International Health Regulations 2005

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for setting out the issue, quite succinctly. I also thank her in her capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee for having allowed us a three-hour debate. A consequence is that once all the Back-Bench contributions have been heard, we will be able to hear in extenso how His Majesty’s official Opposition will deal with this issue. Even more importantly, we will be able to hear the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, say exactly what the Government are doing in response to each of the issues raised in this debate, which are of crucial importance to so many of our constituents.

One of the reasons why we are where we are today is that the response to the debate we had on a petition on this subject in April was, frankly, totally inadequate. It was full of generalisations, and vague suggestions that somehow it was all going to be all right in a day. It really was, “Why are you bothering the Government with this trivial material?” This issue goes to the heart of what the House is all about. It is about who is in charge. Are we, as a democratic Parliament, in charge of the laws of our country, and any attempt by the Government to give away control over those laws to an unaccountable international organisation? It is because of that concern that so many people have signed this petition and we are having this debate again today.

If my right hon. Friend the Minister does not address these issues today, people will say that the Government are not taking this seriously. That would be a disaster. Once we have given away these powers to the WHO, which is power hungry—what international organisation is not power hungry? The WHO certainly is—it is very difficult to get them back. There are ongoing discussions about where we stand in relation to international treaties and international law. There is the insidious development, following the recent Supreme Court case, of what is called “customary” international law. That development basically means that a group of outsiders can tell us in this country what is good for us and what is not.

[Mr Francois]

For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend agree that none of us has argued this afternoon for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation—we might call it Wexit, for want of a better phrase—

[Mr Francois]

“Yet,” says another hon. Friend. But we want to be assured that the WHO cannot overrule this sovereign Parliament. That is a fundamental difference, is it not?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely; I agree with my right hon. Friend. We do not want to withdraw; there is no need to withdraw from a voluntary organisation that is confined to giving us advice and providing data and information. Who would resent having access to data and information? Indeed, the essence of the relationship between a responsible society and its Government is that the Government should provide information to enable individuals to decide for themselves whether they want to take particular medicines, go on trips to particular countries, be vaccinated in a particular way, or whatever.

I see the proper role of the WHO as providing information to Governments across the globe. Those Governments can then decide for themselves what they like and do not like, having regard to the fact that the WHO’s chairman seems to have been imposed on it by the People’s Republic of China, and was strongly opposed by our Government. It seems very much as though the whole WHO is too beholden to China. The WHO is also beholden to some of its big donors; if one analyses how the WHO is funded, one sees that organisations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are significant supporters. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I think that is a good starting point when looking at these things. In the case of the WHO, there is too much evidence that the people paying the piper are calling the tune to too great an extent.

Once bitten, twice shy. Let us remind ourselves what happened during the pandemic. As others have mentioned, the WHO went into the pandemic with a policy of saying that lockdowns were not, and could not be, the right answer to a pandemic for all sorts of reasons. We can now see the adverse consequences that flowed from our country’s decision to have a lockdown, and we can compare that with what happened in Sweden. Then, during the early part of the pandemic discussions, and without any evidence being brought forward, the WHO suddenly changed its advice. Why? There is a suspicion that it was because of undue influence from the pressures that I have been describing. We will never know why it changed its advice. All we know is that somebody who changes their advice like that, without any evidence, should not tell us what to do. We should say, “If you want to change your advice, fine, but why do you change it? We don’t have to follow it.” However, under the proposed treaty amendments, we would have to follow it. That is obviously of great concern, because people can see what happened in the past, and that is potentially a guide to the future.

Even more sinister than the change in advice on lockdowns was the WHO’s approach to finding a treatment for covid-19 patients. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—it was not the only such drug—could be used to really good effect to improve outcomes for patients suffering from covid-19. Strong evidence suggested that treatment with ivermectin might improve someone’s chances of survival by as much as 81%, but the WHO intervened at the behest of certain pharmaceutical companies that were in competition with the producers of ivermectin. It gave very dubious advice, to the effect that ivermectin should be used only in clinical trials.

To those who are not familiar with too much of the detail, I commend a book by Dr Pierre Kory, a distinguished physician and epidemiologist—I think he is an epidemiologist. He certainly deals with pulmonary and critical-care medicine; he is a specialist in that. He was in charge of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, and produced a book called “The War on Ivermectin”. It was a war, organised by the WHO, against a remedy for covid-19, because, obviously, the whole vaccine development programme was premised on there being no cure for covid-19, and no effective treatment for it. In the absence of such treatment, it was legitimate for experimental vaccines to be brought into play without undergoing the full process set out in the Licensing Act 2003, because there was there was nothing else. We were in the desperate situation of there being no other way out. Actually, however, there was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is not intending to use a prop. Let us leave it to Amazon to sell books.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I was holding the book as I was about to quote from it, Dame Maria. I was not trying to advertise it, and I have not contributed to it, although I have to admit that it was given to me; I did not pay for it. However, so that I can put it down, and so that people do not have to look at me waving it around any more, I will get to the quote. On the WHO’s recommendation against ivermectin, Doctor Kory says:

“The corrupt anti-recommendation that followed read like this:

We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial. This recommendation applies to patients with any disease severity and any duration of symptoms. A recommendation to only use a drug in the setting of a clinical trials…is appropriate when there is very low certainty evidence and future research has a large potential for reducing uncertainty about the effects of the intervention and for doing so at reasonable cost.”

That recommendation was given in the knowledge, as a result of work that had been done that, there was an 81% reduced risk of dying. Indeed, the reason that India was very successful in reducing the number of deaths immediately after the pandemic started was that it was using ivermectin in extenso. In the eyes of Dr Kory, the WHO’s refusal to endorse a remedy or treatment contributed to the loss of

“millions of lives across the world.”

Those are quotes from his book, which I will now put down, Dame Maria.

When I first read about that aspect of the work of the WHO, and the way in which it had been corruptly influenced by drug companies that had a direct financial interest in discrediting ivermectin, it raised alarm bells. I thought, “Hang on a minute, why is the WHO engaged in this sort of activity?” I hope that the Government will start looking really seriously, and sceptically, at the work of the WHO, and at the extent to which it is unduly influenced by external factors. A lot of its work is not based on straight science, but is actually political. Reference has already been made to the fact that the WHO does not seem too interested in getting to the bottom of how covid-19 began. Did it begin in a laboratory in China? That narrative would not fit in with the WHO effectively being under the control of the Chinese Government.

[Philip Davies]

This comes back to the point that our hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) made so effectively. The WHO said, prematurely, that it was “extremely unlikely” that covid started from a lab leak. Then, over a year later, I think, the director general said there had been a “premature push” to rule out the lab leak theory. Does that not confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that there are clearly external factors at play when the WHO gives its advice, and that it should be treated with caution, not as gospel?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention.

Let us reflect for a minute on what other countries are doing. I would have thought that we were one of the proudest sovereign countries, determined to ensure that our Parliament retains control over these sorts of issues; but we seem to have been sidelined by Slovakia, Estonia and New Zealand. If those countries have already come out publicly with their scepticism about the process, why have our Government been sitting on their hands, not saying anything? Instead of being mum about this, I hope that our Government will now say, “By all means, let’s keep the WHO as a body that provides advice, but under no circumstances will we sign up to anything that will give them control over our lives.” It was bad enough that we effectively had a requirement in this country that people should take vaccines—that there was a vaccine mandate.

I spoke the other day to a constituent of mine who worked as an inspector of care homes. He was told that he would lose his job if he refused to be vaccinated; he still refused, and he lost his job. I am pleased to say that he won his case in the tribunal, but that was the sort of consequence for people who fell foul of vaccine mandates. The prospect that it would not be our Government telling people what vaccines they had to take, but rather some unaccountable, foreign international organisation, is even more disturbing.

These are really important issues, and I hope that my friends in Government will take them a lot more seriously than they seem to have done up to now. It is still not clear whether the Department of Health and Social Care or the Foreign Office is in charge of these issues. As has been said, we need to know who among the Ministers will get down to the detail, argue the toss, and ensure that the WHO continues as an organisation but does not take control of our lives.

[Sir George Howarth in the Chair]

I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Sir George. If I sit down now, we will have just shy of two hours in which to hear from the Front Benchers—it is significant that there does not seem to be any SNP spokesman here—on what action they will take to address the concerns of more than 100,000 petitioners on this subject, and a whole lot of other people besides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I genuinely believe that a lot here is in all our interests, and I do not want to turn this into a party political ding-dong. I genuinely believe that having us in Government leading the negotiations and getting them settled before any general election is firmly in the UK’s national interest, because I believe that we will deliver a treaty that is in the interests of all our citizens and respects national sovereignty. However, I very much hope that an incoming Labour Government would do the same. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we need to make rapid international progress to agree any revisions to the IHR—because I believe that we are in a good place to do that now and should move swiftly, rather than kicking it into the long grass. The last pandemic taught us that trying to make things up as we go along was not the best course of action. Laying some good foundations and providing some better certainty on how things will be dealt with is the best way forwards.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Surely the regulations and the changes are not just one block that we either accept or reject. The Government can deal with each proposed amended change seriatim—one by one. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend will spell out, in response to the points that have been made, exactly which of the amendments he supports and which ones he does not.

[Andrew Stephenson]

My hon. Friend tempts me, but he will remember that we did not provide a running commentary on the Brexit negotiations. We do not provide a running commentary on our trade negotiations. We do not believe that is in the national interest. Indeed, it is very clear that no text in the latest draft of the accord, published in October and available on the WHO website, has been agreed yet. The whole text is still under negotiation. The draft is just a basis for negotiations, and it will evolve. There are areas of the new draft that we clearly reject and there are areas that we would like to make even stronger. This is an active negotiation between 193 member states to come up with revisions to the IHR that we all believe, by mutual consensus, will be in our global interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson]

I hope that no Government would sign up to any treaty that it will not follow. I agree that, in a whole range of areas, countries around the world have sometimes not fulfilled their part of international obligations, but the UK Government will certainly not sign up to something that we do not believe is fair and proportionate, that is not our national interests and that we would not seek to follow ourselves. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that other countries have not followed regulations in the past, and there is no point in our passing strengthened regulations if we do not believe that other countries will follow them. We believe that the regulations are designed to prevent and control the international spread of disease. They are limited to public health risks and designed to avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade. That is why we support the process of agreeing targeted amendments to the IHR as an important way to better prepare for future global health emergencies.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Can the Minister explain the process in relation to the amendments? He talks about consensus, but what happens if this country does not get its way in relation to some of the amendments that it opposes? Would that mean that, if those amendments are incorporated in the final text, we can and will opt out of them?

[Andrew Stephenson]

Yes, that is exactly what consensus means. To be clear, the WHO secretariat is supporting both processes by hosting the international negotiating body and the working group on amendments to the regulations, and by supporting the chairs to prepare texts and answer questions from member states. Both negotiations, however, are member state-led processes. It is member states that are negotiating; it is not the World Health Organisation. I completely appreciate that some see this as a WHO power grab, but it is important to remember that it is a member state-led process.

We came together with other nations through the World Health Organisation to agree a process to negotiate targeted amendments to the IHR at the 75th World Health Assembly back in May 2022. By consensus, we adopted process-related amendments under article 59 of the regulations. The UK supported those amendments because they increased the timeliness of member states’ compliance with future amendments to the IHR. That will better protect us from future global health emergencies. As part of the agreed process, member states could submit proposed amendments for consideration, and to that end a working group, made up of all WHO member states, through which the amendments would be negotiated and agreed was created.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Care (Helen Whately)]

I want to see the care workforce recognised and rewarded for the work that they do. That is one reason why we gave adult social care a record uplift to its funding of up to £7.5 billion in the autumn statement, for local authorities to fund care providers to pay their workforce in turn. That goes hand in hand with our workforce reforms to develop the skills and career opportunities for the care workforce.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State read the report “Safe and Effective?” produced in April by a group of senior clinicians, which is very critical of the work of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency? If he has not yet read it, will he do so, please?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I feel that we had a very productive meeting yesterday with the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage about the vaccines for covid and the issue of the MHRA. He raised a number of important points during that meeting, including that on the MHRA, and I will be responding to him shortly.

mRNA Covid-19 Booster

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

On 13 December last year, I was kindly granted an Adjournment debate on the potential harms that emergency use experimental mRNA covid-19 vaccines cause. It is fair to say that, that night, my life changed. During that speech, in the evidenced data that I presented to the House, which no one has effectively rebutted, I highlighted to the Minister the scale of harms that the experimental vaccines have caused and continue to cause. In giving that speech to an almost empty Chamber, on this most important of issues—quite literally life and death—two things happened to me immediately. First, I was cancelled by the mainstream media. Despite sending a data sheet in the wake of the debate, scientifically evidencing every point that I made, not one media organisation wanted to talk about the issue of serious harms or deaths occurring as a result of the mRNA vaccines.

I fully expect that the media will show the same level of disinterest in today’s debate. It is what we have come to expect from a media more interested in navel gazing at the pontifications of Britain’s foremost football pundit instead of the horror and tragedy of excess deaths taking place before their eyes. Some three months on from that speech, a scattering of reports are now just appearing in the mainstream media. Sadly the number of people affected in the UK and across the world cannot be ignored or hidden indefinitely.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a bit of light on the horizon in that, this week alone, the Express has had four full pages on the subject?

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend is a stalwart supporter of those who have been vaccine-harmed. I do hope that we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully, this speech today will bring more light into the darkness.

In truth, I care little about being cancelled by the media, because, in the wake of that speech, something far more important has happened. I was contacted by thousands of people offering their support, and received many hundreds and hundreds of emails from all around the globe recounting to me their own stories of the harms caused in the wake of their or their loved ones’ covid vaccination.

I have been contacted by parents in my own and surrounding constituencies, thanking me for questioning why we were giving these experimental vaccinations to healthy children and young people who patently do not need them and who gain no protection from them. I was contacted by far too many relatives who had lost loved ones suddenly after having the Moderna, Pfizer or AstraZeneca experimental gene therapy treatments shot into their arms. Many of them asked in their emails why this vital issue was not being taken more seriously by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends and colleagues. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a question for my colleagues to answer.

Many more questioned why, as evidence continues to emerge, almost on a daily basis, the fourth estate was so remiss in its coverage. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a question for the lobby to answer. But every one of those who contacted me, asked me to keep up the fight and to continue to raise awareness of vaccine harms and vaccine deaths. That is the question that I am here to answer today.

Despite the media silence, there is huge, enormous and growing interest in this topic. Today, I once again ask the Minister why more is not being done, both in the United Kingdom and globally, to investigate and publicise the clear and well-documented adverse effects of covid-19 vaccines—vaccines that have made big pharma billions, and also vaccines that have resulted in completely unprecedented levels of yellow card reports. The Government’s own data in this respect is damning. It is interesting that only this week, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency announced that it will no longer be publicly reporting the yellow card updates on the reported harms of these experimental treatments. Can the Minister explain the reasoning behind that decision, especially given that the number of yellow card reports of adverse events is far higher for the experimental covid-19 vaccine than the total yellow card reports of all conventional vaccines administered for the past 50 years?

If you will grant me a little leeway, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will start by looking at data from the US state of Florida and the reported level of vaccine harms there. Prior to the covid pandemic, there were never more than 2,500 incidents per year of harms reported to the state’s surgeon general as a direct report of vaccination. In 2021, that number shot up to over 41,000 cases—a surge of more than 1,600%. Of course, some will understandably point out that the increase in cases was inevitable, as more vaccines were being administered. The answer to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that in the state of Florida, there was a 400% increase in vaccine administration in 2021, not 1,600%. In the state of Florida and in the rest of the world, 1,600 does not go into 400; it never has, and it never will.

The real-world data from Florida shows that the mRNA vaccines are resulting in vaccine harms disproportionate to the number of vaccines being administered when compared with all previous vaccinations. That backs up the clear warning signal from our own yellow card system in the UK. Data held by the US Government’s National Library of Medicine was used for research by Dr Joseph Fraiman that details the frequency of serious adverse events following vaccination with both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. For clarity, a serious adverse event is defined as anything that results in death; is life-threatening at the time of the event; or results in in-patient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital anomaly or birth defect, or something considered to be medically important based on medical judgment.

Using that definition, the study confirms that there are 10.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Pfizer vaccinations administered. That means that one in every 990 people vaccinated with the Pfizer booster will have a serious adverse event. The risk with the Moderna vaccine is even greater: there are 15.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Moderna jabs. That means that one in 662 people vaccinated with the Moderna booster will have a serious adverse event. Combining the data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines or boosters, we can see that there are an average of 1,250 serious adverse events for every 1 million vaccine boosters administered—in other words, an average one in 800 chance of a serious adverse event every time someone is boosted.

Let us now move on to the UK Government data. On 25 January this year, the Department of Health and Social Care published data from a presentation given by the UK Health Security Agency to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The data published split the population into groups by age, and further divided those age groups into those considered healthy and those considered at risk. The numbers needed to vaccinate for each of those subgroups were calculated to prevent first, a single hospitalisation, and secondly, a single serious hospitalisation requiring oxygen or intubation—effectively, intensive care.

The figures are stark. To prevent just one healthy adult aged between 50 and 59 from being hospitalised due to covid, the Government’s own published data states that 43,600 people had to be given an autumn booster jab. With a serious adverse event rate of one in 800, that means that in the healthy 50 to 59-year-old group, as a result of using the mRNA boosters, 55 people would die or be put into hospital with side effects to prevent one single covid case presenting in hospital. The same data shows that, for healthy younger people, the number needed to be boosted to prevent a single hospital admission with covid-19 is far higher. Some 92,500 booster jabs were required to be administered to prevent one hospitalisation due to covid in the healthy 40 to 49 age group, which would simultaneously have put 116 people at probability of death or serious adverse reaction into hospital from the jab. The healthy 30 to 39 age group required 210,400 booster jabs to prevent a single covid hospitalisation, so 263 of this group will have been into hospital or, sadly, died as a result of the booster side effects just to keep one covid case out of hospital.

However, the data gets worse because hospitalisation does not necessarily mean a serious medical intervention such as intubation or oxygen. To prevent severe hospitalisation from covid-19, the numbers needed to be boosted become astronomical. I would suggest this is the real benchmark for comparison with the risks of death or serious adverse events from the boosters themselves.

The Government’s own data shows that, in healthy adults aged 50 to 59, it was necessary to give 256,400 booster jabs to prevent just one severe hospitalisation, putting 321 people into hospital with a serious side-effect from the booster, which includes, obviously, risk of death. For healthy 40 to 49-year-olds, that number increases to 932,500 who needed to be boosted to keep one covid patient out of an intensive therapy unit, putting potentially 1,165 people into hospital with serious harms, death or disability. And for healthy 30 to 39-year-olds, no one knows the answer to the number needed to be boosted to prevent a serious hospitalisation because the Government’s own data says that there has never been such a case of this age group being put into intensive care due to the current variant of covid-19. But many, indeed on average one in 800 of this group that has been boosted, will have died, or been disabled or seriously harmed by the booster itself.

Let me focus on the most vulnerable group for which the Government data is available, the over-70s with comorbidities—the most vulnerable group in our society. According to the Government’s own data, it would be necessary to administer 800 vaccine boosters to prevent just one hospitalisation for a patient over the age of 70 in this highest risk group. That means that all the most vulnerable group in our society are doing by being boosted is swapping one risk from covid of hospitalisation for exactly the same risk from the booster itself—but of course in the process big pharma are making huge profits.

We have looked at the health implications of the vaccine programme. Now I want to look at some of the cost implications of the booster programme in the UK. Total funding of the covid-19 vaccination programme in the UK up to the end of March this year is budgeted at £8.3 billion. In February 2022, the GPonline website, championing general practice professionals, published that GPs and community pharmacies were being paid £24 per dose for administering vaccines. That figure increased to £34 per dose at dedicated vaccination centres. These costs of course do not include the cost of the experimental vaccines themselves. For ease of calculation, I will count those at £20 per dose across the board. I will be generous and use the lower of the two figures for administering the vaccine, giving a total cost of £44 per dose, but even when I do, we see, from the Government’s own data on the use of boosters, that it cost over £1.9 million to prevent just one hospitalisation among healthy 50 to 59-year-olds and over £11 million to prevent one serious hospitalisation due to covid-19 in that age group; the cost to the taxpayer of preventing a hospitalisation of one healthy 40 to 49-year-old is over £4 million; and for healthy 30 to 39-year-olds the cost of preventing just one hospitalisation is over £9 million. Of course, to prevent serious hospitalisation in these groups, the cost is far higher.

It is of course worth noting that, in setting up the vaccine programme, the Government indemnified vaccine manufacturers, which gave them total cover against all future claims of the adverse effects of their products. Given what I have already explained about the incidence of serious side effects, that cost may well be extremely significant to the taxpayer, on top of the obvious human tragedy and loss that is self-evidently happening.

The data is clear: for all healthy people and all those considered at risk under 70, the probability of being seriously harmed by covid is seriously outweighed by the risks associated with the experimental vaccines and boosters. Even for the most vulnerable group—the over-70s with health problems—the risks are absolutely identical. The Government data not only comments on the efficacy and effectiveness of the autumn booster campaign, which I have quoted from—we have already had that—but looks forward to this year’s booster campaign. Not unsurprisingly, it predicts the same level of efficacy from the same boosters put into the same arms. Surely, in the light of the data, we will not continue with this absolute madness. If we were to perpetuate it, we would be engaging in expensive state-sponsored self-harm on a national level.

In the winter of 2020, the experimental mRNA vaccines were announced to the British public as “safe and effective”. That narrative was repeated by the vaccines Minister in her response to my speech in the Chamber on 13 December. It is interesting that the NHS website today describes the experimental vaccines as “safe and important”, and describes serious side effects as “very rare”. But the truth, as we know, is somewhat different. One in 800 is not rare, especially when the public are expected to take multiple doses, exposing themselves again and again to the same risk.

The Government need to be honest about this, just as they need to be honest about the fact that the MHRA is 86% funded by big pharma. Based on the manufacturers’ own trial data, the experimental mRNA vaccines are not safe, with an average of one in 800 people taking them facing death or serious injury as a result. Based on the Government’s own data, despite the initial and repeated assurances, the experimental mRNA vaccines are not effective in preventing infection, transmission or hospitalisation from covid-19. The experimental mRNA vaccines are not necessary given the risks and benefits of the treatment, and they are costing the country a fortune and creating huge pressure on the NHS from the side effects.

Given that the data released on 25 January by the UK Health Security Agency was actually presented to the JCVI on 25 October 2022, I ask the Minister: why was the booster roll-out not halted last October in the light of the clear lack of efficacy and the evidence of risks being greater than the benefits for all age groups, except possibly the over-70s with underlying health conditions, for whom the risk was absolutely identical? Was the data presented to the JVCI passed to the MHRA? If so, when? And if not, why not?

Why was the MHRA still asking the Government to authorise the administration of experimental vaccines to children as young as six months of age in December 2022, six weeks after the booster efficacy data was received by the JCVI? If the data was not passed to the MHRA, surely the JCVI should have spoken out against the vaccination of small children last December. Members of the JCVI declared between them interests of more than £1 billion of investments in big pharma, but I am sure that that would never have influenced their judgment. Can the Minister also confirm that two thirds of all NHS staff refused last year’s autumn booster?

The simple facts are that, in the light of the Government’s own data, covid vaccinations and boosters are not effective. From the evidence of the yellow card system, they are not safe, and for the UK taxpayer, they are not value for money. Indeed, given their side effects, if they were free, we could not afford them. The only ones who really benefit from the booster roll-out are big pharma, who have a licence to print money and indemnification against the harms that their products cause. Once again, big pharma have put profits before people and, on this occasion, Governments across the globe have been their willing marketing agents.

The whole covid-19 vaccine narrative is slowly unravelling. As I believe I have demonstrated, no one should have been boosted after the efficacy data was received on 25 October last year, and, based on that data, no one should be boosted in future. Given the evidence of harms caused by the boosters, I now believe that we have the full explanation for both the continuing excess deaths that we have seen since the pandemic— 63,000 in England and Wales in the last 12 months—and the huge and unrelenting pressure of demand on the NHS: the vaccines, the boosters and their side effects.

Sadly, I am confident that I will be proved correct, but I sincerely wish that it was not so. But the longer it takes our Government to accept the truth, the more people will be harmed and die. The first step to putting right the problem is always to admit that there is a problem. The Government narrative of “safe and effective” is in tatters, as evidenced by their own data. Three months on from my original speech in this House, we have surely now sacrificed enough of our citizens on the side of ignorance and unfettered corporate greed to satisfy everyone. I therefore call on the Government to immediately stop the mRNA vaccine booster programme and initiate a full public inquiry into not only the vaccine harms but how every agency and institution set up to protect the public interest has failed so abysmally in its duties.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I am aware that it is neither his area of responsibility nor his area of expertise. I accept that, if there are any questions that he cannot answer at the Dispatch Box today, he will respond in writing.

Future of the NHS

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) and to congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), who introduced the debate. She is from the north-east and I represent a constituency in the south of England, but many of the issues that have been raised are common right across England.

I will begin by referring to today’s report in The Times of the recent survey by the Health Foundation. The report’s headline is, “Public’s faith in the NHS sinks to lowest level in two decades”. That is obviously a good reason for us to have this debate; we cannot have a situation in which the public’s faith in the national health service is so low and declining.

Only 33% of adult respondents to that survey said that they thought the NHS was providing a good service. That is down from 43% in May last year and 66% in 2012. Only 8% of people believe that Ministers are following the right policies. That view is not confined to people who are not natural Conservatives; only 24% of Conservative voters believe that Ministers are following the right policies. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will give some hope to those disillusioned Conservative voters that the Government will restore confidence in the health service by introducing the right policies.

Similarly, there are concerns about the standard of general practitioner care. Some 47% of people said it was worse than 12 months ago, and only 9% said that it was better. That figure is very low compared with historical records. Then we have the consequences of ill health being borne out by information that, of the 3.5 million people in the 50 to 69 age range who were economically inactive in the last quarter of 2022, 1.6 million reported ill health as the main reason for their inactivity, and another 155,000 reported ill health as an additional factor. We are talking not just about the circumstances of people not being able to get the help that they need from the health service at the time that they need it, but about the consequences for our economy of those people not being able to get to work when they would wish so to do.

The latest figures that I have are that there are still 406,000 patients who have been waiting over a year to start treatment. Many of them will be either unable to work full time or unable to work at all as a result. On the other side of the equation, 53% of people think that the health service often wastes money, only 4% believe that it never wastes any money, and only 33% believe it is generally efficient. We do indeed have a crisis on our hands, and I think it ill behoves the Government not to face up to these realities.

Probably like lots of hon. Members, I have received a mass of suggestions from constituents for how things might be improved. One, which came in a long letter from a leading member of the nursing profession, is that we made a mistake in 2009 when we made the nursing profession a fully graduate profession, with the result that someone cannot become a nurse unless they get a degree. They cannot even get a nursing apprenticeship, because that has to be linked to getting a degree.

I have heard from people who have been in hospital recently that some of the most caring people that they had looking after them were nurses who were not graduates, but people who decided to go into the profession some time ago—obviously they are now in the older age group—to look after their fellow citizens. Why did we have to make nursing a graduate-entry-only profession? Of course, that has enabled the profession to become more of a closed shop and to use some of its increased bargaining power in recent salary and wage negotiations.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am listening carefully to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The knowledge and skills framework was introduced in 2004 as part of the “Agenda for Change” package, but the Government have not invested in the opportunity that the framework provides to do the very thing that he suggests—to enable people to climb the skills escalator and move through their profession into higher roles. Does he agree that we need to make that investment so that we are using the skills that are already in the NHS?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am glad that I gave way to her to enable her to make it. We must do everything possible to increase the size and quality of the workforce and enable people who are already in it to improve their qualifications and progress through their chosen profession.

Constituents also tell me that there is a problem with retention. When nurses retire, they are expected to continue with continuous professional development; if they do not do that and fill in a lot of bureaucratic forms, they become ineligible to return to nursing later on. One of my constituents contrasted the situation in our country with that in the United States, where there are not so many bureaucratic barriers to someone’s carrying on nursing after they have retired, perhaps temporarily. I raised that point with the Government, thinking that it was a really good idea and that they should be getting to grips with it, but their answers to my questions suggested that it was not really on their radar and they were not interested in investigating it. Their response was, “We have a graduate-based profession, we have a retention scheme that we are not interested in changing, and the register will stay as it is.” I thought that that was a remarkably complacent response to what I considered to be quite a constructive suggestion from a qualified nurse.

Many people have made the point that we are training nurses and doctors at great public expense, and they then leave the profession and the national health service before they have paid back their dues. Again, there is a big contrast between what happens here and what happens in the United States. I am not saying that help with people’s development as they go through university should be conditional on their being forced to work for a particular employer or for the NHS when they graduate, but I do think there should be a system similar to the one in the United States, whereby those who are not going to work for the NHS are expected to pay back some of the costs of their training. There is a great deal of talk in this country about increasing the number of doctors and nurses, and the newspapers today refer to the need to increase the number of graduates, but that is not much use if so many of those graduates do not provide their services to the NHS.

[Alex Cunningham]

The same problem applies to dentists, who have no responsibility whatsoever to work for the NHS when they finish their training, which, of course, is funded by the state. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would encourage Ministers to look at some form of requirement for them to work in the NHS at least for some time, which might shorten the waiting list for my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That, too, is a good point. I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman has necessarily got the right answer, but the Government should be looking at this. I listened with interest to the earlier references to NHS dentistry. In my constituency, there are a fair number of NHS dentists who would like to take on more patients, but the rules require them not to exceed 110% of their quota. Some of them are saying, “I would love to take on more patients,” but they are being told by the local bureaucrats that if they do so, they will suffer financial penalties.

[Alex Cunningham]

One of the main problems with dentistry when it comes to resources is the difference between the unit prices that dentists receive for their work. One practice in my area has two parts, each of which is paid a different rate per unit from the other, and it is much lower than that paid in some other parts of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to look at the fee structure and make sure that dentists are being properly paid to work in the community?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In fairness to the Government, they say that they are now looking at it—a bit late in the day, I think; a review should have been instituted much earlier—but the hon. Gentleman is right. It is ridiculous to have a structure in NHS dentistry in which the rewards are linked to the number of specific procedures that have been carried out. Each procedure is given a different rating, and then they are all added up to establish whether the total exceeds the permitted 110% capacity. That is another case of there being plenty of scope for reform and fresh thinking, but it seems to be almost a culture in the NHS not to be receptive to such ideas.

[Rob Roberts]

May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about dentists not taking on more work? The same applies to NHS doctors, who are subject to punitive measures involving their pension schemes. If they take on extra work or responsibilities, they receive huge pension bills—tens of thousands of pounds a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that a simple way of fixing a very simple problem would be to get rid of the annual allowance tax charge on the NHS defined-benefit scheme so that doctors could take on more work and reduce the waiting lists?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do agree with that. I have raised this subject in parliamentary questions, and what have I had in return? Complacency and inactivity, and generalisations such as, “We realise that there is a problem and we must try to do something about it.” As a matter of fact, I do not think that this problem is confined to doctors; I think there is a much bigger problem relating to pensions, but that is a subject for another day.

Then there is the issue of productivity—or rather the lack of productivity—in the NHS. As we have heard, although the number of staff is increasing, output is not going up; in fact, it is falling. The Government again seem to be refusing to face up to these problems. Last April, NHS England carried out an internal review of productivity issues, which was referred to by the National Audit Office in its report on the subject in November. I submitted a parliamentary question asking for the NHS England report to be published, and I had to wait weeks for an answer. On 22 December, I was informed by the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), that the publication of information about NHS England productivity available to the National Audit Office

“could prejudice the conduct of public affairs.”

I was amazed to receive such an answer, because surely we are the public. We are speaking on behalf of the public. Why and how could withholding from us an internal review carried out by NHS England be prejudicial to the conduct of public affairs, and how could it be prejudicial if it had already been seen by the National Audit Office?

I tabled another parliamentary question on 9 January, asking in what way the publication would prejudice the conduct of public affairs. One might have assumed that there would be a quick answer to that, because the Department must have thought about it when the first answer was approved by a Minister, but I had to wait until 20 February. In other words, I had to wait for about six weeks, until more than a month after the question should have been answered. The Minister replied:

“This report”—

the internal NHS England report—

“is currently being used by National Audit office and NHS England to inform internal policy for public services. To share this information would inhibit the open, free and frank discussions that are being had on these internal policies.”

I think that those “internal policies” should now be discussed openly in this Chamber. My message to the Government is that they need to get their act together in a way that they have not done hitherto, and address these serious issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I am happy to make that commitment.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The Minister has not covered the issue of productivity. He has mentioned, quite rightly, that the Government do not have any money. It is our money, taxpayers’ money, so why are the taxpayers not allowed to have access to these issues in the NHS with lack of productivity?

[Neil O’Brien]

I am as keen as my hon. Friend to explore all those different things and I am happy to take them up with him following this debate. Many things I have been talking about in this speech, the new technology we are putting in for GPs and the new ways of working, are crucial not just to getting taxpayers better value for money, but to protecting the NHS in the long term by enabling people to do more. The NHS is an enormous source of pride in this country. It is free at the point of delivery and it always will be, giving high-quality care for all. That remains our enduring commitment to our national health service.

Covid-19: PPE Procurement

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

The right hon. Lady asks two main questions, the first of which is what we are doing on PPE Medpro. It has been widely reported that it had an underperforming contract. Let me set out what we do in such cases. The first step is to send a letter before action, which outlines a claim for damages. That is followed by litigation in the event that a satisfactory agreement has not been reached. To answer the right hon. Lady’s question directly, we have not got to the point where a satisfactory agreement has been reached at this stage.

On the high-priority group, let us be clear about what it was and what it was not. Approximately 9,000 people came forward. All Ministers will have had the experience of endless people ringing them up directly to try to help with the huge need that there was at the time. Many of us, as Back Benchers, will have been approached by constituents who were keen to help and needed to be referred somewhere. All that the route did was handle the huge number of contacts coming in to Ministers from people offering to help. Let me be clear that it did not give any kind of successful guarantee of a contract; indeed, 90% of the bids that went through it were not successful. Every single bid that went through the route went through exactly the same eight-stage process as all the other contracts—it looked at the quality, the price and the bona fides of the people offering to produce.

