Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many applications were made under the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme for redress arising from the administration of covid-19 vaccines as at 1 July 2024; and how many and what proportion of those applications were (a) decided, (b) successful and (c) rejected on the grounds that the 60% disability threshold had not been reached.

Answered by Andrew Gwynne - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

As of 1 July 2024, the NHS Business Services Authority had received 14,088 claims to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) relating to COVID-19. Following medical assessment, 6,850 claims, or 48.6% of the total number of claims, had received an initial outcome, with 181 claims, or 1.3%, being successful and 6,062 claims, 45.1%, being unsuccessful. A further 607 claims, or 4.3%, were found invalid, due to being either outside the scope of the VDPS or a duplicate claim. Of the 6,062 unsuccessful claims, 360 claims, or 2.6%, were rejected on the grounds that the 60% disability threshold had not been reached.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if she will make it her policy to reject the application by Reach South Academy Trust to close Parkfield School.

Answered by Catherine McKinnell - Minister of State (Education)

My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education, will not make it her policy to reject the application by Reach South Academy Trust to close Parkfield School.

Upon reviewing officials’ advice around this school closing, the department agrees that closing the school is in the best interests of children and young people and their education in this case.

Parkfield School will be closing by mutual agreement with the Academy trust.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if she will take steps to require local highway authorities to remove (a) racist and (b) other offensive graffiti from structures adjacent to the public highway without the authority of the owner.

Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

Local highway authorities are responsible for maintaining the highway. This includes the removal of graffiti from publicly owned highway assets, such as bridges, traffic signs, and street furniture, as well as council-owned and other public buildings. The Department has no plans to extend this requirement to privately owned structures adjacent to the highway.

However, we do expect private owners of structures to act to remove offensive graffiti. If graffiti or flyposting is on private property, councils can issue a Defacement Removal Notice to the property owner, which requires them to remove the graffiti within 28 days.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of fee setting and de-recognition procedures on the (a) cost and (b) availability of private medical insurance.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Insurers make commercial decisions about pricing and the terms of cover they offer based on their assessment of the relevant risks. This is usually informed by the insurer’s claims experience and other industry-wide statistics. The respective capabilities of insurers to assess risk is a key element on which they compete, and the Government does not intend to intervene in these commercial decisions, as this could damage competition in the market. This competition is important and should lead to better products and lower prices for consumers overall.

Price is an important factor on which insurers compete to win customers, and that competition should push insurers to continuously improve their assessment of risks in order to lower prices and create better products for consumers. The Government intervening in insurance markets could damage that competition and, therefore, we do not generally intervene in the commercial pricing decisions of insurers.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the performance of Integrated Care Boards in England in fulfilling their duty to commission palliative and end of life care.

Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Integrated care boards (ICBs) are responsible for the commissioning of palliative and end of life care services, to meet the needs of their local populations. The hospice sector is an important part of the range of providers and services needed.2023/24 was the final year of the Children’s Hospice Grant, which commenced in 2007. In 2024/25, however, NHS England provided an additional £25 million of funding for children and young people’s hospices, maintaining the level of grant funding from 2023/24. This funding was distributed, for the first time, via ICBs, in line with National Health Service devolution. The Department does not hold data on how much funding each ICB has provided to children’s hospices and other hospices over 2024/25.

To support ICBs in their duty to commission palliative and end of life care services, NHS England has published statutory guidance, as well as service specifications for adults, and children and young people, all of which are available, respectively, at the following three links:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/palliative-and-end-of-life-care-statutory-guidance-for-integrated-care-boards-icbs/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/service-specifications-for-palliative-and-end-of-life-care-adults/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/service-specifications-for-palliative-and-end-of-life-care-children-and-young-people-cyp/

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how much grant funding each Integrated Care Board in England is providing for hospice funding for (a) children's and (b) other hospices over the 2024-25 financial year.

Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

Integrated care boards (ICBs) are responsible for the commissioning of palliative and end of life care services, to meet the needs of their local populations. The hospice sector is an important part of the range of providers and services needed.2023/24 was the final year of the Children’s Hospice Grant, which commenced in 2007. In 2024/25, however, NHS England provided an additional £25 million of funding for children and young people’s hospices, maintaining the level of grant funding from 2023/24. This funding was distributed, for the first time, via ICBs, in line with National Health Service devolution. The Department does not hold data on how much funding each ICB has provided to children’s hospices and other hospices over 2024/25.

To support ICBs in their duty to commission palliative and end of life care services, NHS England has published statutory guidance, as well as service specifications for adults, and children and young people, all of which are available, respectively, at the following three links:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/palliative-and-end-of-life-care-statutory-guidance-for-integrated-care-boards-icbs/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/service-specifications-for-palliative-and-end-of-life-care-adults/

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/service-specifications-for-palliative-and-end-of-life-care-children-and-young-people-cyp/

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will hold discussions with Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau on the potential merits of opening a criminal investigation into crimes with reference numbers NFRC240606737247 and NFRC240606733631.

Answered by Dan Jarvis - Minister of State (Home Office)

Due to the operational independence of law enforcement partners, the government is not able to comment on any specific case that is currently under review.

Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau will ensure that any case is dealt with appropriately with the necessary action taken.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what recent assessment his Department has made of the potential risk of people with partial trisomy experiencing heart complications following an mRNA vaccine; and if his Department will take steps to ensure that the decision of Mr Justice Hayden in the Court of Protection is communicated to all health service professionals.

Answered by Andrew Gwynne - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

There has been no formal review of the potential risk of people with partial trisomy experiencing heart complications following an mRNA vaccine, although the safety of vaccines is continually monitored by the independent Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The MHRA conducted detailed analysis of all Yellow Card reports of heart inflammation, specifically myocarditis and pericarditis, which occurred following an mRNA vaccine. Details of these analyses were published weekly in the MHRA’s Coronavirus Vaccine - Summary of Yellow Card Reporting, which is available at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

These analyses did not identify a specific safety concern in relation to patients with congenital conditions, such as trisomy, who received an mRNA vaccine.

In relation to the judgement of the Hon. Mr Justice Hayden, there are currently no plans to communicate the decision from this specific case to all healthcare professionals. As with all vaccines, should any information indicate a possible new safety concern, the system is well placed to rapidly and thoroughly investigate this, with advice for healthcare professionals and patients updated where appropriate.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to the Prime Minister's Written Statement of 18 July 2024 on the UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 1 Report, HCWS11, whether the Prime Minister's personal commitment to each and every family who lost loved ones includes those who lost loved ones as a result of a Covid-19 vaccine.

Answered by Andrew Gwynne - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

In the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement to Parliament, he said that ensuring that the United Kingdom is prepared for a future pandemic is a “top priority” for his government and that the Government is determined to learn the lessons from this Inquiry.

Further to this, on the 19 July, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an oral statement in the House of Commons in response to the Module 1 report where he said “this government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe. We cannot rebuild our national resilience overnight. But we will learn the lessons from this Inquiry – from this Module and every Module that follows”.

The issue of Covid-19 vaccines will be discussed in Module 4 of the Covid-19 Inquiry, where the hearings are planned to start from 14 January 2025 to 30 January 2025.

Found: A press report in the British Medical Association’s magazine referred to backbench MP Christopher Chope