a solution—but it is important that businesses remain competitive and able to raise capital until such a time as those occur. I reassure the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge that I am focused on that issue. I am not pretending that processes that cannot be electrified can be, but the policy is to electrify first, where that can happen. However, I realise that I need to work with the brick sector and others. I am also concerned about capacity utilisation in the brick sector currently, which was mentioned by other hon. Members, because that situation, of course, makes everything much more difficult. Many people talked about international trade. I presume that all hon. Members in the room are in favour of free trade on a level playing field basis; unfair trade was what was particularly referred to. That can be an issue of energy—overseas companies having access to energy from sources that we would not use in the UK, such as Russian gas—or, as we have heard about, some have inappropriate labour practices. When the Government decide to enter into a free trade scheme and liberalise tariffs we are always cognisant of the overall economic benefit to the country but, ultimately, we want free trade. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, asked about interaction with the Trade Remedies Authority, which is our means of correcting that. I am incredibly keen to continue to encourage the sector to engage with the Trade Remedies Authority. If there are any difficulties with that, I want to know about it.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Ceramics Industry · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend put it exactly right. We need to take both capital and operating costs into account. Fundamentally, the issue comes down to a belief or view—or, in my case, looking at the economic evidence and corporate finance. Is it possible to decarbonise and reindustrialise? Yes, of course it is, and that is precisely what the Government want to do. No one in the industry is asking us to tear up climate policy—they are using the policy to invest, and have invested £100 billion since the general election on that basis. Many people mentioned the supercharger scheme, which currently supports around 10% of the ceramics industry. Quite obviously, 10% is not 100%, but the recent uplift in the scheme to 90% compensation has benefited members. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will offer further support on advanced and technical ceramics from 2027, backdated to the current year. That will reduce electricity bills by up to £40 per megawatt hour.

• 22 Jun 2026 · British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I start by acknowledging the debt of gratitude that our country owes to our miners and our mining communities. I particularly wish to take this opportunity to note that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Easington pit disaster, where on 29 May 1951, 83 men died following an underground explosion. I grew up in a mining village just down the road from Easington, and the shadow of that day hung over the community for decades. As a former member of the Easington colliery band, I remember players who were members of the band at that time telling me how they played at the funerals of all 83 men. It will be deeply sorrowful indeed at this year’s Durham miners’ gala to see the Easington colliery band and the colliery banner—no doubt with black drapes solemnly attached—process through the streets of Durham city. I tell that story to make clear our thankfulness, and my own thankfulness, to those who laboured in our pits, their families and their communities, for they are my family and my community. I want to be clear that every penny in their pension scheme, whether it is the mineworkers’ pension scheme or the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, is theirs by right. The withdrawal of funds by previous Governments is an historic injustice, and one that I am determined to put right with the wholehearted support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In this, I am guided by the principle that we transfer as much of the money as possible as quickly as we possibly can to those in receipt of a pension, while also ensuring that sufficient funds are available to pay future pensions. It is in balancing those two aspects that I am currently in discussions with the trustees of both the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I thank the trustees for their constructive and meaningful engagement on behalf of their members.

• 22 Jun 2026 · British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Like my hon. Friend, I sincerely hope that these changes will permanently right the wrongs. It is important that we think carefully about moving as much money as possible out of the scheme, but also ensuring that there are sufficient funds to pay existing pensions. Let me briefly raise the issue of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The Government are taking a similar approach to both schemes. In 2024 they transferred the mineworkers pension scheme reserve, increasing pensions by 32%, but I want to reassure members of that scheme that I am also considering proposals for future arrangements put forward by their trustees. Those proposals could further enhance members’ benefits, and we are seeking to do that as swiftly as possible, while also managing the future funding risks.

• 22 Jun 2026 · British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will say more about the work I am doing with the trustees and the timing, as my hon. Friend rightly requests. The Government are implementing the recommendations of the BEIS Committee report from 2021 in respect of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme and the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and we continue to provide a guarantee to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, ensuring that scheme members’ pensions will always be paid after retirement. We have transferred the £2.3 billion reserve within the scheme for use as a bonus pension. This led to a 41% increase in pension incomes last December, backdated to November 2024. On average, that meant an extra £100 a week for scheme members, and I know that money will be spent in coalmining communities. That is direct support for pensioners and local communities that powered our country for decades. I am clear, however, that there is still more to do. The Government are discussing proposals for future arrangements for the scheme, including the potential for future surpluses to be used to enhance the benefits for the trustees. The hon. Member for Ashfield asked me if I would commit to working with the trustees, and I can tell him simply: I will, and I am. On timing, he asked me whether the decision will be made at the Budget. I of course leave decisions at the Budget to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but she is incredibly supportive of the work that I am doing, and I place on the record her support for me in my work and for mining communities.

• 22 Jun 2026 · British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue, because I know that it concerns members of, particularly, the mineworkers’ pension scheme and people in those communities. I want to reassure members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme that I am endeavouring to ensure that we get as much money out of the scheme as possible. The issue of equality does concern me. However, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that in the case of both schemes my aim has been to move as much money out as possible, as quickly as possible, for all those members. I do not see this as a divisive issue between two parts of the mining community, because ultimately both parts of the mining community, whichever scheme they were in, were disadvantaged by Governments of the time. I will take forward the proposals from the trustees, which I hope will further enhance members’ benefits. I want to reassure my hon. Friend, and other members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, that my top priority is to reach agreement on how best to enhance these pensions as swiftly as possible, so that we can get that funding into the pockets of scheme members. I opened my speech with some words about the Easington colliery disaster, and I mentioned the Durham miners gala. There is a miners memorial in Durham cathedral, and the words on that memorial are sung by the cathedral choir at the miners festival service on gala day every year, as they will be this year, in a few weeks’ time. I shall be there, playing in the cathedral with my band, and I thought that this might be a suitable moment for us to mark the Easington pit disaster ourselves, here in the House. So I simply say to Members: “Remember before God the Durham miners who have given their lives in the pits of this county”. Question put and agreed to.