On the point about PPE that has not been useful, I set out in my answer the extraordinary context in which we were operating. There was a global scramble for PPE. People were being gazumped: goods would be taken out of the warehouse if people could turn up with the cash quicker than them. It was an extraordinary situation in which we had to act in a different way. Loads of us will remember standing up in this House and saying to Ministers, “What are you doing to get more? More, quickly!” That was the context in which we were operating.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had not wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on PPE, we would not have to increase taxes as much as we are doing? What has happened to the £122 million that was spent on 25 million gowns supplied by the company referred to earlier? Those gowns were not fit for purpose and were never used.

[Neil O'Brien]

That was the underperforming contract that I referred to in my previous answer, and I set out the process that we go through when we take action on underperforming contracts. There is the initial letter before action, and then a process in which we look to see if a satisfactory agreement can be reached. If not, that leads on to litigation. Of course, there was wasted PPE—my hon. Friend is absolutely correct about that—but I have already set out the context of the global scramble and the huge amount of PPE that was successfully delivered, saving lives and protecting workers in our NHS.

Covid-19 Vaccines: Safety

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 602171, relating to the safety of covid-19 vaccines.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I will read out the prayer of the petition, which states:

“There has been a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccines…This needs immediate and full scientific investigation to establish if there is any possible link with the Covid-19 vaccination rollout.

It is the duty of the Government to ensure that the prescribed medical interventions of its response to Coronavirus are safe. We believe that the recent and increasing volume of data relating to cardiovascular problems since the Covid-19 vaccine rollout began is…enough…to warrant a full Public Inquiry.”

The petition has amassed over 107,000 signatures, including signatories from my own Carshalton and Wallington constituency. I put on record my gratitude to the Petitions Committee Clerks and the team behind the scenes for organising today’s debate, and particularly to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—the MHRA —which recently briefed me on its vaccine safety surveillance strategy. Throughout my speech, I will point out why I do not think that the Government should launch a public inquiry into vaccine safety; it would be a waste of taxpayers’ money, and is not necessary for reasons that I will discuss.

The covid-19 vaccine has been the subject of four previous e-petitions debates in Westminster Hall, and of many other parliamentary debates, many questions and much Committee work since the pandemic hit. It is worth remembering that, for the first 26 months of the pandemic, over 178,000 people across the UK died within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test. It remains my position that vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from covid-19.

More than 53 million people in the UK have received at least their first covid-19 vaccine, and I put on record my thanks to the amazing staff and volunteers who contributed to that gargantuan operation, which was a shining example of effective national collaboration. I would go so far as to say that, in the public inquiry into covid, the Government should look at how the vaccine roll-out was such a success, how we can learn from that success and how we can apply those lessons in future circumstances.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has obviously done a lot of preparation for the debate. Did part of that preparation include looking at Oracle Films’ “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, which was produced about a month ago and has already had more than 1 million views online? Most people think it highly persuasive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady—I absolutely agree. This is a very important moment in which the Minister can hear from Members speaking on behalf of their constituents. I encourage far greater engagement with citizens who have suffered from vaccine damage, or even lost loved ones to it.

There may be innocent explanations for the rather terrifying facts I have mentioned; I very much hope there are. If these are conspiracy theories, we need them to be comprehensively and courteously debunked.

To close, I have four questions for the Minister. First, will she review the vaccination of children? Children have strong naturally acquired immunity, and the chance of death from covid for a healthy child is one in 2 million. I believe we should follow other countries, such as Denmark, and stop vaccinating children altogether. I invite the Minister to review that aspect of the policy.

Secondly, will the Minister make representations in Government, and to Baroness Hallett, on broadening the terms of reference for her inquiry, so that they explicitly include the efficacy and safety of the vaccines? I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington says, and he is absolutely right: the inquiry terms of reference include mention of the vaccination programme and its effects. He may well be right that that is sufficient, and that the review will properly consider the topics that we are discussing. I hope so, but that needs to be made more explicit; I invite the Minister to comment on that.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I wrote to Baroness Hallett, asking her to ensure that the terms of reference specifically covered the safety and impact of vaccines. As a result of representations, not just from me but from others, the terms of reference were amended to make it quite clear that vaccines, their impact and the potential damage done by them are included.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that clarification. It causes me concern to hear that it took my hon. Friend’s representations to ensure that the inquiry will consider the effect of the vaccines. We need to go further and talk about efficacy and safety, not just impact. We need to be explicit about what questions we want answers to. These issues need to be covered directly. We need the public inquiry to consider these matters, because of the compromised nature of medical regulation in our country. I mentioned that the MHRA is funded by the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs and vaccines that it regulates. There might be some universe in which that makes sense, but this is not it. I do not think that is right.

Thirdly, we need to do a lot more for the injured and bereaved, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. I agree with all the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, and we will hear from him shortly on what needs to be done to raise the threshold for compensation for the injured, and the speed of payouts. I agree with him that we need clinics for people with adverse reactions, just as we do for people with long covid.

Finally, we need to change the power imbalance. I am sorry, on behalf of Parliament, that this is the first proper debate that we have had on this subject. I regret that victims and families have had to struggle so hard to get engagement of the system. I hope that the Minister agrees to meet some of the people here, and other representatives of families affected by the vaccines, for a proper exchange of information and ideas, and I hope that she will request that Dame June Raine of the MHRA meets them, rather than ignoring letters for months.

A new Government take over this week. I hope that the Minister, who was appointed only recently, will stay in post, and that we can start a new chapter in the story of covid. No more remote power telling people what to do. Let us put truth and justice back into public life, and restore trust in the experts on whom we rely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am, as was mentioned, the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage. The group is now up and running. We had an enormously well-supported meeting in Portcullis House last Thursday. I agree with the legitimate concerns of the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, and share their belief that the recent data relating to cardiovascular problems, which is increasing in volume, is of enough concern to warrant an inquiry on safety. As I have said, the big Hallett inquiry on covid-19 will cover a lot of this ground, but it will not report for many years. In the meantime, people are being encouraged to have more and more boosters, and they understandably want to know the impact of those boosters on their health and the risks and rewards.

As well as being chairman of the APPG, I have taken an interest in the subject for about a year, and produced a private Member’s Bill on the subject, and I hope to produce another, which will have its Second Reading next month. Coroners up and down the country have found in their reports that deaths have been caused directly by covid 19 vaccines. I have spoken to some of the bereaved; indeed, I spoke to the gentleman referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—the gentleman who attended our meeting on Thursday, and whose wife was a journalist in Newcastle. I have seen with my own eyes the suffering of people who are bereaved or still suffering adverse reactions.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), in introducing the debate, did not have much to say about the people who we know have suffered death or serious injury as a result of the vaccines. My hon. Friend showed himself to be rather the victim of producer capture—the producer in this case being the MHRA. He does not seem to have allowed his researches to go further than the MHRA. Has he, for example, looked at what has been happening in Germany? The Paul Ehrlich Institute is the German regulator responsible for vaccine safety. On 20 July, the institute confirmed that one in 5,000 people was seriously affected after a vaccination. That also reflected a finding that it published earlier in the year, in which the institute tried to raise the alert that one in 5,000 vaccinated people experienced a serious side effect, such as heart muscle inflammation. It said that, statistically, every 10th person must expect a severe consequence from having a course of three or four vaccines. The institute uses the World Health Organisation definition of a “serious adverse event”, meaning one that results in hospitalisation or is life-threatening or life-changing. After a course of four doses, the risk of a report to its system of a serious adverse effect is one in 1,250. That is serious information coming from the regulator of a country that is highly respected for the quality of its healthcare.

Is it not interesting that the number of adverse reports referred to the institute is far fewer than the number of adverse reports that led to the 1976 swine flu vaccine being withdrawn? Some hon. Members may recall that, in 1976, the President of the United States, Gerald Ford, was panicked by swine flu into organising a vaccination campaign. When reports emerged of suspected adverse reactions, including heart attacks and Guillain-Barré syndrome, and there were 53 reported deaths, people began to worry about the safety of the vaccine. The Government halted that mass vaccination programme in December of that year. In that case, the Government acted on far fewer adverse events than we have talked about in this debate and decided that, given the balance of risk and reward, it was too risky to continue with the vaccination programme. Let us look at the facts and not just be beholden to the MHRA. If this were a debate about the MHRA, I would have masses of material on it.

The Government seem to be in denial about the risks of these vaccines. Only this morning, the deputy chief medical officer for England was on the radio saying that the boosters were perfectly safe and effective, but they are not perfectly safe, and there is a question about whether they are effective, but that is for another debate. The fact that they are not perfectly safe has now been admitted by the Government. Indeed, the UK Health Security Agency has issued “A guide to the COVID-19 autumn booster”—you may have seen a copy of it, Sir Roger. It requests that people get another booster from their GP. Unfortunately, the cover letter from the NHS makes no reference to any risks associated with the vaccine, but if one looks at the document included in the envelope, it talks about serious side effects. It says,

“Cases of inflammation of the heart (called myocarditis or pericarditis) have been reported very rarely after both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. These cases have been seen mostly in younger men and within several days of vaccination. Most of the people affected have felt better and recovered quickly following rest and simple treatments.”

