Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

16:30

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report.

It is refreshing to see the Public Health Minister in this debate. If anybody will be empathetic on this topic it must be the right hon. Lady, as she has campaigned fearlessly on behalf of another group of victims: the victims of contaminated blood scandals. Although I do not want to overdo the comparison between the victims of contaminated blood and victims of vaccine damage, the responses of successive Governments to those tragedies have had a similar pattern: total denial of responsibility to start with, then recognition that people have suffered but not because of anything for which the Government were responsible, and then eventually conceding the cause and effect of the damage but still stalling on providing any effective redress.

It is that stalling on which I wish to concentrate. The Hallett inquiry made clear recommendations in April this year. Recommendation 5 stated:

“The UK government must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible. The reform should include as a minimum: increasing the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation to date; subsequently applying annual increases in line with inflation; introducing multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury suffered; and any transitional arrangements necessary to provide for fairness between applicants to the existing scheme and applicants to the revised scheme.”

The Government’s response, published earlier this month, is inadequate. That may be because the Minister has been in post for only three months; it may be because Government officials have not done the review work that for the last several years they have assured me and others that they were doing. We will hear from the Minister in due course. I hope she will be able to say that the Government agree to increase the £120,000 payment, that they will apply annual increases in line with inflation, that they will introduce multiple levels of payment, commensurate with the degree of injury, and so on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for being stalwart in his campaign on this issue; it has been very well done. For too long a small minority of families who suffered severe adverse outcomes have been left stranded by administrative failures and the lack of fair support. Does the hon. Member agree that the promised reforms must be designed in direct collaboration with the vaccine-injured and their families, to ensure that they are treated with the dignity, speed and fairness that they deserve?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. It is fair to remind everybody that he participated in the first debate I had on this subject, on Friday 10 September 2021. That was the occasion on which I moved the Second Reading of a private Member’s Bill and, in so doing, drew attention to what were then 1,632 yellow card reports of deaths having taken place shortly after vaccination.

I also drew attention then to the public petition that had been put to Parliament, and the Government’s response. The petition called for improved support for those injured or bereaved through covid-19 vaccines. The Government response stated:

“Once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed.”

Well, that was more than five years ago. We have now had that review, had the public inquiry and had the outcome, yet we have not had the Government’s acceptance of the clear recommendations to which I have already referred.

Back in September 2021, I requested that the then Secretary of State establish an independent review of disablement caused by covid-19 vaccines and the adequacy of the compensation awarded. I was not requesting a mammoth public inquiry, but only a short, judge-led inquiry into how we should most fairly compensate those who suffered adverse consequences. I also contrasted the Government’s pessimistic view with the World Health Organisation’s COVAX scheme, which, as the Minister will know, indemnifies claims for vaccine damage in third-world countries. We, the British taxpayers, pay for that, but we do not have an equivalent scheme in our own jurisdiction.

On 2 March 2022, I raised the specific subject of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 in an Adjournment debate. In that debate, I referred to Kate Scott, whose husband, a fit 44-year-old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following a severe brain injury caused by the vaccine. Boris Johnson, the then Prime Minister, had written to Kate Scott and her family back in August 2021, stating:

“You’re not a statistic, and must not be ignored.”

He said that the Government would—I use the word again—consider Kate’s suggestions for reform of the scheme.

In concluding my speech on that occasion, I referred to what David Ennals, Labour’s Secretary of State for Social Services, had said back on 5 February 1979, when introducing the legislation. He said:

“For most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure, and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.”—[Official Report, 5 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 32.]

That was the rationale for the vaccine damage payment scheme, a scheme introduced by the then Labour Government in their dying days. I will not criticise them for having made that a priority at the end of their term of office.

In responding to my Adjournment debate in March 2022, the then Minister, Maria Caulfield, refused even to accept any causality. She said that there had been 920 claims by then, but:

“The work currently going on is establishing whether there is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering.”—[Official Report, 2 March 2022; Vol. 709, c. 1151.]

Fast forward to today, and we see that we have the findings, to which I have already referred, and then the Government response:

“The government…accepts that there is a need for reform of the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, and is committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose and delivered effectively.”

