Show the Working

End the Mineworkers Pension Scandal

Reform UK · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Reform UK’s policy “End the Mineworkers Pension Scandal” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Public finances & the next generation — Hurts

minor · low confidence

This policy would end the government's 50% share of future Mineworkers' Pension Scheme surpluses, permanently reducing a revenue stream flowing to the Exchequer. The size of the fiscal cost depends entirely on how large future scheme surpluses turn out to be, which is uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: The value of future surpluses foregone by the government — which drives the entire fiscal cost — is unknown and depends on scheme investment performance over decades.

Our reading: The fiscal effect on O12 is straightforward in direction but uncertain in magnitude. The government currently receives 50% of scheme surpluses under the 1994 privatisation agreement, a stream that has yielded around £4.4bn historically. The policy ends this entitlement on future surpluses (except where the guarantee is triggered by a deficit), permanently reducing government revenue from the scheme. This is an unfunded revenue loss from the Exchequer's perspective — no offsetting saving or revenue source is identified in the policy text. The Investment Reserve element (£1.5bn) has already been conceded by the current government, so the truly additional fiscal cost is the foregone 50% of future surpluses. Since the scheme has historically run consistent surpluses without triggering the guarantee, the government's contingent liability is unlikely to materialise, meaning the guarantee is largely a theoretical benefit the government retains while losing the revenue upside. That said, the guarantee does provide real value in a tail scenario, so the net fiscal cost is somewhat offset. The magnitude is rated minor because the future surplus stream is scheme-specific, not large in macroeconomic terms, and partially already conceded. Confidence is low because no independent fiscal costing (OBR/IFS) of the future-surplus element is available in the evidence provided.

Security in later life — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would redirect pension surpluses from the government to around 112,000 former mineworkers, giving them higher retirement incomes. Part of this has already happened under the current government, so the additional gain depends on what remains unresolved.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: How much additional surplus would actually flow to miners beyond what the current government has already committed to transferring, and whether future surpluses will be large enough to make a material difference.

Our reading: The policy targets a long-running grievance: under the 1994 privatisation deal, the government took 50% of MPS surpluses as a fee for its guarantee, despite never having to pay out under that guarantee. By the time of the 2021 BEIS Committee report, this had netted the government around £4.4 billion. The BEIS Committee concluded the government had profited greatly and recommended redirecting all future surpluses to members. This policy commits to implementing those recommendations in full. The baseline pension for many members is low — average £84/week in 2019, with some widows on just £10/week — so even modest increases matter for later-life security and pensioner poverty. However, the most immediately impactful part of the policy — transferring the Investment Reserve — has already been committed to by the current government, delivering an average £29/week rise for 112,000 members. The remaining marginal gain from this policy is primarily the reallocation of future surpluses from the 50:50 split to 100% for members, something the trustees are already actively negotiating with the current government. The policy's additionality therefore depends on how that negotiation resolves independently, and on the size of future surpluses. The direction is clearly improves for the affected group: more surplus money goes to pensioners rather than the Treasury, directly strengthening financial security in later life for a specific, identifiable population. Magnitude is moderate rather than major because significant ground has already been covered by the 2024 Budget commitment, and the remaining upside is contingent on future surplus levels.