It then states:

“You should seek medical advice”.

What it does not state is what happens to those people who do not recover. That is what I will concentrate on in the remainder of my remarks. Those people, if they are disabled to the extent of 60% or more, may be eligible for payments under the vaccine damage payment scheme. They might get £120,000. That scheme, however, is not fit for purpose, because its description of disability does not necessarily apply to autoimmune conditions such as those suffered as a consequence of covid-19 vaccine damage. And what about all of those people who are only 59% disabled? There is no financial help for them and, even more worryingly for many, no specific medical help.

The Government refuse to provide specialist help for these vaccine victims. Although they have set up long covid clinics, vaccine victims are being ignored. I have asked parliamentary questions about this, but I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer as to why there are no clinics for those victims of vaccine damage. As a result of the Government’s behaviour, victims are increasingly telling their loved ones, neighbours and friends about their circumstances, which is leading to a much lower rate applications for booster vaccines. That is happening because the Government cannot suppress the information that ordinary people are sharing with one another, even though there is very little on this topic in the mainstream media.

Many people now would not touch a booster with a bargepole, and I include myself among them. I am not anti-vax—I had my first two vaccines—but from all that I have seen and know about this, the increase in boosters is counterproductive for many and dangerous for some. We need to take into account what is happening on the ground. People are becoming increasingly vaccine-hesitant. Large numbers of doctors and health professionals are now calling for a complete halt to the vaccination programme because the risks outweigh the benefits.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The thing to understand is that there is a fundamental difference between these kinds of vaccines and vaccination per se. Vaccination per se has saved millions of lives here and elsewhere, but these vaccines are qualitatively different. Science matters, but much matters more.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the United States, they changed the definition of a vaccine. We have always understood a vaccine to mean someone receiving into their system something containing a small element of that which they were being vaccinated against, so that their system could react against it and protect them if they were later exposed to a large amount. But unlike those old vaccines, these vaccines do not use the raw material, so in many senses it is a misnomer to describe them as vaccines at all. That information is not really out there among the public any more than the fact that the booster vaccines have not been tested on humans at all during studies; they were tested only on mice. People are being used as victims for experimentation, and that is why they are getting worried.

Finally, Oracle Films’ film, “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion”, is available on YouTube—I make no apology for the fact that I participate in that film—and sets out a different view on the safety of these vaccines. I am not saying we should ban all covid-19 vaccines and have a complete halt. What I am saying is that there is an urgent need for the Government to get to grips with this issue before more people are duped into having vaccines that they probably do not need, that will not do them any good and that will present risks to their health.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Could I ask Mr Bridgen and Mrs Elphicke to confine their remarks to six minutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne]

Yes, I heard that. Of course, the issue is that we were protecting the lives of those people who needed the vaccine to be able to get on with their day-to-day lives. The covid vaccines did go through several stages of clinical trials before approval and, as I am sure the Minister will make clear in her response, the MHRA continues to monitor the use of the vaccines to ensure that their benefits outweigh any risks. That is an important fact.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the vaccines were so safe, why was it necessary for the vaccine manufacturers to seek an indemnity against liability for negligence from the Government and the taxpayer?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I suspect that they wanted those assurances because of the rapidity of the roll-out. There is an ongoing process of testing the vaccines. These things are kept under review all the time by the scientists, the Government and the Department of Health and Social Care.

As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the MHRA operates the yellow card scheme to collect and monitor information on suspected safety concerns. A dedicated team of scientists review information daily to monitor the vaccine roll-out. For this reason, His Majesty’s Opposition and I do not view the ask of this petition—a public inquiry into covid-19 vaccine safety—as necessary.

Serious vaccine side effects are extremely rare, and catching covid-19 without vaccine protection remains overwhelmingly more dangerous than getting the vaccine itself. Where vaccine damage does tragically occur, it is right that individuals and their families can access the vaccine damage payment scheme, which I spoke at length about in September. We must ensure that this scheme remains fit for the future. I did raise some concerns about that in the previous Westminster Hall debate on this issue, because it is important that those who are eligible can access financial support.

The petition claims that there has been

“a significant increase in heart attacks and related health issues since the roll-out of the covid-19 vaccines began in 2021.”

I appreciate the strength of feeling of those who signed this petition, and I do want to understand more from the Minister about any investigations being undertaken by the health authorities and scientists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. I will, of course, look at all the evidence. He is aware of my experience as a clinician and he knows that I will look at the evidence-based medical process.

As part of the surveillance into currently used medicines and vaccines, the MHRA continues to review all the suspected adverse drug reaction reports—known as the yellow card reports—relating to covid vaccines, which right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. Through the MHRA yellow card scheme, members of the public and healthcare professionals can report any suspected side effects. A comprehensive surveillance strategy alerts us to any unforeseen adverse reactions to the vaccine, to enable us to act swiftly when required.

In April 2021, we quickly responded to reports of extremely rare cases of concurrent thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination with the first dose of AstraZeneca. At that point, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advised that adults under 30 without underlying health issues should be offered an alternative vaccine to the AstraZeneca if one was available. That was later extended in May 2021 to adults under 40 without underlying health issues. The MHRA, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) said, has undertaken a thorough review of UK reports of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. While the estimated incident rate has increased over time as awareness of the condition increases across the healthcare system, the number of cases remains extremely low, given that more than 49 million doses of AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine have been administered.

A number of colleagues asked about myocarditis. There is no evidence that people are at an increased risk of cardiac arrest in the days and weeks following the vaccine. The risk of getting myocarditis or pericarditis after the vaccine remains very low. A large study of 4 million vaccinated people in Denmark, published in the British Medical Journal, found that there were no deaths or diagnoses of heart failure in people who were diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis after being vaccinated.

In the highest-risk group, those aged 18 to 29, until the end of September this year there were 29 cases for every million second Pfizer doses and 68 cases for every million second Moderna doses given in the UK. The risk is much lower after a booster dose, and in other age groups the risk is lower still. However, it is worth remembering that catching covid-19 can significantly increase the risk of cardiac arrest and death, and the risk of developing myocarditis. There are an estimated 1,500 cases of myocarditis per million patients with covid—far greater than the risk of myocarditis following vaccination.

Let me turn now to some of the questions that have been asked. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about the inquiry and how people would be able to contribute to it. It will listen to and consider carefully the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered loss as a result of the pandemic. It will not consider individual cases; instead, listening to such accounts will inform its understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response, and any lessons to be learned. Individuals will be able to engage through the inquiry’s listening exercise and the details of that will be brought forward in due course.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked about informed consent. Indeed, I think that he produced the leaflet that provides the information that allows people to understand that the JCVI has recommended the vaccine because on balance it is beneficial to people; it is more likely to be of benefit to them than harm. Equally, however, each individual will be provided with information about the vaccine, as they are with all medical treatments, so that they know the benefits they can expect and the risk of side effects, however small, as well as what they are. As I say, he produced an example in the debate of a leaflet containing such information. What is important is that people are aware of the benefits and risks and can make informed decisions. Vaccination is not compulsory, but we are aware that it is of great benefit to the population and to individuals at risk of covid.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

What happens if somebody suffers a 50% disability as a result of having the vaccine, through an adverse reaction, or an unusual event? What do the Government do to help that person? They do not provide any compensation, or any special help through the health service, or a clinic, so what do they do?

[Dr Johnson]

My hon. Friend is talking about the vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been running since 1979 and provides a payment of up to £120,000—a tax-free lump sum, a one-off payment—for people who have been severely damaged by vaccines, on the balance of probabilities, which is determined when people apply. That does not prejudice any claim that they may have in a legal sense and they can still pursue a civil claim should they wish to do so. It has been asked whether there should be a separate scheme for covid, but of course it is right that all vaccines are treated in a similar fashion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) asked a few questions. He asked about the terms of reference of the inquiry being a matter for the chair, which indeed they are. He also asked whether I would commit the chair of the MHRA to meet specific people, but that is not for me to decide; it is up to the chair. My hon. Friend’s other question was about children’s vaccines. He is aware of my thoughts on that: it is important when we vaccinate children that the vaccines are of benefit to the child themselves. I am aware that when the vaccine was approved that was the decision made by all four chief medical officers and it is very important that the Government listen to and take medical advice. Since then, some things have changed. Natural immunity is more widespread and school disruption is no longer an issue. I understand that very shortly, at its next meeting, the JCVI will consider whether children’s vaccines should continue to be recommended, on the basis of the current situation. I think it is right that medical research is reviewed regularly as it becomes available and is taken into account.

