Commons Sense

House of Commons · Bill Debate

Vaccine Damage Payments (Amendment) Bill - Clause 1

10 September 2021 · 9 other contributors

Opened by Christopher Chope Con Christchurch

NHS

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Christopher Chope raised concerns about vaccine damage payments (amendment) bill - clause 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Mr Chope highlights the need for a robust compensation scheme for covid-19 vaccine adverse consequences.
  • Mr Chope cites reports of blood clots, heart inflammation, and menstrual disorders from vaccines.
  • Mr Chope argues for an urgent judge-led inquiry into vaccine damage compensation.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Christopher Chope Con Christchurch

Mr. Chope's opening argument highlights the need for a robust compensation scheme for those who suffer adverse consequences from covid-19 vaccinations. He cites reports showing numerous cases of blood clots, heart inflammation, and menstrual disorders caused by vaccines, and emphasises that only a few applications have been processed under the existing Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 due to bureaucratic delays and low success rates (less than 2%). Mr. Chope argues for an urgent judge-led inquiry into vaccine damage compensation and criticises the Government's reluctance in addressing this issue promptly.

Other contributors (9)
  • Christopher Chope Con Christchurch

    Chope emphasises that the Bill aims to address the low number of successful applications under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and calls for a judge-led inquiry into vaccine damage compensation. He argues that those who suffer adverse consequences from vaccinations should be compensated without delay.

  • Peter Bone Con Wellingborough

    Bone supports Chope's argument, emphasising the need for fair compensation in cases of vaccine damage and asserting that it would not undermine vaccine confidence if rare adverse effects are addressed appropriately.

  • Edward Argar Con Melton and Syston

    Argar offers to meet Chope or relevant ministers to discuss the legislation, indicating support for addressing vaccine damage compensation issues.

  • Sally-Ann Hart Lab Birkenhead

    Hart questions whether covid-19 has been added to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme and seeks clarification on its implementation status.

  • Daniel Zeichner Lab Cambridge

    Zeichner suggests that a judge-led inquiry into vaccine damage should not take precedence over broader inquiries into the handling of the pandemic and expresses concern about the impact on care workers in care homes.

  • Shaun Bailey Lab Harrow West

    Bailey supports the need for compensation for those severely disabled by vaccines but raises concerns about creating a culture of vaccine hesitancy and discouraging vaccine production due to fear of side effects.

  • Simon Baynes Lab Bristol East

    Baynes inquires about the application of Chope's Bill to devolved Administrations, highlighting potential complexities in its implementation across different regions.

  • Martin Docherty SNP West Dunbartonshire

    Docherty argues that an investigation into the handling of the pandemic could address vaccine damage concerns without necessitating Chope's Bill.

  • Angela Richardson Con Guildford

    Richardson agrees with Chope's position and questions whether evidence gathering over time would still prompt necessary payments, indicating support for the urgency of addressing vaccine damage compensation.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy