Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny Kruger

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), my Wiltshire near-neighbour, for her powerful speech representing the many thousands of people who supported the petition.

I pay tribute to our visitors in the Public Gallery, many of whom I detect might qualify as WASPI women. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) about the power of this campaign, which demonstrates what people power can do to get the attention of Parliament. I hope they feel that this debate has advanced their cause—we will hear from the Minister shortly about whether that has happened.

I also pay tribute to hon. Members across the Chamber for their speeches. I agree with those of them who pointed out the cross-party nature of our efforts. It has been very powerful to see, in particular, the friendship between the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), which is a moving sight. They are the conscience and soul of their respective parties, and I hope that the Minister will listen to his hon. Friend just as I listen to my right hon. Friend.

I recognise that the question is a complex one and the Government have had a difficult time in thinking about what to do. It is true, as the ombudsman’s report pointed out, that there was no direct loss of income to women from the maladministration. However, it is also true that the bad communication of the policy change led directly to people’s income being impacted negatively and to their making decisions in the absence of full information from Government about their future income, as many hon. Members have powerfully expressed on behalf of individual constituents.

It is also true that the question of how to communicate with individual members of the public is a fraught one, but it is simply not credible to say that the communications with this group were adequate. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) powerfully pointed out, if the Government also say that there is very little point in sending letters because people do not open them, then what is the point in the Government communicating with the public in that way on any topic?

It is also true—this is the final defence of the Government, as it were—that dealing with 3.5 million people, all of whom have difference circumstances, is a complex matter. I recognise how difficult that is, and how enormous the potential bill for the taxpayer could have been if every single one of those women received the maximum compensation.

I have said that this issue is very complicated, but it is also fundamentally very simple. Other hon. Members have made this point more powerfully than I can, but the fact is that Labour MPs campaigned to fix this problem, right the wrongs that had been done to the WASPI women and, if they won the election, see justice done. That has not happened. As hon. Members have said very powerfully, our democracy depends on us MPs fulfilling the promises that we make when we stand for election. If we do not do that, we will have a bigger problem than the injustice done to the WASPI women; indeed, our whole democracy will be in crisis.

I recognise that more could have been done by the last Conservative Government before the election. However, we were waiting for the ombudsman’s report and the suggestion that we kicked it into the long grass is a little unfair. The fact is that the ombudsman’s report arrived a matter of weeks before the general election was called. I am confident—my party made clear pledges to this effect—that we would have fulfilled our commitment to the WASPI women in light of the ombudsman’s report. Exactly what we would have done, I cannot say. Sadly, no one will ever know because the public took a different view about who should take the matter forward. Nevertheless, I can say with absolute candour and confidence that we would have done more than nothing, which is what the Labour Government have done.

Leaving party politics out of it, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who said that this is a matter for Parliament. The report came from a parliamentary ombudsman and it is Parliament that decides on these matters. Like her, I take hope in the many excellent, powerful and brave speeches made by Labour Members here in Westminster Hall today, and by many other Members who have stood in public and pledged their opposition to the decision made by their own party leadership. I honour them for the commitment they are making to honour the pledges they made when they stood as candidates, and I very much hope that the Minister is listening to them.

[Jim Shannon]

I have been a Back Bencher all my parliamentary career; I have no wish to be anything other than a Back Bencher. I am very happy in the role that I play. The Government Back Benchers in Westminster Hall today are playing an absolutely magnificent role; they should be congratulated and they should be very proud of the stance they are taking. Every one of them has spoken in support of the WASPI women and we thank them for that—and more Members than those Back Benchers are committed to doing the same. I look to the Minister here today. I have seen him nodding in support of them; his head went up and down, so I think he was agreeing with what they were saying. If that is the case, does he agree that he can only do one thing—meet the WASPI women before the judicial review makes him do something that he may end up deciding he should have done long ago?

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is without a doubt the greatest Back Bencher in the House of Commons, and I very much agree with what he is saying. I reiterate my appreciation of and respect for colleagues across the House and particularly those Labour Members who have spoken today and in other places in support of the WASPI women.