That implied that it was a review that would start after the inquiry had reported; however, when I and other people campaigning on behalf of the victims met the then Public Health Minister, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), probably about a year ago, she told us that the Government were already reviewing the scheme. We asked her in what respect they were reviewing the scheme, but she said she could not say, although she conceded that they were reviewing it. It now seems as though the Government are starting afresh, saying they are

“committed to reviewing the scheme…we will work closely with the vaccine injured and their families as we consider how the scheme could be strengthened in the future.”

That is a long way from the specific, clear and strong recommendations made by Baroness Hallett. Let us think about what the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said to Kate Scott in in August 2021: he said he would review it. Has the review not already taken place? I assume it must have.

There is another issue here. We now know that, as of 30 June, 264 claims had been successful and 582 claims under the scheme had been rejected where causation had been established but the claimant did not meet the 60% disability threshold. On my calculation, that means that about £32 million has been paid out in compensation, yet in answer to a question I asked, which was answered on 3 September, I found out that over four years the costs of the staffing, the non-staffing, the medical assessment and payments to health care bodies is no less than £82 million. All that public money was spent on bureaucracy to try to block people who have suffered damage—in some cases, bereavement—as a result of doing the right thing and taking the vaccines. That is just unacceptable.

I hope that the Minister will include within her response an explanation of what the Government are going to do to simplify the scheme, stop blocking legitimate claims through technical measures, and ensure that instead of spending another £82 million over the next four years on bureaucracy, we actually use some of that money to compensate the people who have suffered as a result of the vaccine programme.

I can help the Minister because I anticipated this debate, in a sense, when we had the private Members’ Bill ballot. I put in a number of presentation Bills, one of which is the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (UK Covid-19 Inquiry) Bill. That is set for Second Reading on 15 January 2027, so it is ideally timed to be able to incorporate any recommendations that the Minister comes forward with in this debate. The long title of the Bill is:

“A Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the implementation of Recommendation 5 of Module 4 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, relating to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme; and for connected purposes.”

The Bill represents a legislative opportunity for the Government, and I hope that they will take advantage of it.

In the meantime, during this Session, the Government have been blocking my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Payments Bill. It has already been published, and the explanatory notes to the Bill set out a number of suggested reforms, including looking at the benefits of having a system that does not cost the Government anything but would ensure that people got recompense. That would be done by introducing a scheme similar to that which covers motor insurance, for example—the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme—where the industry pays for the costs of the compensation arising from problems with the way in which those schemes have operated. What could be more equitable than that?

Instead of doing that, both the previous Government and the current Government are indemnifying big pharma against any costs associated with vaccines that do not work properly, which is intolerable. My Bill has a number of recommendations and suggestions. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with me on them, if not in this debate then privately afterwards.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm, so if everybody is reasonably disciplined, each Back-Bench speaker can have four minutes.

16:45

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this important debate. He focused on one particular aspect of module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics: the recompense scheme. I would like to broaden the conversation slightly.

Alongside the learnings, the module contains a lot of positive narrative. As a public health consultant who worked during the pandemic, both here and with public health partners in other countries, I want to recognise the huge public value of the UK’s sustained investment in our NHS, public health and scientific research. Thanks to that investment, capabilities were in place prior to the pandemic that meant the UK was in a position to authorise and begin delivering effective covid-19 vaccines within a year of the first identified UK case. By September 2022, more than 150 million doses of the three principal vaccines had been administered in the UK, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which was developed here in the UK thanks to years of scientific research. That research capacity is part of a wider global partnership that allows us to ensure that vaccine development can be undertaken swiftly and accurately, both during a pandemic and for other essential vaccinations, such as our flu response.

I want to mention the Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation in South Africa. It is a key partner, which identified the omicron variant during the pandemic, and it is now critical in identifying influenza strains for the development of our influenza vaccination programme every year. It would be good to hear from the Minister a little more about how we are continuing to build the international scientific partnership for vaccine development and pandemic preparedness, particularly in respect of the 100-day mission, where we aim to work with global partners to make safe, effective and affordable diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines available within just 100 days of identifying a future pandemic threat.

As well as the importance of ensuring that we have the capacity to develop vaccines swiftly and efficiently as part of a global response, the module highlighted the issue of equitable access to vaccines, and the role that existing health inequalities played in UK vaccination coverage. The inquiry identified familiar themes regarding the reasons for lower uptake of the vaccine in some communities and groups of people. As the inquiry rightly highlighted, vaccine inequality is not simply an issue of individual behaviour; it is also a reflection of how services are designed, how communities experience public institutions and whether the health system can meet people where they are in their daily lives. There is also the issue of public trust in the system that is administering the vaccines. It should be noted that that cannot simply be manufactured through a national communication campaign at the moment of crisis; it must be earned over time through reliable services, honest information and meaningful relationships with communities.

