Covid-19 Inquiry Module 4 Report: Government Response

Debate between Jim Shannon and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Sir Christopher Chope]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

Debate between Jim Shannon and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister listened to her and will have direct answers to the questions that she raised. Having spent so much time badgering my right hon. Friend, when she was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, to get something done on this issue, I perhaps need to take the opportunity to say this. I think in the end I reached the conclusion that she had been badly let down by the officials in her Department. It was unfinished business at the time of the general election, and if the current Secretary of State is in discussion with the Cabinet Office, then another 15 months have gone by. Having regard to the work that was done before, I would hope that we are getting close to having answers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is not just about the damages figures; it is also about those who do not qualify through the vaccine damage payment scheme, which states they must have a 60% permanent disability. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman about this. Many of my constituents have serious but not qualifying conditions. Those who suffer long term but do not meet the threshold may get nothing. Does he agree that there must be a better way to provide assistance than creating an unrealistic threshold that excludes those who are suffering but do not qualify?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree absolutely. If someone has suffered serious adverse effects from a covid-19 vaccine, it is not much consolation to them, their loved ones or those whose confidence we are trying to build to be told that because they are only 30% disabled they are not entitled to a penny. Someone who is 59% disabled is not entitled to anything, even if that disability was caused by the vaccine.

To put all this in context, the VDPS was set up in 1979 to boost confidence for those receiving vaccines. Between 1979 and 31 March 2025, the total number of non-covid vaccine claims was 958. As of 31 March, 331 were still live, 88 of which had been waiting more than 12 months, and only nine had been successful. That is hardly a confidence-building measure, but as I mentioned, as of the end of June, there were more than 22,000—more than 22 times as many—claims for damage caused by covid-19 vaccines. It is hardly surprising that there has been a decline in vaccine confidence. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said, we need some urgency.

When I ask questions about this, I keep getting fobbed off with unsatisfactory answers. Mostly recently, on 7 July, a Minister wrote in answer to my question:

“I am not in a position to comment on timelines for the consideration of options for reform or recommendations for change.”

Are those options not being considered now? When are they going to be brought forward? The answer continued:

“Ministers continue to consider options covering both potential reforms…and the situation of those who have suffered harm.”

But they will not tell us the timescale.

What are we to do? What are the punters meant to do about this? We are still waiting for the report from the inquiry, in particular on module 4, but the evidence given to the inquiry was compelling. In conclusion, I will quote briefly from the evidence that was given in the introductory statements before Baroness Heather Hallett:

“During the early months of the vaccine rollout, those who experienced adverse reactions found it nearly impossible to access information about vaccine injuries in the mainstream media. This lack of coverage contributed to feelings of fear, isolation, and a heightened likelihood of being disbelieved. Adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines were largely absent from mainstream media discussions. When they were eventually covered, the stories were often framed with an emphasis on the rarity of such reactions, the safety of the vaccine, and the millions of lives it had saved. Members of the Covid Vaccine Adverse Reaction and Bereaved Groups who participated in interviews with mainstream media often had to agree to censor themselves, or had their words altered during editing.”

We now know that they were right. Their concerns that these injuries and bereavements had been caused by the vaccines were correct, although the Government at the time were in denial. That has added to the trauma of the victims and their families. I hope that the Government, which I always hope will be sympathetic to those in need and in plight, will now wake up and put a proverbial under the UK Government authorities that are trying to forestall any action. One can see the way in which the previous Government’s Ministers were disregarded on this issue and how the NHS carries on doing its own thing and being in denial. I hope that the Minister can tell us the timescales for this, exactly what is being discussed and what is not, and when we will be able to report something positive to those of our constituents who continue to suffer.

GP Services: Christchurch

Debate between Jim Shannon and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to GP services in Christchurch.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This short debate was triggered by the perverse decision, announced last week, of the Dorset integrated care board to refuse permission for Burton surgery to reopen. The surgery is a premises in Burton village in Christchurch constituency, which has had a GP surgery for more than 30 years. The surgery was converted from a guest house. It has good car parking nearby and a pharmacy adjoining it, and is a well-loved community facility.

In 2007, the GP practice in Burton was amalgamated with Christchurch medical practice and became a branch of that practice. Then, in December 2023, patients were told that the Burton premises would be closed and all patients transferred to Christchurch medical practice in Purewell. I wrote to the integrated care board to express my concern at the impact that would have on the people of Burton. Although the ICB said that it was powerless to intervene because the surgery was only a branch, local residents were confident that another GP practice would acquire the premises and continue to provide GP services, because the building is in really good order: it has 11 consulting rooms and is a very attractive proposition for another GP practice. It was expected that it would be put on the open market for sale.

