Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

I will call Sir Christopher Chope to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for people harmed following covid-19 vaccinations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. This is a hot topic. The Secretary of State told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in June that it was on still on the boil. We hope today to find out a bit more about what the Government will do in response to the representations that have been made.

I have been campaigning on this issue since the summer of 2021, when it first became apparent that some people had suffered serious adverse reactions—in a few cases fatal ones—as a result of having taken vaccines against covid-19. That summer, over four years ago, I presented a petition calling from reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, to

“maintain vaccine confidence and provide urgent support for those injured/bereaved through covid-19 vaccinations”.

The complacent Government at the time responded:

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

Is it not regrettable that four years on we are in exactly the same position? The new Government’s line is, “We are not sure whether we’re going to review the VDPS and, if we do, how we’re going to review it and in what respects.”

What has happened since the summer of 2021? On 10 September 2021, in speaking to my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, I expressed my concerns about the victims of these vaccines. At that stage, there had been only 154 applications under the vaccine damage payment scheme. Four years later, as of June 2025, the number of claims had risen to 21,444. This is a big and serious issue, yet the Government continue to be in denial about the validity of causal links between covid vaccines and injury or death.

Now, in the face of evidence, the Government have had to change their tune, not least because, as of May 2025, 224 awards of £120,000 had been paid in respect of people who had been proved to have suffered death or serious injury as a result of having the vaccines. It is no longer open to the Government to deny that causality, but it seems that they are still intent on playing hard to get for those people who are still seeking compensation or redress for what they have suffered.

This fits closely with the whole issue of vaccine confidence. We have heard recently about the declining take-up of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and other childhood vaccines; our levels of take-up are now well below those recommended by the World Health Organisation. The vaccine damage payment scheme was introduced to give confidence to people who did the right thing in public health terms: they got themselves vaccinated, and they knew that if something went wrong, the Government would come in and support them. That now is not happening, or at least it is not happening in sufficiently large quantities. As a result, the word on the street is that if someone takes a vaccine—if they take that risk for the sake of public health—and something goes wrong, they will probably have to pay the consequences themselves, and the Government will not help.

I congratulate my hon. Friend not just on securing this debate, but on all the work he has done on this subject. He knows that he and I and our right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and others have been raising it for many years now. He also knows that the Secretary of State has said he wants time to think about the appropriate solution. That is reasonable, but he has had plenty of time to think about it now, has he not? Are not our constituents who are affected now entitled to know what the Government have decided to do, not just in the interests of those affected but, as my hon. Friend said, in the interests of the effectiveness of Government policy on vaccination?

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I have before me the answer that he received from the Secretary of State when he raised the matter at Health questions on 17 June:

“I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the constituents of his I have met and other campaigners that I am having discussions with the Cabinet Office about how we deal with that and other issues that have been raised this morning…He knows the complexities involved, and I have been grateful for his advice as a former Attorney General. I do not have specific progress to report now, but I reassure him and campaigners that this issue has not gone off the boil and we are working to find a resolution.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 159.]

That was almost three months ago, so what has happened in the interim? I hope that the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, will be able to deliver a response to the questions as to what review is being carried out, which aspects of the scheme are being reviewed, when evidence will be invited, if that is to happen, and what the timescale is for all this, because at the moment people are in the dark, as my right hon. and learned Friend said.

I, too, want to acknowledge all the work that my hon. Friend has done. He has been absolutely tenacious on this issue. I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, so I know. I had the calls, the questions on the Floor of the House and the meetings. I hope I can help the Minister here today, because a lot of the heavy lifting has been done in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health and Social Care. One of the key questions that my hon. Friends raised was about the amount of compensation. Why has it not been increased, at least by inflation, in decades? A lot of that was put forward in the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health, and a lot of the work has been done and should have come to fruition by now, a year into the new Government. The other issue was about people fearful of being clocked out and not having enough time to be compensated. We need the clock to start once they are in the system and not when they are out of it. Work has been done on that as well.

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.

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?

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:

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I am speaking today on behalf of the Minister for public health and prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who cannot be here for other parliamentary reasons. I know that she agrees with me that debates such as this are important to uphold the British people’s trust in public health measures, so I thank the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for securing it.