There is a useful distinction to be made between legitimate questions about vaccine safety and deliberate misinformation. We need to engage with this area proactively and positively, allow people to have their voices heard and ensure that all available facts and evidence are clearly communicated. Will the Minister please update us on how lessons learned from vaccine hesitancy and the health inequality patterns that were observed during the pandemic are now being used to inform our UK vaccination strategy, particularly in the light of worrying recent patterns in childhood vaccination for diseases such as measles and the dropping of the explicit World Health Organisation target of 95% coverage that was put in place to ensure population herd immunity?

Finally, I want to acknowledge my public health, clinical and care colleagues who contributed so much to the pandemic response, some of whom tragically gave their lives in order to care for other people. Directors of public health, local authorities, primary care and community organisations should remain a central part of the solution to ensuring vaccine equity. We must ensure that the lessons learned from the inquiry allow us to support their essential work, so that we can respond swiftly to the next pandemic.

16:49

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, not least because, in generously taking over from me, you allowed me to participate in the debate.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), not just for his skill in securing the debate but for his long campaigning on behalf of those who have been injured by covid vaccinations. Between he and I, we must have met and discussed the issue with almost every holder of the Minister’s job and the Secretary of State’s job over the past few years.

On reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, the argument that I want to concentrate on is not about the wisdom or otherwise of mass vaccination. Quite remarkably in my judgment, many of those who were injured or lost loved ones in the mass vaccination process during the covid pandemic support the idea of mass vaccination, but they take the view, which we should all support, that it is only right that those who were doing what their Government asked them to do are properly compensated for any loss or damage that they have incurred.

People such as my constituent Kate Scott, whom my hon. Friend mentioned and the Minister has met, have maintained throughout that what is wrong with the vaccine damage payment scheme essentially comes down to two things: first, the amount of money available and the fact that it is an all-or-nothing amount; and secondly, the requirement for someone to have 60% disablement in order to take advantage of the scheme. It is fair to point out that when the scheme was developed, nobody ever claimed that it was designed to be the only compensation available, but, as I know the Minister appreciates, the reality is that it is extremely difficult to obtain compensation by any other route, including through the courts.

It therefore seems that vaccine damage payment scheme reform is about two things: fairness to the individuals affected and the effectiveness of Government policy. I know this will concern the Minister, as I hope it does the rest of the Government. It would be brave of any of us to claim that this sort of widespread pandemic event will never happen again. If it does, we will once again rely on the confidence of the British public to literally roll up their sleeves and assist in the process of combating whatever disease we face next. Their confidence in a mass vaccination programme will depend on whether they think people who have been injured in that process have been fairly treated. Thus far, they have not been, so if the Government want to be confident of the effectiveness of a future pandemic response, they need to deal effectively with the fall-out of the previous pandemic response.

Finally, let me simply make the point that my hon. Friend made: there is urgency to this. People who have been injured or bereaved do not just expect a fair response from the Government; they expect it soon. There is a mismatch between the urgency described in the report of Baroness Hallett and the approach that the Government have taken in their response. For example, with regard to the 60% threshold, Baroness Hallett said:

“This part of the scheme should be reformed as a matter of urgency”.

Let us compare and contrast that with the wording of the Government’s response. They accept that there is a “need for reform” of the scheme, which I welcome, and say that they are

“committed to reviewing the scheme to ensure it is fit for purpose”.

However, they then say that they

“will provide further details in due course”.

Those of us who have served in government know that that does not mean an urgent response. I know the Minister will recognise that this situation deserves just that.

16:53

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing this debate.

One of the surprising things, given how many people died during the covid epidemic, as well as the cost of approximately £400 billion and the cost of the inquiry heading northwards to £1 billion, is how little debate there has been in Westminster Hall and on the Floor of the House. I want to use the opportunity of this debate on the fourth part of the inquiry not just to point out the lack of debate so far, but to use recommendation 1 to highlight a number of things.

Recommendation 1 and the Government’s response both draw attention to how the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies behaved during covid. The response says uncritically that it gave

“co-ordinated scientific and technical advice”.

Well, yes—to a point. But on 11 February 2020, SAGE had before it a report from Imperial College, based on Chinese statistics, showing a very strong relationship between age and mortality among people who caught covid. Basically, children were not at risk and people over 70 were at serious risk. SAGE did not discuss that at that meeting, even though the paper was there. Had it done so, it might well have come forward with different policies to keep children in school and to protect the most vulnerable people, rather than having a blanket policy that said, “Protect the NHS.” It is not our job to protect the NHS; it is the NHS’s job to protect us. Actually, I always read protecting the NHS as protecting the Government, because they were frightened of having people on trolleys in corridors. I think that was a mistake. The information was there and could have been used.

The heroine of this episode, mentioned in the report, is Kate Bingham, who ran the vaccine taskforce. Because of her expertise in both science and funding, she was primarily responsible for getting the vaccine out more quickly than anywhere else. Given that she was so successful in doing that, we should have listened to what she said when she spoke to the Science and Technology Committee, the Health Committee and the inquiry. She was excoriating about the Government’s response. She talked about institutional blockages and “warfare” between the Business Department and the Health Department. She did not recommend what the report proposes—a pharmaceutical expert advisory panel, which does not seem to have very many powers. She wanted to protect and develop our vaccine manufacturing ability and our science ability. What did we get? The sale of the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre, and nothing else.

16:57

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

The covid lockdowns were the darkest period in recent British history, bar none. Our freedoms were stripped away in ways most of us never imagined possible. Alongside all that came extraordinary pressure on millions of people to take the covid vaccine. There was pressure from politicians, employers, media institutions—everything, everywhere. For some, refusing meant losing their livelihood. They did it anyway.

We were told to trust the science, but science is not a commandment; it is a process of questioning, testing and challenging evidence. When a Government ask millions of healthy people to undergo an unproven medical intervention with unwanted consequences, scrutiny should increase.

Covid posed very different risks to different people. A vulnerable elderly person faced a very different calculation from a healthy 25-year-old. In fact, they could not have been more different. The 25-year-old was at no risk whatever—they were more likely to drown to death than have serious issues with covid—yet so much of the messaging treated vaccination as though it were the same decision for everyone. Why? Why were people asking questions treated with such hostility, and why were people who refused a medical intervention made to feel like social pariahs?

I am particularly concerned about children. For the overwhelming majority, the risk of severe covid illness was non-existent. It was a cold; there was no threat at all. Let us remember that the roll-out to teenagers was forced through against the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which originally declined to recommend a mass roll-out for younger teens.

The facts are quite clear. We do know that cases of myocarditis and pericarditis occurred following covid vaccinations, particularly among adolescent and young adult males. Millions of healthy young men and women should never have been forced to take that vaccination, and those responsible for that decision must be held accountable. Informed consent is the only way.

Then there was Nadhim Zahawi, the Conservative Government’s Vaccines Minister at the time, who now speaks for Reform UK. He stated that children aged 12 to 15 could receive the covid vaccine even where their parents objected. A 12-year-old could take the vaccination against their parents’ wishes. Think about that—12 years old.

Then came vaccine passports, also forced through by Reform UK’s Zahawi. I found the entire concept morally repugnant. The state making access to ordinary parts of life dependent on someone disclosing their medical status was criminal. That is not how a free country should operate. I did not take the covid vaccine. I did not want it, need it or take it. That decision cost me money and affected my travel, and I lost some friends. It made my life considerably more difficult, but I do not regret it for one moment.

This debate cannot end with another speech about how badly things were handled. We all know that. There must be accountability. By law, the inquiry cannot decide whether anyone is liable for what went wrong. That responsibility now rests with Government, regulators and, where necessary, the courts. The inquiry itself recognised the heavy cost of lockdowns, even if it criticised how decisions were made. That is exactly why there must be a full, honest reckoning of their true costs and benefits, as well as of the treatment of care home residents.

Questions about pandemic censorship and conflicts of interest demand answers too. Who decided which questions the public were allowed to ask and who profited from the answers? Those are questions that any healthy democracy should ask. The Government have accepted that the reform is needed, but they have offered no timetable and no detail. Those who have been injured by those vaccines cannot be left waiting any longer. The scheme needs an overhaul. Nobody can be above the law.

