The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr. Eric
Martlew
Alexander,
Danny
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)
(LD)
Bottomley,
Peter
(Worthing, West)
(Con)
Burden,
Richard
(Birmingham, Northfield)
(Lab)
Byers,
Mr. Stephen
(North Tyneside)
(Lab)
Curry,
Mr. David
(Skipton and Ripon)
(Con)
Duddridge,
James
(Rochford and Southend, East)
(Con)
George,
Mr. Bruce
(Walsall, South)
(Lab)
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's
Household)
Keeley,
Barbara
(Worsley)
(Lab)
Lancaster,
Mr. Mark
(North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con)
Laws,
Mr. David
(Yeovil)
(LD)
Mackinlay,
Andrew
(Thurrock)
(Lab)
McGuire,
Mrs. Anne
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Work and
Pensions)
Moon,
Mrs. Madeleine
(Bridgend)
(Lab)
Selous,
Andrew
(South-West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Skinner,
Mr. Dennis
(Bolsover)
(Lab)
Smith,
Mr. Andrew
(Oxford, East)
(Lab)
Mark
Oxborough, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 19
June
2007
[Mr.
Eric Martlew
in the
Chair]
Draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 2007
10.30
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
(Mrs. Anne McGuire):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979
Statutory Sum Order
2007.
I am satisfied
that the provisions of this order are compatible with the European
convention on human rights. It is a great pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Martlew. I am sure that you will keep us
all in order.
The
order makes a modest but significant change, which will affect a small
number of children and their families. Immunisation with vaccines is
one of the most important methods for protecting individuals and the
community from serious diseases. Where, rarely, the programme results
in severe disability to an immunised person, the vaccine damage
payments scheme provides a measure of financial help. When the scheme
was introduced in 1979 it provided a tax-free, lump-sum payment of
£10,000 in respect of those who were severely disabled as a
result of a vaccination against certain specified diseases. It was
designed to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from
severe vaccine damage and their families.
The diseases specified in the
Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 are those that are vaccinated against
under the Department of Healths routine childhood immunisation
programme. A payment is also available if someone is thought to be
severely disabled because their mother was vaccinated against any of
the specified diseases while she was pregnant or if someone is thought
to be severely disabled because they have been in close personal
contact with a person who has been vaccinated against
polio.
Unlike social
security benefits, there is no statutory obligation to increase vaccine
damage payments in line with inflation. However, successive Governments
have given an undertaking to Parliament regularly to review the rates
of payment in order to maintain their value broadly in line with
inflation. The amount has been progressively raised on four occasions
over the past28 years. These increases took place in 1985,
1991, 1998 and
2000.
Following a
meeting with members of the all-party group on vaccine damaged
children, which is chaired by my honourable Friend the Member for
Eccles(Ian Stewart), to discuss a range of issues in relation
to the vaccine damage payments scheme, I decided that it is now time
for a further increase. The relevant statutory sum for the purposes of
the Act is the statutory sum at the time when a claim for payment is
first made. The order therefore raises the statutory sum of a vaccine
damage payment to £120,000 from 12 July 2007 for all successful
claims made on or after that date. This means that the buying power of
the payment is more than restored to its value in 2000. People who
claimed previously will receive the statutory sum in force at the time
the claim was first
made.
Out of an
average of 177 claims made each year about five claims are successful.
Therefore, an increase in the statutory sum from £100,000 to
£120,000 would result in associated costs of approximately
£100,000a year. This improvement for the few children
andtheir families who may in future suffer as a
resultof vaccination shows that the Government remain
committed to recognising that those who are severely disabled as a
result of the vaccination programme for the protection of the whole
community should receive the increased payment. We have consulted the
devolved Administrations and the Isle of Man and they have consented to
the making of this
order.
A consultation
exercise was not undertaken for the order as no substantive changes
have been made tothe Vaccine Damage Payments Regulations 1979.
The order simply increases the statutory sum that is payable under the
Act. For applicants whose successful claims are made on or after 12
July 2007, the statutory vaccine damage payment will increase to
£120,000. I commend the order to the
Committee.
10.35
am
Andrew
Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con):
It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Martlew.