I want to start by giving some assurance, particularly to people watching at home. We know that over 53 million people, following the example of Her late Majesty the Queen, took the jab during a once-in-a-generation health emergency, and that covid vaccines helped to keep millions of people out of hospital and, in many cases, saved lives. It is important to remember that the vast majority of people who took the jab did not suffer adverse effects. The hon. Member for Christchurch has made some of those points publicly, and I am grateful for that. However, that does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to the rare and tragic instances where things have gone wrong, as he eloquently highlighted.

I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to some of the campaigners, Kate Scott, Sheila Ward and Kelly Hatfield, for their tireless campaigning on this issue, and to Gareth Eve and the family of John Cross, all of whom have raised the issue of vaccine injury with my ministerial colleagues. Their loved ones took the vaccine because they wanted to protect their families and the NHS.

Today, those brave campaigners are still fighting for all people who suffered adverse reactions. They are not statistics—as hon. Members have said today, they are people. They are our constituents. Their voices must be heard. I am glad that they continue to have the opportunity to raise their concerns with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and with my colleague, the Minister for public health and prevention. The conversations are difficult, but they are essential to making Whitehall understand where the system falls short and where we can make a meaningful difference. It is not just a question of making sure that systems are in place to support people when things go wrong. As the hon. Member for Christchurch outlined this morning, it is about maintaining public confidence in our health service and vaccination programmes. That is what is at stake in this debate, and that is why it is helpful that he secured it.

The Minister says she cannot give us an exact timeline. Could she give us an approximate time? Is this going to be finished before the end of this year, for example? That is not an exact timeline, but it would be an indicative timeline. And when she talks about various options, can she not explain which of those options are being considered or which ones are not being considered? For example, is increasing the £120,000 payout being considered? Is reducing the disability threshold from 60% being considered? Is disapplying the three-year limitation period for the bringing of civil claims being considered? Please can we have a yes or no to those things? We are not asking for the decisions on those, but we are asking whether they are being considered or not.

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to give more details, which I cannot do today. But I will take back to the Department that broader request for timelines and what things are being considered. I will make sure we get back to him on that as a result of this debate.

On the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the hon. Member for Christchurch and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) asked about the effectiveness of the MHRA in monitoring harms. The MHRA is globally recognised for requiring high standards of safety. Vaccines used in the UK are authorised only once they have met robust standards of effectiveness, safety and quality.

Once approved, the comprehensive post-market surveillance of a vaccine begins, where the benefits and risks of the vaccine are very closely monitored. The MHRA collects data through the reporting of adverse reactions by the public and healthcare professionals to the yellow card scheme, as well as from other information sources domestically and internationally.

As hon. Members know, a dedicated team of scientists constantly reviews the information to look for safety issues or rare adverse effects. All reports of adverse events, alongside other information, are analysed and reviewed continuously to identify trends and patterns that may require action, with any information indicating a possible new safety concern thoroughly evaluated. Updated advice for healthcare professionals and patients is issued where appropriate.

The covid-19 vaccines have been scrutinised continuously since roll-out, with the MHRA having implemented a proactive surveillance strategy for monitoring the safety of all UK-approved covid-19 vaccines.

I just want to end by saying that the vaccine programme—

Obviously, the Minister has a brief that has been given to her by officials on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is not able to be here. Can this Minister give me some assurance that I, together with my colleagues who have participated in this debate, will be able to meet the relevant Minister, so that we can go over some of this stuff? I realise that this Minister does not have the discretion to be able to respond to this debate, but the public health Minister would have that discretion, so can she guarantee that we can fix up a meeting, please?

The hon. Gentleman is of course a very experienced campaigner, and he asks his question absolutely appropriately. I know that my hon. Friend the public health Minister is very happy to meet people and discuss this, but I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is very much looking at this personally as well. I will take that request for a meeting with the public health Minister back to the Department, and I am sure that she will be happy to do that.

The vaccine programme was an immense contribution to public health during a once-in-a-lifetime health emergency, and many of us remember the sense of relief that we and family members felt when we got that text with the invitation to come forward. But for a small number of people and their families, it brought pain, loss and hardship. We must never forget them, and our responsibility as a Government is clear. We are absolutely committed, as I have said, to further work to improve the scheme, as well as to continue to engage with those who are affected and have suffered vaccine harm, to consider how the system could better reflect their needs. That does include the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, and other colleagues here today, on behalf of all our constituents.