17:01

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Some here will be aware of the tragic case in Bromsgrove of NHS pharmacist John Cross, who developed paralysing complications after receiving a covid injection. The effects began two weeks after the vaccine and John was then hospitalised for seven months. He worked hard on his recovery through private physio and, under medical advice, applied to the vaccine damage payment scheme, where he was deemed to be 55% disabled, therefore falling short of the 60% requirement for qualification. A few months later, John tragically took his own life.

Ater a gruelling five-year legal challenge by his family during a time when they should have been grieving the loss of their husband, father and grandfather, the decision was finally overturned. The Cross family is clear: the current vaccine compensation scheme is failing victims. The Government have repeatedly stated that they are evaluating options to reform the VDPS, yet no official timescale has been set for making a decision on any alterations or recommendations for a change. That is unacceptable. It leaves victims and their families trapped in a state of anxiety and uncertainty.

Will the Government publish a timescale for conducting their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme, and the changes that they intend to implement to ensure certainty for victims? Having received fewer than 800 applications in the decade before covid-19, it is clear that the VDPS needs to adapt to respond to the significant increase in applications from those affected by covid-19 vaccines. Since the covid-19 pandemic began, the number of claims made has risen significantly, with more than 24,000 claims relating to covid-19 alone, yet despite that stark rise, just over 1% have received the tax-free payment. John Cross was part of the forgotten 99% until his family fought for justice.

Do the Government believe that the 60% threshold is still appropriate, and is the binary yes or no process that awards a flat-rate payment for successful claims still fit for purpose? Has any consideration been given to the introduction of a tiered compensation framework that implements varying thresholds for payment amounts based on case-specific circumstances, such as the severity of the damage and long-term care requirements?

The Cross family is one tragic story among many. I stress that I am pro-vaccine, as are the Cross family, but there must be clear accountability for severe side effects that people have suffered. Those impacted must receive the help that they are owed, particularly after they followed Government advice. The Cross family have always been unequivocal that their fight has never been about money. No amount will bring John back. To them, it has always been about accountability, the ability to give others in similar situations hope, and the need to change a system that effectively told a man that he was not disabled enough. I am proud to support the Cross family, and I will continue to do that until they receive the justice that they deserve.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Last but not least, Esther McVey, who I will have to limit to three minutes.

17:04

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. In a democratic society, we should be able to rely on an inquiry to establish accurately what happened, what should happen, and how things should happen better in the future. I am incredibly concerned that this inquiry is failing to do that with sweeping assumptions that from the start the vaccines were to be used—the phrase used was “safe and effective”. The module 4 report states that

“It is neither proportionate nor practicable for the Inquiry to reach a view on the safety of particular vaccines”

but then goes on to declare, with the utmost assurance, that

“the steps taken by the UK government and regulatory bodies did not compromise the UK’s rigorous safety standards.”

How can they be sure when they have not reached a view on the safety of the vaccines?

Time is limited, so I would like to go to an issue that happened to a woman, a mother, in my constituency, who was given the Moderna covid-19 booster vaccine in a care home. Her family recently succeeded in their claim to the vaccine damages payment scheme. Their case described mass, serious adverse events among the other residents of their mother’s care home, and the death of a second resident also attributed to the side effects. The family have spent years painstakingly collating evidence and research that shows that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency not only failed in its statutory duties by not properly investigating the clear safety signal of multiple care home residents suffering a series of fatal reactions, but failed to be honest about the wholesale lack of safety evidence for using Moderna in the frail, elderly, care home cohort, either as a main dose or as a booster.

Some 70% of the elderly in our care homes have dementia and over half of residents are frail, yet,

“Frail subjects with unstable health conditions and co-morbidities…including chronic neurological disease”

were identified as “missing information” in Moderna’s own risk management plan. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, I have written to the MHRA twice, but have not yet heard from the agency. Will the Minister take the time to meet me and the family to discuss why we have not had a response?

17:07

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart, and I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this debate.

Today we must remember all the loved ones who were taken from us by covid, and all those who suffered so terribly during the pandemic and the lockdowns. It is for that reason that during the pandemic I proposed a covid memorial wood in my Wokingham constituency, where people could go to remember their loved ones. I am delighted that a wood of nearly 8,000 trees has been planted.