The official
Opposition welcome the order. We will support it, and we make a
commitment that any future Conservative Government will pay the
increasedsum. It is important to recognise that vaccination is
overwhelmingly a good thing. Every year, millions of children are
prevented from contracting diseases that would seriously impinge on
their life chances. It is also important to record our tribute to the
families and carers of vaccine-damaged children. None of us can fully
imagine what that involves unless we have been in similar
circumstances.
Having
welcomed the order, I have one or two questions. Can the Minister give
the Committee anidea as to whether the problem is declining?
The explanatory notes tell us that there are four to five successful
claims per year. That is not a huge number. How many unsuccessful
claims are there? Is the figure likely to decrease to nil over time, or
is it expected to stay broadly static or, heaven help us, increase? Can
the Minister shed any light on that, or can her officials leaf through
their papers and provide the Committee with some illumination? That
would be helpful.
I
am curious about the history. Why was there notan annual
retail prices index increase? The Ministerhas helpfully
outlined the series of fairly substantial increases in the lump sum
over the history of the scheme. There were obviously times when one was
out of luck if one made a claim, because the value of what one received
had gone down, and other times whenone might have been more
fortunate and received a payment equivalent to the real value of the
scheme when it was put in place. If there were an RPI increase,
we would not need to be here this morning because the figure would go up
automatically every year.
Let us move to the larger,
conceptual issue behind the measure. I did a bit of reading before
todays debate. The report of the royal commission on civil
liability and compensation for personal injury, which was chaired by
Lord Pearson,
stated:
Vaccination
is recommended by the State for the benefit of the community, and where
it causes injury, the State ought to provide compensation as part of
the cost of providing protection for the community as a
whole.
Members
of the Committee who listened carefully to the Minister will have noted
that she did not use the word compensation, because this is not a
compensation scheme; it is a payment in acknowledgement of the
financial costs of caring for vaccine-damaged children. However, I am
curious about why there is a legal-political settlement with the
pharmaceutical industry. When the then Secretary of State for Social
Security made a statement to the House on 27 June 2000, he was asked
whether the pharmaceutical industry had been approached to part-fund a
trust that could pay out money for the care of vaccine-damaged
children. He
said:
We did
approach the pharmaceutical industry to see whether it would co-operate
in part-funding a trust to be set up to make payments to the children
affected by vaccine damage. The response from the industry was not
enthusiastic and it struck me that it would take several years to
resolve the matter.[Official Report, 27 June
2000; Vol. 352, c. 721.]
It
will be no great surprise that the pharmaceutical industry was not
enthusiasticwhat industry is enthusiastic about putting its
hand in its pocket when it does not legally have to do so? But that
statement by the then Secretary of State was made in 2000, and it is
now seven years later. In other parts of the worldAmerica, for
examplethere is a tax or levy on every bottle of vaccine that
helps to pay significant sums, from $75,000 up to $4.7 million. I would
not advocate that scheme because under an NHS, which is free, it would
be a cost to Government, so I am not asking the Minister to take that
route; I merely point out that there are much more significant payments
in America, and possibly in other countries,
too.
I ask the
Minister why the pharmaceutical industry is not being asked to help.
Why does the burden of the payments fall purely on the budget of the
Department and on the British taxpayer? It is right that those payments
are made, but it would be helpful if the Minister
could explain why the pharmaceutical industry is not making a
contribution.
10.41
am
Danny
Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenochand Strathspey)
(LD): It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee for the first
time under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew.
I welcome the regulations,
which must be seen inthe context of a broader appreciation of
the wider social benefits of vaccination. As the Minister said, the
proposal applies only to a very small number of cases every year,
albeit that the families affected are in tragic and difficult
circumstances. The scheme helps to alleviate some of the suffering and
extra costs that they face as a consequence of having a child disabled
as a result of vaccine damage.
As the explanatory notes make
clear, the paymentis being uprated in line with inflation. But
will the Minister tell the Committee how the amount of £100,000,
which was set in 2000 and is going up to £120,000, was
determined? There was a much more substantial increase in
2000from £40,000 in 1998 to £100,000. Were the
extra costs that a family will face in raising a vaccine-damaged child
taken into account in assessing the amount to which the regulations
refer? Perhaps the Minister will argue that that was taken into account
in the decision made in 2000.
