The Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme Bill - Clause 1

This Bill is critical as it addresses the concerns of those who have suffered significant harm or death due to covid-19 vaccines. With only about half of claims assessed and a paltry £120,000 maximum payment, there is an urgent need for reform. The Government's response so far has been inadequate, with many people waiting months or years for their claims to be resolved. There is also evidence that vaccine-induced injuries are causing psychological distress among affected individuals.

Compliments Christopher Chope for his work on behalf of those adversely impacted by the vaccine programme and emphasises that these are people who responded to Government calls and should receive full support from health authorities and Government.

Supports Chope's proposal for immediate action, highlighting that the compensation being given does not adequately cover the costs of dealing with disabilities caused by adverse vaccine reactions and suggesting full Government coverage rather than arbitrary limits.

Supports the amendment, highlighting that victims of adverse reactions are grateful for his hon. Friend's efforts. He emphasises the importance of addressing serious side effects such as strokes and heart attacks, urging the Minister to acknowledge these cases clearly in her response. Davies also raises concerns about coercive measures taken during the pandemic and their impact on public trust.

Ms McVey argues against the use of absolute terms like ‘safe’ in describing covid-19 vaccines, emphasising that questioning vaccine safety should not be stigmatized. She raises concerns about public misinformation and lack of transparency from regulatory bodies, advocating for a more open debate on vaccine efficacy and risks.

Ms Oppong-Asare supports the safety and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines, highlighting their critical role in reducing severe illness and death. She emphasises that vaccines undergo rigorous testing and adhere to strict quality standards.

Mr Gale intervenes to comment on procedural matters, objecting to the interruption of Ms Oppong-Asare's speech. He does not provide substantive arguments about the Bill in this extract.

Maria Caulfield argues against making specific provisions for financial assistance to those affected by covid vaccinations, stating that it would be inequitable towards other vaccines. She explains that the VDPS exists to provide a one-off tax-free payment for individuals harmed by listed vaccines and highlights improvements in processing claims through NHS Business Services Authority since 2021.

Chope criticised the Government’s response, stating that there is a significant disparity in claims between different vaccines. He highlighted that only 15 cases related to MMR vaccines have been referred to the VDPS compared with 6,809 for COVID-19, suggesting the scheme may not be fit for purpose and that serious questions are raised about its adequacy.

Caulfield interjected to clarify that around 93% of the population received at least one dose of the covid-19 vaccine, in contrast with HPV and flu vaccines which target smaller groups. She argued this explains the higher number of claims for COVID-19 vaccines.

Davies interjected to express concern about the Labour party's lack of response regarding real-term cuts to vaccine payment schemes, which have not been increased in 17 years.

McVey raised concerns about the Labour party's stance on the 'safe and effective' mantra of COVID-19 vaccines, suggesting inconsistency in their approach.