Those who suffered deserve not only our sympathy but our determination to learn every lesson from this tragic chapter in our country’s history. Time and again, the inquiry has confirmed the failure of the last Conservative Government. The Conservatives left our country vulnerable and unprepared. The British public will never forgive them for partying while communities were engulfed by grief, fear and isolation. Never can such a tragedy be repeated. We must learn the lessons from the inquiry and ensure we never return to a politics that ignores expertise and evidence. We cannot afford political leaders like those in Reform who would cut back vaccines, trash medical science and spread disinformation. Every party leader should commit to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations and to supporting the vaccines that helped to end lockdowns and save lives.

While today’s debate concerns module 4 on vaccines and therapeutics, I want to briefly touch on module 6, which examined the pandemic’s impact on adult social care. That report confirmed what bereaved families have long known: the last Conservative Government failed to prepare the county, and its failures on social care and years of neglect left the sector exposed, creating the conditions that allowed this horror to unfold. That is why the Liberal Democrats supported the bereaved families’ call for the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock to be stripped of his place on the Privy Council.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Could we concentrate on the covid-19 inquiry module 4 report?

[Clive Jones]

Returning to module 4, the inquiry highlighted one of the genuine successes of the pandemic response: the vaccine roll-out. The roll-out was, in the inquiry’s words, “an extraordinary feat”. The success belongs to our scientists, NHS staff, community pharmacists and volunteers who delivered around 132 million jabs in 2021 alone and created the largest vaccine programme in British history. The vaccine saved almost 475,000 lives in England and Scotland. We should never forget that and we must never allow anyone to rewrite history.

Yet the inquiry was equally clear that trust in vaccines must be rebuilt. Childhood vaccination rates have been falling for years, leaving more people vulnerable to preventable disease and increasing pressure on our health service. We must listen to our scientists, not to conspiracy theorists. Nigel Farage and Reform are amplifying the dangerous anti-vaccine rhetoric associated with Donald Trump.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Order. Could you please refer to Members of Parliament by their seat? You have been here quite some time, so you should probably know that.

[Clive Jones]

Apologies, Mr Stuart. We cannot allow Trump’s America to become Farage’s Britain. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation, alongside a new drive to deliver record vaccination rates. Vaccines should be brought closer to communities through trusted local venues, including church halls and community centres.

The best way to honour the people we lost is to learn the lessons from the inquiry, defend science, rebuild trust in vaccinations and ensure that when the next crisis comes, Britain is not so unprepared.

17:11

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing this debate. He has pressed this issue for many years under Conservative and Labour Governments and he deserves credit for his persistence.

I want to begin where the inquiry did: with success. Baroness Hallett described the UK’s vaccine development as one of the success stories of the pandemic, and I am proud of the leading role that the Conservative Government played in that. They backed vaccines early and, at risk, set up the vaccine taskforce under Kate Bingham. On 2 December 2020, the UK became the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer vaccine. In 2021, some 132 million doses were given—the largest vaccination programme in our history. The credit belongs to the scientists, the NHS workers, the pharmacists, the 360,000 volunteers who signed up for trials and the public.

The inquiry’s report is not only a story of success, though. Its five recommendations set out what must be done better, and the Government’s response, published on 16 October, needs scrutiny. The Government agreed with recommendation 4, which is about having faster access to health data so that the MHRA can monitor vaccine safety, but say they will need “significant investment over time”. There is no timeline or funding promise.

Reports to the yellow card scheme rose by 75% between 2020 and 2022, which shows that people are willing to report. The system must be able to act on what they tell it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, recommendation 5 is where the response is weakest. The inquiry said the Government

“must reform the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as soon as possible.”

It set out a minimum of four reforms: raise the £120,000 payment, at least in line with inflation, and uprate it annually; introduce multiple levels of payment, according to the degree of injury; and provide fair transitional arrangements.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said, the Government’s response gives no date, no figure and no commitment to any of those recommendations. Meanwhile the cost of administering the scheme rose from £8.9 million in 2022-23 to £29.2 million in 2025-26. It cost around £83 million across four years. By my reckoning, awards over the same period came to about £31 million. A scheme that spends more than twice as much on administration as on compensation is not working for taxpayers or the claimants.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) ordered a review of the scheme before the last election, and I wish it had concluded sooner. But this Government have now had more than two years. I concede that on this occasion, the Government kept their word and responded within six months, but a response delivered on time is not the same as a response that commits to anything and, as I say, there is still no timetable. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) so eloquently put it, vaccine confidence matters. The best way to protect it is to show that when something goes wrong, the state stands behind the person. The vaccine programme was a success. Let us make sure that the system built around it is worthy of that success.