Much to everybody’s frustration, that did not happen. The owners of the practice decided instead to do a closed deal with a veterinary hospital based in Christchurch, which agreed to acquire the site, thereby excluding the possibility of another GP practice taking it over. However, one thing they had not thought about was that they needed to get planning permission for a change of use. The planning application was strongly opposed by local residents, backed by me, and it became a major issue in the general election campaign. Eventually, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council refused the application on a series of grounds, the principal one being that

“insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the loss of a community facility at this site would not result in a substantial decline in the range and quality of facilities and services available for local people.”

In essence, the local planners said that it was necessary to keep the surgery in Burton because removing it would take away an important community facility. If nobody else was willing to open such a community facility, I would not have been able to put forward this argument, but another practice has now purchased the premises and is willing and ready to open a branch in them. However, in order so to do, it had to apply to the integrated care board for permission. It did just that last November. Extraordinarily, it took months before a decision was reached—so long that I raised the issue in an oral question. The Secretary of State himself took it on board and, as a result, the ICB was pushed into having to make a decision on 23 April. As I understand it, the decision was made on 23 April, but was not communicated until some time afterwards.

In the meantime, and in anticipation that the application to reopen the branch was essentially a formality, South Coast Medical completed the purchase of the building and started the refurbishment. The plan was that it would reopen this summer. The ICB’s decision to refuse permission for the branch surgery to reopen is, in my view and that of my constituents and local residents, beyond belief. I appeal to the Minister to intervene on behalf of the 4,500 patients whom the ICB accepts would choose to re-register at Burton were the surgery to reopen.

Ironically, it is said that the cost of re-registering those 4,500 patients would be a significant burden on the health service. That is because people who are in their first year with a GP are thought to be more burdensome, so the GP gets paid a slightly larger amount for each of them. To describe the exercise of patient choice in that way—as a burden on the NHS—seems to me to be pretty wide of the mark.

After I heard the outcome of the application, I tabled a series of questions, one of which sought to establish how many people have been transferring from one practice to another in Christchurch each year, because I wanted to get a feel for that. The answer, from the Minister for Care, stated that the information is not available.

Some of the arguments made in favour of not allowing the surgery to be reopened, in answer to another of my questions, were based on the number of appointments already taking place in Christchurch. That prompted me to table a named day question on that subject. At about 9.30 am this morning I received a holding response, saying that the information relating to the number of appointments at surgeries in Christchurch over the past couple of years is not available, yet the ICB says that it used that very information to help it reach its conclusion. I hope the Minister will explain why the ICB, which I think is basically the custodian of all this information, so far has not decided to share that information with Ministers. Either it has the information or it has not been wholly open in suggesting that the information helped in its decision.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will not just at the moment, but I may do later.

This whole issue is a test case for the credibility of the new Labour Government’s promises about increasing access to GP services. In August 2024, after the general election, no one in government or in the NHS, including Dorset ICB, was suggesting that a GP surgery in Burton was not needed. Now that a serious plan to reopen the surgery is in place, without any capital cost to the NHS because South Coast Medical has acquired the premises using its own resources and does not need a grant, it is surely perverse that the ICB is arguing that such a branch surgery can no longer be afforded and that reopening it would adversely affect the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch.

I tabled questions on that issue as well. There is no evidence that other practices in Christchurch would be adversely affected, and I challenge the Minister to share with me, the House and my constituents the evidence that has been used to reach this decision. Will she also explain what can be done to appeal against the decision? It has been handed down by an unelected and unaccountable quango, or arm’s length body, which, among other things, has said to me in a letter that there have been no complaints about the quality of service being provided by the other main practice in Christchurch, which was operating the Burton branch and chose to give it up. However, there have been many complaints; I have fistful of them here, some of which I may refer to. Either the ICB does not open its post, or it is closing its eyes and ears to representations about issues relating to the availability of doctors, the importance of patient choice and the inconvenience of having to travel so far in a community that is not well served by public transport and where taxis are very expensive. If somebody is dissatisfied with the quality of service being provided by their general practitioner, they may wish to exercise their choice, and it is good to have some healthy competition, but all that seems to be being squeezed out by the integrated care board.

