Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme

Tuesday 21 October 2025 · 1 question

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Mr Peter Bedford asked about the vaccine damage payment received by his constituent's family due to the covid-19 vaccination, stating the current payment falls short of addressing the loss and trauma.
  • The Minister responded that the vaccine damage payment scheme is a one-off payment, not a compensation scheme.
  • The Minister mentioned that concerns raised by campaigners are influencing ongoing consideration for reforms to the scheme.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Peter Bedford Con Mid Leicestershire
NHS
Context

Mr Bedford referenced a constituent, Kelly Hatfield, who lost her father Ken Purnell due to the COVID-19 vaccination. The family received a vaccine damage payment that has not been inflation-adjusted since 2007.

Question

My constituent Kelly Hatfield sadly lost her father Ken Purnell as a result of the covid-19 vaccination. The family received a vaccine damage payment, yet the sum, which has not increased since 2007, falls short of the loss, trauma and long-term financial impact on these families. Will the Minister explain why that one-off payment has not been inflation-adjusted and will she commit to reviewing its adequacy and fairness?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)

The vaccine damage payment scheme is not a compensation scheme but a one-off payment. It is important to state that. As I have said, we recognise that there are concerns, which campaigners have raised, and their input is shaping our ongoing consideration of reforms to the scheme. All vaccines in the UK are authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which is an independent body recognised globally for its high safety standards.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The minister did not provide a specific commitment to review the adequacy of the payment or adjust it for inflation.

How: This Labour Government Base Our Decisions On Scientific Fact, Unlike Reform, Which Has Still Not Apologised For Platforming Dangerous Anti-Vax Conspiracy Theories. I Can Only Assume That It Is Less Interested In Protecting People Than It Is In Alarming Folk For Political Advantage.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)