Let me finish by putting a specific question to the Minister. When we were here in Westminster Hall a couple of months ago to debate this issue, it was his first day in the job. By the way, we should not be blaming him for coming up with this policy; he was a Back Bencher when it was conceived and he just had to come out and defend it, which he did. On that day, during the last debate on this topic, he said:

“We will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.” —[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 157WH.]

I would be grateful if he told us what progress has been made on this matter and what action plan we can expect. What update can he provide? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just said, I very much hope that he will work closely with the WASPI women themselves and their representatives to develop that action plan.

This battle is not over; as we have just heard, there is a case in the High Court about it. However, Parliament remains powerful enough, and has the authority and the ability, to right the injustice that has been done over so many years to these women. I very much hope that the Minister—who, as I say, cannot be blamed for conceiving of this policy—having heard the powerful speeches from parties across the House and being aware of the strength of feeling in our constituencies, will feed back to his colleagues in the Government that a mistake has been made and that the opportunity still remains to right this injustice.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny Kruger

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the central point here: although, as Members have said, the change of policy itself was not the subject of the ombudsman’s inquiry, the failure to communicate directly impacted the circumstances of many women. They did not understand the circumstances they would be in, and it changed the decisions they were making.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the shadow Minister share with me, and I believe with many in this Chamber, what the good book refers to as righteous anger? There is righteous anger today for those elderly people and women who looked towards their retirement as the end of pain and exhaustion. They were unable to plan financially to enable them to retire earlier due to the nature of the communication they were given by Government. Righteous anger deserves justice. Does he agree that the ladies who I and others in this Chamber represent deserve justice? Whether the Minister is responsible or not, he has to give a justifiable yes to what they want.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have heard it said that anger is love in the presence of injustice. The righteous anger that so many people feel here in this Chamber and beyond reflects the essential injustice we have seen.

The Government, in their response to the report, made this central defence, which we might hear again from the Minister: they dispute that women were left out of pocket because of the failure of communication made by DWP all those years ago. The Secretary of State argued in the Commons that letters do not have much impact anyway, citing some research suggesting that people ignore letters, do not read them or do not remember receiving them. It begs the question of why Government communicate at all if there is no value to it. It is obviously true that communication of an issue raises awareness of the issue. The failure to communicate meant that awareness of the issue was not possible for these people.

I recognise the challenge faced by the Government here. It is, of course, difficult to assess the precise circumstances of 3.5 million women. I recognise that some of the claims made on behalf of the campaign were exorbitant. Nevertheless, there were many options on the table for the Government to consider, from a hardship fund to smaller packages of support. It was not the only option to give a total no—nothing at all for the WASPI women. That was not the only option.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny Kruger

Report stage
Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, the release of dormant assets started with Labour and has been a cross-party achievement. My thanks, congratulations and appreciation also go to the financial institutions that have made the money available.

I am pleased with the Government’s proposals, including the consultation on the potential introduction of a community wealth fund. My congratulations and appreciation to the Minister for including that as a possibility, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their work in bringing that idea forward.

There are other great ideas—we could abolish personal debt by capitalising credit unions with this money or distribute it direct to community foundations in our constituencies—but I think that the community wealth fund is the best idea. I hope that we will see the money going into civil society and social infrastructure and into supporting the great levelling-up agenda to which the Government are committed. This is a tremendous Bill, and I very much support what the Government are doing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates. I thank the Government and the Minister for all they have done to make this Bill happen. Clauses 12 and 29, to which the Minister’s amendments refer, indicate things that the Democratic Unionist party wish to see, and I let him know that our party will support the Government tonight. However, I now wish to speak to new clause 1.

I agree that there must be further provision for dormant assets. Why not make good use of funds that would ultimately lie dormant unless further action was taken? The Bill aims to expand the current criteria, which will come with some great benefits, so it is great to speak on an important issue such as this. I welcome the Bill and look forward to the debate’s conclusion.

The Bill’s core purpose is to extend the dormant assets scheme to other financial assets, which could generate an additional £880 million of contributions. The figures are gigantic when we think on them, and they indicate where the Bill is going and what it can achieve. The Bill has three main functions: to track dormant account owners and reunite them with their account; to allow account owners to reclaim any amount they would have been eligible for; and to allow firms to partake as a voluntary process. The Bill will expand the assets involved further, creating a more sustainable economic success rate, make it a requirement for firms to get involved, and remove further financial restrictions. It is a win-win for the Government and for the Minister in particular.