I will quote from a letter from Helen Yonwin, who writes: “Since the surgery closed last year in Burton and patients were transferred elsewhere, trying to get an appointment has been a nightmare. They seem to be unable to cope with the extra patients. The telephones are not always answered and it can take over 30 minutes to eventually get a response, only to discover that you are number 20-something in the queue. After a long wait to be told there are no available appointments, so ring again the next day, there are still no appointments, ‘But you can receive a telephone consultation from a GP’—but the next available slot is in four weeks’ time.”

That is not improving access to GP services, which is what the Government pledged. It is a levelling down and reduction in service. I hope the Minister will say that it is intolerable and unacceptable, and that for it to be condoned, if not supported, by the ICB is appalling.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I will just finish quoting from this letter: “If you are lucky enough to get an appointment, the next problem is getting there. Many people don’t drive or have a car, public transport is not easy for those with mobility issues, and taxis are expensive. If you do drive, another problem arises because parking is very limited.” It continues: “I cannot understand how it was stated that no complaints have been made. I and many others, in emails sent to the ICB, mentioned several issues, but I doubt any were noted.” That is a letter from one constituent; there are lots of others.

A new housing development has been approved in the locality of Burton; with some 700 new houses, there will inevitably be increased demand for GP services. Indeed, the developer, or the owner of the land, has already approached a surgery to see whether it would open a branch on the new estate. That will not be necessary if the branch to which I have referred is reopened.

I will quote from another letter. I will not give the person’s name because it refers to their condition, but she has multiple sclerosis. She says: “It’s so hard for me to get to the Purewell surgery even if you can get an appointment…I fell nearly two years ago, and I still haven’t had a proper appointment to see a doctor to see what’s causing my pain.” She says that she wants to have a choice.

Another person wrote: “I previously lived in Stour surgery’s catchment”—that is another surgery within the Christchurch constituency—“and they were amazing. I couldn’t fault them one bit. I then moved to Burton and was forced into this alternative provision.” She says that it is a nightmare to get hold of and that we should have a right to choose who we want as our GP. She also says, “Every time I’ve had an appointment, it’s been running 30 to 45 minutes late.” Reopening the local branch surgery would resolve those problems.

I hope that I have given a flavour of the strength of local feeling on this fraught issue. Somebody else wrote to me that not everybody wishes to complain publicly about the lack of service available from providers in the Christchurch medical practice, because they are worried about the consequences for them. I think that such concerns are irrational, but they are understandable.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his campaign on this issue. It is what we expect from him, because he is very assiduous and very committed to his constituents. He has clearly laid out the issue. Does he feel that the main reason for the ICB’s not pursuing the case is finance? If it is, even with the proposed new housing, perhaps the Minister needs to look at the case personally to ensure that it is not being held back by anything that the Government are doing at this moment in time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the issue of finances. I tabled a written question about how much the health service has been spending on general practice in the Christchurch constituency. Again, rather surprisingly, the information is available only for the year ending 2023, so we do not have any information for 2023–24. Although I would not expect the figures for 2024–25 to be available, I certainly would have expected the total costs for 2023–24 to be available by now. The answer says that in 2022–23, some £17.5 million was spent on providing GP services in Christchurch.

The idea that the cost of transferring patients from one practice to another should be a decisive factor against the reopening of a branch seems extraordinary. It makes a nonsense of the argument that we must rein in our expenditure. While we are talking about the ICB’s expenditure, for the last several years I have been complaining that, at any given time in Dorset, under the ICB’s supervision, there are some 250 patients in Dorset hospitals who have no need to “reside”, as it is called. In other words, those people are in hospital but do not need to be there. Every day, that is 250 patients at a cost of between £500 and £1,000 each.

The same body is presiding over that scandal. It said last year that it was going to halve the number, but it has failed to do so—indeed, the number is just the same as a year ago. Instead of taking it out on the people of Christchurch and saying, “You can’t have access to a reopened branch surgery,” it should be looking at its own poor performance. As I have said to the Minister informally, the idea that Dorset ICB will somehow be amalgamated with other ICBs—creating even more bureaucracy, and making it even more remote from the people—is, again, farcical.

My final point—I want to give the Minister time to respond—is that, in answer to a written question, the Minister for Care said that as a result of what has happened in the last year, the number of patients in Highcliffe has increased by about 150. In Christchurch medical practice, the total number of patients has actually fallen; in the Stour surgery, it has increased; and in the Grove, it is about the same. To suggest, on those figures, that the financial viability of other practices in Christchurch will be threatened if this branch surgery is reopened seems to be without any justification. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response, although I note that the Minister for Care is not responding to the debate.