← Back to House of Commons Debates
The Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme Bill - Clause 1
20 October 2023
Lead MP
Christopher Chope
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 12
At a Glance
Christopher Chope raised concerns about the covid-19 vaccine damage payment scheme bill - clause 1 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This Bill aims to address the issue of vaccine damage compensation for those who have suffered injury or death as a result of the covid-19 vaccination programme. I first raised this issue in 2021 and since then, over 6,809 claims related to COVID-19 vaccinations have been made under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. The Bill proposes changes such as lowering the disability threshold from 60% to a more reasonable level, ensuring timely compensation, and addressing the inadequacies of current schemes by creating a no-fault system that recognises vaccine-induced injuries.
Christchurch
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.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
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.
Philip Davies
Con
Bolton West
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.
Philip Davies
Con
Shipley
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.
Esther McVey
Con
Tatton
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.
Erith and Thamesmead
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.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
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
Con
Lewes
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.
Christchurch
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.
Maria Caulfield
Con
Scarborough and Whitby
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.
Philip Davies
Con
Shipley
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.
Esther McVey
Con
Tatton
McVey raised concerns about the Labour party's stance on the 'safe and effective' mantra of COVID-19 vaccines, suggesting inconsistency in their approach.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.