The position of the MHRA remains that for most people the benefits of the covid-19 vaccine continue to outweigh the risks. The surveillance strategy is working, as we have discussed. We are able to respond quickly to ensure safe administration of all covid vaccines. I reiterate that the public should be very confident that all tests are completed to the very highest standards and that vaccines are safe.

Despite the progress we have made, we must not become complacent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Would the Minister be willing to address the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage in a private meeting, so that she can hear at first hand some of the concerns that members have?

[Dr Johnson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware of events today and I will at least have to see whether I remain in post before I potentially commit somebody else to such an event.

As I was saying, despite the progress we have made, we must not become complacent. We cannot risk an increase in serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths from covid. The UKHSA estimates that vaccinations had averted up to 128,000 deaths and 262,000 hospitalisations by the end of September 2021, and many more since then.

We must do everything in our power to protect those who are most vulnerable to the virus and keep pressure off the NHS in a tough winter period. Viruses such as covid-19 spread much more easily in winter when we socialise indoors. To protect those most at risk and help to reduce pressure on the NHS, we are delivering an autumn booster dose to those who are most in need of an extra layer of protection. Even if someone has had all of their jabs so far, and perhaps had covid too, they might still need an autumn booster to strengthen their protection. I encourage everyone who is eligible to come forward for their covid booster and seasonal flu jab today. To encourage vaccination against covid and flu and boost uptake, the NHS is making every effort to make it as convenient as possible for individuals to take up the offer, including offering both covid and flu vaccines at the same time, where possible, to reduce the number of appointments needed. Our NHS staff and volunteers are pulling out all the stops to deliver the next phase of the covid vaccine programme at speed once again, with more than 3,000 sites up and down the country involved.

The NHS was the first healthcare system in the world to deliver a covid-19 vaccine outside clinical trials, and it is now the first to deliver the new, variant-busting vaccine. Bivalent vaccines target two different strains of covid-19. They will give us a broader immunity and therefore potentially improve protection against variants of the virus. Whatever vaccine people receive in the autumn booster programme, they can be assured that it remains effective in preventing severe disease against all current variants and any potential future variants.

As I draw to a close, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for bringing this important debate to the House at such an important time. The Government have already commissioned a public inquiry into the pandemic, and covid vaccines will be reviewed as part of that inquiry. There are no plans for an inquiry solely on vaccine safety. We face a tough winter ahead, and collectively we must do everything we can to protect those who are most vulnerable and to reduce pressure on the NHS. I encourage everyone who is eligible to step forward for their covid and flu vaccines as soon as they are able.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased to say that we have more nurses working for the NHS than at any point in its history, and last year we recruited an additional 10,900.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept that some people have died as a direct result of having had covid-19 vaccines?

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which is the first such debate on the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 since 24 March 2015.

Vaccines have been our major public health defence against covid-19. This debate is not about all those millions who have benefited from vaccination; it is about the tens of thousands who did the right thing, were vaccinated but then, as a result, suffered death, serious injury or other life-changing adverse consequences. The vaccine damage payment scheme was extended to cover covid-19 vaccinations in recognition of the potential importance of this issue.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister also clearly believes that this is an important issue. On 11 August last year, he wrote to Kate Scott, whose husband Jamie, a fit 44-year-old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following severe brain injury caused by the vaccine. The Prime Minister said, referring to Kate’s husband Jamie and his family from Warwickshire,

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

The Prime Minister went on to thank Kate Scott for her suggested changes to the vaccine damage payment scheme and promised that the Government would consider the case for reform.

Why, then, is there no tangible evidence of the Government having done anything in the six months since the Prime Minister said those words? The Government have repeatedly blocked my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, which was briefly debated in this House on 10 September. Why have they not even uprated the £120,000 payment under the scheme to take account of inflation since 2007, when it was last reviewed? On this basis, the maximum should now be over £177,000. Why have no payments yet been made under the scheme, even where a full inquest has established that the vaccine was the cause of death?

That, sadly, is the situation of Lisa Shaw’s family. The 44-year-old BBC Radio Newcastle presenter died from a brain haemorrhage confirmed by a coroner in August as having been caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine, as reported in The Sunday Telegraph on 5 December 2021. Another case about which somebody has written to me arose from a decision by the Westminster coroner who recorded the AstraZeneca vaccine as the cause of death on her mother’s death certificate. Neither of those families is yet to receive any acknowledgement that they qualify under the VDPS, let alone that they will be compensated. Are the Government disputing these coroners’ verdicts? I sincerely hope not, and perhaps the Minister can confirm that in her response.

The Sunday Times reported on 27 February this year that 920 coronavirus vaccination injury claims had been registered, but none has been accepted or been the subject of any payment. That article referred to Zion Spit, described as “a ridiculously healthy” 48-year-old antique dealer from Cumbria, whose death was confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine. His partner of 21 years and fiancée, Vikki Spit, has been in touch with me to express her solidarity with my efforts to obtain redress from the Government and her frustration at the Government’s refusal to engage with victims and their families.

Will the Minister please tell us now when the first payments will be made under the VDPS, and why, despite having told me that 26 staff are now processing claims—11 more than in December—no payments have yet been made? Will she also say how many medical assessors are currently reviewing outstanding cases, and when the backlog will be cleared?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, and we all recognise that and wish him well. Does he not agree that while it is right and proper that we have confidence in the vaccine—including those of us who have taken the vaccine; the two doses and then the extra one—there are undoubtedly occasions where things go wrong, as he has outlined, and on those occasions there should be appropriate compensation? The Government and the Minister have a duty of care, and indeed a moral obligation to stand up for those people, and when it comes to being appropriately compensated, that must move in line with the times and reflect not just the loss alone, but dealing with the consequences.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I describe him as a veteran of this issue, because he was one of the Members who participated in the 2015 debate to which I referred.

Many of those who have written to me have indicated that even a payment of £177,000 would be totally inadequate for the injuries and financial losses that they have suffered, including loss of earnings and the cost of care. The range of adverse conditions caused by the vaccines is extensive. By way of example, Mr Julian Gooddy of Henley has given me permission to disclose his circumstances because of his frustration at the lack of understanding by the Government.

Two weeks after his vaccine, Mr Gooddy experienced acute pain throughout his body. He developed Bell’s palsy, required treatment for his left eye, which would not close, and suffered bowel incontinence and severe fatigue. Peripheral numbness and pain in his upper legs, feet, neck and hands then developed. He was in and out of the accident and emergency department at the John Radcliffe Hospital for two weeks, being prescribed steroids, pain killers and undertaking multiple MRI and CT scans, electromyographs and nerve conduction studies. He then collapsed at home in pain and was admitted as an in-patient for five days of intravenous immunoglobulin in an effort to halt the continuing nerve damage caused by the autoimmune response to the vaccine. He was then diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is an autoimmune disease in which the body attacks its own myelin sheath.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister, having listened to the circumstances of Mr Gooddy, believe that his case meets the 60% disablement threshold? I have received so many other reports of complicated symptoms, which have been a real nightmare for our hard-working NHS to address and for which there are, in many cases, no cure.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

As we can tell from the distressing stories that my hon. Friend is telling, this is an important debate, and I regret the empty Chamber. He is a brave Member of the House who speaks his own mind in defiance of conventional wisdom. Does he agree that the same goes for a large number of doctors and scientists who are also defying conventional wisdom to raise concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, particularly when it comes to the vaccination of children, which the Government are now encouraging? Does he also agree that the Government should be as transparent and open as possible about the risks and the safety and efficacy of the vaccines?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely. I have been in correspondence with constituents who work at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Poole Hospital who have expressed their concerns. One of the reasons many people with medical expertise are worried about it is that they have seen such examples in their work.

My hon. Friend refers to the issue of encouraging more child vaccines to be administered, but if we are going to do that, as well as it being important for the parents of those children to appreciate the risk as they are thinking about it, surely we should be able to give them the secure knowledge that if something goes wrong and if against everybody’s expectations, those vaccines turn out to have dire and life-changing consequences that last for 40 or 50 years or longer, the Government are on their side. At the moment, I am afraid that there is no evidence that the Government are on the side of those hapless victims of vaccine damage.

In recent months, I have received hundreds of emails reporting deaths and serious illnesses involving immune thrombocytopenic purpura, which causes the number of blood platelets to be reduced. On 10 January, in question 100420, I asked the Minister what was being done to investigate the 427 suspected cases of that and if the Government will make it their policy to inform those affected of the availability of the vaccine damage payment scheme.

Following my point of order yesterday, complaining about the Government’s failure to respond to my questions, I received a response from the Minister yesterday evening, which stated:

“Following a scientific assessment of all the available data and a review by the Commission on Human Medicines’ COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, it was determined that an association between the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and TTS”—

thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome—

“was likely.”