The Committee will be aware
that the costs of raising a disabled child are substantially greater
than the costs of raising a non-disabled
childthe Disability Rights Commission estimated that they are
three times as much. Research also suggests that the income of families
with a disabled child is about 17 per cent. less than that of families
with non-disabled children.
It is important that the scheme
is designed to offer, if not compensation, at least some financial
benefit to help to meet the additional costs faced by the small number
of families who are in the unfortunate position of having a child who
is severely disabled as a result of vaccination. I therefore hope that
a wider assessment has been made of the extra costs involved. How much
extra does it cost such families to bring up their children, with all
their additional support needs? That must be very much in our minds in
determining the amount of this and future
upratings.
My second
question relates to the criteria for determining a claim. The
percentage disablement of the child that is necessary for a successful
claim is now 60 per cent. Previously, it was 80 per cent. disablement.
How does that process work? Will alternative ways to assess eligibility
for such payments be considered? The Minister said that there were on
average 177 claims each year, of which about five were successful.
Therefore, 170-odd families who consider that they might be entitled to
such payments are ruled ineligible because of the way that the claims
process works. Clearly, there have to be criteria by which these
schemes are administered. Has a sliding scale been considered? Could
the Minister at least commenton the administration of the
eligibility process for payments to the small number of families whose
children are damaged in this
way?
10.47
am
Richard
Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): My hon. Friend the
Minister will know that my constituent Olivia Price has been one of the
prime movers behind the vaccine victims support group over many years.
Her work and that of other families of vaccine-damaged children was
powerful in persuading me in my early years in Parliament to take a
number of parliamentary initiatives to try to do something about the
level of vaccine damage payments. One of the great things about
Olivias work over those yearsto which todays
order is a tributewas that, to echo the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire, she did not say that vaccination is wrong or
that vaccines do not play a crucial public health role, but she
acknowledged that there can be casualties and victims and that we as a
society have a responsibility to look after them. I want to pay tribute
to all of Olivias work.
This is the third increase in 10
years to vaccine damage payments and that is welcome. I was interested
that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire raised the issue of
annual increases, particularly considering that this is the third
increase in 10 years and the Conservative Government managed to
increase the payments twice in 18 years. There have been major
improvements to the system: not only the three increases but the
relaxation of the qualifying criteria from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent.
disability, and the top-up payments in 2000 to those who originally
received the first awards under the
scheme.
This is a
substantial increase. That is welcome and it is needs to be
acknowledged. It is an increase above the rate of inflation. That is
also a good thing. However, if an increase above the rate of inflation
is needed now, could there be case for saying that, substantial though
the increases were back in 2000, those top-up amounts need to be
revisited? The vaccine victims support group wanted me to raise that
issue with the Minister today. I hope that she can address it when she
winds up.
10.50
am
James
Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Martlew. It
is also a pleasure toadd my comments to those of the hon.
Member for Birmingham, Northfield, whose constituent Olivia Price has
assisted me greatly in a constituency case. One of the things that I
was warned of on entering the House was that, over the first few weeks,
I would get lots of constituency cases that had not been solved by my
predecessor. In fact, the case of my constituent Nicholas Harvey had
not only been unresolved by my predecessor, but unresolved by his
predecessor 25 years before. There was regular correspondence
throughout those intervening years. Not only was Olivia Price very
helpful with that case but the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart),
who does a fabulous job as chairman of the all-party group.
In relation to this measure, I,
too, am concerned that we are missing an opportunity to peg the
increases to inflation. However, I welcome a periodic opportunity to
raise the issue of vaccine damage payments and vaccine-damaged
constituents. In particular, I would welcome the
Ministers comments on the announcement from June 2000 that the
percentage disability would be reduced from 80 per cent. to 60 per
cent. Is she minded to consider that again in the near
future?
Other hon.
Members have talked of the numbers of people claiming, given that there
are only four to five successful claims a year. I am a little concerned
about the levels of bureaucracy in the system, given that it is a large
amount of money for the constituents involved, but a small amount of
money in terms of government bureaucracy. Considering the size of my
file, a number of people appear to be working in the vaccine damage
payments unit in Preston, for example. I wonder whether the Minister is
engaged in a balancing act. Perhaps she is saying that it would be
better to pay off some of the old cases that persist, where there is
genuine need, with a larger amount or a reduced amount, and effectively
negotiate a settlement. The problem is historical, and questions have
been raised
about whether there will be new claims in future. Presumably, those
claims will peter out and eventually the vaccine damage payments unit
will
close.