The dormant assets scheme currently supports and boosts, by some £800 million, innovative, long-term programmes that aim to address some of the most pressing social and environmental issues. As I said, its expansion through the Bill will unlock an additional £880 million. It is stated that the Bill’s benefits will be felt across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I for one would like reassurances from the Minister that it will extend to Northern Ireland and that we will benefit as well. The potential for benefit in the UK mainland is great, but we also want to see it, if we can, in Northern Ireland.

Thus far, the scheme has benefited many foundations. The Youth Futures Foundation, which has undertaken significant work to tackle youth unemployment, got some £90 million, and Big Society Capital got over £400 million to tackle homelessness. These are great projects. The Bill makes money available to address social issues; how could anyone not say that that is great?

Also at the heart of this scheme is securing protections for those who own any of the financial assets involved. Dormant assets remain the property of their owners, who can reclaim any money owed to them in full at any time. In Northern Ireland, the Dormant Accounts Fund NI works to support the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and we can see the benefits immediately. In Northern Ireland more than 44,000 staff are employed in the sector, which accounts for 6% of the total Northern Ireland workforce. I would encourage all organisations to contact the National Lottery Community Fund to take advantage of the wonderful scheme that Northern Ireland has to offer.

I thank Members who have already contributed, and those who will contribute later, to a debate that has made clear the potential for a great economic impact following this expansion. I want to ensure that the devolved institutions can take advantage of this scheme as well, and that the funds generated in England are greater than those generated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There must also be further engagement with local communities and smaller organisations to ensure that they are not left behind.

I acknowledge the benefits that the Bill has introduced so far, and I shall welcome further discussion and expansion to ensure that financial assets are not wasted and the money is put to good use. We have seen what the scheme can do; it can do more.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Pandemic

Debate between Jim Shannon and Danny Kruger

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I rise to speak about the use of “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” notices during the pandemic. Last year, the health service was hit by the worst crisis in its history. The whole country was told to stay at home for one simple reason: to save the NHS. That meant not overwhelming the system with too much demand—too many people needing care. We faced a real nightmare scenario of the NHS not being able to treat people who were sick and dying. The horrific idea emerged of doctors or local health managers or the NHS itself having to play God to decide who should live and who should die by deciding who should get treatment and who should not. Thankfully, the NHS was not overwhelmed. This, of course, was mostly due to the heroic work of frontline staff. It is also because every measure possible was put in place to reduce pressure on hospitals. That included people staying at home, building new hospitals at record speed and getting people out of hospital as fast as possible, including to care homes. This is where the occasion for the DNACPR notices came about.

Care homes found themselves under enormous pressure, too. Stories emerged last spring of blanket DNACPR policies being put in place in care settings. They were for people with certain characteristics—people with learning disabilities, people with certain complex needs, and people with life-limiting illnesses. This was done, the report said, without consultation with patients themselves or with families. All this was quite wrong and against all the guidance. Indeed, in April last year, the Care Quality Commission issued a joint statement with the British Medical Association, the Care Provider Alliance and the Royal College of GPs, reminding all providers that it is unacceptable for advanced care plans with or without DNAR notices to be applied to groups of people of any description. I am pleased that they did it. I am particularly pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care— I understand that the Minister herself was responsible—asked the CQC to investigate these reports and to review how DNAR orders were used during the pandemic. I will come to its findings in a moment.

I want to make it clear that DNACPR orders are an appropriate part of our health and care system and can be a right and proper part of an individual’s care plan. We need to distinguish between what might be called beneficial and futile uses of CPR. An obvious example of beneficial CPR is for young people with neuro-degenerative conditions. Respiratory arrest is common for these patients, but with CPR they have an almost 100% survival rate. For them, it is essential and necessary. If a patient’s other vital organs are shutting down—if they are dying—CPR can do little.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I share a very common cause, and I appreciate him bringing this debate forward. Does he not agree that for families such as mine who, last year, lost a loved one—my mother-in-law—we would like to believe that any and every measure was taken to save life. The stories that we have heard and that he has referred to are certainly heartbreaking. I very much share his concern.