---

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 2007

These Benches welcome the order. I am glad that the Government have decided to increase the amount paid in damages to the families of children disabled as a result of the vaccines they have been given. The benefit to society of widespread vaccination for childhood diseases is incalculable. Our medical capabilities have reached the point that we have the potential to wipe out a number of the debilitating diseases that have caused pain and suffering to so many people. For example, worldwide child deaths from measles have fallen by 60 per cent since 1999; a wonderful achievement that goes way beyond the UN target. Vaccinations do not benefit only the recipient. If a sufficiently high proportion of the population receives the vaccine, the disease can be eliminated entirely and children and adults who are unable for medical reasons to receive the vaccine are also protected. Keeping vaccinations up to the necessary level—about 95 per cent, I believe—is a long-term challenge, especially as incidences of the disease fall and parents perceive it to be less of a threat. This damage payment is a good and necessary method of helping those families looking after children who have sadly become disabled as a consequence of vaccination. It goes some way to helping them bear the increased costs of raising a disabled child and easing the burdens that such care can impose on a family. I am glad to see from the debate on this order in another place that only about five children are seriously disabled by vaccinations each year, as the Minister confirmed. I was less reassured though by the large number of claims made every year that are unsuccessful. Can the Minister reassure me that the complexity of the application process is not in any way to blame for the very low success rate? I should be interested to hear whether support is offered to people applying for the damage payment, and if there has been a recent review of how the process can be made simpler, quicker and cheaper. While I am on the subject of efficiency and simplicity, I hope that the Minister will consider making changes to the amount of damages through an annual uprating in line with inflation. Regular small increases would be much fairer than the current system where increases are arbitrary and unpredictable, often creating large differences in the amount of payment from one year to the next. The current system, where concerned organisations have to rely on getting the ear of the Minister, is surely not the best way to ensure that payments keep their value over time. Finally, I should like to mention the possibility of involving the pharmaceutical industry in setting up a voluntary fund to support victims. In another place, the Under-Secretary of State explained that the Government decided not to pursue this because of the negative response. Rather to my surprise, she gave the impression that it was a case either of continuing to provide support for the families of the disabled children or giving up that important work to concentrate on persuading the pharmaceuticals. Are the Government not capable of doing both? I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the points I have raised.