The
Chairman:
Order. That is a little wide of the
order.
James
Duddridge:
I apologise, Mr. Martlew. I will
wind up and ask the Minister if she will look again at the case of
Nicholas Harvey to allow me to be more successful than my two
predecessors in that regard.
10.52
am
Peter
Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): I do not have an
individual case, but I would like the Minister, either this morning or
by some statement at a convenient moment, to list the kinds of payments
that have to come up for reviewnot just vaccine damage payments
but, if you will allow me to mention this, Mr. Martlew,
those relating to asbestos and some of the mining diseases. When such
cases come forward, there are payments to be made if people
qualify.
The
Chairman:
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too
wide.
Peter
Bottomley:
We should not ask the Government necessarily to
accept the pleas for automatic uprating, but it would be helpful to
Members of the Houseto know what the system is within which
that is considered.
10.53
am
Mrs.
McGuire:
I thank members of the Committee for their
supportive comments on the order. May I pick up on some of the issues
that have been raised? I am delighted that the order will not be
opposed, but it is important to address some of the issues.
The hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshire asked about the pharmaceutical industry. As he indicated
in the extract that he quoted from Hansard, the then Secretary
of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for
Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling)his constituency
was Edinburgh, Central thenhad some discussions with the
pharmaceutical industry. A judgment then had to be made because, as my
right hon. Friend indicated in 2000, there was not a particularly
positive response. A decision had to be made as to whether we should
continue to pursue what could have been lengthy discussions with the
industry, given its reluctance to engage in those discussions, or deal
with the individual needs of the families who were affected by the
vaccination programme. The judgment, which I think is still valid, was
that it was more important to get the finance and support to the
families, rather than continue with long, protracted and perhaps
fruitless discussions with the pharmaceutical
industry.
However, I
would like to confirm that it is open to people who are injured to seek
compensation through the courts, and I know that the all-party group
and some of the affected families have considered that. The hon. Member
for South-West Bedfordshire raised the issue of compensation in
America, and then said that
that was not relevant because of the different health structure in the
UK. I will let that one stick to the wall, because he answered his own
question. Obviously, in the American system, health care is not free,
so the compensation context is completely different from that in the
United Kingdom. As I have said, it is still open to people to pursue
their issues through the
courts.
I would like
to pick up on issues raised by thehon. Members for Worthing,
West and for South-West Bedfordshire, and a comment made by the other
two hon. Members who spoke, concerning annual uprating. The payment
under discussion is not the same as a social security benefit, which
has an annual uprating. It was established through primary legislation,
and hon. Members who know about the way in which annual uprating
operates will know that it is not an easy option. The big uprating came
in 2000, to which hon. Members have alluded. That was a recognition of
the fact that when the scheme was established in 1979, the financial
support offered to parents was £10,000.
Given that big uprating from
£40,000 to £100,000 in 2000, it was considered unfair and
unjust not to back those parents and families who had previously
received financial support under the scheme at the low level, and bring
them up to the £100,000 rate under the new circumstances. The
then Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the
Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), made clear the
decision,
in that
unusual circumstance, to make top-up payments to bring past recipients
up to a real-terms equivalent of the new £100,000 rate, thus
putting them on the same footing as new claimants.[Official
Report, Fifth
Standing Committee on
Delegated
Legislation, 18 July 2000; c.
3-4.]
There is a significant
difference between the situation in 2000 and the situation
now.
A couple of
colleagues have highlighted the 60 per cent. disability criteria. I
think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East who
reduced the disability criteria from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. in
2002. The issue is not necessarily the level of disability, although a
60 per cent. level of disability is assessed. The issue is causation:
whether that disability was provoked, prompted or caused by the
vaccination programme. The issue is not as straightforward as the
disability criteria; it is the causation. Although many families apply,
causation is the important issue. I hope that hon. Members will accept
that.