I hope that she will unravel the jargon in that answer and confirm in simple terms that that means that in the cases to which I have referred, causation has now been established and there should be no bar to the compensation scheme coming into effect.

Will the Minister also answer the part of my question relating to whether the Government will notify those 427 families affected by that particular aspect of the availability of the VDPS? Surely that would be the most basic humane response. Why have the Government not responded to that at all? As you can probably tell, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is making me angry. In my point of order, I referred to five other named day questions that had not been answered and they remain unanswered. Will she apologise and explain?

Many correspondents from constituencies across the United Kingdom remain sceptical about whether they will qualify under the VDPS. The issue has all the hallmarks of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare for victims and their families. Why should the Government force those people to go through the ordeal and delay of having to seek expensive legal help instead of enabling their representatives in Parliament to be given the information necessary to establish their claims? That is why those parliamentary questions and this debate are relevant, because it would enable our constituents to establish their claims without having to go to the law.

The scale of this vaccine nightmare is now such that the number of vaccine damage cases exceeds all cases arising from previous vaccine programmes. In answer to question 92799, the Minister confirmed that, as at 15 December 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had received and analysed a total of 410,232 yellow card reports: 145,446 from people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 240,065 from those who received the AstraZeneca vaccine and 24,721 from those who received the Moderna vaccine. Some patients were reported to have died shortly after vaccination: 666 in the Pfizer reports, 1,164 in the AstraZeneca reports and 23 in the Moderna reports. There are people dying from this vaccine, but not many—well, actually quite a large number, and far more than we see in the tragedies that quite rightly detain this House for hours on end. I think this is a tragedy that demands the attention of the House and of the Minister.

As not all those who died shortly after vaccination will have died because of the vaccine, I thought it was fair to ask a further question as to the number of such cases where the yellow card analysis showed that the death would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered. I asked this question to help promote vaccine confidence and to prevent inaccurate conclusions from being reached. Much to my disappointment and dismay, that question has not been answered in a timely fashion or at all. Why not, one asks? Surely the Government must have this information, and their failure to produce it can only help further raise suspicions of a lack of transparency. The Government almost seem to be in denial about all this.

The reluctance of the Government to provide timely information is further exemplified by the delay in updating the information provided as at 15 December. Almost three months have now elapsed since then, and the Government have ducked my further question about sharing the results of the MHRA analysis of yellow cards for patients in respect of whom they were received. Since the last report, we have had a mass of booster vaccines, and some people have written to me saying that they have suffered dire consequences as a result.

I expect that, in her response, the Minister will point out that the vaccine damage payment scheme does not preclude individuals from bringing claims against the manufacturers for product liability. We know, however, that the Government decided to indemnify and thereby exclude manufacturers from potential liability, but we do not know the terms. In her answer to question 92800 of 14 February 2022, the Minister said that her Department is

“providing indemnities in the unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place.”

She said, however, that she was unable to provide information about the terms of those contracts between the Government and vaccine manufacturers as they are commercially sensitive. In those circumstances, should those who have suffered adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place be making claims against the Government or the manufacturers, or both? I hope the Minister is listening to this question, because it is in the public interest that she gives a definitive answer. People are champing at the bit in wondering whether they need to make claims against the manufacturers or the Government, or whether they can rely on the VDPS.

In introducing the vaccine damage payment legislation in 1979, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, David Ennals, referred to the “humane motivation” of the legislation, and said that

“it is important, since its aim is to provide a measure of financial support to people severely disabled as a result of vaccination, and to their families and others involved in looking after them. There can be no doubt that those concerned pay a high price in terms of personal disablement…and that their families share in that price.

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 is what he said all those years ago, and those sentiments remain as relevant as ever today. I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will, through their actions, show that they share those sentiments. As the Prime Minister said, the victims of covid-19 vaccine damage are not statistics and “must not be ignored”—not for any longer, anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Caulfield]

My understanding is that it does, but I will clarify that for the hon. Gentleman as I do not want to inadvertently mislead the House if I have got it wrong.

The NHS Business Services Authority has taken over the process and is looking to improve the claimant journey on the scheme through increasing personalised engagement and reducing response times, which was one of the points made today. A difficulty we have with the covid-19 vaccines is that they are new; we are still learning about them and the scientific evidence on potential causal links between the vaccine and instances of disablement is still developing. That is part of the reason for the delay in claims being addressed.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend will not have time to answer all my questions, so will she meet me to discuss the issues I have raised that she is unable to deal with now? Also, on this issue of evidence, does she require more evidence than a coroner’s verdict to enable the relatives of somebody who died following the vaccine to get compensation?

[Maria Caulfield]

The ruling on a causal link between a medicine and an adverse event, and whether that has led to death or injury, is made by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority. A process has to be followed—the process is independent of Government —and that has started on this range of vaccines. It remains vital that decisions are made on the evidence presented. Currently, the MHRA is going through the notes of affected patients to gather that evidence and look for causal links.

If these vaccines were perhaps five, six or seven years old, we would be in a very different place. However, as of 18 February this year, there have been 920 claims to the vaccine damage payment scheme related to covid-19. 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. The yellow card scheme, which we have for all medicines, helps us to gather information, and I encourage people, whether they have had severe or minor symptoms—whatever they are—to report them, because that is how we gather evidence on medicines.

For all the claimants who have applied to the VDPS in relation to covid-19, while we are gathering evidence from their medical records, the approach will be to look at the assessment criteria and ensure that we are in the strongest possible position before we put the evidence to the medical examiner. That in turn will help ensure that claims are assessed as quickly as possible. We think that will take about six months. I will certainly meet my hon. Friend and ensure that we hold people’s feet to the fire so that there is not a longer delay than is needed. The NHSBSA is working as quickly as possible to progress claims. I understand that it has been in touch with claimants to update them on progress and will continue to update them as it has news.

We estimate that the process will take on average six months. It requires gaining access to people’s medical notes and their previous medical history, because, while someone may have had a reaction on the day, we cannot say for sure until we have looked at all the evidence that that is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse event, even though there may be a strong suggestion that it is. It is therefore important to follow that process correctly.

My hon. Friend touched on payments. The payment was set originally at £10,000 in 1979, and it is currently £120,000. We have not made any payments in relation to the covid vaccine, but we are working at pace through all applications to the scheme and, once a causal link is established in those cases, we can look at those claims more swiftly.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to a meeting to discuss the further issues that she cannot cover tonight. On the £120,000 payment, that has not increased since 2007, so in effect it should now be worth £177,000. Why will the Government not give in on that point? That would be a great victory tonight.

[Maria Caulfield]

I am not going to commit tonight to increasing the payment—I think that is above my pay grade. Perhaps we can discuss that further when we meet.

I reassure people watching the debate and right hon. and hon. Members that the safety of the covid vaccine and its benefits outweigh any adverse events that may be caused by it. With any medicine—even a simple paracetamol—if people look at the yellow forms and the side effects mentioned on the leaflet in the packet, they will see that there are always side effects. We want to reassure people that the vaccine is still a safe and effective way of protecting them and their loved ones from the virus. However, where there have been concerns, we need to identify causal links and, if they are established, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) pointed out, we must be better at supporting people. I am very keen to do that.

Although these vaccines have been with us for nearly two years, they are still new in the lifespan of medicines and we are still learning about both their efficacy and their side effect profile. Each vaccine is assessed by a team of scientists and clinicians on a case-by-case basis. We are acting at pace, although it can feel like a long time for people affected by side effects. I will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to discuss the matter further. I am keen to get support and payment in place for those affected, if we can, as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Covid-19 Update

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Of course there will be many people across the country who found themselves in such an awful situation. In terms of what he refers to about what may or may not have happened in Downing Street, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed that from the Dispatch Box earlier today.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is often said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the so-called war against covid-19, truth is indeed the casualty? In his statement he used expressions such as “could”, “can”, “potential”, “suggests” and “might”. Does that not show that there is no justification for these restrictions upon liberty?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend will know that when it comes to, in this case, a new variant, or viruses more generally that are new in some way, there are uncertainties —there always will be. I do not think a new infection is going to come along and we will have all the answers to all the questions we would logically have on day one. But I hope he agrees in terms of what we do know. For example, I said in my statement that we are confident about the transmissibility—the growth rate—of this, and I hope he will respect that.

Covid-19 Update

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am not aware of the details of the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but a variety of credit cards and payment systems can be used. If he believes there has been a failure of the system, I would be happy to take a closer look at that.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what he is doing to promote the availability of the vaccine damage payment scheme, and does he recognise that that could be a good counter against vaccine hesitancy? When, however, will the scheme be made fit for purpose?

[Sajid Javid]

We are reviewing that scheme, for reasons that my hon. Friend has brought up in the past in the House. I agree that it is important to have confidence in vaccines, and that scheme has a role to play.