Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Christopher Chope

Friday 10th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not think that Madam Deputy Speaker is saying anything. I am saying that it was added to the scheme, but, to all intents and purposes, it was just a gesture. In the substance of it, people have now started applying under the Act for compensation and none of those cases has been dealt with. No decisions have been made in any of those cases. No decisions have been made in any of those cases. There is now a worrying Government response to a petition that reflects what is in my Bill, calling for reform to the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

“to improve support for those harmed by covid-19 vaccines”.

You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Pearson commission found that those injured as a result of vaccination should have access to financial support and that that was the background to the 1979 Act. However, the Act makes provision of a maximum payment of £120,000 together with a threshold of 60% disablement. As a result, fewer than 2% of applications are successful. My Bill calls for the Government to set up a judge-led inquiry into the issues raised.

The petition says:

“Reforming the VDPA will maintain vaccine confidence and provide urgent support for those injured/bereaved through covid-19 vaccination.”

What did the Department say in response to the petition? As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, when a petition has gathered more than 10,000, signatures, that triggers a Government response—we do not get a debate in the House until there are 100,000 signatures. The response, dated 5 August, says:

“The Government has a robust system to monitor potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine and has added the vaccine to the VDPS. We will consider further action as more evidence becomes available.”

It goes on to tell us what we already know about the 1979 Act. It then says:

“Whilst understanding the desire and need to move forward rapidly with processing these claims, it is important to have an established evidence base around causational links between the vaccine and potential side effects. Not doing so risks claims being declined in error based on a lack of evidence, disadvantaging applicants.”

However, we already have a lot of evidence that people have suffered damage, if not death, as a result of these vaccinations. A recent coroner’s report on somebody—I think in the north of England—came to the verdict was that they had died as a direct result of receiving the covid-19 vaccine. The response continues:

“More widely, the Government is currently looking at how it can improve the operational aspects of the VDPS to better meet the additional demand created by the inclusion of the COVID-19 vaccine and improve the customer experience. Once more is known about the possible links between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed.”

My Bill answers that question by saying that we need such a review now.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Fridays are a wonderful thing in this place. The hon. Member calls for a judge-led inquiry. I quite understand the importance of the issue, but many believe there should be a judge-led inquiry into many aspects of what has happened on covid and will wonder why this issue should get preference over others. Will he give his thoughts on how he would explain to care workers in care homes, for instance, why their concerns should not be considered at the same time as these important concerns?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

On the requirement that this House has made that all care workers in care homes should be vaccinated even if they have a genuine desire not to be—they may be fearful of the consequences, although consequences are seen in only a minority of cases—it should surely be for the judgment of each individual whether they will take the risk of having a vaccination or not. Obviously we know that, even if people are vaccinated, it does not mean that they are immune from covid-19, and it certainly does not mean that they are incapable of transmitting it to somebody else. Those issues need to be weighed up.

To go back to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge, he seems to be suggesting that those hapless families—10,000 of them, or maybe more—who have suffered real, serious damage as a result of doing the right thing should be left hanging around for years wondering whether they will be eligible for any compensation. That is totally the wrong message. The Government should be sending the message that, “If you do the right thing, you will be looked after by the Government if something goes wrong.” In a sense, that is what we do with the military covenant. People enter the armed forces of our country and, if something goes wrong, they expect the Government to look after them, and we do. We should be doing exactly the same for those who have suffered vaccine damage, instead of talking around the subject in the way that the Minister’s reply to the petition suggests is Government policy.

Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Christopher Chope

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am sure that many hon. Members have heard from taxi and private hire drivers about the issues the trade faces, as well as from passengers, trade unions, disability and safety campaigners, and councillors because the trade faces enormous challenges, particularly with changing technologies. The Bill focuses solely on passenger safety. We need a solution that respects local contexts and local decisions. With nearly 360,000 licensed taxi and private hire drivers in the UK, we need to better equip enforcement officers to regulate the trade and improve safety standards. Let me first present the problem, and then I will explain how the Bill will work to solve it.

We have seen some high-profile cases in which drivers have used taxis or private hire vehicles to abuse vulnerable people. In areas where this has happened, it has led to local authorities adopting high standards and refusing licences to those who do not meet them. Under the current system, however, there is nothing to stop individuals applying to a local authority with lower standards, being granted a licence and then working in the area where they had been refused a licence. Councils have revoked the licences of drivers only to find that they go elsewhere, get a licence from another authority and are back working the same streets, sometimes within days. That cannot be right. The local authority with lower standards has no way of knowing about previous refusals, if the driver in question does not choose to tell them. Ultimately, this leaves all of us exposed to harm and deprives local authorities of control over their own streets.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point. Will he give us some examples of where this is happening?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Given the time constraints, I will not go into the detail of such cases, but some notorious ones in Southend, for example, have hit the national headlines.

We now come to the second part of the problem I seek to address. Local council enforcement officers can enforce only against those who are licensed in their own local authority. This means not only that drivers trying to game the system can work where they please, but that they are too often exempt from many enforcement powers. The system renders responsible councils trying to tackle problems in their areas helpless in the face of drivers coming from outside and operating under lower standards.