I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. First, will the Government set out a timetable for their review of the vaccine damage payment scheme and the reforms they intend to make? Secondly, which of the inquiry’s four minimum reforms will the Government commit to? Thirdly, will they look again at the 60% threshold, set performance targets for processing claims and bring administration costs under control? Fourthly, will they strengthen the yellow card scheme with funding commitments and a date for the health data framework? Fifthly, will the Minister meet with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), who has been seeking a meeting for a long time? Finally, will the Minister bring forward proposals before Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which, as he mentioned, is scheduled on 15 January? My hon. Friend and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:16

[The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stuart, as you are my constituency neighbour in East Yorkshire. I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing this debate, and I pay tribute to him for his work on the APPG on pandemic response and recovery and all his campaigning work over so many years. It was interesting that he referenced his first speech on this topic in 2021—persistence is certainly one of his qualities. I am always willing to meet hon. and right hon. Members.

This has been a very good debate on an important topic. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who speaks with great authority as a public health consultant, set out some of the good work that happened during the pandemic as well as the international perspective that we need to be mindful of. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) is a doughty campaigner on behalf of his constituent Kate Scott. He made an eloquent speech—as he always does—and I agree with him about the issue of timeliness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) took us back to some of the key decisions that were made during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who delivered a speech that I sadly felt was anti-vaccination, did not recognise the public health benefits of vaccinations. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) spoke very movingly about John Cross and his family, as well as the fight that they had and the need for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. I will meet the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) as soon as possible, as well as the family she spoke of.

During the pandemic, Members on my side of the House did our best to offer constructive opposition to the previous Government, and this Government are committed to learning every lesson from the covid inquiry. We are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness Hallett and her team for the thoughtful and thorough advice they have offered us so far. At the end of next week, we will mark 80 years since the National Health Service Act 1946, which paved the way for the introduction of the NHS two years later, became law. That will be a chance for us to remember and pay tribute to all those who served the public with such courage and professionalism during the pandemic, not least our social care workers, whose contribution has been overlooked for too long.

Turning to module 4, we are also grateful to the small army of researchers, clinicians and regulators who worked around the clock to ensure that vaccines were deployed at speed, having gone through the rigorous safeguards of a clinical trial. But while it recognised the success of the vaccine programme, the module 4 report also sets out a series of recommendations and areas for improvement. For example, future vaccination and therapeutics programmes must—of course—have people’s trust, be guided by the best available evidence and remain available to all who need them. The inquiry also notes that safety monitoring must continue to evolve, with improvements to health data infrastructure. The Government published our response to those recommendations earlier this month.

We are taking action across the board to improve vaccination uptake, pandemic preparedness and the strength of UK life sciences, especially through our pandemic preparedness strategy. If the last pandemic taught us anything, it was that UK life sciences not only are vital for UK growth but play a central and strategic role in how we respond to health threats. We propose to establish an advisory group with our partners in industry, building resilience across our supply chains.

Vaccination uptake is not where it needs to be, especially for children. That is why we need stronger engagement with communities, particularly those communities where uptake is lower than average. As the Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety, I am especially concerned by the re-emergence of measles and other diseases that we thought had been banished when I was a girl. I want to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West on targets. We still have the World Health Organisation target of 95% coverage.

I am determined to ensure that the protection that vaccines afford remains available to the many, not the few. I have also been clear that there must be strong collaboration across our United Kingdom, because diseases do not stop at Offa’s Dyke or Hadrian’s Wall. We are strengthening the way we monitor outbreaks, while improving access to linked healthcare data across all four nations.

I now turn specifically to recommendation 5 of module 4 and the vaccine damage payment scheme. This is an important financial support for anyone who has become severely disabled following a vaccination. Fifty-three million people followed the example of Her late Majesty the Queen and took the jab to protect themselves, their loved ones and their communities. This country has a global reputation for an uncompromising approach to safety, and vaccines are authorised only once they have met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality. However, in rare and devastating circumstances, some people have gone through the nightmare of losing a loved one or suffered severe adverse outcomes following vaccination. Those people did as they were asked, in good faith, and through no fault of their own they have become disabled or worse. We can never turn a blind eye to the tragic instances in which things go wrong, and we must continue to be honest with the wider public that no vaccine is completely free of risk.

