APPENDIX 4
Further letter from the Clerk of the Committee
to the Department for Work and Pensions
Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Vaccine Damage
Payments Act 1979) Order 2002
Thank you for your further letter of 28 February.
We appreciate the Committee's concerns about possible future amendment
to the proposals in the draft Order, and as described in the consultation
document, but you may be assured that such amendment would not
be undertaken lightly.
The transitional claims provisions relate to three
categories, those where disallowance was made for failure to satisfy
the current time limits, where disallowance was made for failure
to satisfy the disability threshold, and where no claim was made
on the basis of advice that either the time limit or threshold
provisions would not have been satisfied. The arguments for subordinate
provisions, about keeping complex transitional provisions off
the face of a simple Act, still apply. But in relation to the
possibility of amendment of those provisions I can advise that
we do not at the moment envisage more than one category where
this might apply. This is in the area of failure to claim previously
due to advice that either time or disability conditions would
not be met.
We have made efforts to ensure that the conditions
attaching to transitional claims are fair and equitable to prospective
claimants while paying due regard to the need to protect public
funds. We will though be dealing with cases that could have their
origins more than 20 years ago. Over the life of the Vaccine Damage
Payments scheme there have been over 3,000 disallowed claims.
About 2,500 cases will have been disallowed on causation grounds,
but we have identified about 550 that were disallowed under the
time limit or disability threshold provisions and from whom transitional
claims will be invited if and when the RRO comes into force. We
have no way of knowing how many claims might arise in the "advice
not to claim" category, but we might reasonably expect it
to be a modest number. It is possible that experience of applying
the conditions set out in the draft order may throw up situations
that we could not have envisaged and where unreasonable constraints
might be imposed on cases that were considered to have merit.
Given the overall small number involved it might then be thought
to be neither a good use of public funds nor a worthwhile use
of Parliamentary time to go through the full RRO process to effect
an amendment. Therefore, although the provisions of the draft
Order reflect those described in the consultation document, we
felt it prudent to allow for possible amendment without the need
for a further RRO. Given the uncertainty of the situation for
which we are making allowance you will appreciate that it is difficult
to give meaningful examples.
While it is possible that an amendment could prescribe
tighter conditions it is far more likely that, if a subordinate
provisions order were ever to be considered, the intention would
be to relax the conditions. We acknowledge that any such order
could be brought forward without the kind of extensive consultation
required by section 5 of the Regulatory Reform Act but it would
be subject to affirmative resolution and thus subject to the scrutiny
and prior approval of both Houses. It seemed to us that the situation
for which we were allowing was within the type of scenario envisaged
for a subordinate provisions order under s4(4)(b) of the Regulatory
Reform Act 2001.
6 March 2002
| 