I appreciate
the sincerity of the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn,
Badenoch and Strathspey about a sliding scale, but that would run
counter to the whole principle of the scheme, which is to provide a
straightforward single payment for those whom the Secretary of State is
satisfied are severely disabled as a result of vaccination. Sliding
scales would get us into all sorts of complications. I shall be clear:
in the case of an intermediate figure being advised, the decision maker
will round up or down to the nearest multiple of 10. An assessment of
55 per cent. will therefore be rounded up, and one of 64 per cent.
rounded down, to 60 per cent. If it is within those acceptable
parameters, people will be supported.
The hon. Member for South-West
Bedfordshirewas very fair in his recognition that I did not
use the word compensation, because the vaccine damage
payments scheme is not compensation as courts-awarded damages are. It
does not require negligence to
be established, but causation from the vaccination. The great struggle
that parents had prior to 1999 was to establish negligence, which is
how compensation is awarded through the legal system.
I hope that I have dealt with
every question, apart from that of the hon. Member for Worthing, West,
who asked why the scheme did not come forward on an
annual basis. I will consider his comments,
notwithstanding that some may have been outwith the Committees
remit.
Peter
Bottomley:
For the sake of clarity, I was not
suggesting that the payments should be changed
annually, but that the framework within which consideration is given to
this and other payments should come forward
annually.
Mrs.
McGuire:
I thank the hon. Gentleman forhis
comments. By way of explanation, the 1979 Actwas established
through primary legislation and no Government have sought to alter the
fundamental basis on which the vaccine damage payments will be
considered by the House. That is why there are regular reconsiderations
of the payments.
Although I completely accept
the positive comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,
Northfield about the commitments of Olivia Price, I hope that he will
relay to her that the circumstances in 2000 were quite different from
the current ones. The reason for the order is to bring payments after
12 July 2007 up to the value of the scheme in 2000, although I
appreciate that parents may continue to press the
matter.
Andrew
Selous:
The Minister has not answered my question about
the estimation of whether the number of cases will be static or will
increase, although she may need to contact the Department of Health for
the information.
Mrs.
McGuire:
I was just coming to that question, so the hon.
Gentleman can add mind reading to all his other
talents.
Although the
trend is fairly constantwe must go on the basis of the figures
that we havemembers of the Committee should recognise that the
reaction to a vaccination is very individual. We cannot be any more
definitive than that because of the individual nature of reactions to
the vaccine.
I am not
sure whether the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and
Strathspey raised the issue, as I may have misinterpreted what he said,
but for the record the payment is tax-free and is given on that
basis.
Danny
Alexander:
I did not raise that matter but itis a
useful point of clarification. My question was whether the costs of
raising a disabled child are taken into account in establishing the
amount of the
payment.
Mrs.
McGuire:
The hon. Gentleman is expert in these issues and
he will be aware that there are a range of other Government programmes
that support
disabled people and disabled children, such as the disability living
allowance and the carers allowance. The receipt of a vaccine
damage payment does not undermine the other benefits in any
way.
The hon. Member
for Rochford and Southend, East also raised the issue of the disability
threshold and I hope that he is satisfied with my response. I am not
sure about the amount of bureaucracy that he highlighted. We try very
hard to deal sensitively and quickly with vaccine damage payments,
recognising that the issue is the causation between the vaccination and
the injury to the child. That can take some time to
verify.
James
Duddridge:
I shall not hold up the Committee long. I
should like to raise a specific case involving a dispute in which my
constituent believes that causation was proved. Could I ask the
Minister to look at the file and respond to
me?
Mrs.
McGuire:
I should be delighted to do so.
Finally, I should like to
reinforce the comments made by the hon. Member for
South-West Bedfordshire. Routine childhood immunisation has been a
great success. We should do nothing that undermines the credibility of
that programme. It still remains the safest way for parents to protect
their children against diseases. Those of us who are older will
remember the great damage caused by some of the childhood ailments and
ailments that affected people in later life. However, we also must
recognise that a small number of children and families suffer the
effects of vaccine damage. It is seven years since we increased the
statutory sum. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that the order
maintains the Governments commitment to those who are severely
disabled as a result of vaccination by restoring the value of the sum
to what it was in 2000. I commend the order to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979
Statutory Sum Order
2007.
Committee
rose at seven minutes past Eleven
oclock.