This afternoon, I have listened very carefully to the concerns raised about the current scheme, the support available to those affected, the experiences of those who have made claims and the time that it has taken to respond to these concerns. People who experience severe outcomes deserve appropriate support. This is not just about the welfare of those families, important though that is. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, it is about public trust in our wider vaccine programme, because people must be confident, when stepping into the clinic, that the state will be there for them if things go wrong.

The hon. Member for Christchurch asked me when we started to review the VDPS. I want to be very clear on this, because I know that previous Ministers have stood up and given answers on it. The Department has been considering options for reform and will now initiate a period of open engagement with those affected. We are going beyond the case for reform and turning now to the detail that must underpin any reforms.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and a number of other Members have asked me whether the Government accept that the 60% disability threshold is too high and whether we will consider changing it. The Government understand the concerns raised about the 60% disability threshold by the inquiry. The inquiry’s recommendations will be central to our ongoing work as the Government consider a range of options for potential reform, including introducing multiple levels of payment. Last week, I met injured people and bereaved families. I understand their frustrations about how long this is taking when successive Governments have kicked the can down the road.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

On the Minister’s point about whether graded payments might be available under the scheme, will she be clear that she is considering linking that to the disablement requirement? Of course, an outcome we would not want is a simple reduction of the £120,000 for those who are 60% disabled or more. We are interested in perhaps giving some money to those who are below the 60% threshold; will she confirm that is what she is thinking about?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I am happy to say that that is what I am thinking about because of the unfairness of that 60% barrier. I am certainly looking at that. It will be considered. I am not saying exactly what will be decided, but that is certainly an option that I have asked officials to look at.

I note that the scheme has not been reformed since I was a member of the Labour Government in 2007. Of course the scheme must be made fit for the future; I think we can all agree on that. That is why Ministers will again meet with families of the injured and bereaved families before the end of the year. In the coming weeks, before Christmas, my officials will meet with advisers put forward by the families of the injured and bereaved families to listen to their views on possible options for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. From now until spring, officials will meet and engage with our key partners, including those injured and bereaved, to discuss the reforms. I look forward to updating colleagues in the spring.

[Esther McVey]

My specific concern is about the MHRA, which is meant to highlight and give out warnings on what is going on. The MHRA has failed throughout this situation; when we meet, can we also discuss its failings?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I am happy to meet with the right hon. Lady and to discuss all the points that she wishes to raise.

Nearly everyone in our country remembers when they walked into their local clinic or pharmacy, or even into their church hall, school sports hall or village hall, to get their jab. We remember with pride how a country rallied together as part of a national effort to save lives. For most of us the vaccine was a welcome relief, offering additional freedoms and safety, but for some families it brought devastating loss and hardship. As the new Minister responsible for this policy I am committed to working closely with those families, who I met just last week, and I want progress made quickly. We will report any interim progress through the UK covid-19 inquiry implementation updates.

The public have a right to know that we are learning from past mistakes and as the Minister for Public Health I will never take the public’s trust for granted. The Government’s response to module 4 will not be some exercise in box-ticking or window-dressing because we know that, when it comes to preparing for future public health emergencies, readiness is all and we need the trust of our communities.

17:28

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response and grateful to everybody who has participated in the debate. Nobody can doubt the sincerity of what the Minister said. I hope that she will talk not just to the families but to parliamentarians because this issue affects lots of our constituents. A headline in The Daily Telegraph states: “Paralysed vaccine victim ‘not ill enough for payout’”. That is an example of the issues. That particular victim worked for the NHS as a nurse.

We need action. The tone of what the Minister said seems more like a placebo. Placebos have their place in healthcare but we need to go further. She talks about the spring; we are still in the autumn. Why can we not get some action now? All the time the Government knew what was going on at the inquiry. The victims gave evidence to the inquiry. The inquiry made its recommendations. Why can the Government not accept the four parts of recommendation 5? I do not understand that, and I am not satisfied in that respect. I shall continue to campaign on this issue—I hope not for another five years.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Government response to the Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.